Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 4 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(4): 469-480 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/09/2 | Accepted: 2023/10/4 | Published: 2023/10/17
Received: 2023/09/2 | Accepted: 2023/10/4 | Published: 2023/10/17
How to cite this article
Kalooti M. Zoning and Locating Tourist Sites (Sports-Recreation) in Dena Area Using ECE and STCC Combined Model. GeoRes 2023; 38 (4) :469-480
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1519-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1519-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zoning and Locating Tourist Sites (Sports-Recreation) in Dena Area Using ECE and STCC Combined Model
Authors
M. Kalooti *
Department of Physical Education, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (90 Views)
Introduction
Today, in many countries around the world, especially those with unique natural environments, tourism is regarded as a response to economic needs [James et al., 2015]. As both an economic and social activity, tourism requires a spatial context that supports its activities. Various factors have caused these activities to be distributed heterogeneously across such contexts [Mahdi et al., 2020]. In recent years, the demand for recreational and sports uses of natural spaces has increased. Tourism has both positive and negative impacts on the environment and host communities [Ehigiamusoe, 2020]. Ignoring the effects of tourism development without proper management can cause serious damage to the environment, culture, and host society [Montazeri Shahtouri et al., 2022].
From an ecological perspective, the expansion of tourism activities can be considered a threat to natural ecosystems, as many natural areas in the country are highly sensitive and vulnerable [Nasrolahi et al., 2015]. Increasing recreational demand results in the creation of multiple pathways and trails in natural and pristine areas [Daniels et al., 2004]. Trampling on these paths leads to soil compaction and erosion, land degradation, loss of vegetation cover, changes in soil biological, chemical, and hydrological properties, and eventual soil loss [Zhang & Lei, 2012; Mahdi et al., 2020]. Therefore, establishing an optimal balance between the recreational capacity of a resource and the intensity of visitor use is crucial and forms the basis for systematic planning of recreational areas for sports activities [Devlin & Billings, 2018].
In recent years, planners have recognized the tourism industry as a key pillar of sustainable development. Through systematic planning and identifying tourism advantages and limitations, national development can be promoted and economic diversification can be achieved [Porkhosravani et al., 2022]. It is therefore essential that all tourism plans and projects related to valuable natural areas consider not only competitiveness in attracting visitors but also environmental sustainability, as tourism development depends on the preservation of natural resources and their optimal use [Ashok et al., 2017].
Tourism activities are generally categorized based on the level of development intended for implementation in natural environments into two types [Bahmanpour & Taheri Hosseinabadi, 2019]:
In recent years, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been widely used as an effective tool for site selection [Borowy, 2014]. GIS has the ability to collect, store, construct, process, and analyze data, presenting them in layers and mapping [Martire et al., 2015].
In land-use planning and management, tourism carrying capacity is recognized as a holistic approach and a decision-support tool. Assessing carrying capacity quantitatively measures the extent of resource utilization and serves as a foundation for monitoring ecosystem thresholds, controlling disturbances, and tracking degradation trends [Altinay & Hussain, 2005; Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019]. In general, carrying capacity at the ecosystem level is defined as the threshold at which a process or environmental parameter can change within a given ecosystem without causing irreversible structural or functional damage [Nghi et al., 2007].
The practical concept of carrying capacity, as defined by the World Tourism Organization, refers to “the maximum number of visitors that a natural, recreational, or sports area can accommodate at a given time without causing unacceptable changes or disturbances to the physical, economic, social, and cultural environment, and without reducing user satisfaction” [The World Tourism Organization, 2016]. In other words, carrying capacity defines the limit beyond which resource degradation or irreparable ecosystem damage occurs [Sianipar et al., 2013]. All environments, whether natural or man-made, have a defined threshold for usage. Exceeding this threshold can result in environmental damage, user dissatisfaction, and other negative impacts [Spenceley & Snyman, 2017].
This concept is recognized as a tool for sustainable development, aiming to continuously meet human needs and improve quality of life [Saveriades, 2000]. Sustainable sports tourism development refers to expanding recreational and sports activities in a region using available resources in a way that meets social, psychological, economic, cultural, and legal needs, while balancing environmental health, public hygiene, cultural identity, and economic stability. To achieve a reasonable and practical carrying capacity for each region, evaluating and integrating all relevant capacities and indicators is essential. Sustainable and dynamic management of recreational resources, considering all these factors, serves as a benchmark for measuring carrying capacity [Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019].
