Tourism carrying capacity
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.
Whereas 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”[4] what both these definitions pick up on is that the carrying capacity is the point at which a destination or attraction starts experiencing adverse effects as a result of the number of visitors.
The Peruvian government has implemented strict regulations, including limiting the number of daily permits for trekkers, to preserve the environment and the cultural heritage of the trail.
As outlined by Life Expeditions, understanding the climate and preparing adequately for the trek, such as by choosing the right time to visit and following environmental guidelines, plays a crucial role in mitigating the impact of tourism on this fragile ecosystem.
[6] At the extreme, in areas where the objective is to maintain pristine conditions, any level of visitor use creates adverse or negative impacts, suggesting that the carrying capacity is zero.
The indicators of when the social carrying capacity has been exceeded are a reduced local tolerance for tourism as described by Doxey’s Index of irritation.
[10] Authors such as Buckley, Wagar, Washburne, McCool, and Stankey have critiqued the concept as being flawed in both the conceptual assumptions made and its practical application.
To implement a carrying capacity flawlessly would require either a stable situation or the ability to adjust entry limits based on changing conditions.
Implementation also requires a means of monitoring entry, and when demand exceeds a limit, the ways in which scarce opportunities are allocated are contentious.
Nonetheless, the benefits of limiting the entries to a number that avoids harm to surrounding wilderness arguably exceed the costs.
[11] In the context of tourism in wildlife sanctuaries, Singh (2013) writes, ‘carrying capacity’ is a concept to be thought about when we intend for ‘sustainable versus full harvest/utilization of resource for a purpose’.
Limits of acceptable change was the first of the post-carrying-capacity visitor management frameworks developed to respond to the practical and conceptual challenges of carrying capacity.
Within this context of particular importance is the identification of: Evaluative part (B): Describes how an area should be managed and the level of acceptable environmental impacts.
Within this context, goals and management objectives need to be defined, alternative fields of actions evaluated and a strategy for tourist development formulated.
The tourism industry, especially in national parks and protected areas, is subject to the concept of carrying capacity so as to determine the scale of tourist activities which can be sustained at specific times in different places.
The World Tourism Organization argues that carrying capacity is the maximum number of people who may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic and socio-cultural environment and/or an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors' satisfaction (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/tcca_material.pdf.
