Presentation
Among the most important tools for the management of visitors in protected areas are: zoning, the adequate establishment of visitor sites, the management of their tourist carrying capacity, the identification of impacts and their mitigation, in addition to visitor services, among which stand out the proper disposal of waste, information and interpretation. Different studies have been carried out to help define the ideal number of visitors that should reach an area with high tourist demand, especially when it has the purpose of conserving and protecting the biodiversity and the landscape.
The determination of capacity for public use –DCUP-, takes as a basis two important models at the Latin American level:
1. Determination of tourist carrying capacity in protected areas by Miguel Cifuentes (1992); and
2. Methodology to determine intensity of public use in protected wild areas of the National Forest Corporation of Chile -CONAF- (2000).
Adapting to the particular needs of the protected natural areas of El Salvador, which due to their biological and socio-environmental characteristics merit the reconversion of methodologies, for the creation of specific models that allow other national protected areas to replicate.
The present document tries to establish the methodological framework that will allow developing in a fast and efficient way to determine the "tourist carrying capacity" and therefore the zoning proposal within the framework of the elaboration of the Management Plan for the Ébano Verde Scientific Reserve (RCEV), the basic idea of the document is to serve as a systematization model that in the medium term converges in creating the necessary management tools for the future process of preparing and updating Management Plans.
But, as a priority, to consolidate the management and conservation actions of the Ébano Verde Scientific Reserve, considering in its management framework the objectives and category of management of the protected area that regulates the actions of "public use" to the maximum, therefore it is necessary to make the the need to resort to “ecotourism” as an alternative for financial self-sustainability and at the same time as a tool that promotes the management, conservation and protection of the protected area through actions of awareness and environmental education resulting from the public use of selected areas and with prior Access experience for groups that like ecotourism activities.
Considering the above (based on the technical and regulatory framework of the objectives and categories of protected area management), we must consider some strategic questions that would guide the “ecotourism” development of the protected area, such as:
What type of ecotourism should we promote within the PA perimeter?
What will be the best model of interpretation of our interpretive trails, to meet the objectives of recreation and especially education and environmental awareness of the PA?
What should be the regulatory measures (rules) established for visitors?
What kind of visitors are we considering to visit trails and ecotourism points of interest?
What is our logistical and human capacity (technical capacity) to control and assist ecotourism visitation?
What is the number of daily, weekly, monthly and annual visitors that our infrastructure, trails and ecotourism points of interest are capable of supporting, without jeopardizing the ecological viability of our protected area?
These among other questions we must consider when establishing the management, planning and implementation framework of ecotourism development actions, within a process of elaboration of a Management Plan that can be considered feasible and reliable to be implemented, within the Scientific Reserve Green Ebony.
2. Objectives
1. Establish a first quantitative estimate of the number and type of your visitors;
2. Define management deficiencies, such as environmental impacts beyond its ecological, physical and perceptual limits of carrying capacity;
3. Propose management measures of its ecological and recreational potential in order to make its use sustainable, compatible with the objectives and category of management; and
4. Strengthen the future zoning proposal to be considered for the management and administration of the protected area.
3. Justification
Carrying out a load capacity study is justified by:
- the need to evaluate and control the effects derived from tourism activity, determining the level of fragility of the attractor elements. the need to guide tourism development based on management and management criteria and instruments, from a strategic, integrated and preventive perspective.the need to consolidate the tourist activity in terms of quality and favoring the integration of economic, cultural and environmental factors.
4. Referential framework
4.1 General characteristics of the RCEV
The Ébano Verde Scientific Reserve is located in the Cordillera Central, it is contiguous to Las Neblinas Scientific Reserve and to the north of Valle Nuevo National Park. The highway that goes to the Municipality of Constanza and its communities crosses its banks.
The RCEV is located in this important region, the delimited area for the Ébano Verde scientific reserve has an approximate area of 23.1 square kilometers. Due to the incursions of studies carried out in Loma Casabito, “within the phyto and zoogeographic area of the reserve, it has been determined that this locality is the place with the highest number of endemic plant species (about 28) in the Barbecue-Casabito phytogeographic subregion.. The cloud forest that inhabits there contains an extraordinary diversity of orchids (highlighting those of the Lepanthes genus), ferns, arachnids and one of the most beautiful springs in the country, as well as other biological entities new to science, in addition to a population of green ebony (Magnolia pallescens), which is in the process of regeneration in appreciable quantities.It should be noted that this orographic system is one of the few in the country that contains carnivorous plants such as the Pinguicola casabitoana ”(CSR, Procaryn, 2004).
