- Email: [email protected]
Tourism carrying capacity
Tourismcarrying capacity Concept and issues A.M.O’Reilly
This article examines the concept of carrying capacity, the calculation and control of which has not been taken seriously by developers, whether publit or private, especially in developing countries. This has resulted in many cases in overcapacity within the areas developed for tourism, causing the destruction or near-destruction of historical landmarks and even of the natural environment. Thus It is necessary for the concept of tourism carrying capacity to be included in the planning for tourism as initiated by governments and other developers, in spite of difficulties in measurement. Keywords: planning
carrying
capacity;
tourism
A.M. O’Reilly is a lecturer at the Centre for Hotel and Tourism Management, University of the West Indies, Nassau, Bahamas. Acknowledgement This article is derived from one of a series of essays that the author wrote for his postgraduate work in Tourism Planning and Development at the University of Surrey, UK in 1983-84.
‘Plog, Psychographic Positions of Destinations Copy to follow 2A. Mathieson and G. Wall, Tourism (Economic, Physical and Social tmpacts), 1982, p 21.
254
The word ‘capacity’ in its true sense suggests the ability to contain or accommodate, or the amount that can be contained in a certain space or area. Indeed, tourism capacity can be simplistically defined as the maximum number of tourists that can be contained in a certain destination area. However, there are two schools of thought concerned with the nature and interpretation of tourism capacity. These concepts go much further than the simplistic definition given above. First, tourism capacity is envisaged as the capacity of the destination area to absorb tourism before negative impacts of tourism are felt by the host country. In other words, the capacity is dictated by how many tourists are wanted rather than by how many tourists can be attracted. Here more attention is paid to the host country and population than the tourist. The second school of thought proposes that tourism capacity be considered as the levels beyond which tourist flows will decline because certain capacities as perceived by the tourists themselves have been exceeded, and therefore the destination area ceases to satisfy and attract them and hence they will seek alternative destinations. This has been argued by Plog in his Psychogruphic Positions of Destinations. where he divided travellers into “psychocentrics” (the non-adventuresome) and “allocentrics” (adventuresome and curious). ’ As a destination becomes more commercialized it loses the charm and authentic qualities, which attracted the “allocentrics” and forces them to seek other destinations. The destination loses its true appeal, becomes more mundane, and appeals to travellers at the other end of the spectrum or those in the midcentric range. In tourism capacity, an even balance has to be maintained. both in the physical environment and the quality of the experience of the host country to the visitor. There has to be as little disruption as possible in these two areas, and this balance hinges on the maximum number of people who can use a site, whether it be a beach, resort or town, without negative changes being created in the environment or in the product itself. This balance relies on the carrying capacity, which as Mathieson and Wall say “is the maximum number of people who can use a site without an unacceptable alteration in the physical environment and without an unacceptable decline in the quality of experience gained by visitors”.*
0261-5177/86/040254-05$03.00
0
1986 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
Tourism carrying capacity
Carrying capacity concept The above definition only takes into consideration the physical impact of tourism on a destination, both from the environmental and experiential points of view. However, there are also economic and social qualities which may be measured. In fact, in certain destinations with fragile economies and cultures which can easily be disrupted by an over insurgence of visitors, the overcapacity created can have great consequences not only on the physical and environmental aspects but also on the social, cultural and economic subsystems of the -destinations. Carrying capacities exist for all the above subsystems, as they can all be considered to be interrelated. Thus the notion of economic carrying capacity -
the ability to absorb tourist functions without squeezing out desirable local activities can be developed. The wear and tear of historical buildings and the contamination of beaches by untreated sewage are examples of physical carrying capacity being exceeded. It is well known that host peoples’ levels of tolerance for the presence and behaviour of tourists has been surpassed in some locations and thus the social carrying capacity has been overreached.’
This suggests what can or may have indeed happened, when there is no proper planning and control of capacity. Indeed, these problems do exist, especially in developing countries that have, in most cases, to depend on the tourist industry for economic survival. In the Commonwealth Caribbean islands, which today receive mass tourism in abundance, there has been little or no research or control as to certain areas of physical carrying capacity, namely resort developments. In some territories this has caused overcapacity in certain coastal areas resulting in physical and environmental abuse not only of the land but also of the sea, where, eg in the 1970s faecal bacterial counts have been high in some instances.4 This of course was caused not only by, eg overcapacity on the west and south coasts of Barbados, but also by poor planning concerning waste disposal there and elsewhere in the Region. Before regions chosen for tourism expansion are developed, they must be checked for their capacity to absorb tourists and new facilities and activities. Capacity levels are influenced by two major groups of factors: 0 0
3lbid. 4E. Gooding, fffects of Tourism upon the Environment, Paper presented at Regional Seminar on Caribbean Tourism, Nassau, November 1975. 50p cit. Ref 2, p 22. 60p tit, Ref 2, p 22.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
December
the characteristics the characteristics
of the tourists; and of the destination area and its population.’
