See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271197162

ESTIMATING CARRYING CAPACITY IN A NATURAL PROTECTED AREA AS A

CONSERVATION STRATEGY

Conference Paper · May 2011

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.5037.0886

CITATIONS READS
3 845

3 authors, including:

Jose Luis Cornejo-Ortega Rosa María Chávez Dagostino

University of Guadalajara University of Guadalajara
58 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    82 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impactos del Turismo de Naturaleza/turismo sustentable View project

Cambio económico, social e impactos ambientales del turismo en México View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Luis Cornejo-Ortega on 21 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ESTIMATING CARRYING CAPACITY IN A NATURAL PROTECTED AREA AS A
CONSERVATION STRATEGY
José Luis Cornejo Ortega¹, Rosa María Chávez Dagostino², Amílcar Leví Cupul Magaña³
1. Estudiante de Doctorado. Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara. Puerto
Vallarta, Jalisco, México.
2. Cuerpo Académico Análisis Regional y Turismo. Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de
Guadalajara. Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, México.
3. Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas. Centro Universitario de la Costa, Universidad de Guadalajara.
Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, México.

1. INTRODUCTION
Natural areas with tourist use generate resources to finance part of its conservation activities, but also tend
to be very attractive to tourists, who can become a threat.
Carrying capacity is a measurement tool that allows a partnership between management objectives of a
Natural Protected Area (NPA) and the environmental impacts of the activity being undertaken on it and, it
may be useful in estimating the maximum level of visitors use within a NPA. In order to achieve this, we
need to know the relationship between NPA management parameters and the impact of activities to
perform. With the information generated can be performed actions to reduce impacts caused by recreation
visitors (Kuss et al., 1990).
The Islas Marietas is an archipelago located at the south of the Gulf of California in the Mexican Pacific,
it was declared as a National Park in 2005 (CONANP, 2007). Its conservation and management program
allows trekking activities in the core area of the Isla Larga and can potentially conflict with vulnerable
populations of nesting seabirds (Arizmendi and Márquez, 2000). Thus, estimating the tourism carrying
capacity can minimize impacts that may occur when reopening the trail to interpretive activities at Isla
Larga.

2. STUDY AREA
Islas Marietas are situated in the municipality of Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit, with a total area of 1,383 ha,
have four core areas with a total surface of 78.00 ha, distributed in Isla Larga, Isla Redonda, two islets
and a marine portion on the northeast end of each island. (CONANP, 2007; Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Location of Islas Marietas National Park

3. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

The field work was conducted between February and June 2010 in the trail located on Isla Larga, which
has a length of 180 m and height of 3-16 m a.s.l. (above sea level). We use a GPS to mark the trail and a
clinometer to measure the slop of it.
Tourism carrying capacity for Isla Larga was obtained based on a method proposed by Cifuentes et al.
(1990, 1992, 1999), who stated that the maximum number of visits that a NPA can receive, should take
into account the physical, biological and management conditions of the area and consist on three phases:
Physical Carrying Capacity (CCF), Real Carrying Capacity (CCR) and Effective Carrying Capacity
(CCE). Physical Carrying Capacity (CCF), which refers to the maximum limit of visits, that physically
could be done in a day. It is defined by the relationship between the opening hours of the NPA and the
time needed to each visit, the visitation available space, the needed space for visitors and the type of trail
(circular or linear):

CCF = (S/SP*NV),

where S is available surface in linear meters (1 m), SP is the surface used by a person (1m ²), and NV is
the number of times the site can be visited by the same person in one day. The latter factor was obtained
with the expression:
NV = Hv/Tv,

where Hv is the visiting hours (8 hours) and Tv is the time needed to each visit.
For the calculation of Real Carrying Capacity (CCR), the CCF was modified by a series of corrections
factors such as, Social (FCsoc), erodibility (FCero), accessibility (FCacc), precipitation (FCpre) of
flooding (FCane), biological (FCbio) and vegetation (FCveg). The factors are calculated with the
following general expression:

FCx = 1- Mlx/Mtx,

Where, FCx is the correction factor for the variable x, Mlx is the limiting magnitude of the variable x,
Mtx is the total magnitude of the variable x. For the social factor (FCsoc) which refers to the quality of
visitation such as the number of visitors per guide, the distance required between groups to avoid
crowding, we consider 15 persons per group and 30 m as the distance between groups.
The distance required per group was calculated from the sum of the distance between groups and space
occupied by the people in each group. Also, the number of groups (NG) that can be simultaneously in the
path is generated by the expression:

NG = (Site total length / distance required by each group)

To calculate the FCsoc, first obtained the number of people (P) that can be simultaneously within each
site:
P = NG * N° people per group.

