Athens Journal of Tourism - Volume 1, Issue 3 – Pages 191-202

Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera

de Los Tuxtlas (Veracruz, Mexico)

By Isis Arlene Díaz-Carrión

Christoph Neger†

Ecotourism aims at protecting the natural environment while at the

same time bringing benefits to the local population. Therefore, it is
often used as a conservation strategy in protected areas all over the
world. However, the ways ecotourism is implemented vary greatly
not only between different regions, even within one region there can
be a large range of different approaches. The kind of strategy used
subsequently determines its success regarding ecotourism’s central
goals of environmental conservation and development. Almost three
decades ago, ecotourism was introduced to the area of the Los
Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve in the Mexican state of Veracruz. This
was mainly driven by efforts of the public sector, which especially
promoted community-based ecotourism initiatives. On the other
hand, there have been several private attempts as well. Finally,
ecotourism companies in the region also tried to network among
each other – although to date with only little success. In this study,
the authors take a look at how ecotourism developed in the area
from its beginnings until now. This is carried out basically by in-
depth interviews with local actors involved in ecotourism as well as
by direct observation. The main purpose of this research is to
analyse and evaluate the steps in the region’s ecotourism
development and the different strategies used by the ecotourism
companies. Furthermore, the authors try to identify ecotourism’s
effects in the region on the whole.

Introduction

The first considerable effort to conservation in Mexico happened with the

declaration of the national park El Desierto de los Leones in 1917. According
to the Natural Protected Areas Commission by the end of 2013, the number of
protected natural areas under federal law had risen to a number of 176,
covering around 13% of the nation‟s territory. Among the various functions
assigned to this kind of protected areas there is the use for recreational
functions, ecotourism included.
In Mexico, ecotourism has been promoted in some protected areas during
the last decades in order to promote protection of nature and biodiversity as

Professor, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico.
†
Freelance Researcher, Graz Austria.

https://doi.org/10.30958/ajt.1-3-2 doi=10.30958/ajt.1-3-2
 Vol. 1, No. 3 Díaz-Carrion et al.: Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera…

well as to diversify the economy of rural areas with particular emphasis on

poverty reduction.
Using a qualitative methodology the introduction and development of
ecotourism in a protected area is revisited in order to analyse different
strategies to promote ecotourism and the role played by different agents in the
Reserva de la Biosfera de Los Tuxtlas, a natural protected area located in the
South of the Mexican State of Veracruz where private and community-based
ecotourism initiatives has been present since the last 3 decades.
This paper starts with giving a general background of ecotourism in
Mexican natural protected areas. Subsequently, the paper introduces the
Reserva de la Biosfera de Los Tuxtlas. After this, data derived in the fieldwork
and the review of academic literature are presented and the outcomes of
ecotourism in this protected area are discussed. Finally, the results are summed
up by a conclusion.

Ecoturism the protected Areas of Mexico

According to Melo (2002), the biosphere reserves, along with national

parks, are of special interest for the development of tourism activities.
Obviously, tourism development within a protected area should be consistent
with the principles of sustainable development and especially regardful of the
area‟s ecological integrity (Weaver 2006, pp. 19-20).
Among the types of tourism recommended for natural protected areas, one
particularly stands out: ecotourism. This activity is promoted in Mexico‟s
protected natural areas as a tool for environmental education and as a strategy
for diversification of the economic activities of the local population, thereby
lowering the pressure on traditionally used natural resources and trying to
eliminate poverty (Córdoba et al. 2004, p. 65). According to López &
Palomino (2008, pp. 39-42), in Mexico ecotourism emerges in the beginning of
the 21st century as a consequence of public policy addressing poverty as well
as conservation of natural resources.
Implementation of tourism activities in Mexico‟s natural protected areas
varies in intensity. While in some areas one can find characteristics of mass
tourism, contrasting the aims of protection, in other protected areas tourism has
been introduced to directly support conservation, not always with a successful
result (Brenner & San Germán, 2012, p. 137).
In some cases, large tour operators are promoting a conventional „sun,
sand and sea‟ product (Bringas & Ojeda, 2000), while on the other hand in
some areas tourism development is predominantly supported by small local
communities (López & Palomino, op. cit., p. 40). In 2006, a study analised
tourism development in 83 natural protected areas. They were catalogued into
categories, dependent on their state of development (incipient, planned,
predatory and managed) and the kind of management of tourism in the area
(explorative, preparative, reactive and proactive); the largest number of
protected areas showed a predatory tourism development and a reactive