The first group includes all the characteristics of the foreigner coming into that society, namely their socioeconomic characteristics - age, sex, income, availability of spending money; their motivations, attitudes and expectations; their racial and ethnic backgrounds and behaviour patterns. Not only are the tourists’ character and personal traits important, but the level of use of the facility, the visitor density, lengths of stay, types of tourist activity and levels of tourist satisfaction are equally important “because they all influence the magnitude, frequency and kind of interaction with the _physical attributes of the destination _ and its people”.h The second group can be summarized under the following headings: 0 0 0
natural environmental features and processes; economic structure and economic development; social structure and organization;
1986
255
Tourism
carrying
capaciry
0 0
political organization; and level of tourist development.’
Here we see the need to take into account the interrelationships of all these factors for the proper development of the product - including all fundamental aspects of the country from the physical, economic, social and political points of view. A tourist development may be economically feasible and desirable, but socially and environmentally damaging. Here the carrying capacity levels differ between the three subsystems and also vary among the components which contribute to any one of the subsystems. Examples of this can be if a development creates jobs and income for residents, but family and social life is disrupted and affected because of long working hours or split shifts. Or, as in the case of Barbados mentioned above, hotel developments creating pollution because of poor waste disposal made enough money to have these discrepancies corrected.
Impact interrelation -
70p tit, Ref 2, 80p tit, Ref 2,
256
p 22-23 p 34.
a synopsis
Therefore, we can see that “the economic, physical and social impacts of tourism are as a result of the interactions between the tourists and the destination area and its population”. Each segment or subsystem has a carrying capacity and “the magnitude and direction of tourism impact is determined by the tolerance limits of each”.s Physical carrying capacity, as explained before, can be defined as the limit of a beach or historical building or site beyond which wear and tear will start taking place or environmental problems will arise. Some examples are the pollution of beaches, the almost collapse of the Leaning Tower of Pisa - the foundations of which have had to be strengthened - the wear and tear of the stones at Stonehenge due to the effect of thousands of feet and hands, trampling and touching the stones - this has been solved, at least temporarily, by the erection of fencing to prevent human contact, and thus the historic site is preserved. It is however ironic to see that control and management of tourism impacts have only occurred when the particular entity is threatened with deterioration and/or destruction, or when crises have arisen, and have often only occurred when carrying capacities have been exceeded. Therefore, it would seem that in most cases there is no forward planning, and only when crises arise are controls introduced. Coupled with physical carrying capacity is the perceptual or psychological capacity which suggests the lowest degree of enjoyment tourists or users of the product are prepared to accept before they start seeking alternative sites or destinations. In other words this is the behavioural component reflecting the quality of a recreational experience, as opposed to the biophysical component reflecting the quality and, the maximum capacity of the environment. Social carrying capacity can be defined objectively from the tourists’ point of view as the level of tolerance of the host population for the presence and behaviour of tourists in the destination area; or subjectively as the degree of crowding users (tourists) are prepared to accept by others (other tourists). Economic carrying capacity, as we have seen before, can be described as the ability to absorb tourist functions without squeezing out desirable local activities. However, because these impacts differ in degree and direction for
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
December
1986
Tourism carr_ving capacity
every subsystem of the destination, and probably conflict.
Measurement
carrying
capacities
will also differ
of carrying capacity
The concepts of carrying capacity are now generally accepted, “but difficulties in measuring and quantifying the thresholds have restricted the use of carrying capacity as a planning tool”.’ Some factors causing this restriction are: that the acceptable levels of crowding can differ from another; that certain types of developments necessitate higher others, even if the sizes of the developments are beaches for relaxation vis-a-vis tourism; and physical and environmental carrying capacities can management techniques.
one society to densities than the same, eg be affected
by
However, certain projects have employed useful methodological studies, eg Brittas Bay in Ireland where actual densities and distributions were measured and reproduced from aerial photographs taken on a busy Sunday afternoon.” This was supplemented by a questionnaire survey distributed to the beach users. A comparison of the two surveys was made and it was seen that many users would accept a density of 1 000 persons per hectare or 10m’ per person without considering a beach overcrowded. This system was also used in France in planning the scale of new beach resorts in Languedoc-Roussillon.” Andronicou in his Cyprus plan has put forward certain density ratios which have been taken into account, provided that there is a balanced disbursement of accommodation. ” Factors considered were: 0 0 0 0
‘J.P. Barkham, Recreational Carrying Capacity: a Problem of Perception, 1983. “‘An Foras Forbatha, Brittas Bay: a P/anning and Conservation Study, 1973. “D. Pearce, Tourist Development. 1983, p 36. ‘*A. Andronicou, Case studies - selecting and planning for tourists - case of Cyprus, International Journal of Tourism Management, 1983.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
the the the the
number of tourist arrivals per 100 local people in each region; number of tourist nights per 100 local people in each region; number of tourists per square mile in each region; and capacity of the sea-shore in each region.
