How to measure carrying capacity in Baltic Nature Parks as a tool for managing visitor flow
By Jesper Brandt, Roskilde University,
Paper presented at the Baltic Nature Tourism Conference: Policies – Products - Practices, Riga,
Latvia, March 21-24, 2011.
I will start with a brief overview over my presentation:
1. How to understand the Carrying Capacity-concept. Focusing on the question: Who
makes carrying capacity?
2. Historical background. Pressure on especially US National Park starts the modern
discussion on carrying capacity. But a long pre-history in USA on carrying capacity
concerns especially ideology on Commons and private property
3. The historical realities behind carrying capacities in areas today covered by European
Nature Parks. A Faeroese relict will be presented.
4. Natura2000 will be highlighted as a European frame for carrying capacity-studies in
Baltic nature parks
5. The Visitor Experience and Ressource Protection (VERP) Method
6. The close relation to visitor monitoring will be emphasized
7. Then I will focus on the importance of studying management of hot spots –
management conflict zones within the parks
8. Finally a short overview of the carrying capacity-activities in the parks of Parks&Benefits
will be presented.
The presentation is closely related to this preliminary report: Conditions for the management of
carrying capacity in the parks of Parks&Benefits, of which I have some 20 copies for those
interested. In the final form it will certainly be available on the webpage of Parks&Benefits.
Basically the problem of carrying capacity of nature parks are related to the following
questions:
1) How many guests can be put into the park without spoiling the nature (man-nature
conflicts)?
2) How many guests can be put together in a park before they spoil the experience for
each other (man-man-conflicts)?
These questions sounds very objective and quantitative. But the answers do not have that
character.
Carrying capacity is not a scientifically objectively determined measure.
Carrying capacity is a result of political decision processes among stakeholders, balancing use
and protection preferably based on scientific and/or experiential cognition.
1
But there is a very concrete background for the questions on the number of guests.
Nature parks are getting more and more popular. The history of the US national park system
shows it very clearly.
The US national park system goes back to the 19th century. From the very beginning they had
an enormous importance for the national identity, however first after the 2. World War, it
gained broad popularity as recreational destination for mass tourism. Since the war the number
of visitors has grown explosively, from around 10 mill., now to comprise around 300 mill.
visitors per year. There has been a general stagnation through the last 20 years, which can
hardly be interpreted as a declining interest, rather a certain congestion: There seems simply to
be a limit on the number of visitors, you can put into the parks.
One of the most active researchers, dealing with the dramatic increase of visitors to the US
national park system is Robert Manning, who has collected the most of the experience made
during the later years, in a very readable book: Parks and Carrying Capacity, that was published
a couple of years ago.
Be aware of the subtitle Commons without tragedy. This is a reference to a vivid but also agry
discussion on carrying capacity, being let since the American biologist Garreth Hardin in 1968
wrote a paper with the title ‘The tragedy of the Common’. It was only 5 pages, but in the topranked journal ‘Science’. It is dealing with the problems related to the keeping of carrying
capacity of areas or resources, which are collectively owned, are a common good, meaning
being a common. The traditional case is common grazing areas, but it also includes fishery
resources, and many other common types of goods, including public national parks with
unrestricted public access. Also ’negative’ common resources such as free right to make
pollution or to dump waste leaving the cleaning costs for others belongs to the tragedy of the
commons.
The general argument presented is that the advantage of an increased use of the common will
be profited by the individual user, whereas the disadvantages in form of a declining carrying
capacity will be shared by the community. And therefore there is a trend towards a steady
undermining of the system through overexploitation. .
The paper has been reprinted in at least 100 anthologies on Environmental management, and
quoted more than 37000 times.
In many years the paper was used as a standard argument for private property right, and a
warning against all forms of collective property especially in the USA. But in fact in Europe there
has been a long history of commons, forming the majority of resources in medieval time within
the dominating agricultural system: The infield-outfield system, really a historical cultural core
in Europe.