Figure 1: Location of the RCEV within the national context
Loading capacity
The concept of carrying capacity arises from an ecological context and establishes the capacity of a system to support a population of a certain size in relation to its ecological niche (space, nutrients, light, food, shelter, competition, etc.).
This concept was of great help in agriculture and livestock, contributing significantly to optimize the performance of these productive activities, its practical application allowed to define crop density, the number of cattle grazing and / or the appropriate harvest time.
Later in the 1970s, the concept was used to express environmental burden (Maldonado, 1992).
It was not until 1984 when Dunkel, analyzing the progression in the number of tourists that arrived in the Virgin Islands and the Bahamas, reached sigmoid (semi-logarithmic) curves such as those that describe the population growth of a species, reaching a number of individuals (K) that responds to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
Dunkel concludes that even though it is not directly comparable, with this management tool an important antecedent is achieved: establishing maximum limits to the volumes of tourists visiting a site, limits on which a destination is affected.
The relationship of this concept with sustainability is established by Sadler (1988), while Holdre (1988) highlights that the concept involves two fundamental areas: that which directly affects resources, both due to the impact produced on ecosystems (which is the ecotourism resource itself), such as the well-being of the tourists themselves and the quality of the tourist experience. Then a third area is added, which is social carrying capacity (Clarck, 1990).
In 1992, Cifuentes published a procedure that brings together the experience of several years on the subject (Galapagos National Park, Ecuador; Carara Biological Reserve, Costa Rica, among others). Its main contributions are: the procedure when applying it is compressible, simple and useful to determine the carrying capacity of the protected area under study and its proposal of three levels of tourist carrying capacity, one of which considers the handling capacity of the area of study. (CONAF 2000) Visitor intensity: Other researchers, concerned with the issue of visitor intensity in protected areas, identify weaknesses in carrying capacity studies, and work with other tools to tackle the problem,among them defining impact levels and establishing flexible management criteria without defining exact numbers of tourists, thus emerged the Visitor Impact Management (VIM, Graefe et al, 1987). Another well-known proposal corresponds to the method of defining Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), based on the definition and quality standards of a protected area, which identifies the range of opportunities existing in protected areas and places emphasis on defining to what extent the changes are acceptable for each kind of opportunity and not allowing these levels to exceed (Stankey, 1987). Other studies to consider include the Visitor Action Managemente (VAN) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).Another well-known proposal corresponds to the method of defining Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), based on the definition and quality standards of a protected area, which identifies the range of opportunities existing in protected areas and places emphasis on defining to what extent the changes are acceptable for each kind of opportunity and not allowing these levels to exceed (Stankey, 1987). Other studies to consider include the Visitor Action Managemente (VAN) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).Another well-known proposal corresponds to the method of defining Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), based on the definition and quality standards of a protected area, which identifies the range of opportunities existing in protected areas and places emphasis on defining to what extent the changes are acceptable for each kind of opportunity and not allowing these levels to exceed (Stankey, 1987). Other studies to consider include the Visitor Action Managemente (VAN) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).Other studies to consider include the Visitor Action Managemente (VAN) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).Other studies to consider include the Visitor Action Managemente (VAN) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).
The application of these criteria has contributed to addressing the issue, however it is becoming increasingly evident that the concept should be extended to "evaluation of the carrying capacity of public use", through the adequate management of visitors and the quantification of its impacts. Given the real impossibility of determining a number of visitors valid for an entire unit and that supports linearly and directly the effects that such load of visitors may cause on the environment.
5. Development of the method
The method to Determine the Capacity for Public Use –DCUP-, inside a Protected Area (PA), corresponds to an interactive and iterative process of analysis and action, qualified as an “Environmental Monitoring System”, the results of which feed back the basis data from the PA and allow taking and controlling the necessary management measures to minimize the negative effects of tourist visitation. For the application of the methodology it is necessary that the AP has a minimum of institutional presence and a technical or legal declaration of the AP.