Moreover, the limiting magnitude (ML), which showed the site, was calculated by:
 ML = MT – P,
where ML is the magnitude limit of the site, MT is the total length in meters of the site and P is the N ° of
persons entering the site.
For FCero We used the expression:
FCero = 1 - MPE/ MT,

where MPE is the length in meters of the site with erodibility problems, MT is the total meters of the site.
This factor was taken as low for slopes <10% (weight value is not significant), medium if 10-20%
(weight value 1), and high if > 20% (weight value is 1.5, Cifuentes et al. 1999).

The FCacc defined the degree of difficulty that visitors have to scroll through the sites, due to the slope. It
considered the sections with a high and medium difficult. The weighting factors considered were:
medium (1), if the slope is 10-20% and high (1.5), if the slope is> 20%:

FCacc = 1 – [(ma* 1.5) + (mm*1)]/mt,

where ma is meters from the site with high difficulty, mm are meters of the site with medium difficulty
and mt are total meters of the site. The FCpre was calculated by:

FCpre = 1 – hl/ht,

where hl are limiting hours of rain per year and ht are hours a year in which the path is open.
FCane was estimated by the sum all partial distances where water stagnated by trampling, thus:

FCane = 1- Ma/Mt,

where Ma is the meters of the site with waterlogging problems and Mt is the total meters of the site.
For the calculation of FCbiol, months limiting the nesting blue-footed booby (Sula nebouxii) and other
birds were considered:
FCbiol = 1- Ml/Mt,

Ml are the constrained months (nesting from March to May) and Mt are the months when trail is open.
We decided to include the FCveget as the vegetation at the site affected by the widening of the trail. In the
case of the path, considered the threat that could cause a fire in the dry months:

FCveget = 1- Ml/Mt,

where Ml are the grassland meters with potential to be affected and Mt is the total length of the path.
Obtained the correction factors, we calculated the Real Carrying Capacity (CCR):

CCR= CCF *(FCsoc*FCero*FCacc*FCpre* FCane* FCbiol* FCveget).

Finally, we calculate the CCE, which represented the maximum number of visitors allowed at the sites of
the area for public use, and relates the CCR with the management capacity (CM; defined as the best
condition that the administration should have to practice the activities and meet the goals in a satisfactory
way) by the expression:
CCE= CCR*CM,
where CCR is the Real Carrying Capacity and CM is the management capacity expressed in percentage of
optimal. To measure CM, three variables were considered: personnel, infrastructure and equipment as
shows the expression:
CM = (infrastructure + equipment + personnel /3)*100.

The variables of infrastructure and equipment were valued based on quantity, condition, location and
functionality. The personnel just considered the number of workers. Subsequently, this percentage value
was transformed to a scale of 0 to 4 (Table I, Cifuentes et al., 1999).
Finally, in order to issue proposals to improve management conditions and to know whether or not
visitation now exceeds the carrying capacity of the path, an historical analysis of the number of visitors
from January to December 2009 was performed.

Table I. Rating scale adaptation of ISO 10004.

% Value Ratings
≤35 0 Unsatisfactory
36 – 50 1 Unsatisfying
51 -75 2 Fairly satisfactory
76 -89 3 Satisfactory
≥90 4 Very satisfactory

4. RESULTS

Table II shows the results of CCF, Correction factors, CCR, CM and CCE for the Isla Larga trail, and the
number of annual visitors estimated for this trail or path. As for the results of the correction factors,
values near 0 indicate that this is a limiting factor in carrying capacity, while close to 1 show no
limitation. In Table III shows the results for the variables of equipment, infrastructure and personnel.
Table IV shows the historical record of visitors, from January to December 2009, to Islas Marietas. It is
noted that the vast majority of visitors are concentrated in the months January to March.

