tourism in the caribbean || strategies for sustainable tourism development: the role of the concept...

STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: THE ROLE OF THE CONCEPT OFCARRYING CAPACITYAuthor(s): Anthony ClaytonSource: Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 51, No. 1, Tourism in the Caribbean (MARCH 2002),pp. 61-98Published by: Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of the WestIndiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27865262 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 23:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of the West Indies and Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social and Economic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.34 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:22:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=salises

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwi

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27865262?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Social and Economic Studies 51:1 (2002) ISSN: 0037-7651

STRATEGIES FDR SUSTAINABLE

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: THE ROLE

OF THE CONCEPT OF CARRYING

CAPACITY1

Anthony Clayton

ABSTRACT

The concept of carrying capacity, originally developed in the biologi cal sciences, is now widely understood to be fundamental to an under

standing of the relationship between humans and the natural environ

ment ( Clayton and Radcliffe, 1996). The concept is of considerable theo

retical importance, and can clarify the nature of some of the complex

changes and trade-offs involved in any extensive anthropogenic impact on the natural environment.

Tourism has become a critically importan t source of foreign revenue for a

number of developing countries. In some of these countries, however, the

industry is facing environmental and social problems that could constrict

future growth. As a result, there is now a great deal of discussion about

sustainable tourism, but there are many unresolved questions as to how

this goal can be translated into actual management policies (France,

1997). There is an important question, therefore, as to whether the con

cept of carrying capacity can provide theframework for the policies needed

to address the new challenges. This paper concludes that an overall policy framework for the manage ment of the tourism industry cannot be based entirely on the concept of

carrying capacity, although the concept can illuminate and inform the

relevant decisions. The social, economic and political dimensions of any

complex management or planning decision also have to be recognized

1 This paper is partly based on a conceptual framework paper that I wrote as a

contribution to a larger study of aspects of Jamaica's tourist industry. The report of the main study formed one of the submissions in the formulation of Jamaica's Tourism Master Plan. I am indebted, in particular, to Dillon Alleyne, Ian Boxili,

Carolyn Hayle and Pauline McHardy for their comments and other contribu

tions to the earlier report, which helped to shape my original framework paper. The final form and content of this paper, and any errors, are the sole responsi

bility of the author.

61-98



6 2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

and addressed, although the concept of carrying capacity can illuminate and inform these too.

Introduction

Most international travellers today are tourists, travelling for

recreational, cultural or educational purposes. Mass tourism, a

relatively modern concept, has grown over the last three decades into one of the world's largest industries, and tourists now out

number those travelling for business or personal reasons on most routes by a substantial margin. World Tourism Organisation esti

mates indicate that international tourist arrivals grew from 69 million in 1960 to 594 million in 1996, an 861% increase in less than four decades. Between 1980 and 1996, world international tourist arrivals increased by an average of 4.7% annually, while receipts grew from US$103 billion to $423 billion, an average annual in crease of 9.2%, indicating a rapid increase in the number of people travelling and an even more rapid increase in the amount that these

people were spending. Travel and tourism today generate between them a signifi

cant percentage ?

possibly as much as 10% ? of global GDP, and

probably account for roughly similar proportions of global capital investment and employment.2 These industries are ? obviously

?

international; they are also extremely pervasive in that they affect not just all parts of the world but also many other sectors (ranging from construction and engineering to a wide range of services) and

thereby involve or have implications for almost all levels of society. The livelihood of many millions of people today, in all parts of the

world, depends ?

directly or indirectly ? on the long-term future

of the travel and tourism industries.

The involvement of developing countries

Some developing countries have relatively limited options for eco

nomic development, at least until they have advanced to the point

2 The estimates given in the literature vary widely, in part because of the difficul ties involved in estimating the percentage of activity in other economic areas that is directly tourism-related.



Strategies for Sustainable Tourism Development: 63

where they have managed to secure one or more positions of com

parative advantage. The sophisticated technology and significant

capital investment now required to develop or maintain a competi tive position in many secondary or tertiary economic activities

present an effective barrier to many potential new entrants. Lack of

capacity, in terms of both the administrative and technical skill

base, is a serious problem in many developing nations, the lack of

expanding economic opportunities means that the graduates from

developing nations frequently have to move abroad to seek em

ployment, and the consequent lack of a strong professional cadre

and ethos is one of the factors that can foster corruption. It has been

hard, therefore, for many developing nations to move beyond their

traditional economic activity of exporting their natural resources.

Many of these natural resources ? minerals, for example

? are

non-renewable, others ? such as timber or fish ? are renewable but are generally being exploited to exhaustion without any allow ance for the time needed for the stock to replenish (Clayton and

Radcliffe, 1996). The viability of some commodity exports is also

threatened by the long-term decline in many commodity prices

(Clayton, 2001). Thus many developing nations may not be able to

pursue these traditional economic activities indefinitely. Tourism, however, especially tourism based on the attraction

of particular natural or social features (such as sunshine, beaches,

mountains, forests, or a colourful, interesting culture), offers a way to use these resources without necessarily degrading or depleting them. Countries that have been generously endowed by nature or

history with a good range of such features therefore have a genuine

comparative advantage, which has allowed their tourism and travel sector to grow to the point where ? in some cases ? it has become

the cornerstone of the economy. Nearly 15 million people visited

the Caribbean in 1996, for example, of which 71% were tourists and

9% were travelling for business reasons (the remaining 19% were

mostly travelling for family reasons). This resulted in a total expen diture of US$13.3 billion, and supported 578,000 jobs in the region.3 For the Caribbean as a whole, tourism now brings in at least l/3rd

3 Caribbean Tourism Statistical Report 1996. Caribbean Tourism Organization, Barbados.



64 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

of all foreign revenue, while there are some countries within the

region where the proportion is substantially higher. In Jamaica, for

example, tourism now supports about 25% of all jobs, generates some 52% of all foreign revenue,4 accounts for nearly 8% of GDP

directly but also the bulk of income from distributive trading, which

accounts for about 22% of GDP.

However, the growth of the tourism industry in most devel

oping nations has generally been associated with increased de

mands for land, water, food and construction materials, increased

environmental loading on coastal waters, reefs and watersheds, additional loading on the physical infrastructure of towns, roads, water supply and sewage treatment systems, and a range of social

and cultural impacts on otherwise relatively poor host communi

ties. In some cases, these issues threaten to restrict the future growth of the industry. Overloaded sewage treatment systems can lead to

discharge of inadequately treated sewage into coastal waters, with

implications for the health of the bathers, crumbling roads make it

difficult for tourists to reach some of the potential attractions, and

unresolved social issues and tensions can lead to increased crime

and harassment. Thus the initial, successful growth of the industry may lead directly to the problems that eventually threaten the in

dustry itself. This is a generic problem; Butler (1980) has noted that

tourism products tend to go through an S-curve life cycle, with

early exploration leading to development, followed by a mature or

institutionalized phase. At that point the product must be rejuve nated (reinvented or repositioned), or else it will start to decline as

other, less over-developed, less crowded, less polluted and despoiled sites, with fewer attendant social problems, take over their market

share.

4 The estimate given is from Statistical Institute data from 1998. However, esti mates vary slightly. For example, the National Industrial Policy: A Strategic Plan for Growth and Development. Government of Jamaica, 1996 estimates that tourism generates 45% of all foreign revenue inflows from the productive sectors of the economy (this calculation excludes remittances). There is no

disagreement, however, that tourism is by far the main source of foreign revenue.



