Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 365-372 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/08/6 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/09/19
Received: 2023/08/6 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/09/19
How to cite this article
Dorbeiki M, Arazzadeh Y, Naseri F. Estimating the Tourism Carrying Capacity of Recreation Areas of Golestan National Park. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :365-372
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1516-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1516-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:
1- Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran
2- Department of the Environment, Shahrig Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of the Environment, Shahrig Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (83 Views)
Introduction
In most countries of the world, certain parts of nature are designated and managed as protected areas. The International :union: for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines these areas as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” [Dudley, 2008]. Research indicates that protected areas, in addition to safeguarding ecosystems and biodiversity, can contribute to reducing environmental inequalities and improving social and ecological outcomes [Huber et al., 2023].
According to the IUCN classification, there are seven types of protected areas: strict nature reserves, wilderness areas, national parks, natural monuments, habitat/species management areas, protected landscapes/seascapes, and protected areas with sustainable resource management. These areas are established for purposes such as scientific research, wildlife protection, species and genetic diversity conservation (biodiversity), preservation of ecosystem services, protection of outstanding natural and cultural features, tourism and recreation, education, sustainable use of natural ecosystem resources, and safeguarding traditional and cultural values [Shafer, 2015]. Among these, tourism and recreation. except in strict nature reserves, represent a primary and attainable objective, making them a common and integral aspect of management. Regardless of their conservation standards, all categories of protected areas are also connected with tourism [Moharramnejad et al., 2013].
One of the most valuable categories of protected areas is the national park, which is defined as “large natural or near-natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities” [Bosworth & Curry, 2020]. However, the presence of tourists in national parks inevitably brings both positive and negative environmental, economic, social, and cultural consequences, many of which can be effectively managed. To manage each protected area, an appropriate management plan must be developed to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impacts of tourism. For this reason, protected area managers often employ visitor limitation strategies as part of a suitable approach to sustainable tourism development [Cupul-Magaña & Rodríguez-Troncoso, 2017].
One such management tool is the concept of carrying capacity. Although several methods have been proposed, the IUCN approach is regarded as both practical and user-friendly [Ceballos-Lascurian, 1996]. In ecosystem science, carrying capacity is defined as the threshold or level of environmental change that a given process or variable in an ecosystem can undergo without exceeding a critical limit of structural or functional disruption [Duarte et al., 2003]. In tourism studies, the focus is placed on visitors, and, as usual, various definitions exist [Long et al., 2022]. According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), carrying capacity refers to the maximum number of people who can visit a tourist destination without causing the physical, economic, social, or cultural environment to deteriorate, and without leading to an irreversible decline in visitor satisfaction [Adrianto et al., 2021]. Carrying capacity thus assigns a quantifiable level of use to both natural and artificial environments, where surpassing this threshold results in varying degrees of degradation or reduced visitor satisfaction [Brown et al., 1997]. Consequently, estimating carrying capacity in different categories of protected areas, especially national parks, where visitor presence is permitted is of critical importance.
Over the past two decades, several studies have been conducted in Iran on the estimation of recreational and tourism carrying capacity in national parks and other types of protected areas. For example, a comprehensive study proposed an optimal tourism management program as a tool for applying the carrying capacity concept in sustainable tourism management [Shayesteh et al., 2012]. Research on the Maranjab Desert indicated that the tourist reception capacity was higher than the current level of visitation [Jomepour & Namayandeh, 2012]. Similarly, the daily physical, real, and permissible carrying capacities for boating in the international Hara wetland were estimated in another study [Parvaresh et al., 2013]. An assessment of tourism carrying capacity in the Gheysari protected area showed that, given the management capability and infrastructure, only a very small portion of the real carrying capacity could be practically implemented [Sheikh et al., 2014]. In Zanjanrud, researchers found that each sub-area had a distinct carrying capacity depending on its tourism priority [Heydari et al., 2013]. In Sabalan, assessments revealed that neglecting the ecological threshold placed the short-term sustainability of resources at serious risk [Movahedi et al., 2013].