So, carrying capacity is not a new concept.
This figure shows the classical European infield-outfield system, where the individually owned
(but often mostly collectively managed) infield with rotation of wintercrops, summercrops and
fallow were located in the centre, whereas the periphery, the outfield, is covered by
extensively used land, dominated of collective use and management of the resources, typically
grazing, in form of common outfields or commons.
2
Also shifting parts of the infield, e.g. fallow land in the grain rotation system, was used as a
common. On the commons, a carrying capacity was kept for each type of animal at all grounds
of the commons and shared among the owners according to their share of the total value of the
village – often given in Marks. In general, only very few sign from these systems are left back in
the local landscape and memory of today.
I only know one place in Europe where this system still exits intact, and where you can study
how carrying capacity has been handled all over Europe from medieval time and up to the
beginning of the 19th century, namely at the Faeroe Islands.
Let me invite you to the Faeroe Islands, located in the Atlantic between Shetland and Iceland.
Despite the smallness of the Islands, all in all 1400 km2, there are in addition to the capital
Torshavn with about 20000 inhabitants, in fact about 90 small villages that was the backbone of
the agricultural economy of the islands up to the middle of the 19th century when sea-fishery
took over.
Every village had a number of Marks attached, expressing the total economic carrying capacity,
or rather potential taxation, here shown for all the five villages at the island Sandoy.
Each village existed as a typical infield-outfield agricultural system, with a little infield located
by the sea and surrounded by a 1-meter high stone wall, dividing the infield from the
surrounding extensive outfield. The most important farming activity was cow and sheep
rearing. Here is explained what is meant by the ownership of a mark in a village, including a
share of the commons or the output of the commons.
Already in 1298 a special law for the Faeroe Islands, Seyðabrevit (the sheep letter) was passed,
which among other points stated that 'the number of sheep to be kept on an area of pasture
land shall remain the same as it was in previous times.
This figure, in the Faroese language called skipan – in fact an old form of the English shipping –
expressed the carrying capacity of each individual location, and to this day it is used as an
expression of the optimum carrying capacity for the various parts of the islands. Additional
skipans for cows, horses, dogs and geese were developed as well.
There were no fences around the extensive outfields before the 1960's, nevertheless the
grazing depended on a very distinctive but flexible territorial structure of pastures, each
carrying between 12 and 90 ewes, mother sheep, living in flocks showing a very distinct
territorial behaviour . Not only were the carrying capacities of the approx. 250 outfields of the
Islands carefully stated and used for taxation, but also at the local level, within the single
outfield, a detailed regulation of the number of sheep in each flock was maintained.
Around this mountain, Stóra Fjallid, between the villages Húsavík and Dalur at Sandoy about
500 ewes with their lambs were grazing in a very flexible manner.
Obviously the concept of skipan could be regarded as a measure to regulate sustainability in the
traditional Faroese infield-outfield system, based on an intended ecological optimisation
process behind the structure. This optimisation could partly be seen as a question of finding a
balance between on the one hand land use and productivity of the infield and outfield and on
the other hand the need for risk-minimisation as regards the availability of fodder for cows and
sheep.
3
A detailed optimization adapting the production to the landscape conditions had to be
maintained and this adaptation had a strong and decisive dimension in time also: Some years, a
severe winter situation, in Faroese called a felli, occurs where frost and snow affect the
pastures. When it caused the death of more than 1/3 of the sheep population, it was called a
‘felli’.
According to a historical source from the 18th century, such a felli was expected to occur in
average every 14th year (Svabo 1959).
The occurrence of felli certainly influenced the optimisation process that had to include this
risk, since it took years before the size of the stock returned to the normal level.
Here on this figure you can see the principle of risk minimization: The historical average
slaughter percentage at the Faeroes has been around 50%, meaning that with a stock of 200
ewes in an outfield you could in average expect to slaughter 100 sheep per year. For a period of
28 years as shown here, it should potentially give a possible slaughter of all in all 2800 sheep.