Strategies for Sustainable Tourism Development 65

Growing awareness of the need to control impacts and man

age the industry on a more long-term basis has led to increased

interest in the concept of sustainable tourism. The problem, how

ever, has been in how to operationalize this challenging and elusive

concept. Budowski (1976) has argued that some forms of tourism -

specifically, nature tourism ? depend on good environmental con

servation, and that the two can be mutually supportive and benefi

cial, while Cesario and Clayton (1997) have suggested that levels of

environmental conservation may also be linked to community health. However, Cater and Goodall (in France 1997) have pointed out apparently inescapable contradictions and trade-offs between

the concept of sustainable tourism and the increased demand for

energy-intensive travel implied, concluding that the most environ

mentally-sound holiday involves staying at home. Similarly, Wheeller (1990, 1991) has strongly critiqued the various models

that have emerged, such as ecotourism or 'responsible tourism';

arguing that these are primarily new marketing ploys which will

themselves serve only to further segment the market and thereby increase total tourism traffic. Butler 1991 has pointed out another

potential contradiction; that it may not be economically worth

while to offer a true wilderness ecotourism experience, as there are

far fewer opportunities for tourists to spend money in a wilder

ness, while Cartwright 1989 has suggested that ecotourism implies a social disparity, as the primary beneficiaries of national parks in

developing nations will be rich consumers from developed nations

with the leisure and wealth to be tourists.

In spite of these unresolved issues, the ecotourism market has

already become economically significant. It is not possible to be

certain about the precise market share, because definitions are not

consistent, estimates vary widely, and there is a possibility that

some existing tourism products have simply been repackaged and

relabeled as ecotourism (see e.g. Mowforth 1993, Burns and Holden

1995, and Poon 1993). However, one Economist Intelligence Unit

(EIU 1992) study suggests that the ecotourism market component constituted some $10 - 12 billion (18

- 22%) of the $55 billion gener

ated for developing countries by tourism in 1988, and this compo nent is likely to have grown in the intervening years. This indicates

that there is strong demand for the product, but it does not, of




course, mean that the potential conflicts have been resolved or that

the management strategies are in place.

Carrying capacity, as a means of modeling the interaction

between human usage patterns and environmental impacts, may have a useful role to play in clarifying the issues and in providing a

context for framing ? and thereby potentially resolving

? some of

these apparent contradictions and trade-offs. The concept may

thereby be able to provide a basis for optimizing economic gain and environmental conservation (or gain) simultaneously, thus

establishing a more sustainable model of travel and tourism.

Definition

Carrying capacity refers to the population that a given ecology can

support. The main factors in determining carrying capacity are

levels of population, patterns of resource demand, environmental

yield potential and resource flows, and environmental absorption

capacity and impacts. The interaction of these factors determines

the long-term viability of development options. It is important to note that it is the aggregate demand of a

population that will ultimately be limited by carrying capacity.

Aggregate demand may be computed as the average per capita demand (in terms of consumption and emissions) multiplied by the

number of people (Ehrlich et al, 1993). As the number of people increases, therefore, the average demand must be reduced unless

there remains a margin of yield (which means that the current

demand is within the carrying capacity limit), or unless the yield

potential can be increased at the same time.

Demand is usually taken to mean demand for resources, but

pollution absorption capacity can be equally considered to be a resource. Limits to Growth, the seminal text published by the Club of Rome in 1972, argued that key resources (oil, strategic metals and so on) would be exhausted within a few decades. This scenario

currently seems unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. This is

partly due to the increased extraction enabled by technological de

velopment (estimated and proven reserves of oil, for example, have

expanded more rapidly than demand, and now equate to more than a century's usage at current consumption levels), and partly due to

substitution (fibre-optic cable for copper wire, gas for coal and -



Strategies for Sustainable Tourism Development: 6 7

eventually ?

hydrogen for petroleum, for example). As some of the

key indicators on the upstream side have improved, however, some

of the indicators on the downstream side appear to have deterio

rated. For example, there is now a relatively strong consensus in the scientific community that global warming will lead to a ther

mal expansion of the oceans and a consequent rise in mean sea level.

This process is likely to impact on a number of vulnerable nations

during the course of the next century as a result of the inundation

and salination of coastal lands, increased occurrence of extreme

weather conditions and so on. Thus one of the key parameters in

calculating carrying capacity is increasingly taken to be pollution

absorption capacity or other environmental loading factor, rather

than the traditional supply parameters. Consider a simple case, however, where the limits are im

posed by a supply parameter. Suppose that the task is to feed a

certain number of people from a finite area of land. This land can be

farmed, and will return a certain nutrient yield. The numbers are

obtained, then the available nutrient flow is divided by the average

per capita nutrient requirement to give the carrying capacity of

that area of land in terms of the number of people it will support. The yield, however, is not fixed, because yields can be boosted

with inputs of fertilizer, pesticides, fungicides, growth promoters and mechanical cultivation techniques. One possible strategy, there

fore, is to relax the carrying capacity limit by applying inputs to

increase the yield from the land. The increased nutrient flow, di

vided by the average per capita nutrient requirement, will give the

new carrying capacity of that area of land. This strategy would

result in the conclusion that a higher level of population could be

supported. However, the additional inputs depend on chemicals and en

ergy derived from fossilised hydrocarbons, a non-renewable re

source. It is possible, therefore, that the increases in yield could not

be indefinitely achieved. It is also possible that the strategy to in

crease yields might not be indefinitely economically viable. A sus

tained increase in the price of oil, for example, would force up the

costs of the additional inputs. This might make it impossible to

sustain the strategy.




There is an associated problem with the different rate at which

key variables can change. The price of agrochemicals, for example, can fluctuate rapidly, while population level varies slowly. Popu lation growth rates also tend to manifest a high degree of inertia

and long time lags before changes in policy take effect. Thus a policy error in a case such as this (allowing a higher population level on

the basis of an assumption of indefinitely affordable increases in

yields) could be extremely difficult to reverse.

An alternative strategy, in the same situation, might be to

promote long-term increases in the overall efficiency of production and to reduce the dependence on the use of non-renewable resources.

This might involve, for example, encouraging people to eat grain rather than meat, thus moving the main source of nutrition further towards the primary conversion end and eliminating the various

conversion inefficiencies involved in meat production. This alter

native strategy would also allow the carrying capacity limit to be

amended, thereby permitting the population to increase.

This example illustrates three points:

Carrying capacity is not a fixed, unvarying constraint.

Carrying capacity is determined by the interaction of a

number of factors. Any estimate of the carrying capacity of a given area depends on the assumptions, defining terms,

parameters and general reliability and tolerance to error

of the model used. The assumptions might include, for

example, dietary preferences, continued availability of

inputs and so on.

Carrying capacity can be calculated for a given area, but

such divisions are partly arbitrary. Most areas (and coun

tries) experience significant flows of energy and resources

over their borders. The carrying capacity of a tourist resort area, for example, is an artificial and unrealistic

concept, as such areas are clearly not capable of self-suffi

ciency under most conceivable circumstances. What mat

ters, therefore, is whether the hinterland can sustain the

flows of resources required to enable any given area to

sustain a given level of population. This transfer of re sources (which is, in effect, a transfer of carrying capac

ity) is normally effected through the market system. If




hotel proprietors in a resort area need to feed their guests,

they can buy food in the market, the last stage in the

transfer of food from the domestic hinterland and from overseas into the area. Similarly, food production in an

agricultural area can be increased, given supplies of agro chemicals, fuel, farm machinery and so on from outside. An important point that arises from the above is that

carrying capacity can be increased, in effect, given inputs from outside. The question, therefore, is whether the in

puts from outside are sustainable. At this point, it is nec

essary to use a wider life cycle assessment and take into

account issues such as the source of the flows, environ

mental impacts associated with the supply of these re

sources, and the energy and environmental costs of the

transport involved.

This in turn illustrates that carrying capacity is generally determined by a range of factors, some of which are internal and

some of which are external. Some of these factors change indepen

dently, others are linked. Some of the linked factors will change in

phase (an increase in oil prices, for example, will lead directly to an

increase in the cost of downstream refinery products, and therefore an increase in the cost of agrochemicals), others will change at

different times (clearing more land for farming may lead to soil

erosion, but it might depend on the timing of the land work with

regard to the following rainy season). Overall, therefore, the situa

tion is likely to be both complex and dynamic, which means that

the associated management task can be extremely challenging. An additional management complication stems from issues

of jurisdiction and control. It may be possible to control some of the

relevant factors with appropriate policy and management mea

sures, but there are often factors that cannot be controlled. This

means that it is sometimes necessary to use factors that can be

controlled as proxies for factors that cannot. Farmers have little

control over the price of oil and agrochemicals, for example, and

might therefore be forced to reduce their use of other inputs (such as labour) in order to maintain financial viability in a recession

more severely than would otherwise have been optimal.




