Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Linking biological monitoring and wildlife ecotourism: a call for development of comprehensive community-based projects in search of sustainability

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rural and indigenous communities are increasingly acknowledged as main actors of both wildlife ecotouristic and biological monitoring programs. Still, little consideration has been paid to the impacts of engaging in both types of community-based programs simultaneously. Here we discuss the connection that exists between biological monitoring and wildlife ecotourism and highlight the relevance of linking both activities through comprehensive community-based projects. We rely on birds and two emblematic experiences from indigenous communities of Mexico for setting up our recommendations. Then, we explore the relationships that exist among several components of wildlife ecotouristic and biological monitoring activities. Monitoring efforts might have positive impacts on wildlife ecotourism. Some areas of significance include the assessment of the effects of wildlife ecotourism on biodiversity, the determination of the spatial and temporal variation of the target biological populations, the estimation of the probabilities of observing target species, and the definition of management guidelines for conserving populations. In turn, wildlife ecotourism might benefit biological monitoring programs by providing funding, self-employment opportunities, contextualized objectives, and promoting the autonomy of communities. Our recommendations could be adjusted to different wildlife groups and diverse cultural contexts. We encourage the collaboration between wildlife ecotouristic and biological monitoring practitioners to foster comprehensive and self-sustaining community-based projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., et al. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 80(306), 1146–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo, M., & Rahbek, C. (2006). How does climate change affect biodiversity? Science, 313(5792), 1396–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, H., & Thompson, P. M. (2009). Using marine mammal habitat modelling to identify priority conservation zones within a marine protected area. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 378, 279–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobylev, S. (2017). Sustainable development: Paradigm for the future. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 61, 107–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, J. S., & Buckley, R. C. (2018). A global systematic review of empirical evidence of ecotourism impacts on forests in biodiversity hotspots. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 112–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruggeman, J. E., Swem, T., Andersen, D. E., Kennedy, P. L., & Nigro, D. (2016). Multi-season occupancy models identify biotic and abiotic factors influencing a recovering Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius population. Ibis, 158, 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, R. D., Gardali, T., & Geupel, G. R. (2005). Using songbird monitoring to guide and evaluate riparian restoration in salmonid-focused stream rehabilitation projects. In C. J. Ralph & T. D. Rich (Eds.), Bird conservation implementation and integration in the Americas: proceedings of the third international Partners in Flight Conference (pp. 533–536). California: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

  • Cantú, J. C., Gómez de Silva, H., & Sánchez, M. E. (2011). El valor económico del ecoturismo de observación de aves. Washington: Defenders of Wildlife.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S. A. (2008). Birds as environmental indicators: Review of literature. Melbourne: Parks Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapela, F. (2007). El manejo forestal comunitario indígena en la Sierra de Juárez, Oaxaca. In D. Bray, L. Merino, & D. Barry (Eds.), Los bosques comunitarios de México: Manejo sustentable de paisajes forestales (pp. 123–145). Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible, Florida International University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapela, F. (2008). Revisión retrospectiva del desarrollo de la UZACHI. Oaxaca: Estudios Rurales y Asesoría Campesina, A. C., Unión de Comunidades Productoras Forestales y Agropecuarias Zapoteco-Chinanteca.

  • Chávez Dagostino, R. M., Andrade Romo, E., Espinoza Sánchez, R., & Navaro Gamboa, M. (2010). Turismo comunitario en México: Distintas visiones antes problemas comunes. Jalisco: Universidad de Guadalajara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (2004). The Challenge of tourism carrying capacity assessment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAPO. (2010). Índice de marginación por localidad 2010. México: Consejo Nacional de Población, Gobierno de México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradie, N., & Van Zyl, C. (2013). Agreement of the international avitourist market to ecotourism principles: A South African development perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 7, 3013–3021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell Lab of Ornithology, & CONABIO (in press). Manual ilustrado PROALAS para aves terrestres. México: Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.

  • Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K., & Halpern, B. S. (2008). Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecology Letters, 11, 1304–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., & Balmford, A. (2005). Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 2507–2542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • eBird (2019). eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. Ithaca: eBird.