This methodology has six phases, which are set out below
Table No. 1
| Phase | Description |
| Phase No. 1 | Analysis and description of the conservation and sectorization unit for public use. |
| Phase No. 2 | Determination and description of the sectors for public use. |
| Phase No. 3 | 3.a Characterization and analysis of visitors 3.b Determination of tourist carrying capacity |
| Phase No. 4 | Assessment of the current state of sectors and identification of impacts |
| Phase No. 5 | Integration and analysis of results |
| Phase No. 6 | Definition of management strategy, tools and implementation (Management actions and / or mitigation of impacts) |
Source: Personal elaboration, Melgar, M. 2006.
It is important to consider as a technical and methodological requirement the previous preparation of the Strategic Situational Analysis -AES- and the Diagnosis of Critical Areas -DAC-.
The AES will allow obtaining the Management Capacity (CM) of the protected natural area. The management capacity is the key factors for the calculation of the Effective Load Capacity (in the context of Phase No. 3.b of the methodology), it consists of the sum of conditions that the administration of the protected natural area needs to be able to effectively fulfill its functions and objectives. (Cifuentes, M. et al 1999).
Starting with the DAC, the indicators and standards proposed in phase No. 4 “Assessment of the current state of sectors and identification of impacts” will be verified and proposed, Morales, R (2002); considers that a critical management area for a PA is a specific site that demands special attention or treatment on an eventual or permanent basis by the management and / or administration programs.
Being able to identify through different outstanding heterogeneous elements of the landscape, which can positively or negatively influence the planning and management of the PA.
Phase No. 1 "Analysis and description of the conservation and sectorization unit for public use"
The collection and analysis of secondary information are the basis for the formulation of the DCUP, information that allows a broad overview of the current situation, the historical background and management of the protected natural area.
It is recommended to collect and analyze the following information:
Management Objectives;
Management Category;
Limits and Zoning;
Technical and legal historical background (archeology, anthropology, Biogeographic (topography, climate, geology, fires, flora and fauna);
Strategic Situational Analysis (AES)
Diagnosis of critical areas (DAC)
Phase No. 2 "Determination and description of the sectors of public use"
Phase No. 2 consists of determining and describing each Biophysical Patch. And in a very precise way to qualify it, considering the existing environmental offer and the tourist offer, based on the expectations of the visitor or the tourist-recreational demands of the users.
The sector frames the Environmental Offer of each Biophysical Patch in a qualitative description of the identified environmental and social conditions. Within the methodology, the determination of the sectors is essential to direct the environmental management and management policy of each visit site.
Each visit site belongs to the environment of a particular sector, thus the rating of the particular sector, thus the rating of each sector allows to identify the incompatibilities between the intensity of use of a visit site and the ecosystem value of the area in which said site is inserted.
Four classes are considered, the description of which is detailed below:
Table No. 2
| Class No. | Class name | Description |
| I | Pristine | Pristine areas almost undisturbed, and recoverable on an annual basis. Very low or no interaction between users, high degree of wildness. |
| II | Primitive | Little modified natural environment. Perceptible impacts and most recoverable on an annual basis. Low interaction between users and a high opportunity for isolation and solitude. |
| III | Semiprimitva or Transicional | Natural environment with Anthropic modification, controlled, perceptible and persistent impacts. Moderate interaction between users. |
| IV | Natural Disturbed | They are natural areas affected by users, evident and persistent impacts from year to year.The interaction between visitors is moderate to high. |
Source: Personal elaboration, Melgar, M. 2006.
To assign this sector qualification, a conceptual matrix called “Sector qualification matrix” must be extended to each biophysical patch, which classifies the patch according to the areas, biophysical and tourist.
Table No. 3
“Sector rating matrix”
Source: Personal elaboration, Melgar, M. 2006.
For the analysis and allocation of vulnerability, a numerical weight of 1 to 5 is used, the greater the impact, the greater the weight it has. The lower-rated rated sectors must be reevaluated to limit or eliminate public use. Each sector is worked independently, for the development of the qualification process the following evaluation matrix is used:
Table No. 4.a
“Example matrix of sector qualification”
Sector No. 1 "xxx xxxx"
Biophysical scope
Source: Personal elaboration, Melgar, M. 2006.