But with in average two fellir in this period, the slaughter will be reduced considerably, in this
calculation with 11%, to 2488. You might raise the skipan, e.g. to 225 ewes, giving a potential
slaughter of 3150, but due to the more dense grazing, the consequences of a felli will be much
more severe and prolonged, here resulting in an overall reduction of the slaughter by 25% to
2350, less than before.
You might also lower the skipan, e.g. to 150, thereby reducing the loss during a felli
considerably, but also in this case you will end up with a lower result, showing that the skipan
of around 200 represent a historically developed optimum carrying capacity.
These principles of optimisation of the carrying capacity had to be adapted to the local
landscape conditions, which could be extremely complicated, both in the spatial and the time
dimension. In some areas, with only very few low laying pastures, favourable for winter
grazing,like here, the optimization could be very risky. Most years it might work, but a felli in
such an area could be disastrous since no lowland winter pastures usable under harsh
conditions were available. Therefore the skipan – the carrying capacity – had to be kept at a
rather low level, compared to the overall average grass productivity of the pastures.
In relation to the discussion on the tragedy of the commons, raised by Garrett Hardin, it is
interesting to note that in medieval time, although the outfield was a common, everybody
owned his own sheep – in Faeroese called kenning - in number equivalent to the owners share
of the total value in Marks. But this was changed up through the 17th to the 19th century,
where collective ownership, not just of the land, but also of the sheep – so-called felag – was
forced through in the legislation. Thus each farmer did not own specific sheep, but a share of
the common output of the sheep roaring.
This development could be interpreted ecologically as a measure to ensure an optimal resource
use, since joint management was based on the election of joint shepherds who had total
control over the pasture. Nobody, not even the owners, was allowed to cross the outfield
without the permission of the shepherd.
So the shepherd, like Óli Danielsen, my host during my stays in Húsavìk in the 70ties, where I
made my carrying capacity investigations, was formally an extremely important person in the
4
village. Óli, and the other shepherds I interviewed, were familiar with all the refinements
related to the sustainable use of the skipan.
But was the productivity actually kept? Did the skipan really ensure a sustainable use of the
outfields up through the centuries?
No, it did not.
Up through the history, there are many reports on widespread soil erosion, at least partly
related to sheep grazing at the Faeroes, although many Faeroese consider erosion as a natural
process, not linked to grazing: At least since the 6th century, where Irish monks settled the
islands, there has been plenty of sheep, they have been all over, and have been an embedded
part of the Faeroese landscape in such a degree, that it is difficult to judge how the geo-ecology
would have developed without sheep. Sheep has been so much a part of the cultural landscape,
so that it has been considered a part of nature.
I am however more and more convinced that there has been considerable sheep-induced
erosion at the Faeroes for centuries.
And it is a hard fact that in average, skipan was reduced with 1/3 from the beginning of the
17th century to the end of the 19th century, although at different rates in the different parts of
the island. In fact the most marked reduction has been on the most southern island Suduroy,
where private property of the individual sheep was dominating. The stabilisation within the last
century probably implies continued overgrazing: Due to the introduction of modern medicine,
winter shelters and a growing amount of imported winter fodder, productivity has in general
increased in terms of number of slaughtered sheep and an increase in slaughter weight.
Decrease in the active sheepherding and maintenance of the outfields (especially drainage),
paired with use of winter fodder might have increased the pressure on low-laying pastures, and
suboptimal use of more remote areas. Such overgrazed ‘feeding lots’ are well-known in grazing
systems.
So, what has actually been regulated by the skipan?
Well, apparently the sheep letter only partly regulated an ecological carrying capacity – a mannature conflict, but was primarily concerned with social conflicts at the local level of a single
island – man-man-conflicts, due to uneven grazing pressure. The territorial system of grazing
was upheld by the principle of the different flocks being deliberately "shepherded against each
other", that is the grazing pressure of each flock had to be kept at the same level, so that there
was no reason for a trespassing from one ground to another.