  • Fernández Aldecua, M. J., Castillejos López, B., & Ramírez Luna, J. A. (2012). Empresas sociales y ecoturismo en Bahías de Huatulco, México. Diagnóstico de la gestión empresarial. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo, 21, 203–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira, W. F., & Crowder, L. B. (2006). Defining patch contribution in source-sink metapopulations: The importance of including dispersal and its relevance to marine systems. Population Ecology, 48, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1, 369–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, B., Rodríguez Acosta, J., & Estacuy Cojulúm, D. S. (2018). Biodiversidad de altura. Ecofronteras, 22, 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grass, I., Berens, D. G., Peter, F., & Farwig, N. (2013). Additive effects of exotic plant abundance and land-use intensity on plant–pollinator interactions. Oecologia, 173, 913–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M., Shyamsundar, P., et al. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. J., Seip, D. R., & Boyce, M. S. (2004). A quantitative approach to conservation planning: Using resource selection functions to map the distribution of mountain caribou at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. (1987). Biological monitoring and environmental assessment: A conceptual framework. Environmental Management, 11, 249–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6, 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer, D. B., & Likens, G. E. (2010). The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation, 143, 1317–1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, M., Wilmes, P., & Schrader, S. (2018). Measuring soil sustainability via soil resilience. Science of the Total Environment, 626, 1484–1493.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. I. (2005). What are the issues with presence-absence data for wildlife managers? Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mafi-Gholami, D., & Nouri-Kamari, A. (2018). Environmental impact assessment of ecotourism on mangroves. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Protection, 5, 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaides, A. (2014). Stakeholders, purposes and responsibilities: Avitourism in South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 3, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Álvarez, R., Sánchez-González, L. A., & Berlanga, H. (2015). Plumas de multitudes: Integración ciudadana en el estudio y monitoreo de aves en México. México: CONABIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Álvarez, R., Sánchez-González, L. A., Rodríguez-Contreras, V., Vargas-Canales, V. M., Puebla-Olivares, F., & Berlanga, H. (2012). Birding for and with people: Integrating local participation in avian monitoring programs within high biodiversity areas in southern Mexico. Sustainability, 4, 1984–1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Álvarez, R., Sánchez-González, L. A., Valera-Bermejo, A., & Berlanga-García, H. (2017). Community-based monitoring and protected areas: Towards an inclusive model. Sustainable Development, 25, 200–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Álvarez, R., Zúñiga-Vega, J. J., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V., Berrones Benítez, E., Medina Mena, I., & Ramírez Felipe, F. (2018). Improving the sustainability of working landscapes in Latin America: An application of community-based monitoring data on bird populations to inform management guidelines. Forest Ecology and Management, 409, 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rantanen, E. M., Buner, F., Riordan, P., Sotherton, N., & Macdonald, D. W. (2010). Habitat preferences and survival in wildlife reintroductions: An ecological trap in reintroduced grey partridges. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 1357–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Acosta, J. (2015). Monitoreo comunitario de las poblaciones de Pavón (Oreophasis derbianus) en la Reserva de la Biosfera Volcán Tacaná. In R. Ortega-Álvarez, L. A. Sánchez-González, & H. Berlanga (Eds.), Plumas de Multitudes: Integración Comunitaria en el Estudio y Monitoreo de Aves en México (pp. 88–109). México: CONABIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D., & Thigpen, J. (2003). Understanding the birder as tourist: Segmenting visitors to the Texas Hummer/Bird Celebration. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair-Maragh, G. M. (2019). Ecotourism in protected areas: A sustainable development framework. In R. Sharma & P. Rao (Eds.), Environmental impacts of tourism in developing nations (pp. 22–41). USA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Upadhayaya, P. K. (2018). Sustainable management of trekking trails for the adventure tourism in mountains: A study of Nepal’s Great Himalaya Trails. Journal of Tourism & Adventure, 1, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaudo, J., Wetherbee, B. M., Harvey, G. C. M., Harvey, J. C., Prebble, A. J. F., Corcoran, M. J., et al. (2017). Characterisation and monitoring of one of the world’s most valuable ecotourism animals, the southern stingray at Stingray City, Grand Cayman. Marine and Freshwater Research, 69, 144–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to several people, communities, and institutions for inspiring this manuscript, including Leonel Bautista, Tío Toño, Martha P. Lozada, Patricia Hernández, James Rodríguez Acosta, Laura Jiménez, Viviana Ruiz, Víctor Acosta, Capulálpam de Méndez, Santiago Xiacui, Santiago Comaltepec, La Trinidad de Ixtlán, Red de Monitoreo Comunitario Huilotl Toxtlan, Red de Monitores Comunitarios Pavón—Pavo de Cacho, UZACHI, and CONABIO. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments, as they improved the quality of our manuscript. We are thankful to Karen Purcell for editing the English grammar of this contribution. The present work is submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requisites for RO-A to obtain the Ph. D. degree in the Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas of UNAM. As part of the Posgrado en Ciencias Biológicas of the UNAM, RO-A received a Ph. D. scholarship from CONACYT (327503).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rubén Ortega-Álvarez.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortega-Álvarez, R., Calderón-Parra, R. Linking biological monitoring and wildlife ecotourism: a call for development of comprehensive community-based projects in search of sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 4149–4161 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00761-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00761-7

Keywords