Social Carrying Capacity
Social Carrying Capacity
The use of parks and protected areas by visitors creates concern about appropriate levels of use because there are limits that define how much pressure from outside forces an ecosystem can endure before it experiences degradation, and there are thresholds that define visitor experiences. When researchers, park authorities, and policy makers are trying to determine appropriate usage levels of specific areas, they frequently rely on the rationale of carrying capacity, including social carrying capacity, which “focuses on the relationships among users of a park or protected area” (Dearden & Rollins).
Prior to determining the carrying capacity of a specific area, it is important to define carrying capacity. Prior to its use in the study of parks and protected areas, carrying capacity was commonly used in a variety of natural resource disciplines. The term has received broad use in wildlife and range management, where it was generally characterized as the number of animals of a given species that can be sustained in a known habitat (Dasmann 1964). Based on that characterization, carrying capacity has apparent equivalence in the study of parks and protected areas. One of the first uses of the term carry capacity, in relation to parks and protected areas, occurred in a 1935 report that asked, “How large a crowd can be turned loose in a wilderness without destroying its essential qualities?” (Sumner 1935). The answer in that report was that recreational use of wilderness should be kept “within the carrying capacity.” However, the first detailed use of carrying capacity in the management of parks and protected areas did not occur until the 1960s.
At first, the focus was placed on the relationship between visitor use and environmental conditions. The hypothesis was that increased visitor use causes greater environmental impact, as measured by an array of variables, including destruction of vegetation and soil compaction. One of the first
The use of parks and protected areas by visitors creates concern about appropriate levels of use because there are limits that define how much pressure from outside forces an ecosystem can endure before it experiences degradation, and there are thresholds that define visitor experiences. When researchers, park authorities, and policy makers are trying to determine appropriate usage levels of specific areas, they frequently rely on the rationale of carrying capacity, including social carrying capacity, which “focuses on the relationships among users of a park or protected area” (Dearden & Rollins).
Prior to determining the carrying capacity of a specific area, it is important to define carrying capacity. Prior to its use in the study of parks and protected areas, carrying capacity was commonly used in a variety of natural resource disciplines. The term has received broad use in wildlife and range management, where it was generally characterized as the number of animals of a given species that can be sustained in a known habitat (Dasmann 1964). Based on that characterization, carrying capacity has apparent equivalence in the study of parks and protected areas. One of the first uses of the term carry capacity, in relation to parks and protected areas, occurred in a 1935 report that asked, “How large a crowd can be turned loose in a wilderness without destroying its essential qualities?” (Sumner 1935). The answer in that report was that recreational use of wilderness should be kept “within the carrying capacity.” However, the first detailed use of carrying capacity in the management of parks and protected areas did not occur until the 1960s.
At first, the focus was placed on the relationship between visitor use and environmental conditions. The hypothesis was that increased visitor use causes greater environmental impact, as measured by an array of variables, including destruction of vegetation and soil compaction. One of the first
Bibliography: Andereck, K. L. and R. H. Becker. “The effects of density on perceived crowding in a b uilt recreation environment.” Journal of Applied Recreation Research. 18(3), 1993. Beck, Roy. “Issues of Carrying Capacity,” The Social Contract Press 3(1), 1992. Becker, R., A. Jubenville, G.W. Burnett, and A.R. Graef. “Fact and judgment in the search for a social carrying capacity,” Leisure Sciences 6, (1984). Burch, W. R. “Much Ado about Nothing - Some Reflections on the Wider and wilder Implications of Social Carrying Capacity.” Leisure Sciences. 6(4), 1984. Canesetrelli, E., and P. Costa. “Tourist Carrying Capacity: A Fuzzy Approach, Annals of Tourism Research 18, (1991). Dasmann, Raymond. Wildlife Biology. John Wiley & Sons (June 1964). Duffus, D.A. and P. Dearden. “Non-consumptive Wildlife Oriented Recreation: A Conceptual Framework,” Biological Conservation 53: 213-31, (1990). Doorne, S. “Caves, Cultures and Crowds: Carrying Capacity Meets Consumer Sovereignty.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(2), 2000. Frissell, S.S. and G.H. Stankey. “Wilderness environmental quality: Search for social and ecological harmony.” Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Annual Conference, Washington, D.C, (1972). Frost, J.E. & S.F. McCool. Can visitor regulations enhance recreational experiences. Environmental Management 12(1), 1988. Graefe, A., F. Kuss, and J. Vaske. “Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework.” Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association (1990). Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin, Science, 162 (1968). Kuss, F.R., A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske. “Visitor impact management: A review of research.” Washington, D.C. National Parks and Conservation Association, (1990). Lim L.C. The concepts and analysis of carrying capacity: A management tool for effective planning. Part I. Report produced under Project MY 0033. WWF Malaysia, Petaling Jaya (1995a). Lim L.C. The concepts and analysis of carrying capacity: A management tool for e ffective planning. Part III. Case study: Pulau Tioman. Report produced under Project MY 0058. WWF Malaysia, Petaling Jaya (1995b). Manning, R. “Visitor Experience and Resource Protection: A Framework for Managing the Carrying Capacity of National Parks,” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19, (2001). Manning, R. and D. Lawson. Carrying Capacity as “Informed Judgment”: The Values of Science and the Science of Values. Environmental Management 30(2), 2002. Manning, R., D. Lime, and M. Hof. “Social Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas: Theory and Application in the U.S. National Parks.” Natural Areas Journal 16(2): 118- 127, (1996). Manning, R. and D. Lime. “Crowding and Carrying Capacity in the National Park System: Toward a Social Science Research Agenda.” University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Publication 86-1996, pp. 27-65, (1996). Manning, R., D. Lime, M. Hof and W. Freimund. “The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Process: The Application of Carrying Capacity to Arches National Park.” The George Wright Forum 12(3): 41-55, (1995). Manning, R., I. O’Dell. “Social carrying capacity of parks and outdoor recreation areas,” Parks and Recreation 32, (1997). National Park Service. “Special report. VERP: A process for addressing visitor carrying capacity in the national park system.” National Park Service Denver Service Center, Denver CO, (1993). Nielsen, J. M., B. Shelby, et al. “Sociological Carrying Capacity and the Last Settler Syndrome.” Pacific Sociological Review 20(4), 1977. Parks Canada and Ecological Integrity. 11 Jan. 2007. Parks Canada. 21 Oct. 2007 Saveriades, A Schreyer, R. “Social Dimensions of Carrying Capacity: An overview.” Leisure Sciences 6(4), 1984. Schreyer, R. M. “Sociological and political factors in carrying capacity decision making,” (1976) Searle, R Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. “Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings.” Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, (1986). Shelby, B., J.J. Vaske and R. Harris. User standards for ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(1988) Silvia Marzetti & R Stankey, G. and R. Manning. “Carrying Capacity of Recreational Settings. A Literature Review: The President 's Commission on Americans Outdoors.” Washington, D.C, U.S. Government Printing Office, M-47-M-57, (1986). Sumner, Lowell, Jr. “A Life History Study of the California Quail, with Recommendations for Conservation and Management.” California Fish and Game, No. 21, pp. 167-256, 277-342, (1935). United States National Park Service. “A Summary of the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Framework.” Denver Service Center, US Department of the Interior (1997) Wagar, J.S