But if the owners were able to agree on an over-exploitation of all the pastures, they were
allowed to do it. In a short time perspective this might have been seen as a sign of growing
productivity, resulting in higher taxation revenue.
Because the sheep letter from 1298 continues: ' If they agree that it can accommodate more,
then they can have as many (sheep) as they can agree upon, and every man can have as many
sheep, as his share of the property can justify'. This was obviously often done, giving rise to
overgrazing and widespread soil erosion, as had been reported constantly through history.
Emphasis on a social interpretation of the use of skipan is also supported by the fact that
considerable differences in the weight and slaughter percentage exist between the different
islands, thus indicating very different degrees of grazing pressure. These differences can at least
partly also be linked to obvious variations in soil erosion between the different islands, as well
as to the composition of ownership relations.
5
There might have been social and economic reasons behind the priority of a short-termed
social interpretation of the carrying capacity in some areas. But technical difficulties in the
determination of an ecological stable carrying capacity due to climatic changes, especially
during the little ice age might also have contributed to a receding authority among the
experienced shepherds faced to short termed interests of owners or other interest groups.
Now, even in medieval time the Faeroes were a part of Europe exporting wool and wollen
products, first related to Norway, later to continental Europe through the Danish Crown being
the feudal owner of about half of the total land value. Globalization is nothing new and world
market prices has influenced land use in even the most remote areas of Europe. I am convinced
that a majority of European Nature Parks are situated in areas, where they historically in
medieval times have been commons related to similar infield-outfield-systems where a lot of
marginal land often served as more or less commercialized a common outfield for several
infield-outfield-systems.
This also explains why nature parks are also historically extremely heterogeneous landscapes,
with varied and complex conflicts due to the common exploitation from many different local
communities. So here again it is worth reminding the most important conclusions from carrying
capacity studies:
We have to acknowledge the social context of carrying capacity, and therefore we have to focus
on the process and result of political decision processes among stakeholders, balancing use and
protection preferably based on scientific and/or experiential cognition. And we also have to
make it cut clear, that ’Mediation among stakeholders is irrelevant, if it is based on ignorance of
the integrated character of nature and people’.
Therefore, working with carrying capacity for tourism within the Nature Parks related to the
project Parks&Benefits, we have chosen to take the departure in the strong political
commitment on biodiversity being implemented within the Natura2000-network of the
European Union. Here you see the location of the 8 parks, of which 7 is within the EU, shown in
relation to the biogeographical regionalization of Europe, used by the Natura2000 authorities.
The area of the circles is proportional to the area of the parks, and as you can see, Dovrefjell in
Norway is far the largest of the parks, since Norway is not a member of the European Union.
There are certainly habitat protection areas in this park, but not within the Natura2000-system.
But as you can see, for most of the parks within the EU, the Natura2000s habitat and/or bird
site areas covers the vast majority of the nature park territory.
We can distinguish between two types of relations to Natura2000: For 4 of the parks the
delineation of the Natura 2000-sites roughly follows the delineation of the nature park, at least
at the land territory. In these parks the vast majority of the parks are covered by Natura2000sites. But on the other hand, I all parks there are at least some areas that are covered by nonNatura2000 areas. The other type is nature parks with a delineation totally independent from
the designation and delineation of Natura2000-areas. Also here are the coverage of
Natura2000 important, but not in the extent shown for the first type of parks. The lowest
coverage with Natura2000 is within Kurtuvenai Regional Park in Lithuania, where it is only 14%.
But there are nevertheless designated 10 different Natura2000-sites within the park.
6
Of course the Natura2000-sites are important for the handling of carrying capacity in the parks,
but before showing you some of the comparable information on these sites, I will like to remind
you that the non-Natura2000 sites are just as interesting, because the management of these
areas will often contain important possibilities not only for the touristic and recreational
possibilities of the parks, but also for the protection functions by offering relief for more
vulnerable sites in the park. We have not made a separate comparative analysis of the
composition of these non-natura2000 sites, but it would certainly be interesting.