Further studies include: estimation of daily physical, real, and effective carrying capacity in the Gilan mountains [Sadeghi Chahardeh et al., 2015]; evaluation of coastal tourism capacity in Kish Island, which showed excessive concentration of visitors beyond environmental and visitor thresholds [Hoseinzadeh & Erfanian, 2015]; carrying capacity assessment in Qomishlou National Park and Wildlife Refuge, which revealed that service capacity exceeded managerial capacity [Jahani et al., 2018]; and determination of recreational capacity in natural areas of Mashhad, highlighting the need to prioritize ecological and safety concerns despite high visitor potential [Moradi et al., 2019].
Other notable studies include the evaluation of Boranjegan forest [Eskandari Shahraki et al., 2019]; psychological carrying capacity assessment at Zayandeh-Rud Dam Lake [Shayesteh et al., 2019]; tourism capacity analysis of Bisheh Waterfall [Behrad et al., 2019]; annual physical, real, and effective capacity estimation in Alvand protected area [Sayahnia et al., 2020]; social carrying capacity of Chitgar Lake, Tehran [Momeni Sadr et al., 2019]; daily tourism capacity in Ashuradeh Island [Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020]; effective capacity evaluation in Seidkouh protected area [Kiyani Sadr et al., 2020]; ecotourism planning in Shahroud [Mahdi et al., 2020]; assessment in Arasbaran forests [Dana Alamdari et al., 2022]; and socio-cultural carrying capacity determination in the Karkheh protected area [Salemi, 2022].
The purpose of the present research is to estimate the tourism carrying capacity of recreational zones in Golestan National Park using the IUCN-approved method. This approach enables the assessment of the permissible number of visitors in each recreation site, thereby facilitating the design, planning, and optimal management of the park to achieve its conservation, recreational, and educational objectives.
Methodology
The present research employed quantitative methods as recommended, and was designed as a field-based, case-specific, and applied study conducted in 2021 across four recreational sites within Golestan National Park. Golestan National Park, one of the most renowned national parks in Iran, spans 91,895 hectares, with the majority located in Golestan Province and smaller portions extending into North Khorasan and Semnan Provinces. In 1977, the park was designated as a biosphere reserve.
The park encompasses a wide variety of ecosystems, including temperate forests, mountains, steppes, rolling hills, springs, and rivers, which contribute to its remarkable diversity of plant and animal communities. Numerous species of Iran’s flora and fauna occur in the park, some of which remain unidentified, and several are endemic. Due to its status as an outstanding and unique example of pristine natural ecosystems, remarkable biodiversity, diverse landscapes, distinctive geological formations, and archaeological and historical monuments, the park provides multiple opportunities for scientific research, tourism, and education. It is therefore considered one of the most valuable ecotourism destinations in Iran.
In addition to spontaneously used areas, the park contains three formal recreational sites—Golshan, Golzar, and Abshar; two visitor centers, namely the Golestan National Park Visitor Center and the Mirzabaylou Wildlife Museum; as well as specialized tourism facilities such as the Tangrah, Tang-e-Gol, Alma, and Soulgerd guesthouses [Moharramnejad et al., 2017]. Golestan National Park also plays a critical role for the surrounding settlements, as the rural economy is largely based on livestock, agriculture, and tourism-related industries. Many local residents benefit economically from the park, particularly through tourism [Ghoddousi et al., 2018].
At the outset of the research, the management plan maps of Golestan National Park, delineating areas designated for extensive and intensive tourism were reviewed. Subsequently, the specific sites defined in the terms of reference for carrying capacity estimation were identified through field surveys using GPS, and final maps were produced and refined using specialized software such as ArcGIS and AutoCAD.
In the next stage, limiting factors were identified for each site. These were selected based on expert consultations, regional meteorological reports, and ecological and infrastructural sensitivities indicated in the park’s management plan. The quantitative methods outlined in the IUCN operational guidelines were then applied to estimate three types of carrying capacity for each recreational site: physical carrying capacity (PCC), real carrying capacity (RCC), and effective carrying capacity (ECC) [Ceballos-Lascurian, 1996]. The estimation methods are described below.
