Zoltan Kun, “Assessment of Sustainable Tourism Development Potential: a Manual for
Pan Parks”, Abstract not submitted.
The Carrying Capacity Method in PAN Parks – application in the field
Zoltán Kun, Conservation Manager
PAN Parks Foundation c/o WWF
Email: [email protected]
THE CONTEXT
Tourism is one of the largest sectors in Europe, and has the potential to become a key element of the
preservation of rural European landscapes and social structures, through the regeneration of economically
depleted areas with the economic input of tourism. Although coastal and city tourism are still the highest in
terms of visitors numbers, it is rural and mountain tourism that is growing fast in the European context, and
this is mostly around protected areas.
Threats on protected areas in Europe have diminished in some aspects such as resource extraction and
agriculture, some of the greatest threats in other regions (WWF, 2000), yet increased in aspects such as
land use pressures due to limited land availability. Tourism and recreation are one of the greatest
contributors to land use pressure in Europe’s national parks (FNNPE, 1993), yet despite being a threat, it is
also one of the key levers for the preservation of Europe’s remaining wilderness areas (Font & Tribe,
2000).
INTRODUCTION TO PAN PARKS
Since the establishment Yellowstone National Park of US there is a growing network of protected areas
worldwide. Almost 10% of the land surface is protected in various categories, which is a noteworthy
achievement of conservation organizations. However we have to realize how little we - the general public know about these protected areas. And even more remarkable to face that people in the unified Europe have
a very little knowledge of European protected areas. Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Serengeti are National
Parks more well-known than any European area! Due to lack of knowledge on protected areas there are
neither political nor public support for nature conservation.
Also the level of protection, multiple use objectives, level of funding, and state intervention/
permissiveness varies. The European Commission has developed Natura 2000 as their strategy for
environmental conservation, and has highlighted two tourism-related projects in Europe as the most
relevant to the implementation of this strategy (European Commission, 2000a, 2000b). One of these was
PAN Parks, which is the result of a partnership since 1997 between the WWF, the conservation
organisation, and the Molecaten Group, a leisure and tourism group that develops holiday villages in
Europe. The concept of PAN Parks is “to create a network of parks with an international reputation for
outstanding access to wildlife and excellent tourist facilities, combined with effective habitat protection and
the minimal environmental impact possible” (WWF, 1998: 1). This can be broken down into the following
components:
• A recognisable network of well-managed, protected natural areas which welcome visitors and avoid
potentially conflicting activities;
• A partnership between the authorities of protected areas, the local population, and commercial and
nature conservation organisations;
• A way to promote well managed natural areas to create a balance between nature conservation, local
development, tourism and recreation;
• An organisation to increase the number of well-supervised natural areas in Europe” (WWF, undated:
3)
The niche
The niche of PAN Parks among other initiatives (European diploma, UNESCO’s World Heritage sites,
etc…) is to work with Europe’s remaining wilderness capitals / protected areas by setting up their network
based on third-party verification, which ensures their long-term effective management. However PAN
Parks also engages regions around verified protected areas to develop their Sustainable Tourism
Development Strategy by formulating a local organisation that consists of all relevant stakeholders.
PAN PARKS TOURISM MANUAL
Goal of this manual is to provide people involved in formulating and implementing a PAN Parks
Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy with a relevant framework and guidelines. Even for people not
disposing of a professional tourism background, it is obvious that tourism in sensitive areas has to be
properly planned and managed. If not, negative impacts on ecology, landscape, environment and the quality
of life of local communities cannot be avoided and positive social and economic benefits will not be
guaranteed. The first part of the manual is to assess the sustainable tourism development potential of an
area and its surrounding region. This assessment should provide the information needed to answer the
question if (further) tourism development would be a feasible and appealing perspective.
The following questions have to be answered:
ƒ Which resources are available in the area?
ƒ Do these resources have sufficient tourism potential?
ƒ Does the area have a sufficient carrying capacity to deal with additional tourism demand?
ƒ Is tourism development the best option?
ƒ How can tourism create shareholder value?
CARRYING CAPACITY
The concept of Carrying Capacity is one of the cornerstones of sustainable tourism development of
sensitive areas. It is based on the idea that Sustainable Tourism Development (STD) aims at maximising
positive benefits and minimising negative impacts. A basic assumption is that all visitors cause impacts and
that there is a direct relation between the number of visitors and the size of the impact. It also assumes that
impacts can be assessed, measured and attributed to visitors and can be distinguished from other factors
like climate change, pollution, change of habitat, plagues etc. And it assumes that a limit to visitor access
can be calculated with some exactness and that respecting this limit will prevent unwanted and/ or
unplanned impacts to occur. This limit is called the carrying capacity: the number of visitors that an area
can receive during a given period (year, month, week, day), or the number of visitors present at the same
time, without causing unwanted and unplanned impacts on the area’s resources, which would jeopardise
sustainable development.