The protection value of the Natura2000-sites related to the parks are certainly important. Of
the 231 listed Natura2000 habitat types being protected all over Europe, 55 or ¼ of them can
be found within one or more of the parks of Parks&Benefits. Also if you just consider the 75
socalled priority habitat types - the most important and threatened habitat types in Europe - 17
or ¼ of these can be found in one or more of the parks. Kemeri National Park here outside Riga
is one of the most diverse parks with 26 listed natura2000 habitat types, including 9 priority
habitat types.
The occurrence of a lot of different protected species, especially birds have been included as
foundation for the the designation of the Natura2000-sites overlapping the parks. This figure
shows some of the information from the Natura2000 database on the importance of the
habitats for the listed species. It is a bit tricky since it is a summary of this qualitative
information on many different Natura2000-sites, but it gives a realistic impression of the
importance: For the vast majority of the listed species – the read and the green color – the
habitat sites are judged to have either an excellent (red) or a good value (green).
The EU Natura2000 statistics also include information on human impacts on the Natura2000sites.
I will shortly introduce you to this type of data available in the database, since this information
might be of special interest for the study of carrying capacity in the parks.
This table shows the information for just one Natura2000-site, the most dominating site,
sitecode LV0200200, covering the vast majority of Kemeri National Park. The column ‘Activity’
shows a number of different human activites or induced natural processes influencing the
conservation and management of the site. Most of these impacts come from within the areas
but in some cases, for instance ‘disposal of household and industrial waste’ it concerns impact
coming from other areas, influencing the site, indicated in the inOut column. In the column ‘pct’
is estimated the percentage of the site area being influenced by the activity, and in the column
intensity a qualitative assessment of the strength of the impact divided into high, medium or
low influence is given. Finally in the column influence it is indicated if the impact is negative
(like trampling, overuse), neutral (like here leisure fishing) or positive (like moving/cutting).
We have not yet found a common statistical frame for a comparable description of these
impacts in the parks, so up to now we have collected this information in a short descriptive
synthesis of the human impacts on the Natura2000 sites of each of the parks in chapter 3 of our
report. Of course we have no comparable information from Norway, but more surprisingly,
neither from Denmark. It has not been mandatory for the national authorities to report
statistical data on human impacts to the Natura2000-database. Therefore the Danish
authorities have – as the only country in the EU – chosen not to deliver these data.
Carrying capacity and sustainability is closely related. Since the Brundtland report on
Sustainable Development came in 1986, and in the following Rio-process it has been common
7
in the literature to refer to a triangle describing the division into ecological, social and
economical sustainability.
A lot of words have come out of it, but rather seldom anything concrete, mostly due to
conservatism among the involved economic an political interests, but at least partly certainly
also because of institutional reasons among the academics, having basically problems by
combining these dimensions, but rather to defend and highlight there own expertise, or
blaming others not to include it.
Manning and his collaborators have chosen another triangle for carrying capacity, however
more concrete, and with more emphasis on the integration aspects in connection to the
management of nature parks.
Instead of ecological sustainability, they talk about a resource dimension of carrying capacity,
which certainly is what ecologists by tradition are engaged with, but which is seldom linked to
the main question: How many visitors can be stuffed into the park, before the eagle leaves or
the orchids will succumb?
Instead of social sustainability, you have the experiential dimension of carrying capacity, which
is often, but not only dealing with the effects of the presence of other visitors for the nature
experience. We seldom perceive other tourists as ’nature’, although it is of course sometimes
the case.
Finally the economical sustainability is replaced by a managerial dimension of carrying capacity,
related to the possibilities and restrictions that the management system might hold to ensure a
regulation of the carrying capacity.