Indicators provide important opportunities to define and apply the Sport and Tourism Carrying Capacity (STCC). Three types of indicators have been proposed for STCC studies, with their importance varying depending on the site and recreational or sports objectives:
Environmental (Physical-Ecological) Carrying Capacity refers to the maximum number of individuals a habitat can support without causing irreversible damage to its sustainability or functional systems [Meadows et al., 1993]. Social carrying capacity addresses crowd tolerance and user satisfaction from the perspective of local residents [Lawson et al., 2003]. Economic carrying capacity refers to the level of economic activity that does not harm key local economic functions, meaning tourism should not interfere with other sectors or reduce local income [James et al., 2015].
Most carrying capacity studies focus on tourism. For example, carrying capacity assessments have been conducted in the Darakeh area of Tehran [Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019], Ashuradeh Island [Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020], Kish Island [Hoseinzadeh & Erfanian, 2015], Qomishlu National Park and Wildlife Refuge [Jahani et al., 2018], and Nowshahr parks [Elahi Choren et al., 2019]. In Mashhad, assessments have shown that natural areas can accommodate many users for recreation and sports, provided safety and environmental considerations are met [Moradi et al., 2019]. Similarly, ecotourism planning in Shahroud protected areas indicated that environmental carrying capacity was exceeded [Mahdi et al., 2020].
The objective of this study is to zoning and site selection of suitable areas for recreational and sports tourism.
Methodology
The present study is applied in nature and was conducted during 2020–2021 in the Dena region. This research aimed to identify and evaluate suitable zones for recreational and sports tourism by employing a combined model that integrates Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the Sport and Tourism Carrying Capacity (STCC) model.
The Dena region is located in the northern part of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, covering approximately 204,000 hectares, which accounts for about 6.7% of the Central Zagros region. The population of the area is around 60,635, representing 4.3% of the total population of the mountainous Central Zagros. The region comprises 333 rural settlements and three urban settlements (Margoon, Pataveh, and Chitab). Approximately 83.3% of the area is mountainous, with the remainder being plains. The average elevation is 1,979 meters, and the average slope is 27.5%. The climate is classified as cold semi-humid. The highest monthly rainfall occurs in December and November [SCC, 2015], while summer rainfall is less than one millimeter. The region is experiencing progressive drought. The average annual number of frost days is approximately 85, generally occurring from November to early April, with the highest frost frequency in December. The orientation of mountains and hills is predominantly northwest–southeast. Erosion susceptibility is relatively high in the north and northwest, and low to moderate in the south and east. The region contains approximately 35.8 hectares of wetlands and features a unique combination of vegetation and wildlife, with favorable climatic conditions enhancing the density and coverage of rangeland vegetation. Forests cover around 89,000 hectares, accounting for 43% of the total area. The region hosts diverse natural attractions, drawing a large number of tourists annually.
In this study, a combined model was employed, consisting of two main components: the Ecological Capacity Evaluation (ECE) model and the Sport and Tourism Carrying Capacity (STCC) model. The purpose of the ecological capacity assessment was to screen suitable areas for tourism development while identifying and excluding ecologically sensitive and vulnerable zones. This model was proposed by the United Nations Development Programme in 2017 as a practical guideline for aligning environmental indicators with intended land uses [United Nations, 2017].
The ecological capacity assessment of the region was conducted based on the ecological model proposed for intensive and extensive tourism [The World Tourism Organization, 2016].
Real Carrying Capacity (RCC): RCC represents the maximum number of visitors allowed in an area considering limiting factors (Cf) specific to that location.
Effective Carrying Capacity (ECC): ECC denotes the maximum number of users that can be sustainably managed in a location. It accounts for management capabilities such as policies, regulations, infrastructure, facilities, staffing, and financial resources [Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019].
To obtain reliable information on management capabilities, a standard checklist was provided to 97 users with prior experience in the area, selected using a simple random sampling method. These responses reflect the practical effectiveness of management in the study area.
Findings
Based on the conducted analyses and the use of base information layers, the share and percentage of each current land use in the study area were determined, and accordingly, the land-use map of the study area was prepared and illustrated.
After determining land use, unsuitable and prohibited zones for tourism were identified and removed from the map. These areas included built-up lands, agricultural and orchard lands, aquaculture zones, forests with more than 70% canopy cover, high-quality rangelands, and protected areas under the supervision of the Environmental Protection Organization (such as wildlife refuges). The total remaining area was 760,650,000 m². Subsequently, the physical carrying capacity of the study area was calculated. This capacity depends on the area, space per visitor, and the available duration of use. Considering that the available time and the average visit length were 15 hours and 5 hours, respectively, the daily use duration was set at 3 hours. Ultimately, the physical carrying capacity (PCC) was calculated to be 182,556,000 persons.