192
Athens Journal of Tourism September 2014

management, while in only 10% of the areas tourism was qualified as planned
with a preparative management (CONANP 2006a).
However, there are indeed efforts of several tourism agents to build
synergies in order to develop and promote conservation tourism. Among those
efforts the federal government has developed a national strategy for sustainable
development of tourism in natural protected areas (CONANPa, 2006b). This
strategy has been criticised by several tourism experts; however, it must be
recognised as an initial effort to control and properly develop tourism
(especially where tourism has already been present before the declaration of a
protection status). The role of universities and NGOs has been very important
in protected areas, these agents assisted the development of ecotourism in a
variety of ways, mainly in generating information necessary for decision
making and in observing the impacts of strategies on natural resources and
communities (Paré & Fuentes, 2007; Carmona et al., 2004).

The Reserva de la Biosfera de Los Tuxtlas (RBT)

Located in the South of the Mexican state of Veracruz (18° 34´-18° 36´ N,
95° 04´-95° 09´ W), with an extension of 155.122 ha. It was declared in 1998
in an effort to protect the remaining areas of tropical rainforest and cloud forest
surrounded by the coastal region of the Gulf of Mexico (CONANP, 2006) (see
Fig. 1). The region can be defined as a volcanic island, characterized mainly by
low hills; there are two outstanding volcanic massifs, San Martín and Santa
Marta, separated by low-lying land which contains two important water bodies,
the Catemaco Lake and the Sontecomapan Lagoon (Siemens, 2006). The RBT
lies at the northern limit of the range of tropical rainforest in the American
continent; therefore, the region contains a mix of species from the tropics as
well as from the temperate zone, which causes a high biodiversity (Ibarra et al.
1997).

Figure 1. Ecotourism projects in Los Tuxtlas (2014)

193
 Vol. 1, No. 3 Díaz-Carrion et al.: Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera…

Historically, the region had reached different types of protection during the
last 8 decades; during the last 30 years, these protection efforts intensified.
Unfortunately, only about 20 % of the original extent of tropical rainforest still
remains, the rest had mainly been converted into pasture, especially in the 2nd
half of the 20th century (Dirzo & García, 1992; Guevara et al., 2004).
Deforestation brings about a range of adverse effects, such as soil erosion,
reduction in the biodiversity and the loss of important ecosystem services of
the rainforest on a regional level such as water retention and protection against
inundations or even on the global level regarding capture of carbon dioxide
(CONANP, 2006a, pp. 16-17; 82-87). A further important threat to the area‟s
flora and fauna is poaching and illegal logging as well as contamination in the
ambit of human settlements. The less affected areas are the volcanic massifs,
which form the Reserve‟s core areas: San Martín, Santa Marta and San Martín
Pajapan.
In 2010 population within the boundaries of the biosphere reserve was
28.611 (own calculation based on INEGI [n.d.] and information given by the
directorate of the RBT).. Most of the inhabitants are mestizos although
indigenous people can be found, belonging to the ethnic groups of Nahua and
Popoluca, in the South of the RBT. The economy of the area is mainly based
on primary activities (íbidem). According to Paré & Fuentes (op. cit., p. 16)
there is a high degree of poverty among the area‟s population; moreover the
process of implementation of environmental conservation after the declaration
has been slow, while human pressure on the natural recourses is persisting.