Similarly, a coral reef might be overwhelmed by a number of

factors in conjunction, such as rising sea temperature, overfishing,

sewage discharge, turbidity resulting from dredging, and damage from boat hulls and anchors. Only the latter factor might be related

to the number of visitors, but it might be the only one over which

the tourism manager has any control. The tourism manager might therefore try to restrict visitor numbers, but controlling visitor

numbers alone might not be a sufficient strategy to protect the

reefs.

There are also issues as to how such issues are addressed, as

policy and management decisions can be imposed ? or otherwise

made effective - in various different ways. This raises another set of

questions as to the political feasibility, economic viability and cost

effectiveness of particular options, which are addressed later in

this paper. It is important to base any management strategy for tourism

on a proper understanding of the nature of environmental change. Three points are particularly important:

Any major development that involves any significant

building, mining, dredging, land clearing or other land or

marine engineering work will entail some degree of

environmental impact and change. Some impact is ines

capable. The nature, scale and pace of the change can be a more

important consideration than the change per se. Environ

mental change, as such, is not necessarily bad. Even habi

tat loss is not necessarily negative. In nature, destruction

is often a crucial creative force, creating opportunities for

growth, development and change, evolution and specia tion. This applies to human intervention as well. The ex

tensive deforestation of England, for example, has been

described as "the greatest achievement of our ancestors"

(Rackham, 1986). This was partly because the removal of

much of the climax vegetation and the associated restruc

turing of the landscape created a more diverse patchwork of eco-types, which resulted, over time, in a higher level of

biodiversity than would otherwise have been the case.




This does not mean that all environmental damage and

change is equally acceptable. Some types of change are

more critical or sensitive than others.

The use of the concept of carrying capacity in studies of tourism

As noted earlier, the concepts of threshold and carrying capacity have been adopted from the environmental sciences. They are con

ceptually appealing, but have so far proved limited in their appli cability to the management of industries such as tourism. Furley, Hughes and Thomas (1996) have indicated several reasons why this is the case:

It is easy to see where tourism has created environmental

problems, but very difficult to use concepts of carrying

capacity to forecast where and when problems will occur.

Existing models of the tourism industry use measures such

as arrivals, bed nights, expenditure and margins. Environmental impacts, however, require completely different measures and data structures, and it is both con

ceptually and technically difficult to integrate the two.

Furley et al focused on the potential role of bio-indicators in moni

toring the environmental carrying capacities and threshold limits

of tourist impacts in Belize, and used this study to draw attention

to the particular difficulties posed in achieving this at the level of

interacting ecosystems. Their study highlighted the conceptual di

vision between two carrying capacity perspectives: The traditional biological/ecological carrying capacity. A more malleable cultural variant.

Furley et al note that tourism research acquired a technical orienta

tion in the 1960s and 1970s, in which concepts such as participa tion rates, frequency and duration of visit became characteristic of

the discourse on the demand side, while carrying capacity and

thresholds were employed in the analysis of supply. The defini

tions of carrying capacity deployed typically invoked criteria such as number of visitors, the unit area they occupied and some notion

of an equilibrium condition. Terms such as vulnerability ranking (Rees & Tivy, 1978), limits of acceptable change (Colgan, 1978), de

fence capacity (UNESCO, 1972) and design capacity (Godwin &




Leonard, 1977) were introduced in an effort to devise detailed meth

odology to calculate demand and supply levels for recreational uses.

Furley et al point out that in retrospect much of this work has

proved unfruitful, experiencing difficulties on several fronts:

Capacity thresholds proved much easier to conceptualize

theoretically than to identify empirically. Research was criticized for using single species indica tors rather than studying the complexity of an interact

ing system, and for using flora rather than fauna. These

indices are easier to measure, but do not always reveal

important changes.

Similarly, the research of the 1960s and 70s focused largely on direct impacts, whereas indirect impacts (of, for ex

ample, overfishing and sediment load resulting from de

velopment on the margins of the marine features that at

tract the tourist trade) are now often thought to be more

significant. The 'objective' analysis of the research of the 1960s and

70s foundered on the presumption that there was a purely technical solution to recreational pressure. The goal was

to calculate an objective or 'hard' limit, which could then be used as the basis of a management plan for the indus

try. Furley el al highlight, in particular, the presumption that tourism dynamics should have the necessary inher ent checks and balances to provide self-regulation. It be came apparent, however, that the interests of one set of users could conflict with the demands of another and the

perception of crowding and ecological damage varied be tween different user groups. As a result, Furley et al point to the fact that by the end of the decade Stankey (1980)

was arguing that the subjectivity involved in carrying

capacity made it a prescriptive rather than a determinis

tic concept.

Partly as a result, there are now important differences between the current debates of carrying capacity and those of earlier decades.

These fall largely under two headings:

Firstly, that what would previously have been seen as

exclusively local matters are now commonly

seen as a

microcosm of national and global concerns.




Second, there are a number of challenging social and philo sophical questions that follow from the further growth of

mass tourism and the consequent global compression of time and space, including the possible erosion of social

values, the 'commoditization' of culture, the social im

pact of the large disparities in wealth and opportunity between the consumers and providers of tourism in the

developing nations, and the different values involved in tourism development and planning decisions.

Furley et al conclude that the global extension in the reach and randomness of environmental impacts, including that of interna tional tourism, means that thresholds and carrying capacities are not immutable features of the ecological system. Rather, they are

culturally imposed benchmarks that reflect the prevailing stan dards of social acceptability. This in turn means that the problems cannot be entirely defined in purely technical, neutral terms. The need to integrate and resolve a wider range of social, cultural and

political factors into the same decision matrix as economic and en vironmental factors makes it clear that a new, more sophisticated and multidimensional analysis is required. Clayton and Radcliffe

(1996) offer one partial solution to this problem, using a tiered

Sustainability Assessment Map to represent differential change on several different dimensions (social, economic and environmental) on three spatial scales. Furley et al recommend adopting a similar

approach, based on an ecosystems perspective. This entails a con

figuration of the interaction of tourism and the environment at three spatial scales, as follows:

Direct.

Indirect.

System-transforming. Direct impacts received most attention in the 1960's and 70%

indirect impacts receive more attention today, but Furley et al ar

gue that it is the system-transforming impacts that are probably most critical in the interaction of tourism and the environment. Direct and indirect tourist impacts are clearly important but, even in a well-managed setting, the marine ecosystem may still be over

whelmed as a consequence of the accumulation of events whose

origins are more remote. The survival of the coral ecosystem, for




example, is ultimately dependent on the capacity of the terrestrial

margins to continue to furnish the biological resources essential for

its survival, yet these same terrestrial margins are also under threat

by tourist developments ranged along the coast. Similarly, coral that requires a nutrient-poor environment can be threatened by the discharge of nutrients (in the form of fertilizer, sewage or indus

try run-off) from developments further inland in the watershed. At an even more distant but fundamental level, rising sea tempera tures (increasingly associated with global warming) are now one

of the main causes of coral bleaching today. Impacts such as global

warming are genuinely system-transforming elements, and not

directly amenable to minor changes in local management strate

gies. This highlights some of the potential practical limitations in the use of the concept of carrying capacity as a site management tool, a point dealt with in more detail below.

Current applications of the concept of carrying capacity

Furley et al have categorized the current approaches to defining

carrying capacity into four distinct groups, based respectively on

the use of ecological, social/psychological, physical and economic criteria.