Using the Land Capacity Evaluation model, five factors and thirteen associated parameters were considered as limiting factors for recreational and sports activities in the area. After calculating the limitation coefficients, the real carrying capacity (RCC) of the study area was determined to be 24,152,158 persons.
To estimate the effective carrying capacity (ECC), management parameters were considered, including access path design and improvement, local tranquility, local businesses, facilities (parking, camping, variety of sports and recreational uses, food outlets, sanitary facilities, drinking water, hygiene and cleaning, security, safety, emergency services, service provision, and monitoring).
The percentage of management capabilities was obtained by calculating the weighted mean scores for each of the elements in the Dena region, averaging them, and converting the result into a percentage. The ECC was then calculated by multiplying the real carrying capacity by the management capability percentage.
The study area scored 2.2 out of 5 based on user and local community assessments, indicating that the region possessed 44% of the minimum required management capacity to achieve the intended objectives. Accordingly, the effective carrying capacity of the study area (in persons per day) was calculated. Thus, the permissible tourist carrying capacity for the entire study area was 10,626,949 persons, and suitable zones for recreational and sports tourism development were identified.
After analyzing the information layers, the suitable zones for various types of sports and recreational tourism were determined.
Discussion
This study aimed to provide a reliable basis for decision-making and planning toward sustainable development by determining three types of carrying capacities, physical, real, and effective for the region. An important point is that the final value estimated in this study exceeded the current management capacity because management objectives and conservation priorities were emphasized in calculating the carrying capacity. Consequently, ecological sensitivities were reflected in the relevant coefficients.
The physical carrying capacity of the study area was estimated at 18,255,600 persons per day. Five limiting factors and thirteen associated parameters were used as coefficients in calculating the real carrying capacity. The identified limiting factors in this research align with those reported by Moradi et al. [2017] and Taheri Hosseinabadi et al. [2019]; however, the number of identified parameters (secondary limiting factors) in this study was higher than in all previous studies. The real carrying capacity of the study area was calculated at 24,152,158 persons per day, which seems reasonable given the extensive size of the study area.
To estimate the effective carrying capacity, management parameters were applied to determine the management capabilities. Among these, the highest scores were assigned to "diversity of recreational uses" and "diversity of sports activities" (3.4 and 3.3, respectively), and the lowest score was given to "health and sanitation" (1.6). Accordingly, the effective carrying capacity of the study area was determined to be 10,626,949 persons per day. The results of this section do not correspond to any previous studies conducted in other regions. This discrepancy is attributed to the unique ecological conditions and infrastructure of the study area, which are not comparable with other regions.
The obtained physical carrying capacity was much higher than the real carrying capacity, consistent with findings by Taheri Hosseinabadi et al. [2019], Behzadnia & Dorbeiki [2020], Mashayekhan et al. [2014], and Sayan & Atik [2011]. The large value for physical carrying capacity relates to its definition, which considers only the number of people a site can physically accommodate without accounting for actual site performance. When ecological-environmental, socio-cultural, and economic coefficients are applied, the resulting values become more realistic and closer to sustainable development principles. The critical measure to consider, therefore, is the effective carrying capacity.
Overall, the Dena region can accommodate a considerable number of users for recreational and sports activities. The area also contains pristine zones suitable for the design and establishment of recreational and sports uses. However, environmental and safety priorities must be considered. It should be noted that ignoring carrying capacity when determining the permissible number of users can lead to environmental damage, reduced service quality, and negative impacts on both natural and built resources. Therefore, management must plan in a way that ensures sustainable utilization of existing uses.
The results indicated that the study area can be divided into four zones for intensive and extensive tourism. The first zone comprises mountain-forest ecosystems. In this zone, major intensive recreational and sports activities requiring facilities and construction include trekking and camping. For extensive tourism, activities such as horseback riding, walking, running, controlled hunting and fishing, nature-watching, bird-watching, mountaineering, and hiking are suitable. These activities minimally impact the surrounding environment and require few facilities. In the mountain ecosystem zone, intensive tourism includes trekking, camping, and cycling, while extensive tourism includes walking, running, controlled hunting and fishing, rock climbing, mountaineering, nature-watching, and hiking.
The third zone corresponds to plain and rangeland ecosystems. Intensive tourism in the plain ecosystem includes a variety of sports such as cycling, trekking, light motorcycling, golf, motor rallies, light car rallies, bike rallies, gliding, and light aircraft activities. Extensive tourism in this zone includes kitesurfing, walking, horseback riding, running, hunting, fishing, and trail exploration.