Implementation of Ecotourism in the RBT

In the second half of the 1980s, the first pioneers in ecotourism appeared
in the area. They were agents from urban origin (from within the Los Tuxtlas
region or from the outside) who acquired land in a state of good conservation,
easily accessible from the regional urban centers, and created small enterprises
mainly offering services of guided walks as well as board and lodging.
The first private enterprise was Nanciyaga at the shore of Catemaco Lake
which, despite the foundation of many other enterprises, still remains to be by
far the economically most important ecotourism enterprise of the region, with
day visitor numbers of over 100.000 in some years and about 40 full-time
employees.
By the end of the 90s, then the first community-based ecotourism
initiatives formed. This process was kindled by persons from NGOs and the
academia, in rural communities interested in diversification of their sources of
income by implementing activities compatible with the conservation of the
remaining forests (Paré 2003, p. 274). The first one of them was Selva del
Marinero in the peripheral community of López Mateos at the outskirt area of
Sierra Santa Marta. While its economic success varied during the years, López
Mateos is still the community with the highest degree of community member

194
Athens Journal of Tourism September 2014

involvement. In 2012 about 40 of the 100 inhabitants of the community were

officially engaged in the project.

Figure 2. The Ecotourism Product in the RBT

Source: Own elaboration based on the fieldwork

With the declaration of the area as Biosphere Reserve, in 1998, ecotourism

in the area started to get institutionalized support. This policy had a strong

195
 Vol. 1, No. 3 Díaz-Carrion et al.: Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera…

impact in the tourism at the RBT, fomenting existing community-based

initiatives and causing the foundation of new ones, all of them connected to at
least one of several public programs. The main focus of these programs was to
provide funding for the construction of touristic installations and capacity
building. In the South of the RBT, almost all projects have been funded by the
National Commission for the Development of Indigenous People (CDI), in the
period 1998-2001 (Díaz, 2012). Following the upsurge of community-based
ecotourism, during the last 7 years several small private enterprises started to
offer basic touristic services mainly or secondary related to ecotourism as well
(see Fig. 2).
During the last decade the ecotourism product has evolved from mostly
nature trails and board in poor conditions (in some cases the service was
provided with no proper installations) to a range of activities (Fig. 2) and the
development of improved installations. In some cases the level of training is
quite evident, for instance, some community-based enterprises have
experienced some specialization for the guiding. Due to capacity-building
programs as well as personal interest of the guides, some community-based
enterprises nowadays count with well-prepared and specialized guides, for
instance in the field of bird watching. Indeed, this does not apply for all the
enterprises, however, during our fieldwork it was confirmed that almost
everywhere the tourists receive at least some basic information about the
importance of conservation in the RBT.
By the time being the majority of the ecotourism enterprises are
concentrated in two areas, in the surroundings of Lake Catemaco and in the
Northern coastal area of Los Tuxtlas. Furthermore, some enterprises are
located in the indigenous areas in the South of the region and some close to the
border of the core zones in the foothills of the volcanoes San Martín and Santa
Marta. Within the core zone, nevertheless, no tourism installations can be
constructed, this protected area can only be used for low impact activities such
as hiking (CONANP 2006a, p. 138).
Private ecotourism enterprises are mainly connected with municipalities
through secondary roads and located between the corridors Catemaco-
Sontecomapan as well as along the coast. This location allows them to get an
important market share of ecotourism and excursionists. However, there is also
one private enterprise in a very peripheral location, the private protected area
La Otra Opción which opened its doors to tourism in 2011 is only reachable by
horse or quad-bike.
Most of the community-based enterprises are dispersed in the reserve,
some are located in the main corridor and few of them are isolated in
communities at the base of mountains. In the south of the RBT the pattern of
distribution is more irregular since the main criteria for the establishment of
ecotourism installation was more administrative and by considering in the first
place the presence of indigenous population in the locality. In this part of the
RBT ecotourism was also introduced as a government decision to principally
fight poverty and preserve natural resources in indigenous communities.