Findings
The findings show that the physical carrying capacity of the recreation sites was substantially reduced once ecological, climatic, social, and infrastructural constraints were taken into account. In total, 18 limiting factors were identified for Golshan, 17 for Golzar, and 14 for both Abshar and Mirzabaylou. These constraints lowered the real carrying capacity to levels significantly below the physical estimates. When management capacity, particularly the availability of protective and service staff, was included as an adjustment factor, the effective carrying capacity was further reduced. Overall, Golshan and Golzar demonstrated comparatively higher effective capacities than Abshar and Mirzabaylou, suggesting that the first two sites are more resilient to visitor pressure, while the latter two are more vulnerable to environmental and managerial limitations.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to estimate the tourism carrying capacity of the recreation sites in Golestan National Park using the method recommended by the International :union: for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Although recreation and tourism, particularly ecotourism and nature-based tourism, are among the main objectives of the park, provided that all environmental principles are observed, such estimates had not been included in the park’s management plans. Therefore, the present study contributes to the optimal management of visitors and the reduction of negative impacts, while enhancing potential positive effects.
The ecological sensitivity of Golestan National Park requires precise estimations of tourism carrying capacity in order to minimize environmental degradation. These sensitivities manifest in the form of limiting factors. The effective carrying capacity obtained in this study indicates the maximum recommended number of visitors for each recreation site; however, this figure is not absolute and may need to be adjusted downward. Such adjustments depend on effective implementation of recreation programs and ongoing monitoring. For instance, if monitoring shows that the estimated numbers still generate considerable damage, visitor numbers should be reduced through management strategies such as temporal and spatial restrictions or limiting specific activities. This approach is particularly recommended for the initial stages of sustainable tourism planning in the park. Conversely, if long-term monitoring demonstrates improved conditions, the carrying capacity should be re-evaluated and potentially increased. Importantly, the findings of this study also provide a foundation for the design of recreation sites, since the development of any tourism infrastructure without accurate knowledge of permissible visitor numbers is meaningless. Clearly, carrying capacity assessments become operational only when integrated into the basis of recreation and sustainable tourism management programs in national parks.
The results of this study are specific to Golestan National Park and unprecedented in the sense that no prior official research had been conducted in this area. Methodologically, however, several studies have applied the same approach in other Iranian protected areas [Jahani et al., 2018; Moradi et al., 2019; Eskandari Shahraki et al., 2019; Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020]. Nevertheless, since each area possesses unique characteristics that directly affect carrying capacity estimates, outputs may vary. For example, the required space per visitor is highly variable. In this study, as the estimation focused only on concentrated recreation sites, the space per visitor was considered to be 4 m² in Golshan, Abshar, and Mirzabaylou, a figure consistent with some previous studies [Sheikh et al., 2014; Heydari et al., 2013; Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020; Mahdi et al., 2020]. Other studies, however, especially those addressing extensive recreation zones, reported highly divergent values, ranging from 5 to 2,500 m² depending on the region and activities [Jomepour & Namayandeh, 2012; Movahedi et al., 2013; Sadeghi Chahardeh et al., 2015; Eskandari Shahraki et al., 2019; Sayahnia et al., 2020; Kiyani Sadr et al., 2020].
Another distinctive feature of the present research is the identification of 22 limiting factors, which is unique compared to earlier studies that typically considered fewer constraints (between 3 and 12), and largely emphasized climatic parameters. In contrast, this study incorporated climatic, ecological, social, and infrastructural conditions, with limiting factors identified and proposed for each recreation site individually.
Like other similar research, this study faced typical challenges, including limited data on current tourism conditions and visitor activities, the lack of updated maps of recreation sites, and the scarcity of comparable studies in other Iranian national parks.
Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed:
Conclusion
The total number of daily visitors estimated for the 28 hectares of tourism zones across the four recreation sites of Golestan National Park amounts to 8,016 individuals, distributed across all seasons but varying by site and season. Specifically, the daily capacities are 6,018 for Golshan, 1,033 for Abshar, 195 for Golzar, and 770 for Mirzabaylou. In other words, the maximum permissible density corresponds to one visitor per 27 m² in Golshan, 48 m² in Abshar, 211 m² in Golzar, and 42 m² in Mirzabaylou.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts and support of the National Environment Fund, the Department of Environment, the Golestan Provincial Office of the Department of Environment, the Golestan National Park Administration, and Shahryg Engineering Company in the completion of this research.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Dorbeiki M (first author): Statistical Analyst/Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer/Methodologist/Discussion Writer (70%); Arazzadeh Y (second author): Assistant Researcher (20%); Naseri F (third author): Assistant Researcher (10%)
Funding: This article is derived from the research findings of the project “Preparation of the Feasibility, Technical, and Economic Plan for the Recreation Sites of Golestan National Park (Golshan, Abshar, Golzar, and Mirzabaylou)” conducted in 2020 by Shahryg Engineering Company, with legal, financial, administrative, and technical support provided by the National Environment Fund and the Golestan Provincial Office of the Department of Environment.
In most countries of the world, certain parts of nature are designated and managed as protected areas. The International :union: for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines these areas as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” [Dudley, 2008]. Research indicates that protected areas, in addition to safeguarding ecosystems and biodiversity, can contribute to reducing environmental inequalities and improving social and ecological outcomes [Huber et al., 2023].
According to the IUCN classification, there are seven types of protected areas: strict nature reserves, wilderness areas, national parks, natural monuments, habitat/species management areas, protected landscapes/seascapes, and protected areas with sustainable resource management. These areas are established for purposes such as scientific research, wildlife protection, species and genetic diversity conservation (biodiversity), preservation of ecosystem services, protection of outstanding natural and cultural features, tourism and recreation, education, sustainable use of natural ecosystem resources, and safeguarding traditional and cultural values [Shafer, 2015]. Among these, tourism and recreation. except in strict nature reserves, represent a primary and attainable objective, making them a common and integral aspect of management. Regardless of their conservation standards, all categories of protected areas are also connected with tourism [Moharramnejad et al., 2013].
One of the most valuable categories of protected areas is the national park, which is defined as “large natural or near-natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities” [Bosworth & Curry, 2020]. However, the presence of tourists in national parks inevitably brings both positive and negative environmental, economic, social, and cultural consequences, many of which can be effectively managed. To manage each protected area, an appropriate management plan must be developed to maximize the positive and minimize the negative impacts of tourism. For this reason, protected area managers often employ visitor limitation strategies as part of a suitable approach to sustainable tourism development [Cupul-Magaña & Rodríguez-Troncoso, 2017].
One such management tool is the concept of carrying capacity. Although several methods have been proposed, the IUCN approach is regarded as both practical and user-friendly [Ceballos-Lascurian, 1996]. In ecosystem science, carrying capacity is defined as the threshold or level of environmental change that a given process or variable in an ecosystem can undergo without exceeding a critical limit of structural or functional disruption [Duarte et al., 2003]. In tourism studies, the focus is placed on visitors, and, as usual, various definitions exist [Long et al., 2022]. According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), carrying capacity refers to the maximum number of people who can visit a tourist destination without causing the physical, economic, social, or cultural environment to deteriorate, and without leading to an irreversible decline in visitor satisfaction [Adrianto et al., 2021]. Carrying capacity thus assigns a quantifiable level of use to both natural and artificial environments, where surpassing this threshold results in varying degrees of degradation or reduced visitor satisfaction [Brown et al., 1997]. Consequently, estimating carrying capacity in different categories of protected areas, especially national parks, where visitor presence is permitted is of critical importance.
Over the past two decades, several studies have been conducted in Iran on the estimation of recreational and tourism carrying capacity in national parks and other types of protected areas. For example, a comprehensive study proposed an optimal tourism management program as a tool for applying the carrying capacity concept in sustainable tourism management [Shayesteh et al., 2012]. Research on the Maranjab Desert indicated that the tourist reception capacity was higher than the current level of visitation [Jomepour & Namayandeh, 2012]. Similarly, the daily physical, real, and permissible carrying capacities for boating in the international Hara wetland were estimated in another study [Parvaresh et al., 2013]. An assessment of tourism carrying capacity in the Gheysari protected area showed that, given the management capability and infrastructure, only a very small portion of the real carrying capacity could be practically implemented [Sheikh et al., 2014]. In Zanjanrud, researchers found that each sub-area had a distinct carrying capacity depending on its tourism priority [Heydari et al., 2013]. In Sabalan, assessments revealed that neglecting the ecological threshold placed the short-term sustainability of resources at serious risk [Movahedi et al., 2013].