Finally, the aquatic ecosystem zone, which includes lakes, dams, and perennial and seasonal rivers, is suitable for camping and shallow diving as intensive recreational-sports activities, and for fishing, rafting, and nature-watching as extensive recreational activities.
Conclusion
The mountain-forest ecosystem located in the northern zone of the study area, where most tourism activities are intensive, is more susceptible to environmental damage compared to other areas. Extensive tourism in this zone does not have negative impacts.
Acknowledgments: This article is derived from an independent research project conducted by the author in collaboration with the General Directorate of Sports and Youth and the General Directorate of Environmental Protection of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province in 2021. The author sincerely thanks these organizations for their cooperation and for providing the baseline data.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the author.
Conflict of Interest: No conflicts of interest were reported by the author.
Author Contributions: Kalooti M (First Author), Main Researcher (100%).
Funding: All expenses were covered by the author. No sponsors or financial partners were involved.
Today, in many countries around the world, especially those with unique natural environments, tourism is regarded as a response to economic needs [James et al., 2015]. As both an economic and social activity, tourism requires a spatial context that supports its activities. Various factors have caused these activities to be distributed heterogeneously across such contexts [Mahdi et al., 2020]. In recent years, the demand for recreational and sports uses of natural spaces has increased. Tourism has both positive and negative impacts on the environment and host communities [Ehigiamusoe, 2020]. Ignoring the effects of tourism development without proper management can cause serious damage to the environment, culture, and host society [Montazeri Shahtouri et al., 2022].
From an ecological perspective, the expansion of tourism activities can be considered a threat to natural ecosystems, as many natural areas in the country are highly sensitive and vulnerable [Nasrolahi et al., 2015]. Increasing recreational demand results in the creation of multiple pathways and trails in natural and pristine areas [Daniels et al., 2004]. Trampling on these paths leads to soil compaction and erosion, land degradation, loss of vegetation cover, changes in soil biological, chemical, and hydrological properties, and eventual soil loss [Zhang & Lei, 2012; Mahdi et al., 2020]. Therefore, establishing an optimal balance between the recreational capacity of a resource and the intensity of visitor use is crucial and forms the basis for systematic planning of recreational areas for sports activities [Devlin & Billings, 2018].
In recent years, planners have recognized the tourism industry as a key pillar of sustainable development. Through systematic planning and identifying tourism advantages and limitations, national development can be promoted and economic diversification can be achieved [Porkhosravani et al., 2022]. It is therefore essential that all tourism plans and projects related to valuable natural areas consider not only competitiveness in attracting visitors but also environmental sustainability, as tourism development depends on the preservation of natural resources and their optimal use [Ashok et al., 2017].
Tourism activities are generally categorized based on the level of development intended for implementation in natural environments into two types [Bahmanpour & Taheri Hosseinabadi, 2019]:
- Intensive Tourism: which requires construction and development in the target area.
- Extensive Tourism: which requires little to no construction or development.
In recent years, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been widely used as an effective tool for site selection [Borowy, 2014]. GIS has the ability to collect, store, construct, process, and analyze data, presenting them in layers and mapping [Martire et al., 2015].
In land-use planning and management, tourism carrying capacity is recognized as a holistic approach and a decision-support tool. Assessing carrying capacity quantitatively measures the extent of resource utilization and serves as a foundation for monitoring ecosystem thresholds, controlling disturbances, and tracking degradation trends [Altinay & Hussain, 2005; Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019]. In general, carrying capacity at the ecosystem level is defined as the threshold at which a process or environmental parameter can change within a given ecosystem without causing irreversible structural or functional damage [Nghi et al., 2007].
The practical concept of carrying capacity, as defined by the World Tourism Organization, refers to “the maximum number of visitors that a natural, recreational, or sports area can accommodate at a given time without causing unacceptable changes or disturbances to the physical, economic, social, and cultural environment, and without reducing user satisfaction” [The World Tourism Organization, 2016]. In other words, carrying capacity defines the limit beyond which resource degradation or irreparable ecosystem damage occurs [Sianipar et al., 2013]. All environments, whether natural or man-made, have a defined threshold for usage. Exceeding this threshold can result in environmental damage, user dissatisfaction, and other negative impacts [Spenceley & Snyman, 2017].
This concept is recognized as a tool for sustainable development, aiming to continuously meet human needs and improve quality of life [Saveriades, 2000]. Sustainable sports tourism development refers to expanding recreational and sports activities in a region using available resources in a way that meets social, psychological, economic, cultural, and legal needs, while balancing environmental health, public hygiene, cultural identity, and economic stability. To achieve a reasonable and practical carrying capacity for each region, evaluating and integrating all relevant capacities and indicators is essential. Sustainable and dynamic management of recreational resources, considering all these factors, serves as a benchmark for measuring carrying capacity [Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019].