1) Ecological

Any ecology will change under pressure. Species especially sensi tive to the particular kind of pressure applied will tend to decrease or even disappear as the pressure erodes their ability to survive

and/or reproduce. Resilient species, however, may actually increase in number, partly because competitor species might be eliminated, and partly because some species respond to moderate pressure by increasing productivity. This direct change in the balance of species present may alter the general pr?dation pressure and available food supply, thus triggering further changes in the levels of other

predator or prey species. Thus the process is typically highly dy namic, and depends on a complex interaction of internal and exter nal factors. Factors such as the nature and severity of the pressure are obviously important, but the way in which these interact with factors such as the pre-disturbance balance of species tends to be at least equally important.




In principle, it is possible to estimate the vulnerability of par ticular species, then to identify the threshold value at which some

irreversible change is likely to occur. When ecologies change under

pressure, however, they generally reach new points of balance, pro vided that the key factors then remain reasonably constant. The

original pressure is by that stage itself one of the key factors main

taining the new point of balance, so one important consideration is

whether the pressure itself remains constant once it has triggered the change. A change in the nature or severity of the pressure may be required to initiate further change.

Thus a site does not have a single, fixed carrying capacity. Each point of ecological balance has an associated carrying capac

ity. The carrying capacity of a given site undergoing change is there

fore a series of quantities that change over time as the site moves

through a series of states. This in turn means that any given assess

ment of carrying capacity really refers to the size and extent of

change involved in the ongoing or anticipated change of state. In

practice, as Furley et al have pointed out, this tends to mean the size

and extent of change deemed to be acceptable on a given site at a

particular time.

In some cases, the complexity of ecological change is such that

it is effectively impossible to assess carrying capacity. This is for a

number of reasons:

Primary impacts may have secondary and tertiary im

pacts, some of which could be outside the site being moni

tored, and it is often impossible or impractical to trace the

entire chain of repercussions. For example, the construc

tion of groynes to protect one beach may alter patterns of

erosion and accretion and thus impact on other beaches

further down the coast. Similarly, land disposal of liquid wastes can allow percolate to reach the water table (espe

cially in highly permeable terrain) and thus eventually reach surface waters, thus impacting on freshwater and

marine ecologies far from the original disposal site. More

subtly, changes that impact primarily on one species may,

by altering predator-prey balances, have secondary

impacts on a range of other species.



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

Carrying capacities may fluctuate naturally over time.

Multiple predator-prey relationships, for example, often

exhibit complex dynamics, so there may be quite large differences in species numbers at different points of a range of interlocking cycles. It might be very difficult to know how much of a given

impact should be attributed to tourism, as opposed to

other causes. As indicated earlier, the damage to a given coral reef, for example, might be partly due to tempera ture change, partly due to a surge of anoxic water, partly due to overfishing, partly due to fertilizer run-off and sew

age discharge, and partly due to visitor trampling and

souvenir-hunting. Controlling visitor numbers alone

might therefore not be a sufficient strategy to protect the

reefs. Similarly, over-fishing of - for example - conch might

be partly related to the increased demand due to visitors, but it may equally be related to demand from overseas

markets. A strategy for the management of a given ecol

ogy has to take all of the main sources of demand and/or

pressure into account.

A given ecological intrusion will typically have multiple

impacts, and these will tend to manifest at different times.

Disturbance to one species might have an immediate and

obvious effect, while disturbance to another might have no visible immediate effect but then cause serious prob lems later. Some species (of birds, bears and deer, for ex

ample) put on weight at certain times in the year, and this

gives them an energy reserve that they can use during the

following breeding season or migration. A disruption dur

ing the early phase may not have an obvious immediate

effect, but may prevent the animal from accumulating as

much fat as it needs, with potentially disastrous conse

quences later on (such as reduced reproductive success). Some intrusions have different impacts at different times. A number of ecosystems respond to stress by increasing

productivity. For example, many species of grasses re

spond to grazing by tillering (developing multiple shoots), thus increasing the yield. Intermediate levels of stress also




help to prevent a dominant species from excluding com

petitors. One plausible explanation for the high species

diversity in coral reefs, for example, is that occasional

natural disturbances (such as hurricanes) maintain the

reefs in a non-equilibrium state, thus allowing non-domi

nant species to increase in number from time to time. It is

only when the stress exceeds the threshold of ecosystem tolerance, or goes on for too long or at the wrong time, that overall productivity starts to decline.

Some contaminants - such as, for example, metamorphic inducers affecting reef species

- can affect metamorphosis at concentration levels which are too low to be detected

by currently available assay methods. This means that it

is virtually impossible in some cases to predict environ

mental impacts - it is only possible to monitor actual eco

logical impacts as they happen. This in turn means that

the site management system has to flexible enough to be

able to respond rapidly to changing circumstances.

An additional common problem when calculating carrying capac

ity is that some of the information required may be unreliable or

unavailable. It can be extremely difficult to assess the number of

members of a given species, for example, particularly when they move freely in difficult terrain such as a marine environment. Stan

dard procedure is to sample and extrapolate, but there are frequently

grounds for disagreement about the choice of sample method and

frame. Another complication is that key variables -such as species levels- also fluctuate, sometimes by quite large amounts, in the

normal course of events. It may also be necessary to deal with sev

eral of these problems simultaneously. The well-publicized diffi

culties (and associated controversies) that the International Whal

ing Commission has had in assessing the maximum sustainable

catch rates for particular species of whale, even after many years of

detailed study and analysis of catch data, illustrates this problem. For example, suppose that there is a suspected problem with

overfishing. The first step might be to calculate the maximum sus

tainable harvestable yield of the species concerned. When a species is expanding to 'fill' an econiche, the growth curve will typically form an elongated 'S' shape. The steepest gradient on the curve is




where the population is growing fastest. This is sometimes referred

to as the maximum sustainable yield point, where the greatest harvest can be taken.

In a situation where there has been extensive overfishing for

decades, however, the earlier intrusions may have fundamentally altered the base ecology. Thus the ecosystem itself is likely to have

different characteristics at the time that the measurements are taken.

In Jamaica's case, for example, the large predatory fishes have vir

tually disappeared, due to earlier overfishing (Hughes, 1994). The

current fish stock therefore consists largely of the remaining her

bivorous species. Thus the calculation of the maximum catch of a

given species in the remaining stock can only be carried out against the background of a situation that has already been significantly altered. This means in turn that the current ecosystem is not at a

climax situation, which means that the maximum sustainable

harvestable yield of the species being measured cannot be regarded as stable.

Thus an ecological management strategy will generally have

to be devised on a basis of imperfect and/or partial information.

Given that, however, it is still sensible to manage sites within cer

tain broad parameters, minimizing the risk of obviously avoidable

damage. Good site management can, for example; Ensure that the visitor load is spread thinly enough across

an entire site to keep the pressure on any one point low, or

Restrict access during certain critical times (such as a

breeding season, for example), or

Provide attractions to draw the bulk of the visitors away from the sensitive areas into areas that can withstand

greater pressure, or

Environmentally harden an area of the site to withstand

greater pressure. Land areas zoned to take heavy

trampling, for example, can be irrigated and fertilized in

order to increase plant productivity and thus increase

tolerance to wear, or

Physically harden an area of the site to withstand greater

pressure. Many tourists will be drawn to a zoned area

with a concentration of attractions and facilities, thus

reducing the numbers trampling more sensitive areas



Strategies for Sustainable Tourism Development 7 9

elsewhere. The ease of access to sensitive sites can also be

physically reduced by, for example, removing pathways. Other elements of good site management might include measures

to:

Eliminate obvious sources of contamination at source

where possible, or build in appropriate facilities to treat or divert contaminants where these are unavoidable.

Improve the efficiency with which energy, water, nutri ents and other resources are used on the site, building in

closed recovery loops where possible in order to (a) mini

mize and contain flows and (b) avoid displacing prob lems to other sites.