196
Athens Journal of Tourism September 2014

Efforts of Working Together

Several authors point to the many potential benefits of cooperation of
tourism enterprises in a region (Paré & Lazos 2003, p. 204; Stradas 2000, p.
162; Wearing & Neil 1999, pp. 109-118). Synergy effects, for instance, could
be used in common efforts for nature conservation, in representing common
political interests as well as in forming a partnership for marketing, thereby
promoting the region as a whole with lots of different attractions instead of
only single enterprises.
The first and, to date, most important effort in this direction at the RBT
was the RECT (Network of Community-based Ecotourism of Los Tuxtlas), a
process which was initiated by the authority of the RBT in 2003. In the
beginning 8 projects took part, four private projects from communities at the
Northern coast of the Los Tuxtlas region and four community-based enterprises
in the municipality of Catemaco, amongst others the initiative of Selva del
Marinero which had been mentioned above.
The networked served as a platform for capacity building programs and at
the same time promoted a common marketing strategy, with an internet
website, folders, appearance in radio programs, attendance at tourism fairs and
even a selling point in Mexico City. Without doubt, a lot of the things done in
the RECT brought about considerable benefits for its participating enterprises.
However, in the end it seems as if the project had failed to be a sustainable
approach, since most enterprises left the network – some even after legal
disputes – only two of them still remain. The distrust created by the rupture of
the network is still present and constrains further attempts of networking.
Common criticisms of the RECT are that it focused too much on
standardisation, at the expense of the enterprises‟ individuality, and that it
made them overly dependent on an external advisor who managed the process.
In 2010 a new effort was undertaken to form an alliance of all ecotourism
initiatives present in the municipality of Catemaco which contains by far the
highest number of ecotourism enterprises among the municipalities which form
part of the RBT. The alliance started as a result of a workshop undertaken by
representatives from NGOs and the academia. In the beginning, more than 20
private and community-based initiatives took part. The biosphere reserve‟s
authority, deterred by the occurrences in the RECT, never participated actively
in this process. After two years already the alliance was abandoned, because of
lack of interest and incapacity of its members to define common goals. Its only
outcomes were a singular publication of a promotional magazine and the
participation in one fair. One obstacle for working together may lie in the
decision-making structure of the community-based initiatives. A representative
of an initiative cannot approve a common agreement with other enterprises
without before consulting all of the members of his own initiative, making the
process longer than usual.
Another alliance of only community-based initiatives is still working in the
South of the RBT. It is part of the national cooperation network RITA
(Network of Indigenous Alternative Tourism in Mexico) which started in 2002
with 32 indigenous community-based initiatives. By 2012 it had 160 initiatives

197
 Vol. 1, No. 3 Díaz-Carrion et al.: Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera…

integrated in 11 regional networks; seven of the community-based initiatives

located in RBT were part of the southeast regional network. However, this
effort is primary aimed to commercialization and only secondary on product
development. South community-based initiatives in the RBT have had a more
difficult process with more confrontation among agents than those located in
the North.
The last network which operates in the RBT is COSTA, A.C., a network
that integrates both private and community-based initiatives related to
ecotourism along the Northern part of the coastline of Los Tuxtlas. The
network started as an individual effort by a non-local woman residing in one of
the communities, who invited all small enterprises of the area to develop
sustainable initiatives together. In this case, conflicts started due to money and
by 2010 the network was nearly inactive; however, due to individual efforts it
seems to have started functioning again by the beginning of 2012.