Indicators provide important opportunities to define and apply the Sport and Tourism Carrying Capacity (STCC). Three types of indicators have been proposed for STCC studies, with their importance varying depending on the site and recreational or sports objectives:
- Physical-Ecological Indicators
- Social-Demographic Indicators
- Economic-Political Indicators
Environmental (Physical-Ecological) Carrying Capacity refers to the maximum number of individuals a habitat can support without causing irreversible damage to its sustainability or functional systems [Meadows et al., 1993]. Social carrying capacity addresses crowd tolerance and user satisfaction from the perspective of local residents [Lawson et al., 2003]. Economic carrying capacity refers to the level of economic activity that does not harm key local economic functions, meaning tourism should not interfere with other sectors or reduce local income [James et al., 2015].
Most carrying capacity studies focus on tourism. For example, carrying capacity assessments have been conducted in the Darakeh area of Tehran [Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019], Ashuradeh Island [Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020], Kish Island [Hoseinzadeh & Erfanian, 2015], Qomishlu National Park and Wildlife Refuge [Jahani et al., 2018], and Nowshahr parks [Elahi Choren et al., 2019]. In Mashhad, assessments have shown that natural areas can accommodate many users for recreation and sports, provided safety and environmental considerations are met [Moradi et al., 2019]. Similarly, ecotourism planning in Shahroud protected areas indicated that environmental carrying capacity was exceeded [Mahdi et al., 2020].
The objective of this study is to zoning and site selection of suitable areas for recreational and sports tourism.
Methodology
The present study is applied in nature and was conducted during 2020–2021 in the Dena region. This research aimed to identify and evaluate suitable zones for recreational and sports tourism by employing a combined model that integrates Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the Sport and Tourism Carrying Capacity (STCC) model.
The Dena region is located in the northern part of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, covering approximately 204,000 hectares, which accounts for about 6.7% of the Central Zagros region. The population of the area is around 60,635, representing 4.3% of the total population of the mountainous Central Zagros. The region comprises 333 rural settlements and three urban settlements (Margoon, Pataveh, and Chitab). Approximately 83.3% of the area is mountainous, with the remainder being plains. The average elevation is 1,979 meters, and the average slope is 27.5%. The climate is classified as cold semi-humid. The highest monthly rainfall occurs in December and November [SCC, 2015], while summer rainfall is less than one millimeter. The region is experiencing progressive drought. The average annual number of frost days is approximately 85, generally occurring from November to early April, with the highest frost frequency in December. The orientation of mountains and hills is predominantly northwest–southeast. Erosion susceptibility is relatively high in the north and northwest, and low to moderate in the south and east. The region contains approximately 35.8 hectares of wetlands and features a unique combination of vegetation and wildlife, with favorable climatic conditions enhancing the density and coverage of rangeland vegetation. Forests cover around 89,000 hectares, accounting for 43% of the total area. The region hosts diverse natural attractions, drawing a large number of tourists annually.
In this study, a combined model was employed, consisting of two main components: the Ecological Capacity Evaluation (ECE) model and the Sport and Tourism Carrying Capacity (STCC) model. The purpose of the ecological capacity assessment was to screen suitable areas for tourism development while identifying and excluding ecologically sensitive and vulnerable zones. This model was proposed by the United Nations Development Programme in 2017 as a practical guideline for aligning environmental indicators with intended land uses [United Nations, 2017].
The ecological capacity assessment of the region was conducted based on the ecological model proposed for intensive and extensive tourism [The World Tourism Organization, 2016].
- Intensive Tourism Ecological Model: This model comprises three categories and applies to activities such as swimming, skiing, boating, camping, car rallies, motorcycling, cycling, and visiting cultural and historical sites, which require long-term accommodation.
- Extensive Tourism Ecological Model: This model also consists of three categories and is suitable for activities such as mountaineering, rock climbing, hiking, hunting, fishing, plain exploration, kite surfing, paragliding, horseback riding, and wildlife observation [The World Tourism Organization, 2016; United Nations, 2017].
- Defining the Study Area: GPS was used to delineate the precise boundaries of the study area. Recorded ground points were imported into GIS software to produce the area map and calculate its size.
- Land-Use Mapping: Using base layers, a land-use map was prepared to exclude areas unsuitable for recreational and sports activities. Only areas capable of supporting such activities were retained.