2) Social/psychological

As indicated earlier, a number of attempts have been made to ex

tend the concept of biological/ecological carrying capacity into the

social, psychological, physical and economic domains. These at

tempts are both illuminating and methodologically important.

Many advances in science are made when attempts are made to

bridge into the domain of other disciplines. As the section above

suggests, however, it is hard enough to use the concept as an active

management tool in the biological/ecological domain. It is even more

conceptually difficult to use the concept as an active management tool in these other domains.

Social measures of capacity generally refer to the perception of crowding. Visitors to certain sites report that they find a high level of crowding psychologically uncomfortable. There is a cul

tural dimension to this, in that different cultures regard different

inter-personal distances as appropriate for particular relationships, and some tend to be less tolerant of close proximity to strangers than others. Thus the social carrying capacity of an area generally refers to the level of crowding that the majority of both residents

and visitors find acceptable. There is a particularly complex relationship between ecologi

cal measures and social measures, as the relationship can be both

positive and negative. The perceived quality of a site often does

relate to its ecological state, but this relationship tends to be quite

context-specific. For example, there are some areas (such as high



8 O SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

mountain peaks) where reported visitor satisfaction appears to be

strongly related to high environmental quality and low use levels.

Many people like to feel that they are getting away from the crowds

when they climb a high mountain, so that they can enjoy a

personal sense of achievement when they reach the top. In other

visitor areas, however (such as nightclubs), visitor satisfaction ap

pears to be strongly related to relatively high use levels. Few people appear to enjoy going to an empty nightclub.

Similarly, visitor enjoyment on some beaches stems from a

sense of exclusivity, which may be associated with relatively sparse

(but high quality) infrastructure and low use levels, while on other

beaches visitor enjoyment stems from a sense of social occasion, which tends to be associated with extensive infrastructure (bars,

jet skis, entertainment and so on) and high use levels. Thus the

perception of crowding is not determined solely by crowd density per se, but relates to user expectations that are in turn context

specific. Social and environmental concerns do not necessarily over

lap. For the average tourist (as opposed to environmental scientist), concerns about environmental quality tend to relate to visible

problems (such as litter or fouling on beaches) than to less obvious

problems (such as the health of the coral reef offshore), even though the latter may actually be much more important from an ecological point of view. Similarly, not every tourist finds mangroves attrac

tive, although they are ecologically important and so valued by environmental scientists.

3) Physical criteria

The capacity of the existing infrastructure (number of hotel rooms, size of piers, width of roads and so on) is one measure of the limit to

the number of tourists that can be accommodated. In theory, how

ever, such limits can be overcome (by building more or bigger hotels, piers and roads), so they represent resolvable impediments or bottlenecks rather than real limits.

It is, of course, also possible to use infrastructural capacity aa a means of controlling numbers. A moratorium on hotel construc

tion, for example, is one way to prevent a further increase in arrivals in a given area. In Ocho Rios (one of the three main resorts




in Jamaica), for example, the limit to the number of visitors is cur

rently set by the number and size of available piers, which limits the number and size of the cruise ships that can be accommodated.

Extending the piers would allow more and/or bigger cruise ships to

dock at the same time. If the piers were extended, of course, without

consideration for other possible limiting factors elsewhere, then

the additional tourists would simply be decanted into the existing facilities and attractions. The result might reveal that the current

limit was actually serving a useful function in controlling over

crowding in the town and surrounding attractions.

4) Economic criteria

Economic carrying capacity is usually defined in terms of the maxi

mum aggregate value of non-exclusive uses of a given site. This

value is normally expressed in monetary terms. A single high value

exclusive use (such as the preservation of a marine area of critical

importance to fisheries) might outweigh the sum of a number of

relatively low value non-exclusive uses (such as sand mining and

waste disposal). Alternatively, the value of a small number of rela

tively high value uses (such as a private beach serving an upmar ket hotel) might prove to be outweighed by a larger number of

apparently low value uses (such as general recreation) when the

latter are aggregated. An alternative approach here is to assess the costs and

benefits of site management, so that the cost of restoration and

repair is assessed and deducted from the benefits generated by the

use of the site. Carrying capacity, in this context, would be defined

in terms of the usage pattern that generated the maximum flow of net benefits (i.e. once costs had been attributed and deducted).

Interacting definitions

The definitions above are themselves inter-related. The limiting factor, in some particular case, might be the lack of physical infra

structure. However, the further accumulation of infrastructure may at some point start to trade off against the criteria of ecological

quality (by causing a significant environmental deterioration) or

perception of crowding (by encouraging a rapid increase in the




number of arrivals). In other words, it might be possible to escape from one limit but thereby incur another. In a situation where a

number of stakeholders are involved, with diverse interests and

concerns, these interactions and associated trade-offs are likely to

be the focus of any controversy.

Implications for the decision process

This indicates that it may not always be appropriate, in such cases, to use a standard cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The costs and ben

efits of the various options for development and/or conservation

will typically be diverse, and differently distributed over time. With a standard CBA, the different dimensions of the planning decision are translated into a single numeraire -

usually temporally-dis counted monetised value ? thus allowing the costs and benefits to

be unified, aggregated, expressed in terms of net present value

(NPV), and then set directly against each other. Ideally, a CBA will ensure that wider, more long-term or diffuse costs or benefits (that

might otherwise be overlooked) are recognized, and given appro

priate weight in the final decision.

There is a potential for controversy, however, in the weight ing given to non-market variables, which is in part a technical prob lem, and in part a political issue. The use of a single numeraire (such as NPV) gives the maximum possible simplicity in the ensuing de

cision, but, by exactly the same token, entails the greatest loss of

information. Information loss per se is not necessarily a problem, of

course, as the greater part of the information available in any plan ning decision has to be discarded in order to reduce the situation to

its manageable essentials, but this process may become problem atic when diverse criteria from different domains (such as the

ecological, social/psychological, physical and economic factors typi cally involved in a tourism development decision) are to be as

sessed, as there is then a greater risk that potentially important information may be discarded or inappropriate values assigned. There is a further ancillary risk that the choice of the valuation

procedure itself may then prove critical in determining the level of

value to be assigned to particular factors (and that non-monetary factors may be assigned a relatively low weight) so that the deci sion is effectively made at that stage. This, in practice, would not be




visible by the time the various options came forward for the final

decision, so that the process would not be particularly transpar ent. This is unlikely to be universally acceptable in a situation where

there are a number of stakeholders with divergent interests. Clayton and Radcliffe 1996 have indicated that an alternative strategy,

appropriate in such instances, is to use a more disaggregated, multi

dimensional decision-making model, with several numeraires, as

this allows the different dimensions of a complex planning decision

to be kept in view and so subject to separate critical scrutiny and

enquiry, thus making the process more transparent. Ultimately, these numeraires must be collapsed in the final decision, but this

occurs during rather than before the decision-point. As indicated above, in most -

perhaps all - of the dimensions

of carrying capacity, the significance of any given change has to be

ultimately defined in terms of user perceptions. The most impor tant threshold of change is probably that which is the first to be

unacceptable to an important user group. This highlights the true

significance (from the management point of view) of the fact that

the four key dimensions described above are all interrelated. This

means that there is likely to be more than one significant user group involved in any given planning decision, and also that their per

ceptions are likely to vary. A change that is acceptable to one group

may not be acceptable to another. A change that is acceptable to

visitors may be unacceptable to environmental scientists, while a

change that is acceptable to a developer may be unacceptable to

local residents. For example, a developer might place a high value

on the potential economic benefits of a proposal, while an environ

mentalist might place a higher value on the potential ecological cost of the same proposal. Both parties could argue their case in

terms of the carrying capacity of the site, use essentially the same

model, and work to the same standard of rigour, and yet arrive at

quite different conclusions. It all ultimately depends on whether a

given change is regarded as important and the direction of change is regarded as acceptable by a given stakeholder.

It is therefore important to acknowledge that there will al

ways be a potential conflict between the perceptions and values of

the different stakeholder groups with an interest in a given site.