Further studies include: estimation of daily physical, real, and effective carrying capacity in the Gilan mountains [Sadeghi Chahardeh et al., 2015]; evaluation of coastal tourism capacity in Kish Island, which showed excessive concentration of visitors beyond environmental and visitor thresholds [Hoseinzadeh & Erfanian, 2015]; carrying capacity assessment in Qomishlou National Park and Wildlife Refuge, which revealed that service capacity exceeded managerial capacity [Jahani et al., 2018]; and determination of recreational capacity in natural areas of Mashhad, highlighting the need to prioritize ecological and safety concerns despite high visitor potential [Moradi et al., 2019].
Other notable studies include the evaluation of Boranjegan forest [Eskandari Shahraki et al., 2019]; psychological carrying capacity assessment at Zayandeh-Rud Dam Lake [Shayesteh et al., 2019]; tourism capacity analysis of Bisheh Waterfall [Behrad et al., 2019]; annual physical, real, and effective capacity estimation in Alvand protected area [Sayahnia et al., 2020]; social carrying capacity of Chitgar Lake, Tehran [Momeni Sadr et al., 2019]; daily tourism capacity in Ashuradeh Island [Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020]; effective capacity evaluation in Seidkouh protected area [Kiyani Sadr et al., 2020]; ecotourism planning in Shahroud [Mahdi et al., 2020]; assessment in Arasbaran forests [Dana Alamdari et al., 2022]; and socio-cultural carrying capacity determination in the Karkheh protected area [Salemi, 2022].
The purpose of the present research is to estimate the tourism carrying capacity of recreational zones in Golestan National Park using the IUCN-approved method. This approach enables the assessment of the permissible number of visitors in each recreation site, thereby facilitating the design, planning, and optimal management of the park to achieve its conservation, recreational, and educational objectives.
Methodology
The present research employed quantitative methods as recommended, and was designed as a field-based, case-specific, and applied study conducted in 2021 across four recreational sites within Golestan National Park. Golestan National Park, one of the most renowned national parks in Iran, spans 91,895 hectares, with the majority located in Golestan Province and smaller portions extending into North Khorasan and Semnan Provinces. In 1977, the park was designated as a biosphere reserve.
The park encompasses a wide variety of ecosystems, including temperate forests, mountains, steppes, rolling hills, springs, and rivers, which contribute to its remarkable diversity of plant and animal communities. Numerous species of Iran’s flora and fauna occur in the park, some of which remain unidentified, and several are endemic. Due to its status as an outstanding and unique example of pristine natural ecosystems, remarkable biodiversity, diverse landscapes, distinctive geological formations, and archaeological and historical monuments, the park provides multiple opportunities for scientific research, tourism, and education. It is therefore considered one of the most valuable ecotourism destinations in Iran.
In addition to spontaneously used areas, the park contains three formal recreational sites—Golshan, Golzar, and Abshar; two visitor centers, namely the Golestan National Park Visitor Center and the Mirzabaylou Wildlife Museum; as well as specialized tourism facilities such as the Tangrah, Tang-e-Gol, Alma, and Soulgerd guesthouses [Moharramnejad et al., 2017]. Golestan National Park also plays a critical role for the surrounding settlements, as the rural economy is largely based on livestock, agriculture, and tourism-related industries. Many local residents benefit economically from the park, particularly through tourism [Ghoddousi et al., 2018].
At the outset of the research, the management plan maps of Golestan National Park, delineating areas designated for extensive and intensive tourism were reviewed. Subsequently, the specific sites defined in the terms of reference for carrying capacity estimation were identified through field surveys using GPS, and final maps were produced and refined using specialized software such as ArcGIS and AutoCAD.
In the next stage, limiting factors were identified for each site. These were selected based on expert consultations, regional meteorological reports, and ecological and infrastructural sensitivities indicated in the park’s management plan. The quantitative methods outlined in the IUCN operational guidelines were then applied to estimate three types of carrying capacity for each recreational site: physical carrying capacity (PCC), real carrying capacity (RCC), and effective carrying capacity (ECC) [Ceballos-Lascurian, 1996]. The estimation methods are described below.