Table No. 4.c
“Example matrix of sector qualification”
Sector No. 1 "xxx xxxx"
Source: Personal elaboration, Melgar, M. 2006.
This first evaluation (by sector, grouped in the matrix example 4.c) will allow the researcher to orient the general trends in the relationship of visitor and ecosystem. The greater the weight we reach, the greater the orientation towards a tourist use (properly managed). The evaluation matrices are applied to each sector separately.
Phase 3. “Characterization and analysis of visitors”
In this phase, work is carried out on a semi-detailed scale, which allows establishing the general characteristics of the national and international tourist who visits the protected natural area. Of importance for the analysis is having the statistical analysis of the visitation of the last five years or more.
The main objective of the characterization and analysis of visitors is to establish the “Type Visitor”, making it possible to clarify the degree of perception of the visitor to the protected natural area and the interests that encouraged him to visit the Protected Area
The characterization of the visitor must be oriented to:
1. Historical analysis of the AP visitation;
2. Establish the general characteristics of the national and international visitor (tourist) of the AP;
3. Description of the current management of the visitor;
4. Characterization of the “Type Visitor”;
5. Identification of general and specific interests of the AP visitor.
Phase 3.b "Study of tourist carrying capacity"
The importance of having a value of the capacity for public use in the study area, and of valuing and validating the Capacity Methodology of M. Cifuentes (1992), as a tool that contributes to management decisions is proposed in this phase work on the methodology to determine the upper permissible limit of visitors to the site that requires limiting your visitation. For this, the three levels of load capacity proposed by the author are worked out.
Calculation of physical load capacity (CCF)
The CCF is the maximum limit of visits that can be made to the site during a day. This is calculated as follows:
Where:
S = available area, in linear meters or square meters
NV = number of times that the site can be visited by the same person in a day, which depends on the length of the trail or area of the site and the interpretive points.
Where:
Hv = Visiting hours
Tv = Time needed to visit each trail
Real Load Capacity Calculation (CCR)
When the calculation of the CCF is obtained, the Real Load Capacity is calculated, which is the maximum limit of visits determined from the CCF of a site, after subjecting it to the correction factors, typical of the characteristics of each site of use.
The factors that are considered for the calculation of the CCR are the following
to. Social Factor (FCsoc)
b. Erodability factor (FCero)
c. Accessibility Factor (FCacc)
d. Drowning Factor (FCane)
f. Obstacle Factor (FCobs)
g. Precipitation Factor (FCpre)
h. Temporal Closing Factor (FCt)
i. Brightness Factor (FCsol)
The detail of each correction factor is presented below:
to. Social Factor (FCsoc)
Based on aspects related to the quality of visitation, the need to manage group visitation arises. For a better control of the flow of visitors in the trails, and other sites for public use and at the same time ensure the satisfaction of the experience of the visitors, it is proposed that the visitation be managed under the following assumptions according to each site:
To calculate the social factor, it is necessary to calculate the number of people who can be at the same time on the site, for which the assumption of number of people per group, the distance between groups and the length or area of the site is used, and then calculate the number of groups.
Thus:
Considering that each person requires 1 m to move freely as well as the conditions of group size and separation between groups, the number of limiting meters for adequate visitation is calculated through:
Where:
ml = limiting meters
P = People on the trail at the same time
In this way, the social correction factor is calculated:
Where:
ml = limiting meters for each path
mt = total length of the path
b. Erodability (FCero)
Given the particular conditions of each of the trails, each one was analyzed separately according to the length with different slopes, and the type of soil.
Therefore it is calculated like this
Where: mp = meters of troubled trail
mt = total meters of trail
On the other trails, the parameters set forth in Table No. 5 were considered, applying them according to the type of soil on the trail and the percentage of slope. Based on this, the correction factor for erodability of the Following way:
Table No. 5 Parameters to weigh the degree of erodability on the trails
| Slope Floors | <10% | 10% - 20% | > 20% |
| Gravel or sand | Low | Medium | Tall |
| Silt | Low | Tall | Tall |
| Clay | Low | Medium | Tall |
The areas with a medium or high level of risk of erosion are the only ones considered significant when establishing use restrictions. Since a high degree of erodability presents a risk of erosion greater than an average degree, a weighting factor of 1 for the average degree of erodability and 1.5 for the high one was incorporated.