- Carrying Capacity Assessment: Physical, real, and effective carrying capacities were estimated. Using 1:25,000 topographic maps, key layers including topography, waterways, vegetation, road networks, urban, and rural areas were extracted. With the Topo to Raster model and auxiliary programs in ArcGIS 9.3, the required maps were produced.
Real Carrying Capacity (RCC): RCC represents the maximum number of visitors allowed in an area considering limiting factors (Cf) specific to that location.
Effective Carrying Capacity (ECC): ECC denotes the maximum number of users that can be sustainably managed in a location. It accounts for management capabilities such as policies, regulations, infrastructure, facilities, staffing, and financial resources [Taheri Hosseinabadi et al., 2019].
To obtain reliable information on management capabilities, a standard checklist was provided to 97 users with prior experience in the area, selected using a simple random sampling method. These responses reflect the practical effectiveness of management in the study area.
Findings
Based on the conducted analyses and the use of base information layers, the share and percentage of each current land use in the study area were determined, and accordingly, the land-use map of the study area was prepared and illustrated.
After determining land use, unsuitable and prohibited zones for tourism were identified and removed from the map. These areas included built-up lands, agricultural and orchard lands, aquaculture zones, forests with more than 70% canopy cover, high-quality rangelands, and protected areas under the supervision of the Environmental Protection Organization (such as wildlife refuges). The total remaining area was 760,650,000 m². Subsequently, the physical carrying capacity of the study area was calculated. This capacity depends on the area, space per visitor, and the available duration of use. Considering that the available time and the average visit length were 15 hours and 5 hours, respectively, the daily use duration was set at 3 hours. Ultimately, the physical carrying capacity (PCC) was calculated to be 182,556,000 persons.
Using the Land Capacity Evaluation model, five factors and thirteen associated parameters were considered as limiting factors for recreational and sports activities in the area. After calculating the limitation coefficients, the real carrying capacity (RCC) of the study area was determined to be 24,152,158 persons.
To estimate the effective carrying capacity (ECC), management parameters were considered, including access path design and improvement, local tranquility, local businesses, facilities (parking, camping, variety of sports and recreational uses, food outlets, sanitary facilities, drinking water, hygiene and cleaning, security, safety, emergency services, service provision, and monitoring).
The percentage of management capabilities was obtained by calculating the weighted mean scores for each of the elements in the Dena region, averaging them, and converting the result into a percentage. The ECC was then calculated by multiplying the real carrying capacity by the management capability percentage.
The study area scored 2.2 out of 5 based on user and local community assessments, indicating that the region possessed 44% of the minimum required management capacity to achieve the intended objectives. Accordingly, the effective carrying capacity of the study area (in persons per day) was calculated. Thus, the permissible tourist carrying capacity for the entire study area was 10,626,949 persons, and suitable zones for recreational and sports tourism development were identified.
After analyzing the information layers, the suitable zones for various types of sports and recreational tourism were determined.
Discussion
This study aimed to provide a reliable basis for decision-making and planning toward sustainable development by determining three types of carrying capacities, physical, real, and effective for the region. An important point is that the final value estimated in this study exceeded the current management capacity because management objectives and conservation priorities were emphasized in calculating the carrying capacity. Consequently, ecological sensitivities were reflected in the relevant coefficients.
The physical carrying capacity of the study area was estimated at 18,255,600 persons per day. Five limiting factors and thirteen associated parameters were used as coefficients in calculating the real carrying capacity. The identified limiting factors in this research align with those reported by Moradi et al. [2017] and Taheri Hosseinabadi et al. [2019]; however, the number of identified parameters (secondary limiting factors) in this study was higher than in all previous studies. The real carrying capacity of the study area was calculated at 24,152,158 persons per day, which seems reasonable given the extensive size of the study area.
To estimate the effective carrying capacity, management parameters were applied to determine the management capabilities. Among these, the highest scores were assigned to "diversity of recreational uses" and "diversity of sports activities" (3.4 and 3.3, respectively), and the lowest score was given to "health and sanitation" (1.6). Accordingly, the effective carrying capacity of the study area was determined to be 10,626,949 persons per day. The results of this section do not correspond to any previous studies conducted in other regions. This discrepancy is attributed to the unique ecological conditions and infrastructure of the study area, which are not comparable with other regions.
The obtained physical carrying capacity was much higher than the real carrying capacity, consistent with findings by Taheri Hosseinabadi et al. [2019], Behzadnia & Dorbeiki [2020], Mashayekhan et al. [2014], and Sayan & Atik [2011]. The large value for physical carrying capacity relates to its definition, which considers only the number of people a site can physically accommodate without accounting for actual site performance. When ecological-environmental, socio-cultural, and economic coefficients are applied, the resulting values become more realistic and closer to sustainable development principles. The critical measure to consider, therefore, is the effective carrying capacity.