- Physical Carrying Capacity (PCC): the maximum number of visitors who can physically be present in a site at a given time and space.
- Real Carrying Capacity (RCC): the maximum allowable number of visitors, adjusted by the specific.
- Effective Carrying Capacity (ECC): the maximum number of visitors that can be sustainably managed under current management conditions. ECC never exceeds RCC.
Findings
The findings show that the physical carrying capacity of the recreation sites was substantially reduced once ecological, climatic, social, and infrastructural constraints were taken into account. In total, 18 limiting factors were identified for Golshan, 17 for Golzar, and 14 for both Abshar and Mirzabaylou. These constraints lowered the real carrying capacity to levels significantly below the physical estimates. When management capacity, particularly the availability of protective and service staff, was included as an adjustment factor, the effective carrying capacity was further reduced. Overall, Golshan and Golzar demonstrated comparatively higher effective capacities than Abshar and Mirzabaylou, suggesting that the first two sites are more resilient to visitor pressure, while the latter two are more vulnerable to environmental and managerial limitations.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to estimate the tourism carrying capacity of the recreation sites in Golestan National Park using the method recommended by the International :union: for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Although recreation and tourism, particularly ecotourism and nature-based tourism, are among the main objectives of the park, provided that all environmental principles are observed, such estimates had not been included in the park’s management plans. Therefore, the present study contributes to the optimal management of visitors and the reduction of negative impacts, while enhancing potential positive effects.
The ecological sensitivity of Golestan National Park requires precise estimations of tourism carrying capacity in order to minimize environmental degradation. These sensitivities manifest in the form of limiting factors. The effective carrying capacity obtained in this study indicates the maximum recommended number of visitors for each recreation site; however, this figure is not absolute and may need to be adjusted downward. Such adjustments depend on effective implementation of recreation programs and ongoing monitoring. For instance, if monitoring shows that the estimated numbers still generate considerable damage, visitor numbers should be reduced through management strategies such as temporal and spatial restrictions or limiting specific activities. This approach is particularly recommended for the initial stages of sustainable tourism planning in the park. Conversely, if long-term monitoring demonstrates improved conditions, the carrying capacity should be re-evaluated and potentially increased. Importantly, the findings of this study also provide a foundation for the design of recreation sites, since the development of any tourism infrastructure without accurate knowledge of permissible visitor numbers is meaningless. Clearly, carrying capacity assessments become operational only when integrated into the basis of recreation and sustainable tourism management programs in national parks.
The results of this study are specific to Golestan National Park and unprecedented in the sense that no prior official research had been conducted in this area. Methodologically, however, several studies have applied the same approach in other Iranian protected areas [Jahani et al., 2018; Moradi et al., 2019; Eskandari Shahraki et al., 2019; Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020]. Nevertheless, since each area possesses unique characteristics that directly affect carrying capacity estimates, outputs may vary. For example, the required space per visitor is highly variable. In this study, as the estimation focused only on concentrated recreation sites, the space per visitor was considered to be 4 m² in Golshan, Abshar, and Mirzabaylou, a figure consistent with some previous studies [Sheikh et al., 2014; Heydari et al., 2013; Behzadnia & Dorbeiki, 2020; Mahdi et al., 2020]. Other studies, however, especially those addressing extensive recreation zones, reported highly divergent values, ranging from 5 to 2,500 m² depending on the region and activities [Jomepour & Namayandeh, 2012; Movahedi et al., 2013; Sadeghi Chahardeh et al., 2015; Eskandari Shahraki et al., 2019; Sayahnia et al., 2020; Kiyani Sadr et al., 2020].
Another distinctive feature of the present research is the identification of 22 limiting factors, which is unique compared to earlier studies that typically considered fewer constraints (between 3 and 12), and largely emphasized climatic parameters. In contrast, this study incorporated climatic, ecological, social, and infrastructural conditions, with limiting factors identified and proposed for each recreation site individually.