There will be both a subjective and an objective element in the way




in which each stakeholder group defines the importance and ac

ceptability of particular changes. This means, in turn, that there

will always be a subjective element in any related planning decision.

This is not an argument for avoiding the use of the concept of

carrying capacity, for two reasons:

Below the subjective level, individual components can be

assessed in a much more objective way. Environmental

impacts, economic benefits and so on can be quantified,

using well-established methods.

Any technique that can help to improve the decision-mak

ing process (by, for example, making it more transparent and robust) is - potentially

- extremely valuable. The con

cept of carrying capacity can undoubtedly play a very useful role in helping to explicate the complex mix of

knowledge, beliefs, motives and assumptions on which

all human decisions ultimately depend. However, it does raise the question of the social implications of

planning decisions. A decision to enforce a given carrying capacity and protect a site by controlling access and use is a decision as to

how a resource should be allocated. Any such decision implies that some users - or categories of users - will be disadvantaged, and

this in turn raises issues of equity and fairness. If, for example, beach access was to be controlled by levying a charge, this might make

the resource effectively unavailable to people on low incomes.

It is very important to note, though, that a decision not to take

any action is still a decision, and one that will also have conse

quences. If it is decided, for example, to continue to allow unre

stricted access to a site, that decision will favour those users who

prefer higher usage, but penalize those who prefer low usage. If it was decided, for example, to that a beach should remain open and

free to all, that might favour vendors (who would prefer a high

usage) but deter high-spending tourists (who might prefer a less

crowded beach). One potentially contentious aspect of this problem is that sev

eral studies have found that people with higher levels of education

and income tend to be less tolerant of crowding, while people with lower levels of education and income sometimes prefer a certain




level of crowding. This means that any restrictions on access -

whether based on carrying capacity or any other criteria - may

well be open to accusations of elitism, as the user group that will

choose to access that resource will tend to be wealthier and better

educated than average.

Applying the concept of multidimensional carrying capacity to the tourism industry

Tourism clearly does impose a range of burdens and impacts: on

the environment, on the infrastructure (especially at peak periods), on the cultural heritage, and on social relationships. Some of the common burdens include:

Increased generation of solid and liquid wastes and air-borne pollution (the latter primarily from increased

vehicular traffic). Overburdened infrastructural systems (water supply systems, roads and so on).

More fundamentally, negative impacts resulting from inadequately

planned and uncontrolled tourism development can damage the

very environment on which the success of a project depends. For

example, an excessive increase in the number of hotels sited to serve

tourists around the major attraction of a coral reef could imperil the attraction itself, as off-shore discharge of effluents from the ho

tels could damage the coral. Thus, without careful attention to the

balance between the volume and type of tourist activity and the

sensitivities and carrying capacities of the resources being devel

oped, tourism projects can not only be environmentally harmful

but also economically self-defeating. The majority of tourist attractions are seen as irreproducible

public assets. As public goods, they cannot be priced on the same

basis as other goods and services. They also manifest a particular trade-off; an inverse relationship between intensity of use and visi

tor satisfaction - as a general rule, beyond a certain threshold; the

more crowded the attraction, the less the quality of the experience. For these reasons, it is generally accepted that market mechanisms

cannot, unaided, serve their normal allocative functions, and that some degree of superordinate management and planning is required,




although prices may then be used as one means of controlling levels

of use.

As the UNEP/Mediterranean Action Plan (1997) Priority Actions Programme (PAP) points out, therefore, various forms of

multiple carrying capacity planning are now commonly used in

planning and managing tourism development. The aim of carrying

capacity planning is to determine the upper desirable limits of de

velopment, that is, the point at which the resources are being used

optimally. With good management, the interests of developers and

of the public can be aligned, so that all can derive some benefit.

Without such management, the interests of developers and of the

public will tend to diverge sharply, leading to such undesirable outcomes as inappropriate development, environmental damage, overcrowding, social tension and consequent reduction in the at

tractiveness of the site. Thus good management is actually in the

long-term best interests of developers, even though - in the short

term - specific projects might be frustrated.

Multiple carrying capacity planning can also assist nations to meet ^certain international obligations and treaties. The United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1994), for example, sets out rights and imposes obligations on states with regard to the

protection and development of the marine and coastal environ ment. The convention contains measures to encourage the inte

grated management and sustainable development of coastal areas, marine environmental protection, the use of marine resources, and the sustainable development of small island states. The use of car

rying capacity planning provides a good basis for achieving these

multiple objectives, so that carrying capacity planning can enable countries to comply with their legal obligations, as well as improv ing the management of their coastal resources.

Applying the concept: a working methodology

As argued earlier, carrying capacity parameters must be drawn from a number of different domains. The majority of tourism-re

lated plans will have to include physical, ecological, social, eco

nomic and political considerations:

Physical/ecological. When calculating the physical or eco

logical carrying capacity, it is necessary to distinguish



Strategies for Sustainable Tourism Development 8 7

between fixed factors and variable factors. Factors such as the climatic cycle, the length of the coastline and so on

are obviously fixed, at least within most planning hori zons. Ecological capacity is also commonly taken to be

fixed, although this is more debatable. Infrastructure,

however, is variable, because it can be extended at will.

More roads can be built, pipelines laid and so on.

Social. Social factors divide into those that are relatively

quantifiable, such as demographic and population migra tion statistics, and those which are more subjective, such as cultural impacts. Economic. Economic factors include the assessment of the

potential costs and benefits of particular proposals. Political. Political factors are often inextricably inter

twined with economic factors, as the decisions as to the

actual (as opposed to theoretical) allocation of costs and

benefits between the various stakeholders ? developers,

managers, visitors and residents - usually have a strong

political dimension.

In assessing and quantifying these factors, research and docu

mentation will typically involve both:

Primary research (original surveys, site visits, interviews, measurements and observations).

Secondary research (accessing existing data resources;

databases, maps, published and grey literature).

The primary research will normally cover such areas as:

Inspection of the sites and attractions. This will involve a

first assessment of usage loads and patterns, and a pre

liminary identification of pressure points and problems. This stage will also involve a first identification of the nature of the site or attraction, with an assessment of its

quality, appeal, state of repair, and options for mainte

nance/repair, improvement or upgrade.

Legislative and political audit. This will involve a review of existing and pending legislation, and an assessment of

the underlying political priorities. Institutional assessment. This involves identifying the

various organizations, institutional structures and




mechanisms involved in the exploitation, management or regulation of the tourism resource.

Stakeholder audit and analysis. This will involve a pre

liminary identification of the various interest groups, pos sible synergies, and actual and potential conflicts.

The secondary research will normally cover such areas as:

Published planning frameworks and guidelines. This

would involve mapping the boundaries of the areas that are the subjects of the study, and overlaying the relevant

mix of local, national and (where relevant) international

planning and legislative regulations, frameworks and

other obligations.5 Social and economic data for the sector and the region. This would normally include demographic statistics on

residence patterns, health, education, welfare and crime, economic statistics on sectoral activity and growth, turn

over and margins, the rate of capital formation and so on.

Industry statistics. This would normally include statis

tics on arrivals, length of stay, bednights, average total

spend per visit, numbers of visits to particular attrac

tions, average duration of site visits, average spend per attraction and so on.

There are other categories of data that would normally in

volve both primary and secondary research, including: Environmental assessment. This would usually involve an assessment of the natural characteristics of the site.

This would generally include such factors as the size of

the area, the geology and physical geography, the length

5 Planning frameworks and guidelines are critically important determinants of

development options. These frameworks and guidelines normally follow ad ministrative boundaries. As noted earlier, however, any given area will nor

mally experience significant flows of energy and resources over its bound aries. When assessing carrying capacity, therefore, it is important to recog nize the larger national and even international context, so that the wider pattern of associated demand and displaced impacts driven by development in the

given area can be taken at least partially into account. It is often necessary, as

a minimum measure, to use the concept of the tourism microregion; an area

that includes both the particular area under study and the associated wider area

which contains the immediate water supply, waste disposal, economic spin off, resettlement and travel-to-work issues.




of coastline or riverbank, hydrology, climate, the main

econiches and species present. Usage patterns (such as

agriculture, fisheries or mariculture) would generally be

addressed too.

