56
3.5 Limiting Growth and the Concept of Carrying Capacity
The concept of carrying capacity has its origins in the pastoral and wildlife management sectors, where it was used to calculate the maximum number of individuals an
area could sustain without compromising their reproductive potential or to determine the size of an animal population a specific habitat could support (Berrow 2003;
Curtin 2003). Applied to tourism, the concept of carrying capacity assumes a positive relation between the number of tourists and the impact of tourism on a destination and has been criticized in the tourism literature for being subjective, misleading
and ineffective as a management tool (e.g. McCool and Lime 2001).
Determining carrying capacity can be a complex process and researchers seem to
agree that there is no single number but rather a combination of factors such as
management objectives, the biological nature of the resource, and the preference
and tolerances of the users, all of which must be considered together to determine a
carrying capacity for a specific area (Heberlein 1977). Several methodologies have
been proposed to regulate visitor management in protected areas, including Visitor
Impact Management (Graefe et al. 1990), Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey
et al. 1985) and Tourism Carrying Capacity (Cifuentes 1992).
The concept of Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC) includes mainly ecological
and social parameters and can be defines as: “The maximum number of visitors an
area can sustain without unacceptable deterioration of the physical environment
and without considerably diminishing user satisfaction” (Salerno et al. 2013). TCC
has been challenged by the idea of Sustainable Tourism but many of the issues outlined for this new concept are similar and, clearly, the basic element remains the
need to limit the growth of the tourist activity and determine which social and environmental changes can be accepted (Butler 1999; Liu 2003). Nonetheless, however
criticized this concept may be (McCool and Lime 2001) it remains in use and has
evolved to consider ecological, economic, social and perceptual aspects of tourism
(Needham et al. 2011; Filby et al. 2015).
However, according to Heberlein (1977), resource managers tend to overemphasize biological capacity. The problem is that, as is the case for whale- watching
impacts, although demonstrable, numbers are often limited to trivial biological
impact, or no impact at all can be documented. As such, in the absence of information on the biological carrying capacity, in order to maintain the activity’s sustainability, important decisions about other sorts of capacity, such as the social capacity
for example, should not be delayed.
An interesting approach to the theme of tourism carrying capacity has been presented in a study conducted by IBAMA and WWF-Brazil in the Fernando de
Noronha National Marine Park, northeastern Brazil (Mitraud 2001). In this study,
the concept of TCC (Cifuentes 1992) is used in conjunction with the Visitor Impact
Management (Graefe et al. 1990) and the Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey
et al. 1985). According to Cifuentes (1992), the TCC in protected areas should also
take into account the conditions available for the adequate management of the area,
which will ultimately determine its real carrying capacity.
L. Fernandes and M.R. Rossi-Santos
3.5 Limiting Growth and the Concept of Carrying Capacity
The concept of carrying capacity has its origins in the pastoral and wildlife management sectors, where it was used to calculate the maximum number of individuals an
area could sustain without compromising their reproductive potential or to determine the size of an animal population a specific habitat could support (Berrow 2003;
Curtin 2003). Applied to tourism, the concept of carrying capacity assumes a positive relation between the number of tourists and the impact of tourism on a destination and has been criticized in the tourism literature for being subjective, misleading
and ineffective as a management tool (e.g. McCool and Lime 2001).
Determining carrying capacity can be a complex process and researchers seem to
agree that there is no single number but rather a combination of factors such as
management objectives, the biological nature of the resource, and the preference
and tolerances of the users, all of which must be considered together to determine a
carrying capacity for a specific area (Heberlein 1977). Several methodologies have
been proposed to regulate visitor management in protected areas, including Visitor
Impact Management (Graefe et al. 1990), Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey
et al. 1985) and Tourism Carrying Capacity (Cifuentes 1992).
The concept of Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC) includes mainly ecological
and social parameters and can be defines as: “The maximum number of visitors an
area can sustain without unacceptable deterioration of the physical environment
and without considerably diminishing user satisfaction” (Salerno et al. 2013). TCC
has been challenged by the idea of Sustainable Tourism but many of the issues outlined for this new concept are similar and, clearly, the basic element remains the
need to limit the growth of the tourist activity and determine which social and environmental changes can be accepted (Butler 1999; Liu 2003). Nonetheless, however
criticized this concept may be (McCool and Lime 2001) it remains in use and has
evolved to consider ecological, economic, social and perceptual aspects of tourism
(Needham et al. 2011; Filby et al. 2015).
However, according to Heberlein (1977), resource managers tend to overemphasize biological capacity. The problem is that, as is the case for whale- watching
impacts, although demonstrable, numbers are often limited to trivial biological
impact, or no impact at all can be documented. As such, in the absence of information on the biological carrying capacity, in order to maintain the activity’s sustainability, important decisions about other sorts of capacity, such as the social capacity
for example, should not be delayed.
An interesting approach to the theme of tourism carrying capacity has been presented in a study conducted by IBAMA and WWF-Brazil in the Fernando de
Noronha National Marine Park, northeastern Brazil (Mitraud 2001). In this study,
the concept of TCC (Cifuentes 1992) is used in conjunction with the Visitor Impact
Management (Graefe et al. 1990) and the Limits of Acceptable Change (Stankey
et al. 1985). According to Cifuentes (1992), the TCC in protected areas should also
take into account the conditions available for the adequate management of the area,
which will ultimately determine its real carrying capacity.
L. Fernandes and M.R. Rossi-Santos