Like other similar research, this study faced typical challenges, including limited data on current tourism conditions and visitor activities, the lack of updated maps of recreation sites, and the scarcity of comparable studies in other Iranian national parks.
Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed:
- Prohibit any expansion of tourism programs in recreation sites without a precise estimation of carrying capacity;
- Design and engineer recreation sites based on carrying capacity and fundamental principles of environmental design;
- Develop a recreation and sustainable tourism management plan for authorized areas of the national park, with emphasis on ecotourism and nature-based tourism;
- Estimate specialized carrying capacities in the future (e.g., for wildlife viewing, birdwatching, etc.);
- Implement, monitor, and regularly revise the management plan over the long term.
Conclusion
The total number of daily visitors estimated for the 28 hectares of tourism zones across the four recreation sites of Golestan National Park amounts to 8,016 individuals, distributed across all seasons but varying by site and season. Specifically, the daily capacities are 6,018 for Golshan, 1,033 for Abshar, 195 for Golzar, and 770 for Mirzabaylou. In other words, the maximum permissible density corresponds to one visitor per 27 m² in Golshan, 48 m² in Abshar, 211 m² in Golzar, and 42 m² in Mirzabaylou.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the efforts and support of the National Environment Fund, the Department of Environment, the Golestan Provincial Office of the Department of Environment, the Golestan National Park Administration, and Shahryg Engineering Company in the completion of this research.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Dorbeiki M (first author): Statistical Analyst/Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer/Methodologist/Discussion Writer (70%); Arazzadeh Y (second author): Assistant Researcher (20%); Naseri F (third author): Assistant Researcher (10%)
Funding: This article is derived from the research findings of the project “Preparation of the Feasibility, Technical, and Economic Plan for the Recreation Sites of Golestan National Park (Golshan, Abshar, Golzar, and Mirzabaylou)” conducted in 2020 by Shahryg Engineering Company, with legal, financial, administrative, and technical support provided by the National Environment Fund and the Golestan Provincial Office of the Department of Environment.
References
1. Adrianto L, Kurniawan F, Romadhon A, Bengen DG, Sjafrie NDM, Damar A, et al (2021). Assessing social-ecological system carrying capacity for urban small island tourism: The case of Tidung Islands, Jakarta capital province, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management. 212:105844. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105844]
2. Behrad F, Hadipour M, Naderi M, Kazemi A (2019). Ecotourism carrying capacity evaluation with emphasis on sustainable development in Bisheh Waterfall as a geotourism area. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 21(10):81-91. [Persian] [Link]
3. 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]
4. Bosworth G, Curry N (2020). National parks. In: International encyclopedia of human geography. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 229-237. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10013-7]
5. Brown K, Turner RK, Hameed H, Bateman I (1997). Environmental carrying capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental Conservation. 24(4):316-325. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S0376892997000428]
6. Ceballos-Lascurian H (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. Gland:IUCN. [Link] [DOI:10.2305/IUCN.CH.1996.7.en]
7. Cupul-Magaña AL, Rodríguez-Troncoso AP (2017). Tourist carrying capacity at Islas Marietas national park: An essential tool to protect the coral community. Applied Geography. 88:15-23. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.08.021]
8. Dana Alamdari M, Hajjarian M, Hossein Zadeh O, Eshaghi Rad J (2022). Prioritization of effective components on the development of forest-based tourism (case study: Arasbaran forests). Forest Research and Development. 7(4):607-621. [Persian] [Link]
9. Duarte P, Meneses R, Hawkins AJS, Zhu M, Fang J, Grant J (2003). Mathematical modelling to assess the carrying capacity for multi-species culture within coastal waters. Ecological Modelling. 168(1-2):109-143. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00205-9]
10. Dudley N, editor (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN. [Link] [DOI:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en]