However, it could be argued here that Cyprus was aiming for the middle and upper market share, and not the mass tourism market which obviously makes capacity difficult to quantify, although peak volume usually determines capacity. Carrying capacity is dependent on the goals that are specified for every development. Therefore a park used for a ‘nature reserve’ should have a lower density than the same park employed as an amusement park; thus the desired density is related to the use to which the development is put, and provided visitors have a good time, capacity may not be exceeded. In the development of new projects, cost-benefit analyses should be adopted to see at what level the project will be financially viable. Even so most theme parks operate at a loss - the basic benefit is one of social benefit to the region. However, correct levels of carrying capacity must be adopted to preserve the economic, physical, ecological, social and cultural balance within the-society.
Conclusion In this
December
1986
article
I have
looked
at the
subject
of carrying
capacity
in
257
Tourism
carrying
capacity
13E. Dekadt, Tourism, fassport velopment, 1976, p 17.
to De-
tourism, its different components, how they interplay and difficulty in measuring this concept. The term carrying capacity “applies not only to the maximum number of tourists or tourist accommodations which seem desirable at a given time, but also to the maximum rates of growth above which the growth process itself would be unduly disruptive”.13 As far as measurement is concerned, although there have been certain methodological studies carried out on beach capacity, capacities on the whole have been difficult to measure, although a cost-benefit analysis approach could be used to determine feasibility or infeasibility of the proposed development. Also, capacity cannot be used as an absolute limit but as a means to identify critical thresholds which need attention and by so doing removing obstacles where possible or applying controls. However, even if capacity cannot be measured absolutely, statistical methods could be set up by planners to examine relative changes year-on-year. Finally, capacity should also be considered as part of a systematic strategy plan for the development of tourism.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
December 1986
This article examines the concept of carrying capacity, the calculation and control of which has not been taken seriously by developers, whether publit or private, especially in developing countries. This has resulted in many cases in overcapacity within the areas developed for tourism, causing the destruction or near-destruction of historical landmarks and even of the natural environment. Thus It is necessary for the concept of tourism carrying capacity to be included in the planning for tourism as initiated by governments and other developers, in spite of difficulties in measurement. Keywords: planning
carrying
capacity;
tourism
A.M. O’Reilly is a lecturer at the Centre for Hotel and Tourism Management, University of the West Indies, Nassau, Bahamas. Acknowledgement This article is derived from one of a series of essays that the author wrote for his postgraduate work in Tourism Planning and Development at the University of Surrey, UK in 1983-84.
‘Plog, Psychographic Positions of Destinations Copy to follow 2A. Mathieson and G. Wall, Tourism (Economic, Physical and Social tmpacts), 1982, p 21.