A number of different methods have been developed to operationalise a definition and a
compliance of carrying capacities for visitors in US national parks. I will focus on one of these
methods, namely VERP, an abbreviation for Visitor Experience and Resource Protection , thus
working at the premise that the carrying capacity should be related both to the protection of
the resources, the nature, but also to the security of the visitor experience.
It can be considered a sort of cookbook, where the different aspects of carrying capacity are
operationalised into some concepts and procedures for an empirically based sustainable
adaptation of the management to the carrying capacity.
Crucial is the acknowledgement that carrying capacity do not exist in the blue objective air, but
is carried by a number of social developed, social constructed standards that has to be brought
into play to ensure the carrying capacity.
The integration of the three dimension of carrying capacity is expressed in a methodological
sequence of decisions or actions, starting with (1. step) the establishment of management
objectives/desired conditions and associated indicators and standards, connected to (2. step)
the establishment of a stable monitoring system monitoring a collection of indicator variables,
and finally (3. Step) to apply management practices to ensure that standards for the monitoring
indicators are maintained.
And here is the core of the methodology:
8
First, it is necessary to establish management objectives/desired conditions. This is rather broad
descriptions of the state and qualities, being desired to maintain in and around the park.
From this foundation some associated indicators are established, which are more specific,
measurable variables, reflecting the essence of or the meaning of the management objectives.
From these indicators, some standards, expressing the minimum acceptable values of the
indicators are found empirically, typically through observations of natures reaction on
disturbances or other types of influences, or through more or less refined types of interview
technique.
Crucial are the indicators, from which the standards should be developed. So, what is a good
indicator? There is a variety of characteristics, with which I cannot go into detail.
Here I will only emphasize one of the most important things, seen from a management point of
view, namely that the indicators should be clearly related to visitor use, either in form of 1)
level of use, 2) type of use, 3)location of use, or 4) behaviour of visitors. This is important since
a major role of indicators is to help determine when management action is needed to control
the impacts of visitor use. Thus, there should be a correlation between visitor use and indicator
variables.
However, empirically, visitor use is also a difficult thing, even at the most basic level, namely
concerning simple information on the number of visitors.
In our report we have tried to set up a simple table on population and visitors in and around
the parks of Parks&Benefits for comparison, and as you can see, we have very little figures. The
population is derived by population census data spatially distributed according to a Corine land
cover classification of the area. It should also be possible to collect a comparable estimate of
the number of accommodation spaces of the parks, but I have not yet seen such quantitative
data being collected. And for the number of tourists we have very few data, and especially very
few comparable data. I suppose that Greifswald University has some figures on the behavior
and use of money from the project questionnaires to present later this morning but we cannot
expect these data to deliver comparable visitor monitoring figures. We really need it. Certainly
within the single parks some data exists that are very useful, such as these very nice continous
monitoring of traffic, here bicycle visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Rügen. On a weekday and a
Sunday in the end of July the number of bicycles passing a place called Tor of Baabe, have been
registered since 1993. Of course it is only at one point. But Tor von Baabe is a central place for
tourism in the Biosphere Reserve South-Eastern Rügen. So, having similar information on
visitors of local hotspots in the park, local data might be related to such data on general
touristic movements and statistics of overnight stay etc..
And that is of course what we need, both for touristic purposes and especially when we deal
with carrying capacity, where we need to relate the general visitor flow to very different and
specific spatial conflicts in different parts of the park. So, the integration of the resource
dimension, the experience dimension and the management dimension has first of all to be
related to local hot spots of different kinds – or local conflict management areas , and then
coordinated at a higher park level.