Constraints for the Projects’ Effectiveness

Ecotourism development in the RBT faces several restrictions, which
explain why beside Nanciyaga the number of people employed in private
initiatives has stayed low. In community-based initiatives ecotourism has, in all
cases, stayed an additional economic activity, the initiatives' members are still
engaged in other activities such as agriculture. Some of the most important
constraints are:

- Seasonality of tourism (Lein, 2011, p. 50), due to the region‟s

climatic conditions - the rainy season lasts from June to February,
especially from July to November precipitation can be heavy
(Soto, 2004, p. 195) – and due to the Mexican holiday times.
- Missing motivation and proactivity among the members of the
community-based initiatives (Lein, 2011, op. cit., p. 50;
interviews) and problems in organising an enterprise due to
generally low levels of education; missing knowledge of English
and other languages constraints the ability to receive international
tourists.
- Problems with accessibility, most roads in the region are missing
maintenance.
- In some cases the emergence of ecotourism creates conflicts
within the local community, between those who want to develop
this touristic activity and therefore protect the natural resources
and those who want to continue with activities such as logging
and hunting (cp. Tauro (2009) who describes the development in
the community of Ruiz Cortines near the core zone in the north of
the RBT).
- Missing cooperation among those involved in the planning and
development of ecotourism (Neger 2013).
- The ecotourism product is not well structured, and the selling
process is deficient especially among community-based initiatives

198
Athens Journal of Tourism September 2014

whose efforts are limited in several ways (e.g. most community-

based initiatives do not have an internet access).
- Support by governmental institutions is often short-lived, there is
little continuity and coordination between different public
institutions is in need of improvement. Los Tuxtlas misses a
comprehensive, long-term strategy for ecotourism development
(Neger 2013).

In the last years, tourism even decreased in community-based initiatives;

private initiatives showed a strong decrease as well. Owners of some private
enterprises recently seem to be losing interest in ecotourism and try to find
other sources of economic income or sell their enterprise.
There are different reasons that could explain this situation. Troubles
started in May 2009 when influenza A(H1N1) was first reported in Mexico; for
some community-based initiatives May is the month when college ecotourists
from Mexico City arrive; one of the community-based initiatives expected two
groups of about 100 ecotourists, a second one was expecting a group of 50
ecotourists, but all groups cancelled due to the influenza-crisis.
Floods were another event during 2009 and 2010 that contributed the drop
of ecotourists; according to several managers and members of ecotourism
initiatives interviewed even though floods were not a general problem in most
of the RBT, tourists from Mexico City associated incorrectly the situation of
other municipalities from Tabasco with Veracruz and that match contributed to
the decrease of arrivals during the months that followed spring of 2009.
Another reason for the decrease of arrivals can be found in the region‟s
decreased security, due to violence related to drug trafficking and other illegal
activities. According to the people interviewed by the authors, this violence
never affected any tourists directly; however, negative coverage in the media
deters many potential visitors from coming (Neger, 2013, op. cit.).
New reforms proposed in 2013 by the federal government were followed
by large conflicts, especially with teacher unions who in fall of the same year
undertook protest actions like temporarily closing roads. This seems to have
frightened off many visitors, ecotourism enterprises reported that several
already booked tours had been cancelled. To make matters worse, at the same
time in Catemaco some communities where ecotourism projects are located
were almost inaccessible for several weeks due to flooding of the access road.

Benefits of Ecotourism in the Region

Regardless those limitations, ecotourism is considered as an activity that
generates positive effects. According to our interviews ecotourism enterprises
have been very good allies in the conservation process engaging in
environmental education and reforestation (Andrade, RBT Personnel &
Hernández, PROFEPA). This idea of secondary support for conservation
through ecotourism in the region is also affirmed by other local stakeholders:
“…ecotourism does not directly contribute to conservation, but it has the