254
The word ‘capacity’ in its true sense suggests the ability to contain or accommodate, or the amount that can be contained in a certain space or area. Indeed, tourism capacity can be simplistically defined as the maximum number of tourists that can be contained in a certain destination area. However, there are two schools of thought concerned with the nature and interpretation of tourism capacity. These concepts go much further than the simplistic definition given above. First, tourism capacity is envisaged as the capacity of the destination area to absorb tourism before negative impacts of tourism are felt by the host country. In other words, the capacity is dictated by how many tourists are wanted rather than by how many tourists can be attracted. Here more attention is paid to the host country and population than the tourist. The second school of thought proposes that tourism capacity be considered as the levels beyond which tourist flows will decline because certain capacities as perceived by the tourists themselves have been exceeded, and therefore the destination area ceases to satisfy and attract them and hence they will seek alternative destinations. This has been argued by Plog in his Psychogruphic Positions of Destinations. where he divided travellers into “psychocentrics” (the non-adventuresome) and “allocentrics” (adventuresome and curious). ’ As a destination becomes more commercialized it loses the charm and authentic qualities, which attracted the “allocentrics” and forces them to seek other destinations. The destination loses its true appeal, becomes more mundane, and appeals to travellers at the other end of the spectrum or those in the midcentric range. In tourism capacity, an even balance has to be maintained. both in the physical environment and the quality of the experience of the host country to the visitor. There has to be as little disruption as possible in these two areas, and this balance hinges on the maximum number of people who can use a site, whether it be a beach, resort or town, without negative changes being created in the environment or in the product itself. This balance relies on the carrying capacity, which as Mathieson and Wall say “is the maximum number of people who can use a site without an unacceptable alteration in the physical environment and without an unacceptable decline in the quality of experience gained by visitors”.*
0261-5177/86/040254-05$03.00
0
1986 Butterworth
& Co (Publishers)
Ltd
Tourism carrying capacity
Carrying capacity concept The above definition only takes into consideration the physical impact of tourism on a destination, both from the environmental and experiential points of view. However, there are also economic and social qualities which may be measured. In fact, in certain destinations with fragile economies and cultures which can easily be disrupted by an over insurgence of visitors, the overcapacity created can have great consequences not only on the physical and environmental aspects but also on the social, cultural and economic subsystems of the -destinations. Carrying capacities exist for all the above subsystems, as they can all be considered to be interrelated. Thus the notion of economic carrying capacity -
the ability to absorb tourist functions without squeezing out desirable local activities can be developed. The wear and tear of historical buildings and the contamination of beaches by untreated sewage are examples of physical carrying capacity being exceeded. It is well known that host peoples’ levels of tolerance for the presence and behaviour of tourists has been surpassed in some locations and thus the social carrying capacity has been overreached.’
This suggests what can or may have indeed happened, when there is no proper planning and control of capacity. Indeed, these problems do exist, especially in developing countries that have, in most cases, to depend on the tourist industry for economic survival. In the Commonwealth Caribbean islands, which today receive mass tourism in abundance, there has been little or no research or control as to certain areas of physical carrying capacity, namely resort developments. In some territories this has caused overcapacity in certain coastal areas resulting in physical and environmental abuse not only of the land but also of the sea, where, eg in the 1970s faecal bacterial counts have been high in some instances.4 This of course was caused not only by, eg overcapacity on the west and south coasts of Barbados, but also by poor planning concerning waste disposal there and elsewhere in the Region. Before regions chosen for tourism expansion are developed, they must be checked for their capacity to absorb tourists and new facilities and activities. Capacity levels are influenced by two major groups of factors: 0 0
3lbid. 4E. Gooding, fffects of Tourism upon the Environment, Paper presented at Regional Seminar on Caribbean Tourism, Nassau, November 1975. 50p cit. Ref 2, p 22. 60p tit, Ref 2, p 22.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
December
the characteristics the characteristics
of the tourists; and of the destination area and its population.’
The first group includes all the characteristics of the foreigner coming into that society, namely their socioeconomic characteristics - age, sex, income, availability of spending money; their motivations, attitudes and expectations; their racial and ethnic backgrounds and behaviour patterns. Not only are the tourists’ character and personal traits important, but the level of use of the facility, the visitor density, lengths of stay, types of tourist activity and levels of tourist satisfaction are equally important “because they all influence the magnitude, frequency and kind of interaction with the _physical attributes of the destination _ and its people”.h The second group can be summarized under the following headings: 0 0 0
natural environmental features and processes; economic structure and economic development; social structure and organization;
1986
255
Tourism
carrying
capaciry
0 0
political organization; and level of tourist development.’
Here we see the need to take into account the interrelationships of all these factors for the proper development of the product - including all fundamental aspects of the country from the physical, economic, social and political points of view. A tourist development may be economically feasible and desirable, but socially and environmentally damaging. Here the carrying capacity levels differ between the three subsystems and also vary among the components which contribute to any one of the subsystems. Examples of this can be if a development creates jobs and income for residents, but family and social life is disrupted and affected because of long working hours or split shifts. Or, as in the case of Barbados mentioned above, hotel developments creating pollution because of poor waste disposal made enough money to have these discrepancies corrected.
Impact interrelation -
70p tit, Ref 2, 80p tit, Ref 2,
256
p 22-23 p 34.