Environmental impact audit. This would involve an as

sessment of the main environmental impacts to date, not

ing their causes (as far as possible), estimates of signifi cance, trends and rates of change.

Physical assessment. This would include an assessment

of the built environment and physical infrastructure,

including such factors as nature and pattern of settlement,

physical capacity (e.g. number of rooms), building types,

transportation, water and sewage works and facilities.

Following research and documentation, individual areas, sites

and attractions can be broadly categorized. Categorization criteria

would normally include:

The type of attraction. This would include a note of the

physical characteristics (e.g. hotel, marina, mountain trail). The seasonality. Load factors tend to vary by the type of

attraction. Peak use of a tropical beach, for example, might

peak in the winter months, while use of a mountain trail

might peak in the summer months.

The nature of the use(s). A mountain trail, for example,

might have multiple uses, such as picnicking facilities on

lower ground, chalets for more long-stay visitors, nature

trails for children, rock climbs and scrambles for the more

adventurous and so on. Each would have different char

acteristics in terms of the duration of stay, average spend and so on. Some activities might be suitable for high-in

tensity use (such as the picnicking), others might only be

suitable for low-intensity use (such as the climbing). Some

of these uses may have their own seasonality. Social and economic importance. This would include a

note of the percentage of local employment resulting from

the tourism activity, the total income associated with the

activity, the distribution of that income, and any other

associated social benefits (such as enhanced educational

opportunities) or costs (such as increased social disloca

tion and rising rates of crime).




Vulnerability. This would include a note of any evidence

of significant social or environmental stress associated

with the use of the site, stakeholder conflicts, or any other

factor that might threaten or prejudice the continued use

or development of the site.

The use of broad categories is important. As indicated earlier, it is invariably necessary to sacrifice some information (by aggre

gating information across different assessment criteria, for example) in order to derive a clear recommendation that can go forward into

the final decision-making process. It is important to remember,

however, that each of the broad categories will be derived from a

much larger set of assessment criteria. An overall assessment of

environmental vulnerability, for example, would normally take

into account factors such as air, marine, freshwater and land-based

pollution, toxicity and load factors, the sensitivity of the recipient environment, the possibility of bio-accumulation and concentra

tion, the rate and seasonality of pollution loads and surges, and

induced sensitivity to further environmental change. Similarly, the

assessment of social and economic importance would normally take

into account factors such as the number of seasonal and permanent workers, average per capita income in both groups in relation to

average per capita income in the general population, the rate of

new job creation and so on. In the interests of clarity and transpar

ency, the analysis of each factor - physical, social/psychological, economic and environmental - should list and justify the choice of

relevant indicators.

The following set of indicators of physical change (from Gunn

1994) is given here as an example:

Indicators of Tourism Condition

Indicator Types Measures Possible Indicators

Physical Infrastructure Crowding

Superstructure Danger

Land/space Supply

Transportation




These then disaggregate further. For example:

Crowding Beaches

Visual access

Access problems

Transportation

Danger Beach mining Clearance of shoreline vegetation Clearance of upland vegetation Near and offshore uses

Access problems

Supply Beach access

Sewage treatment

Water supply Electricity Solid waste disposal Aerodromes

Ports

Land use & availability

Following the division into broad categories, it is then possible to

derive recommendations based on the agreed typology within each

category. If a site is proximate to existing intense tourism activity, has low environmental vulnerability, and could generate signifi cant economic benefits, then it would be judged suitable for inten

sive use. A site that was remote from existing tourism activity or

transport links, with high environmental vulnerability and with

modest economic benefits would be recommended for highly restricted use.

It is important to note, in this context, that 'intensive' does not

imply that the development should be deregulated or unplanned. The dysfunctional effects associated with inadequately regulated or unplanned tourist development are well known. Intensive, in

this context, refers to large-scale physical intervention and heavy




investment in infrastructure, designed for mass tourism, with the

goal being to maximize profit by maximizing visitor turnover.

Most intensive development, to date, has not been particu

larly sensitive to social or cultural impacts. The focus on turnover

generally implies according a low weight to social and cultural

factors. However, with good planning, many of the same benefits can be derived while significantly reducing some of the social and

cultural costs. The PAP guidelines, for example, note the case of

Porec, on the western coast of the Istria peninsula in Croatia. This is

by far the main tourist area in Croatia, but the impact has been so

well absorbed that the tourism industry actually has a less domi

nant profile there than in other areas along the coast. This has been

achieved by dispersing tourist establishments through the area,

avoiding heavy concentrations of attractions, re-routing traffic

away from the coast roads, building a network of cul-de-sac access

paths to tourist establishments, and organizing local supply and

entertainment facilities. Thus with good planning, intensive tour

ism development is in no way incompatible with tolerable levels of

social and cultural impact and change. Restricted use, by contrast, would be appropriate in areas of

high environmental vulnerability or social sensitivity, where it

would only be possible to accommodate much lower numbers. This

is in no way incompatible with the same ultimate goal of the inten

sive strategy outlined above; to maximize profits. It may be quite

appropriate, for example, to charge a higher fee for a more exclusive

experience. In cases where the market will not bear a higher fee, it

may still be possible to derive additional revenues by providing an

alternative set of attractions. Even if these ancillary attractions can

not, by virtue of their vulnerability, sustain heavy levels of use, such income as they provide may be genuinely additional to the income generated by the areas zoned for intensive development. It

all depends on the degree of market segmentation, but many of the

people who are attracted to more remote or less easily accessible

sites are not drawn from the same group as those that prefer the

facilities associated with mass tourism, so reducing the risk of in

ternal competition for the same income.

There is also an important issue as to social impact and ab

sorption. A relatively isolated local community with a particularly




distinctive local identity may be far more sensitive to the intrusion

of foreign tourists or even just a non-local workforce than a rela

tively cosmopolitan urban community, or a community in an area

in close proximity to one with a long history of tourist develop ment. In a relatively cosmopolitan area, therefore, the physical and

ecological factors can be accorded greater weight than the socio

cultural factors. In a relatively isolated rural area, by contrast, socio

cultural factors may well have greater significance. Another key factor identified in the PAP report, for example, relates specifically to the disparity in levels of wealth and disposable income between

the tourists and the residents. France, for example, is one of the

world's premier tourist destinations, but also has the fifth largest national GDP. The residents are generally of equivalent economic

standing to the visitors, which means that there is no large dispar

ity to be a source of envy or friction. In many developing nations,

by contrast, the visitors will generally be significantly wealthier

than the average local resident in resort areas. This is a potential source of envy, friction, cultural tension and the progressive erosion of social values.

Presenting carrying capacity study findings A carrying capacity study (as with any planning process) should,

ideally, generate clear guidelines for development. These guidelines must be accessible to the various stakeholder groups, which in turn

means that it may be necessary to prepare multiple versions of the

associated project document for the various stakeholder groups,

reflecting their different perspectives and competences. The PAP

report, for example, notes the paramount importance of acceptance

by the local community but also notes that the language cannot be the same as that in a document prepared for the professional inves tor. All such versions, however, should be drawn from the same

source document, so that all stakeholders are equally apprised of

the core underlying issues and trade-offs.