199
 Vol. 1, No. 3 Díaz-Carrion et al.: Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera…

positive effect that people try to earn their income from ecotourism and not
from poaching and logging” (Swanson, NGO).
The potential of ecotourism is evident in the RBT not only between
official agents: “Ecotourism helps a lot in awareness raising among
population” (Hernández, PROFEPA), but also among ecotourism initiatives:
“For me… this little space of rainforest is alive due to the owner who bought
some land and instead of cutting the trees bet high for conservation through
ecotourism” (Pedraza, initiative manager) and for ecotourists: “…people of
community-based initiatives played an important role in communicating the
importance of conservation among the community as well as the visitors”
(Mendez, ecotourist). A survey undertaken by García (2010) in two of the
region‟s community-based enterprises underlined this positive effect on the
visitors‟ ecological awareness.
In fact, environmental impacts vary largely between enterprises. One
important contribution by some of the projects is to protect a certain space of
land as a private or communitarian protected area. This guarantees a much
higher degree of conservation than simply being located within the Los Tuxtlas
Biosphere Reserve, which is often ignored by land owners and local
authorities. The largest protected area of this kind is the communitarian reserve
of López Mateos, where the initiative Selva del Marinero is located, with 120
ha. This land is part of the common land of the Ejido community and was
declared officially as an ecological easement.
Some enterprises have undertaken efforts in reforestation, especially the
private initiatives, for instance, La Otra Opción and Rancho Los Amigos each
claim to have reforested about 60 ha. However, this reforestation was mainly
financed by private money and public funds, especially in the case of La Otra
Opción there had been no direct contribution by ecotourism, since touristic
activity still hasn‟t developed in this remote place as a considerable source of
economic income (Neger, 2013).
Other positive activities include environmental education for schools from
within the region and cooperation with the Mexican Environmental Protection
Agency (PROFEPA). Members of community-based ecotourism enterprises,
for instance, participate actively in PROFEPA‟s voluntary community
committees for supervision of environmental crimes. Some initiatives – like
Nanciyaga, Selva del Marinero or La Otra Opción - also receive animals which
had been confiscated from illegal traffickers.

Conclusion

Ecotourism at RBT has been implemented following different strategies,

either private or community-based ecotourism enterprises developed
ecotourism activities ranging from general to, sometimes, specialized services.
Regardless the importance of private and NGO‟s funding, the role played by
governmental funds in the implementation and development of ecotourism is

200
Athens Journal of Tourism September 2014

evident not only in the case of community-based initiatives but also in the
private ones.
Some cooperation efforts have been organized among different ecotourism
agents, however, they did not succeed in order to bring about considerable
promotion or a long-term strategy for the development of the activity.
Enterprises work isolated making success far more difficult for
community-based initiatives, especially for those facing accessibility
limitations and who feels disappointed with the lack of visitors and the
restrictions of conservation and the economic restrictions of the region.
Outstanding positive results are efforts of reforestation and conservation;
for one private enterprises ecotourism has been very productive economically.
Ecotourism at the RBT has not solved economic diversification problems
nor assured conservation issues faced in the region; the benefits are punctual
and always under negotiation. In order to promote ecotourism, tourism agents
should cooperate among themselves to create a long-term planning and to
manage a trademark to sell to the national and international market taking
advantage of the geographical location of the region and improving dynamic
factors related to the ecotourism product. Governmental agencies, especially
CONANP which manages the RBT, are urged to resume their initial support to
the region‟s ecotourism and provide leadership for its further process of
development.

References

Brenner, L. & San Germán, S. (2012). Local Governance for ecotourism in the
Reserva de la Biosfera Mariposa Monarca, Mexico. Alteridades, 22 (44):131-146
[in Spanish].
Bringas, N. & Ojeda, L. (2000). Ecotourism: a new form of mass tourism? Economía,
Sociedad y Territorio. 11 (7):373-403 [in Spanish].
Carmona, G; Morales, J. & E. Rodríguez (2004). Management Plan for the
Sontecomapan mangroves, Catemaco, Veracruz, Mexico: a strategy for the
conservation of natural resources. Madera y Bosques 10(2):5-23 [in Spanish].
Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) (2006a). “Management
Plan: Reserva de la Biosfera Los Tuxtlas”. ed. CONANP, Mexico City [in
Spanish].
______ (2006b). “National strategy for Sustainable Tourism Development and
Recreation in Natural Protected Areas in Mexico” ed. CONANP. Mexico City [in
Spanish].
______ “Natural Protected Areas”. Available at http://www.conanp.gob.mx/que_
hacemos/ [13 february 2014] [in Spanish].
Córdoba, J.; García de Fuente, A.; Córdoba, M. & E. Ayala (2004). Local-impacts of
global politics: Celestún and “its” Reserva de la Biosfera (Yucatán, Mexico).
Anales de Geografía, 24: 55-78 [in Spanish].
Díaz, I. (2012). Gender and alternative tourism: Approaching empowerment. [in
Spanish]. PhD diss, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Dirzo, R. & M.C. García (1992). Rates of deforestation in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz,
México. Conservation Biology, 6(1): 84-90.