a synopsis
Therefore, we can see that “the economic, physical and social impacts of tourism are as a result of the interactions between the tourists and the destination area and its population”. Each segment or subsystem has a carrying capacity and “the magnitude and direction of tourism impact is determined by the tolerance limits of each”.s Physical carrying capacity, as explained before, can be defined as the limit of a beach or historical building or site beyond which wear and tear will start taking place or environmental problems will arise. Some examples are the pollution of beaches, the almost collapse of the Leaning Tower of Pisa - the foundations of which have had to be strengthened - the wear and tear of the stones at Stonehenge due to the effect of thousands of feet and hands, trampling and touching the stones - this has been solved, at least temporarily, by the erection of fencing to prevent human contact, and thus the historic site is preserved. It is however ironic to see that control and management of tourism impacts have only occurred when the particular entity is threatened with deterioration and/or destruction, or when crises have arisen, and have often only occurred when carrying capacities have been exceeded. Therefore, it would seem that in most cases there is no forward planning, and only when crises arise are controls introduced. Coupled with physical carrying capacity is the perceptual or psychological capacity which suggests the lowest degree of enjoyment tourists or users of the product are prepared to accept before they start seeking alternative sites or destinations. In other words this is the behavioural component reflecting the quality of a recreational experience, as opposed to the biophysical component reflecting the quality and, the maximum capacity of the environment. Social carrying capacity can be defined objectively from the tourists’ point of view as the level of tolerance of the host population for the presence and behaviour of tourists in the destination area; or subjectively as the degree of crowding users (tourists) are prepared to accept by others (other tourists). Economic carrying capacity, as we have seen before, can be described as the ability to absorb tourist functions without squeezing out desirable local activities. However, because these impacts differ in degree and direction for
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
December
1986
Tourism carr_ving capacity
every subsystem of the destination, and probably conflict.
Measurement
carrying
capacities
will also differ
of carrying capacity
The concepts of carrying capacity are now generally accepted, “but difficulties in measuring and quantifying the thresholds have restricted the use of carrying capacity as a planning tool”.’ Some factors causing this restriction are: that the acceptable levels of crowding can differ from another; that certain types of developments necessitate higher others, even if the sizes of the developments are beaches for relaxation vis-a-vis tourism; and physical and environmental carrying capacities can management techniques.
one society to densities than the same, eg be affected
by
However, certain projects have employed useful methodological studies, eg Brittas Bay in Ireland where actual densities and distributions were measured and reproduced from aerial photographs taken on a busy Sunday afternoon.” This was supplemented by a questionnaire survey distributed to the beach users. A comparison of the two surveys was made and it was seen that many users would accept a density of 1 000 persons per hectare or 10m’ per person without considering a beach overcrowded. This system was also used in France in planning the scale of new beach resorts in Languedoc-Roussillon.” Andronicou in his Cyprus plan has put forward certain density ratios which have been taken into account, provided that there is a balanced disbursement of accommodation. ” Factors considered were: 0 0 0 0
‘J.P. Barkham, Recreational Carrying Capacity: a Problem of Perception, 1983. “‘An Foras Forbatha, Brittas Bay: a P/anning and Conservation Study, 1973. “D. Pearce, Tourist Development. 1983, p 36. ‘*A. Andronicou, Case studies - selecting and planning for tourists - case of Cyprus, International Journal of Tourism Management, 1983.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
the the the the
number of tourist arrivals per 100 local people in each region; number of tourist nights per 100 local people in each region; number of tourists per square mile in each region; and capacity of the sea-shore in each region.
However, it could be argued here that Cyprus was aiming for the middle and upper market share, and not the mass tourism market which obviously makes capacity difficult to quantify, although peak volume usually determines capacity. Carrying capacity is dependent on the goals that are specified for every development. Therefore a park used for a ‘nature reserve’ should have a lower density than the same park employed as an amusement park; thus the desired density is related to the use to which the development is put, and provided visitors have a good time, capacity may not be exceeded. In the development of new projects, cost-benefit analyses should be adopted to see at what level the project will be financially viable. Even so most theme parks operate at a loss - the basic benefit is one of social benefit to the region. However, correct levels of carrying capacity must be adopted to preserve the economic, physical, ecological, social and cultural balance within the-society.
Conclusion In this
December
1986
article
I have
looked
at the
subject
of carrying
capacity
in
257
Tourism
carrying
capacity
13E. Dekadt, Tourism, fassport velopment, 1976, p 17.
to De-
tourism, its different components, how they interplay and difficulty in measuring this concept. The term carrying capacity “applies not only to the maximum number of tourists or tourist accommodations which seem desirable at a given time, but also to the maximum rates of growth above which the growth process itself would be unduly disruptive”.13 As far as measurement is concerned, although there have been certain methodological studies carried out on beach capacity, capacities on the whole have been difficult to measure, although a cost-benefit analysis approach could be used to determine feasibility or infeasibility of the proposed development. Also, capacity cannot be used as an absolute limit but as a means to identify critical thresholds which need attention and by so doing removing obstacles where possible or applying controls. However, even if capacity cannot be measured absolutely, statistical methods could be set up by planners to examine relative changes year-on-year. Finally, capacity should also be considered as part of a systematic strategy plan for the development of tourism.
TOURISM
MANAGEMENT
December 1986