The correction factor as follows:
Where:
ma = Meters of trail with high erodability
mm = Meters of trail with average erodability
mt = Total meters of trail
c. Accessibility (FCacc)
It measures the difficulty visitors might have in navigating the trails due to the slope. Taking the same degrees of slope considered in the previous factor to be used on trails, categories are established:
Table No. 6 Parameters to weigh the degree of difficulty on trails
| Pending | Difficulty level |
| <10% | No degree of difficulty |
| 10% - 20% | Medium difficulty |
| > 20% | High difficulty |
The sections of each trail that have a medium or high degree of difficulty are the only ones considered significant when establishing use restrictions. Since a high grade represents a greater difficulty than a medium grade, a weight factor of 1 was incorporated for the medium degree of difficulty and 1.5 for the high.
Then the correction factor for accessibility is calculated like this:
Where:
ma = Meters of trail with high difficulty
mm = Meters of trail with medium difficulty
mt = Total meters of trail
d. Drowning (FCane)
The correction factor for waterlogging, so that those sectors in which the water tends to stagnate and trampling tend to increase the damage on the trail are taken into account. This factor applies to almost all trails.
The formula to obtain the FCane:
Where:
ma = Meters of trail with waterlogging problems
mt = Total meters of trail
e. Obstacles (FCobs)
Due to the nature of the trails, those obstacles that do not allow free transit along the section of the trail should be considered, such as: branches on the ground, very large roots outside the ground, and also as obstacles the stretches in which the width of the trail is reduced and therefore the flow is difficult.
This factor is calculated as follows:
Where:
mo = Meters of trail with obstacle problems
mt = Total meters of trail
f. Precipitation (FCpre)
It is a factor that prevents normal visitation, due to the fact that the vast majority of visitors are not willing to hike in the rain. The months with the highest precipitation should be considered, in which the precipitation occurs more frequently in the afternoon.
From this, the limiting rain hours per day are determined according to the location of the trails in the AP and the way the visitation and the study have been sectioned.
Based on this, the factor is calculated as follows:
Where:
hl = Limiting rainy hours per year
ht = Hours per year that the Park is open
g. Temporary closings (FCt)
This factor only applies to the path that leads to the Trifinio during the closed season, which corresponds to the months of May to October in which this path does not receive visitors. This factor was calculated as follows
Where:
dc = days per year that the trail to the trifinio is closed
dt = total days per year that the Park is open for visitation
h. Solar brightness (FCsol)
This correction factor is considered when they are open field trails and sunlight limits in the brightest hours (between 10:00 am. To 2:00 pm.), But in this case there is a canopy coverage of forest, which provides more than 80% shade for this reason will not be taken into account in this analysis.
Final calculation CCR
From the application of the correction factors mentioned for each trail, the real load capacity is calculated using the following equation:
Each correction factor is used as applicable for each trail.
Effective Load Capacity
The Effective Load Capacity represents the maximum number of visits that can be allowed in the RCEV, taking into account the CCF, corrected by the factors established in the calculation of the CCR and the Management Capacity of the area.
Where:
CCR = Lower Real Load
Capacity CM = Handling Capacity
It should be emphasized that the CCE may be less than or equal to, but never greater than, the CCR, even if the handling capacity becomes greater than optimal.
Phase No. 4 "Evaluation of the current state of sectors and identification of impacts"
As a result of the results of the ECCT, DAC and AES, the sectors (trails, camping areas, visitor centers, etc.) are identified in order to establish the impacts caused by the visitation on natural resources, these can be physical (erodability, collection of flora and fauna species, garbage, etc.) or indirect through the overuse defined by the ECCT, preferably the sectors and impact variables should be identified using a thematic map or cartographic sheet of the protected area.
Phase No. 5 "Integration and analysis of results"
Through individual technical actions, the integration of the results of the different field studies and cabinet activities is established, defining the results, conclusions and recommendations in a preliminary way, in order to establish descriptively and through thematic maps the "Diagnosis of the Capacity for Public Use" of the Protected Area, always considering the objectives and category of management that enables the conservation and protection of natural resources.
