Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Carrying capacity

Tourism carrying capacity is a now antiquated approach to managing visitors in protected areas and national parks which evolved out of the fields of range, habitat and wildlife management. In these fields, managers attempted to determine the largest population of a particular species that could be supported by a habitat over a long period of time.] Many authors, such as Buckley, Wagar, Washburne, McCool, and Stankey have critiqued the concept as being fatally flawed in both the conceptual assumptions made and its limited practical application. For example, the notion of a carrying capacity assumes the world, such as the social-ecological systems in which protected areas and tourism destinations are situated, are stable. But we know they are dynamically complex and impossible to predict. We know that to implement a carrying capacity on a practical level, assumes a level of control of entries into a destination or protected area not usually found in the real world. We know that a carrying capacity, if one could be determined, requires considerable financial and technical resources to administer; and we know that when demand exceeds a limit, the ways in which scarce opportunities are allocated are contentious. "Tourism Carrying Capacity" is defined by the world Tourism Organisation as The maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic, socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors' satisfaction. Where as Middleton and Hawkins Chamberlain (1997) define it as the level of human activity an area can accommodate without the area deteriorating, the resident community being adversely affected or the quality of visitors experience declining what both these definitions pick up on is carrying capacity is the point at

which a destination or attraction starts experiencing adverse as a result of the number of visitors. Unfortunately, there are no studies which support this notion of visitor management. For example, in areas which have an objective of maintaining pristine conditions, any level of visitor use creates adverse or negative impacts, suggesting that the carrying capacity is zero. Fundamentally, acceptable conditions are a matter of human judgment, not an inherent quality of a particular site. Understanding these acceptable conditions is the focus of the limits of acceptable change planning process referred to later in this article.

There are number of different forms of carrying capacity referred to in tourism, however this article will focus on the four most commonly used. However, these conceptions are useful only to the extent they focus discussion and discourse, not practical application. Physical carrying capacity

This is the max number that area is actually able to support. In the case of an individual tourist attraction it is the maximum number that can fit on the site at any given time and still allow people to be able to move. This is normally assumed to be around 1m per person. PCC per a day = area (in metres squared) x visitors per metre x daily duration" (Mowforth and Munt). This is a formula which has been used to calculate the physical carrying capacity.

Economic carrying capacity


This relates to a level of unacceptable change within the local economy of a tourist destination, it is the extent to which a tourist destination is able to accommodate tourist functions without the loss of local activates take for example a souvenir store taking the place of a shop selling essential items to the local community. It can also be used to describe the point at which the increased revenue brought by tourism development is overtaken by the inflation caused by tourism. Social carrying capacity This relates to the negative socio-cultural related to tourism development. The indicators of when the social carrying capacity has been exceeded are a reduced local tolerance for tourism as described by Doxeys Index of irritation Reduced visitor enjoyment and increased crime are also indicators of when the social carrying capacity has been exceeded. Biophysical carrying capacity This deals with the extent to which the natural environment is able to tolerate interference from tourists. This is made more complicated by the fact that because it deals with ecology which is able to regenerate to some extent so in this case the carrying capacity is when the damage exceeds the habitat's ability to regenerate. Environmental carrying capacity is also used with reference to ecological and physical parameters, capacity of resources, ecosystems and infrastructure Weaknesses of carrying capacity The main criticism of carrying capacity is that is fundamentally flawed conceptually and practically. Conceptually, the notion of an inherent carrying

capacity assumes a stable and predictable world, a "J-shaped" curve in the relationship between use level and impact, and techno-scientific view of what are essential value judgments. On the practical level, it is difficult to calculate a maximum number of visitors because this is also dependent on other factors like the way in which the tourists behave a large group of bird Watchers moving through a landscape will have a different impact compared to a similar sized group of school children. In the case of natural heritage like national parks, visitor impacts change with seasons. What is important is the acceptability or appropriateness of these impacts, an issue that is largely dependent on social and cultural value systems with science having an input. UNESCO (the organization responsible for administrating the World Heritage list) has expressed a concern that the use of Carrying capacity can give the impression that a site is better protected than it actually is, it points out that although the whole site may be below carrying capacity part of the site may still be crowded. Limits of Acceptable Change Limits of acceptable change was the first of the post carrying capacity visitor management frameworks developed to respond to the practical and conceptual failures of carrying capacity. The framework was developed by The U.S. forest service in the 1980s. It is based on the idea that rather than there being a threshold of visitor numbers, in fact any tourist activity is having an impact and therefore management should be based on constant monitoring of the site as well as the objectives established for it. It is possible that with in the Limit of acceptable change framework a visitor limit can be establishe but such limits are only one tool available. The framework is frequently summarised in to a nine step process. 1. Identify area concerns and issues. 2. Define and describe opportunity classes (based on the concept of ROS). 3. Select indicators of resource and social conditions.

4. Inventory existing resource and social conditions. 5. Specify standards for resource and social indicators for each opportunity class. 6. Identify alternative opportunity class allocations
. 7. Identify management actions for each alternative. 8. Evaluate and select preferred alternatives. 9. Implement actions and monitor conditions

S-ar putea să vă placă și