201
 Vol. 1, No. 3 Díaz-Carrion et al.: Ecotourism in the Reserva de la Biosfera…

García, M. (2010). The Potential of Community-based Ecotourism Projects as

Environmental-Education-for-Sustainability Centers. A case study of Los Tuxtlas
Community-based Ecotourism Network (Mexico). MBA diss, King‟s College.
Guevara, S., Laborde, J. & G. Sánchez-Ríos (2004). “Deforestation”. In: Guevara, S.
at al. (ed.). Los Tuxtlas: The landscape of the mountain range. [in Spanish]. 85-
108. Instituto de Ecología, Xalapa.
Ibarra G.; Martínez M.; Dirzo, R. & J. Núñez (1997). “Vegetation”. In González, E. et
al. (ed.) Los Tuxtlas Natural History. [in Spanish]. 61-85. UNAM. Mexico City.
INEGI (n.d.): Population and housing census 2010. results for localities with less than
5 thousand inhabitants. Available at: http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/consulta
_resultados/m5mh.aspx?c=28004 (10 april 2014) [in Spanish].
Lein, J. (2011). Creation of acceptance for biosphere reserves through ecotourism. An
analysis of the perception of the Reserva de la Biosfera Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, by
local ecotourism enterprises. [in German]. BSc diss, University of Greifswald.
López, G & B. Palomino (2008). Public politics and ecotourism in native communities
in Mexico. Teoría y Práxis 5:33-50 [in Spanish].
Melo, C. (2002). Natural Protected Areas in Mexico in 20th Century . [in Spanish].
UNAM . México City.
Neger, C. (2013). Ecotourism and sustainable regional development: case studies
from Los Tuxtlas/Mexico. Akademikerverlag. Saarbrücken [in German].
Paré, L. (2003). “Community-based ecotourim and environmental management” In:
Paré & Lazos (ed.). Rural school and Community Organization: Local
Institutions for Development and Environmental Management [in Spanish].. 261-
311. UNAM-Plaza Valdés S.A. de C.V. Mexico City.
Paré, L. & E. Lazos (2003). Rural school and Community Organization: Local
Institutions for Development and Environmental Management. [in Spanish].
UNAM-Plaza Valdés S.A. de C.V. Mexico City.
Paré, L. & T. Fuentes (2007). Environmental Governance and Public Politics en
Natural Protected Areas. Lessons from Los Tuxtlas [in Spanish]. UNAM.
Mexico City.
Siemens, A. (2004). The Landscapes. In: Guevara et al. (ed.). Los Tuxtlas: The
landscape of the mountain range. 41-58. Xalapa: ed. Instituto de Ecología
Soto, M. (2004). The Climate. In: Guevara et al. (ed.), Los Tuxtlas: The landscape of
the mountain range. [in Spanish]. 195-198. Instituto de Ecología. Xalapa.
Stradas, W. (2000). “Ecological Economy. Ecotourism in the practice of nature
projects in Mexico and Belize. Approaches for the promotion of protected areas
through sustainable and market-oriented tourism management”. German
Association for Technical Association [in Spanish]
Tauro, A. (2009). From conservation to care. Perception and oral history of changes
in an Ejido’s landscape. Reserva de la Biosfera Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz–Mexico.
[in Spanish]. BSc diss, Universidad Nacional de Lanús
Wearing, S. & J. Neil (1999). Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities.
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable Tourism: Theory and Practice. Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.

202