11. Eskandari Shahraki M, Mohammadi Sammani K, Mahmoudi B, Moradi A (2019). Estimating the outdoor recreation carrying capacity in Berenjegan forest, Chaharmahal-o-Bakhtiary province. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 21(1):69-76. [Persian] [Link]
12. Ghoddousi S, Pintassilgo P, Mendes J, Ghoddousi A, Sequeira B (2018). Tourism and nature conservation: A case study in Golestan national park, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives. 26:20-27. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tmp.2017.12.006]
13. Heydari T, Meshkini A, Nemati T (2013). Quantitative estimation of tourism carrying capacity of Zanjanroud riverine. Geography and Environmental Planning. 24(3):75-92. [Persian] [Link]
14. 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]
15. Huber JM, Newig J, Loos J (2023). Participation in protected area governance: A systematic case survey of the evidence on ecological and social outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management. 336:117593. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117593]
16. 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]
17. Jomepour M, Namayandeh A (2012). Assessing ecotourism potential and capacity of desert district of Maranjab, Kashan. Journal of Research and Rural Planning. 1(1):45-71. [Persian] [Link]
18. Kiyani Sadr M, Mahmoodi S, Veysi Z (2020). Evaluation of carrying capacity for tourism in Sefidkooh protected area, Lorestan. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement. 10(34):131-146. [Persian] [Link]
19. Long C, Lu S, Chang J, Zhu J, Chen L (2022). Tourism environmental carrying capacity review, hotspot, issue, and prospect. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19(24):16663. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijerph192416663]
20. 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]
21. Moharramnejad N, Rahnamai MT, Dorbeiki M (2013). Development of environmental strategies for sustainable tourism in an Iranian national park. European Journal of Experimental Biology. 3(1):153-160. [Link]
22. Moharramnejad N, Rahnamai MT, Dorbeiki M (2017). Application of a'WOT method in strategic management of sustainable tourism in a national park. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal. 16(2):471-480. [Link] [DOI:10.30638/eemj.2017.047]
23. Momeni Sadr M, Ghelichipour Z, Soltanifard H, Karachi H (2019). Assessing the social carrying capacity and its determining effective factors in Chitgar lake (Persian Gulf Martyrs) in Tehran. Tourism Management Studies. 14(46):111-135. [Persian] [Link]
24. Moradi A, Daneshpour AH, 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]
25. Movahedi S, Amani H, BaniKamali S (2013). Identification and calculation of tolerance capacity areas prone to ecotourism development in Sabalan zone. Geography and Environmental Planning. 24(1):141-154. [Persian] [Link]
26. Parvaresh H, Parvaresh E, Parvaresh Z (2013). Estimating the physical, real and permissible carrying capacity of recreational boating for mangrove forests of Hara-e Rode Gaz international wetland. Journal of Oceanography. 4(13):85-92. [Persian] [Link]
27. Sadeghi Chahardeh S, Eskandarinezhad I, Dehdar Dargahi M (2015). Determining the potentials of nature tourism in mountainous regions of Iran, case study: Sib chal, Khas khany, and Aghuzi. Geographical Journal of Tourism Space. 4(14):83-96. [Persian] [Link]
28. Salemi M (2022). Determine potential and social and cultural carrying capacity with the purpose of the establishment in ecotourism development (case study: Southern Karkheh protected area, Iran). Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences. 22(67):317-333. [Persian]. [Link] [DOI:10.52547/jgs.22.67.317]
29. Sayahnia R, Sobhani P, Mahmoudi H, Esmaeilzadeh H (2020). Estimation of the tourism carrying capacity in protect areas (case study: Alvand no-hunting area). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development. 8(30):51-64. [Persian] [Link]
30. Shafer CL (2015). Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V-VI. Global Ecology and Conservation. 3:331-348. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.007]
31. Shayesteh K, Makhdom M, Yavari AR, Sharifi M, Jafari HR (2012). Recreational optimized management plan, a tool to apply carrying capacity concept in sustainable management of recreational areas. Environmental Researches. 2(3):65-76. [Persian] [Link]
32. Shayesteh K, Sheikhi Z, Ildoromi A (2019). Psychological carrying capacity and lake beach management in Zayanderud dam. Social Studies in Tourism. 13(7):147-170. [Persian] [Link]
33. Sheikh A, Jafari A, Yarali N, Setoodeh A (2014). Estimating recreational carrying capacity of Gheisary protected area in Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari province. Iranian Journal of Applied Ecology. 2(5):51-64. [Persian] [Link]