This is what we try to do within the parks of parks&benefits, collecting experiences with the
problems of carrying capacity. The frame is roughly like this example from Maribo Lake Nature
9
Park in Denmark, where just 3 local hot spots are located - but there are certainly more – and
these circles include the concrete geography where the local visitor experience interact with
local nature or cultural resources in a way that has to be managed in a clever local way for the
benefit of both visitors and the nature resources, which is only possible through active use of
wise indicators and standards to keep specified carrying capacities for both man-nature and
man-man conflicts in the hot spots. Here is shown Søholt bay with conflicts related to waterfoul
observation and pike fishery, the Western shore of Søndersø, a popular place for experience of
the Søndersø lake and at the same time related to the nesting place of the White-tailed Eagle,
and Bøndersvig enge, a sub-urban rich meadow with orchids, used not just by tourists but also
as dayly near recreation for the suburban population of Maribo town.
For each hot spot - conflict management area - we have asked the partners to
- Describe the conflict
- Describe main measures to counteract trends of exceeding the carrying capacity of the local
hot spot
- inform on possible indicators for the conflict
- and inform on possible standards for these indicators, below which the conflict can be
expected to be controlled
These local carrying capacities might be related to an overall park level: So, many visitors follow
a travelling route around the lakes, which connects the related visitor flow in a predictable way.
This might go for the 2 first hot spots (and others as well – for instance along the southernmost
lake), but probably not for the third case, Bøndersvig enge, since it is more related to local nearrecreational use. However other tourist prefer to travel around in the park by boat, giving quite
another entrance both to the local carrying capacity problems and to the interconnection of the
different hot spots.
Here you see in a similar way local hot spots for three main conflicts in Müritz National Parks,
with which Martin Kaiser will go into details in the next presentation.
Finally, I will give you a brief overview over the preliminary work on visitor carrying capacity
that has been reported from the parks of Parks&Benefits.
Up to now, considerations concerning some 18 local hhot spots or conflict management zones
have been reported. They can be divided almost equally into man-nature-conflicts and manman-conflicts, although this distinction mostly masks a close combination, and most of the
conflicts certainly takes their departure in the disturbance of wildlife, such as the wild reindeer
in Dovrefjell, the cranes in Müritz and the waterfowl in Nature park Maribo Lakes, in SE Rügen
and in Matsalu. But trampling, erosion, litter/garbage and traffic and experience conflicts
between different kinds of visitors and between visitors and land owners are certainly also
present.
The emergence and presentation of these prioritized conflicts are very different: From political
decisions at the national level and park vulnerability and management plans over extensive
research programs with advanced monitoring and expert valuation methods towards different
kinds of participatory processes. Surprisingly rather few concrete examples of indicators and
related standards have been presented. But certainly they exists, e.g. in form of maximum
10
numbers of fishermen or fishing pikes, maximum group size or number of visitors per day or
evening, numbers of fires, erosion of vegetation cover etc. Many parks using territorial zonings,
defining different restrictions but such rules do not necessary address, how and with which
indicators and standards the maintenance of these restrictions are ensured.
Finally also the management of a visitor carrying capacity is very differently reported, from very
concrete spatial regulation of visitors such as removal of former military sites and roads, and
construction of nature protecting types of infrastructure, over intensive control of zonations
and restrictions, to common agreements with stakeholders, intensive monitoring and general
improvement of the communication with visitors and stakeholders.
I think it is safe to conclude, that although a lot of thing are already done, there is still a long
way tgo go before we can manage the visitor carrying capacity of nature parks in a safe way for
the benefit of the visitors.
To sum up:
Visitor carrying capacity of nature parks deals fundamentally with visitor satisfaction in a broad
and wise universal or existential way.
It differs from a general sustainability strategy by being more focused on the number and
behaviour of visitors in a concrete spatial context in the balance with the number and
behaviour of the other species with whom we are living together.
Carrying capacity is not a scientifically objectively determined measure, but a result of political
decision processes among stakeholders, balancing use and protection preferably based on
scientific and/or experiential cognition.
The management of carrying capacity of visitors is an instrument to optimise the experience of
visitors (including minimising conflicts between them) and at the same time protect the nature
ressources giving rise to these experiences.
Thank you for your attention
11