Overall, the Dena region can accommodate a considerable number of users for recreational and sports activities. The area also contains pristine zones suitable for the design and establishment of recreational and sports uses. However, environmental and safety priorities must be considered. It should be noted that ignoring carrying capacity when determining the permissible number of users can lead to environmental damage, reduced service quality, and negative impacts on both natural and built resources. Therefore, management must plan in a way that ensures sustainable utilization of existing uses.
The results indicated that the study area can be divided into four zones for intensive and extensive tourism. The first zone comprises mountain-forest ecosystems. In this zone, major intensive recreational and sports activities requiring facilities and construction include trekking and camping. For extensive tourism, activities such as horseback riding, walking, running, controlled hunting and fishing, nature-watching, bird-watching, mountaineering, and hiking are suitable. These activities minimally impact the surrounding environment and require few facilities. In the mountain ecosystem zone, intensive tourism includes trekking, camping, and cycling, while extensive tourism includes walking, running, controlled hunting and fishing, rock climbing, mountaineering, nature-watching, and hiking.
The third zone corresponds to plain and rangeland ecosystems. Intensive tourism in the plain ecosystem includes a variety of sports such as cycling, trekking, light motorcycling, golf, motor rallies, light car rallies, bike rallies, gliding, and light aircraft activities. Extensive tourism in this zone includes kitesurfing, walking, horseback riding, running, hunting, fishing, and trail exploration.
Finally, the aquatic ecosystem zone, which includes lakes, dams, and perennial and seasonal rivers, is suitable for camping and shallow diving as intensive recreational-sports activities, and for fishing, rafting, and nature-watching as extensive recreational activities.
Conclusion
The mountain-forest ecosystem located in the northern zone of the study area, where most tourism activities are intensive, is more susceptible to environmental damage compared to other areas. Extensive tourism in this zone does not have negative impacts.
Acknowledgments: This article is derived from an independent research project conducted by the author in collaboration with the General Directorate of Sports and Youth and the General Directorate of Environmental Protection of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province in 2021. The author sincerely thanks these organizations for their cooperation and for providing the baseline data.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the author.
Conflict of Interest: No conflicts of interest were reported by the author.
Author Contributions: Kalooti M (First Author), Main Researcher (100%).
Funding: All expenses were covered by the author. No sponsors or financial partners were involved.
Keywords:
References
1. Altinay M, Hussain K (2005). Sustainable tourism development: A case study of North Cyprus. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 17(3):272-280. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/09596110510591963]
2. Ashok S, Tewari HR, Behera MD, Majumdar A (2017). Development of ecotourism sustainability assessment framework employing Delphi, C&I and participatory methods: A case study of KBR, West Sikkim, India. Tourism Management Perspectives. 21:24-41. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tmp.2016.10.005]
3. Bahmanpour H, Taheri Hosseinabadi M (2019). Presenting the combined pattern of sport tourism site selection with Geographic Information System (GIS) and Layer Overlay (IO). Shebak. 5(41):37-49. [Persian] [Link]
4. Behzadnia M, Dorbeiki M (2020). Carrying capacity of nature-tourism in Ashooradeh Island in Miankaleh biosphere reserve, Iran. Geographical Researches. 35(3):205-213. [Persian] [Link]
5. Borowy I (2014). Defining sustainable development for our common future: A history of the world commission on environment and development (Brundtland Commission). 1st edition. Milton Park: Routledge. [Link]
6. Daniels M, Norman W, Henry M (2004). Estimating income effects of a sport tourism event. Annals of Tourism Research. 31(1): 180-199. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.annals.2003.10.002]
7. Devlin M, Billings AC (2018). Examining confirmation biases: Implications of sponsor congruency. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship. 19(1):58-73. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/IJSMS-10-2016-0078]
8. Ehigiamusoe KU (2020). Tourism, growth and environment: Analysis of non-linear and moderating effects. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 28(8):1174-1192. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/09669582.2020.1729164]
9. Elahi Choren MA, Ramezanzadeh M, Einali j (2019). Estimation of physical, real and effective carrying capacity of tourism (the case of Nowshahr parks). Quarterly Journal of Human Geography. 11(4):582-599. [Persian] [Link]