Linking carrying capacity to sustainable development

Most current planning for tourism development is still largely driven by a marketing perspective. It is usually based on analysis




of trends in preference, followed by the promotion of a strong pro duct image for a region or resort. This approach is generally

supported by appropriately-tailored facility design and site man

agement, designed to ensure that the customer's expectations are

met, which helps to encourage repeat visits and build up customer

loyalty. Market intelligence, marketing and appropriate design remain

as important as ever, but a carrying capacity perspective assumes

that this approach can only be one element in a more comprehen sive and strategic approach to tourism development. Saddler 1987, for example, points out that the creation of a viable, long term, sustainable tourist industry requires supply-side analysis plan

ning, as well as market intelligence, that it is necessary to recognize that tourism is environment-dependent, that the viability of tour

ism development is linked to the quality of resource and environ

mental management, and that the process of development both

changes the resource base and re-shapes the lives of the host

community.

Variants of this more comprehensive approach are now

being increasingly widely used, which indicates that there is a grow

ing acceptance of the need to consider the level and mix of develop ment that will be environmentally sustainable and culturally tolerable on a more long-term basis. These general requirements have to be defined and codified in the form of specific objectives in

actual management plans, however, which is where concepts of

carrying capacity can play a useful role in bridging between

general aspirations and precise management targets. The PAP defi nition of sustainable development, for example, places it between maximum and minimum carrying capacity levels, i.e. at a point somewhere between intensive development (maximum carrying level) and highly regulated and restricted use (minimum carrying level), the associated goal being to achieve the optimal flow of income commensurate with the maintenance of important envi ronmental features and socio-cultural values, using factors such as

demographic capacity and the capacity of the physical infrastruc ture as constraints.

As indicated earlier, however, measures have been developed to measure environmentally and social carrying capacity, but op




erational definitions of thresholds or tolerance levels have not

yielded satisfactory results. Saddler therefore suggests that the

premise of carrying capacity may be more readily incorporated into goals and guidelines for sustainable development by relating demand projections and economic benefits to what the environ

ment can support and what communities want. In this approach, the emphasis is on appropriate development, recognizing that mass

tourism is ? inescapably ? an agent of landscape and cultural

change, and must therefore be balanced with other objectives and

priorities. Gunn (1994) supports this theory by pointing out that at

tempts to devise a single, structured way of objectively quantify

ing the optimum number of visitors for given sites in terms of their

sociological, physical and ecological carrying capacities have not

been particularly useful, largely because it is difficult to generalize such standards from site to site. Communities around particular sites proposed for development, for example, tend, understandably, to be concerned primarily about issues that may be quite specific to

that site. The relative importance of purely local factors generates a

large number of diverse variables, which it is difficult to organize into a single national planning and management framework. In

stead, Gunn recommends a systems approach to the goal of plan

ning and developing tourism, within a larger concept of sustain

able development. This approach involves:

Developing tourism goals and objectives, which are linked

to the broader comprehensive plan for a region and/or local community.

Formulating a set of performance indicators reflecting the

objectives of tourism development.

Implementing management strategies designed to direct

tourism toward the achievement of the stated objectives.

Monitoring the performance of tourism with respect to

these indicators.

Evaluating the effectiveness of selected management strat

egies in influencing the performance of tourism with

respect to these indicators.

Developing strategic policies for tourism management based upon the monitored effectiveness of these techniques.




Conclusion

The concept of carrying capacity clearly can provide a useful frame

work for the policies needed to manage a tourism industry. It does

not, however, permit developers, government ministers or com

munities to abdicate their responsibilities. The concept can undoubt

edly illuminate and inform the relevant decisions, but the social, economic and political dimensions of any Complex management or

planning decision have also to be recognized and addressed. This can be done by using a multi-dimensional carrying capacity model

to clarify the nature of the choices and trade-offs entailed, as part of a comprehensive approach to the goal of planning and developing tourism, then integrating the results into a wider systems model of

sustainable development for the country concerned.

References

Budowski, G. (1976). "Tourism and conservation: conflict, coexistence or

symbiosis". Environmental Conservation, 3, pp 27-31.

Burns, P.M. and Holden A. (1995). Tourism: A New Perspective. Prentice Hall International (UK).

Butler, R.W. (1980). "The concept of the Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution;

Implication for Management of Resources", Canadian Geography, 24.

Butler, R.W. (1991). "Tourism, environment and sustainable develop

ment", Environmental Conservation, 18, pp 201-9.

Cartwright, J. (1989). "Conserving nature, decreasing debt". Third World

Quarterly, 11 pp 114-27.

Cater, E. and Goodall, B. (1997). "Must tourism destroy its resource base"? The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. L. France (ed.), pp 85-89.

Cesario, M. and Clayton, A. (1997). "The holistic concept of health: a framework for linking the medical community with the conservation

community". ISDE International Bulletin, September.

Clayton, A. and Radcliffe, N. (1996). "Sustainability: a Systems Approach". Earthscan, London.

Clayton, A. (2001). "Developing a Biolndustry cluster in Jamaica: a step towards building a skill-based economy". Social and Economic Studies,

Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 1-37.




Club of Rome Report: Meadows et al (1972). The Limits to Growth: Report to the Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York.

Clayton, A. Spinardi, G and Williams, R. (1999). Cleaner Technology: A New

Agenda for Government and Industry. Earthscan, London.

Colgan, P. (1978). "Wilderness recreation carrying capacity: the need for a new approach". Unpublished paper, Miami University, Ohio. Cited in P A Furley, C G Hughes and D H L Thomas, 1996. See below.

Economist Intelligence Unit (1992). "The tourism industry and the environment". EIU Publications.

Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Daily, G.C. (1993). "Food Security, Popula tion, and Environment". Population and Development Review, 19:1-32.

France, L. (ed), (1997). The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism.

Furley, P.A., Hughes, CG. and Thomas, D.H.L. (1996). "Threshold, Carry

ing Capacity and Sustainable Tourism: Monitoring Environmental

Change in the Coastal Zone of Belize." University of Edinburgh Department of Geography discussion paper.

Godwin, V.B. and Leonard, R.E. (1977). "Design capacity for back country recreation management planning". Journal of Soil and Water Conser

vation, 32: 161-164. Cited in P. A. Furley, C. G. Hughes and D. H. L.

Thomas, 1996. See above.

Graedel, T. and Allenby, B. (1995). Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, New

Jersey.

Gunn, C.A. (1994). Tourism Planning ? Basics, Concepts, Cases. Third Edition,

Taylor and Francis, USA.

Hughes, T.P. (1994). "Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale

degradation of a Caribbean coral reef". Science 265:1547-1551.

Mowforth, M. (1993). "In search of an ecotourist". In Focus Autumn 9, pp 2-3.

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, Technology and' Competitive Strategies. CAB Inter national.

Rackham, O. (1986). The History of the Countryside. Weidenfeld.

Rees, J. and Tivy, J. (1978). "Recreational Impact on Scottish Lochshore Wetlands". Journal of Biogeography, 5: 93-108.

Saddler, B. (1987). "Sustaining tomorrow and endless summer: on linking tourism and environment in the Caribbean", Environmentally Sound




Tourism in the Caribbean, The Banff Centre School of Management, University of Calgary Press, Canada.

Stankey, G.H. (1980). "Wilderness carrying capacity: management and research progress in the United States". Landscape Research, 5 (3): 6 11. Cited in P. A. Furley, C. G. Hughes and D. H. L. Thomas, 1996. See above.

UNEP/Mediterranean Action Plan Priority Actions Programme (1997). Guidelines for carrying capacity assessment for tourism in Medi terranean coastal areas. UNEP Priority Actions Programme: Medi

terranean Action Plan.

UNESCO (1972). Programme on Man and the Biosphere. Man and the

Biosphere report series 5: "Ecological effects of human activities on the value and resources of lakes, marshes, rives, deltas, estuaries

and coastal zones."

United Nations (1994). "Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982" (28 Jul 1994):A/RES/48/263 (33 ILM 1309).

Wheeller, B. (1990). Responsible Tourism. Tourism Management, 11 (3) pp 262-63

Wheeller, B. (1991). "Tourism's troubled times. Responsible tourism is not the answer". Tourism Management, 12(2) pp 91-96.



tourism in the caribbean || strategies for sustainable tourism development: the role of the concept...

Documents