Table II. Physical Carrying Capacity and corrections factors for the trail of Isla Larga.
Carrying Capacity Trail of Isla Larga
CCF 1440
Correction Factors
FCsoc 0.33
FCero 0.81
FCacc 0.67
FCpre 0.78
FCane 0.97
FCbiol 0.75
FCveget 0.42
CCR visits/day 61
CM 59%
CCE visits/day 36
Annual visitors 13,140
 Table III. Results of the study variables for capacity management.
Variable Trail of Isla Larga
Infrastructure 0.51
Equipment 0.61
Personnel 0.60
Average 0.57
Capacity of
management 59%

Table IV. Number of people who visited the Islas Marietas National Park in 2009.
2009
Month domestic visitors foreign visitors Total
January 27 1,447 1,474
February 378 2,228 2,606
March 74 2,282 2,356
April 75 992 1,067
May 38 633 671
June 46 221 267
July 53 586 639
August 14 278 292
September 79 336 415
October 11 38 49
November 2 92 94
December 6 492 498
Total 803 9,625 10,428

4. DISCUSSION

One of the most important contributions was obtained by incorporating the correction factors to the CCF
of the path, as it felt down from 1440 to 61 visits per day, reflecting the CCR of site. This reduction
resulted from the limitations created by social factors, vegetation and accessibility. Thus, consideration of
a CM of 59% determined a CCE of 36 visits per day, which indicates that the park management should
define its limitations for handling large groups to conduct ongoing monitoring for respect and proper use
of trail and so ensure minimal impact on the ecosystem.
The FCsoc was the most limiting (0.33), which led to consider a reduction to 965 visits per day. It is also
determined by the quality with which visitors can enjoy the attractions in the whole journey and that
relates to the difficulty of managing large groups.
Only an estimated slope was greater than 35%, which limits access to regular tourism, resulting in a
FCero close to 1 which does not greatly affect the CCF.
It is noteworthy that to reach the trailhead have to walk about 50 m from the edge of a rocky beach and
the tide is a major factor in accessibility, because sometimes it will be impossible to access the trail. Thus,
the FCacc only was considered within 180 m of the path.
 The vast majority of visitors are not willing to take walks in the rain, so was considered the days of
greatest rainfall, the result indicate that 78% of the days the park can be visited without chance of rain.
The FCane was considered for the site but did not influence the result as the road has no flooding areas
due to its slope that allows water to drain.
The FCbiol was taken into account because visits to the island is noted that the boobies and other birds
nest on the trail, which would mean disruption and possibly abandonment of nests and decrease hatching
success, so it is recommended moving the path.
The FCveget influenced the ability of the path, because of 105m of grassland susceptible to fires during
the dry season, as there is precedent for a fire in 1997.
For CM the most limiting factor was the personnel impact, since only one person is working on the
monitoring of the islands.
With the result of the analysis, it can be said that the current handling capacity has weak points result of
the scarcity of physical resources (equipment and infrastructure) and human resources (staff) do not allow
optimal performance of functions.
Most parts of the trail should be recognized as sites of scientific interest and conservation, as part of a
small and important habitat in our country, and these have not undergone anthropogenic disturbance.
It is recommended that monitoring the fauna at sites with tourist visitation to determine whether the
tourist activity causing altered in their distribution and behavior.
Finally, it is important to mention that the visitor will only have access to the marine area but in the short
term, is allowed to enter inland, so this study will allow to take right decisions for the conservation and
management of the trail.

5. LITERATURE CITED

Arizmendi, M.C. y L. Márquez 2000 Áreas de importancia para la conservación de las aves en México.
CONABIO, México.

Cifuentes, M. 1992. Determinación de Capacidad de Carga Turística en Áreas Protegidas.Centro

Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). Serie Técnica, Informe Técnico No. 194.
Turrialba, Costa Rica.

Cifuentes, M. 1999. Capacidad de Carga Turística en las Áreas de uso público del Monumento Nacional
Guayabo, Costa Rica. www.wwfca.org/wwfpdfs/Guayabo.PDF (consultado el 15 de enero de 2010).

Cifuentes, M., W. Alpizar, F. Barroso, J. Courrau, M.L. Falck, R. Jimenez, P. Ortiz, J. Rodriguez V., J.C.
Romero y J. Tejada 1990. Capacidad de Carga Turística de la Reserva Biológica Carara. Informe de
Consulta, Servicio de Parques Nacionales/Programa de Manejo Integrado de Recursos, Centro
Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). Turrialba, Costa Rica.

CONANP 2007. Programa de conservación y manejo del Parque Nacional Islas Marietas. Secretaría de
Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, México, D. F.

Kuss, F., A. Graefe y J. Vaske 1990. Visitor impact management: A review of research. National Parks
and Conservation Association. USA.

View publication stats