10. Hoseinzadeh SR, Erfanian A (2015). Determining the carrying capacity of coastal tourism of Kish Island. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement. 5(16):181-200. [Persian] [Link]
11. Jahani A, Shirani Sarmazeh N, Goshtasb Meygooni H, Etemad V (2018). The estimated carrying capacity of tourism in protected areas (case study: Qhamishloo national park and wildlife refuge). Environmental Researches. 9(17):55-66. [Persian] [Link]
12. James P (2015). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: Circles of sustainability. 1st edition. London: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315765747]
13. Lawson SR, Manning RE, Valliere WA, Wang B (2003). Proactive monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity in Arches National Park: An application of computer simulation modeling. Journal of Environmental Management. 68(3):305-313. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00094-X]
14. Mahdi A, Karimi D, Farshchi P, Panahi M (2020). Presentation of a model of site assessment and ecotourism planning in protected areas with an ecological carrying capacity approach. Geographical Researches. 35(1):43-54. [Persian] [Link]
15. Martire S, Castellani V, Sala S (2015). Carrying capacity assessment of forest resources: Enhancing environmental sustainability in energy production at local scale. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 94:11-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.002]
16. Mashayekhan A, Mohamadi Calichi M, Rassam GH, Hoseini V, Jalilvand H, Mohalleh M (2014). Recreation carrying capacity estimate to support forest park management (case study: Telar forest park, Ghaemshahr, Iran). World Applied Sciences. 29(3):421-425. [Link]
17. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J (1993). Beyond the limits: Confronting global, collapse, envisioning a sustainable future. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. [Link]
18. Masoodi SM (2016). Application of multi-criteria evaluation and GIS to ecotourism planning in protected areas (case study: MianKaleh wildlife refuge). Journal of Natural Environment. 69(1):211-229. [Persian] [Link]
19. Montazeri Shahtouri M, Estelagi A, Vali Shariatpanahi M (2022). An analyses of tourism development in Iran emphasizing eco-tourism resorts. Geographical Researches. 37(3):459-466. [Persian] [Link]
20. Moradi A, Daneshpour A, Daneshvar M, Bahmanpour H (2019). Determine the carrying capacity of the tourism and recreational range of natural areas of Mashhad metropolis along the urban and sustainable urban planning. Geographical Researches. 34(3):445-454. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.29252/geores.34.3.445]
21. Nasrolahi Z, Jahanbazi N, Naseri T (2015). Province classification in terms of tourist attractions. Tourism Management Studies. 9(28):17-37. [Persian] [Link]
22. Nghi T, Lan NT, Thai ND, Mai D, Thanh DX (2007). Tourism carrying capacity assessment for Pong Nhake Bang and Dong Hoi, Quang Binh Province. VNU Journal of Science, Earth Sciences. 23:80-87. [Link]
23. Porkhosravani M, Shahzeidi SS, Azizi Zarandi A (2022). Evaluation of tourism development by systems dynamics model (case study: Shahdad City in the northeast of Kerman). Geographical Researches. 37(2):171-188. [Persian] [Link]
24. Saveriades A (2000). Establishing the social tourism carrying capacity for the tourist resorts of the east coast of the republic of Cyprus. Tourist Management. 21(2):147-156. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00044-8]
25. Sayan MS, Atik M (2011). Recreation carrying capacity estimates for protected areas: A study of Termesson National Park. Ekoloji. 20(78):66-74. [Link] [DOI:10.5053/ekoloji.2011.7811]
26. SCC (2015). Surrounding cooperative company, review of land use changes in the Central Zagros region using remote sensing technique and geographic information system. Yasuj: Department of Environment. [Persian] [Link]
27. Sianipar CPM, Dowaki K, Yudoko G, Adhiutama A (2013). Seven pillars of survivability: Appropriate technology with a human face. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2(4):1-18. [Link] [DOI:10.14207/ejsd.2013.v2n4p1]
28. Spenceley A, Snyman S (2017). Protected area tourism: Progress, innovation and sustainability. Tourism and Hospitality Research. 17(1):3-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1467358416646646]
29. Taheri Hosseinabadi M, Tayebi Sani SM, Fahiminejad A, Bahmanpour H (2019). Carrying capacity determine of the sports and recreational of the natural areas in line with sustainable planning (case study: The mountainous of Darakeh). Tourism & Development. 8(4):82-98. [Persian] [Link]
30. United Nations (2017). The sustainable development goals report. New York: United Nations. [Link]
31. The World Tourism Organization (2016). Tourism facts and figures. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization. [Link]
32. Zhang H, Lei SL (2012). A structural model of residents' intention to participate in ecotourism: The case of a wetland community. Tourism Management. 33(4):916-925. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.012]