Phase No. 6 "Definition of management, tools and implementation and actions"
This phase is recommended to be carried out in a participatory manner, and may be carried out firstly with the managers of the protected area, in order to validate the preliminary conclusions and recommendations developed during Phase No. 5.
After the development of internal participatory actions if deemed convenient by the planning team and / or managers, it would be necessary and interesting to carry out participatory actions (workshops) with the actors and / or communities that could intervene in ecotourism development activities. in the protected area.
Annexed
Annex 1: “Ecotourism as a management tool for the preservation of Scientific Reserves” (An educational ecotourism approach)
Education and interpretation are important elements of the ecotourism experience and can be provided through various means by the tourism industry, government departments such as national park agencies, and local communities. If ecotourism seeks to promote responsible travel, then its foundation must be education, and it must be targeted to include both the local community and domestic and international travelers.
An ecotourism experience is usually associated with learning and environmental awareness. Bragg suggests that “ecotourism involves appreciation, education, or active interpretation. strengthens environmental awareness, concern, and commitment, through an increased understanding and appreciation of nature.
besobeso »Ceballos-Lascuráin proposes that this discovery and learning process has the potential to guide ecotourists who» will eventually acquire an awareness and knowledge of the natural environment along with its cultural aspects, which will make them actively involved in environmental issues. conservation."
In the context of ecotourism, interpretation and education can have two different roles, that of satisfying the information needs of visitors and that of visitor management.
The values and attitudes of tourists are beginning to change, and tourists are now demanding more environmentally responsible products and services as well as information. Tourists want to learn about the environments they visit as well as understand their connections to a larger environment.
So both interpretation and education have important roles in ecotourism. Through interpretation and education, ecotourists can achieve a better understanding, awareness and appreciation of the natural and cultural environment.
Ecotourism activities often require active participation, allowing visitors to appreciate the importance of natural and cultural conservation. Providing education and interpretation as part of an ecotourism experience has the potential to make people aware of and actively involved in environmental issues after their experience.
Thus, education and interpretation create the potential to provide the eco-tourist with an environmental awareness and facilitate long-term changes in attitude and behavior, a 'way to encourage the average tourist to take up the green flag and wave it in front of them. of politicians »Swanson.
Interpretation can play an important role in ecotourism by educating tourists about the host community and region, focusing on natural resource management issues, informing them of the consequences of their actions, improving their experience, and encouraging them to engage in sustainable behaviors..
With an increasing number of people visiting heritage sites, it is important to disseminate information among tourists about appropriate behavior in fragile social and natural settings, such as walking and camping with minimal impact. This is important for natural resource managers as well as for operators in the tourism industry.
Interpretation has become a widely used management tool in the natural resource management profession as it has the ability to voluntarily reduce inappropriate behavior through education.
While the benefits of education and interpretation were not recognized, management strategies generally focused on physical controls such as barriers, roads, and the location of facilities, as well as regulatory controls.
Managers now recognize the role of interpreting as an effective management technique. Both education and acting should no longer be seen as something extra or as a place. It is an essential management function for each park, recreation area and reserve to carry out, as well as an integral part of an ecotourism experience.
Although some authors are pessimistic about the role and value of education and self-regulation in ecotourism management, still interpretation and education have the potential to assist in the management of heritage sites. However, for interpretation programs to be effective, they must be well planned and considered as an integral part of ecotourism planning and the development process.
Although traditionally educational and interpretive programs have been carried out by government agencies such as national and forest park agencies, with the growing interest in ecotourism, private operators and tourist 'resorts' have recognized the importance of education and of interpretation in terms of meeting the needs of tourists as well as protecting resources.
Ecotourism operators are in an excellent position to supply the environmental and cultural interpretation. This is usually given through guides and other means such as brochures, videos, walks, and conversations, and also through providing information before, during, and after the experience.
In Costa Rica, Jacobsen and Robles (1992) demonstrated that the use of local guides has numerous benefits. It has helped reduce the negative impacts of tourism in a park, has increased the environmental awareness of the local community, has provided environmental education to tourists, and has ultimately provided jobs for local people.