Respecting this capacity equals sustainable visitor use. The words “unwanted” and “unplanned” already
indicate that setting limits, or objectives, is a matter of priorities and a consequence of the overall
objectives of a strategy or management plan. This leads to the conclusion that these limits are site specific
and have a certain subjectivity: a change in e.g. conservation priorities or management objectives has
consequences for the carrying capacity.
It would therefore be a mission impossible to develop a reliable quantitative methodology that would fit the
characteristics of all kind of different sites and different management philosophies.
Assessing carrying capacity not only prevents negative impacts; it helps also to realise positive impacts.
Too many visitors or tourists in an area can also jeopardise quality standards. The area can loose its
exclusivity, can loose the solitude that is related to a wilderness experience and can even loose direct or
indirect economic benefits. And often these economic benefits for a protected area and surrounding
communities were the very reason to engage in tourism.... This means that not only the maximum numbers
of tourists, but also the optimal number should be considered. The optimal number of visitors aims not only
at avoiding negative impacts, but also on maximising positive impacts.
In this way tourists and visitors can enjoy wilderness, peace, and authenticity and have personal contacts
with the host community, without crowding, parking problems and littering. Only if local people and
stakeholders benefit economically and socially, tourism enhances the local quality of life. If the local
economy is rural and small scaled, few people will benefit from a big scale tourism development and it will
be hard to guarantee local control over tourism development.
The aim has been, to present a practical method which covers all aspect of carrying capacity and can work
as a guideline for decisions on visitor management of heritage sites and on the scale and spatial planning of
tourism development. The approach is therefore a management approach. It is merely qualitative: we focus
on management decisions concerning the quality of the visit and the conservation of the quality of the
environment and the heritage site that attract the tourist/visitor. By posing the right questions, appropriate
management actions can be determined. Only in those cases where calculations are possible, reliable and
sensible, a quantitative method will be presented. Carrying capacity in our approach is not just seen as a
tool for planning and development, but also for monitoring of a STDS. It aims at detection and prevention
of bottlenecks and (potential) conflicts. The most positive definition of carrying capacity therefore is:
The number of people that an area can receive within a certain limit of time, without jeopardising:
•
Ecological and cultural resources
•
The quality of the experience of the visitor
•
The quality of life of the local population
•
Positive socio-economic effects for the area, the stakeholders and the region
THE SYSTEM
Carrying capacity consists of:
Ecological carrying capacity: avoids deterioration of natural/cultural resource
Social carrying capacity: avoids negative impacts on local population and conflicts between (groups
of) visitors and/or local population
• Managerial/ physical carrying capacity: avoids crowding and (visitor) management problems (reduced
effectiveness of management operations, increased operational costs etc.).
• Psychological carrying capacity: aims at undisturbed comfortable visitor experience
• Economic carrying capacity: aims at avoiding displacement or unacceptable disruption of local
commercial activity maximising positive impacts
Capacity levels are influenced by two factors: the characteristics of the tourist and the
characteristics of the destination area and its population. In chapter 4 it became clear that
analysing the characteristics of existing and potential markets is a fundamental step for tourism
potential assessment. The behaviour and attitude of tourists towards nature and local community
and the characteristics of the resources of the host area have to form a synergy without exceeding
the different capacities.
•
•
APPLICATION IN THE MANUAL
The method includes the elements of carrying capacity explained above.
1.
All the elements will be dealt with separately.
2.
At the end of every element, a preliminary conclusion will have to be drawn about the carrying
capacity.
3.
After having completed the checklist, the carrying capacity of all the elements can be analysed.
4.
The lowest value should be used to assess the tourism carrying capacity.
As it was discussed before, in some situations the tourism carrying capacity can be modified through
appropriate management interventions.
Social and economic carrying capacity
The method is based on the sustainability criteria of PAN Parks STDS. Their role is to formulate clear
guidelines on sustainable tourism development and deal with cultural, social and economic impacts.
Monitoring of these criteria will have to take place anyway. There are two different situations: either
tourism development has already been taking place, or tourism development is still in a very early phase or
in some cases even practically non-existent.
The method is based on the first situation, because it is easier for people to have an opinion on items they
have proper experience with. It serves as a quick scan of actual tourism on sustainability criteria. Items
rated high seem to be the cornerstones of sustainable development; items rated low are bottlenecks for
future developments. If tourism is a new phenomenon, the analysis is more complicated. It is hard for
people to judge a phenomenon that they are not familiar with and of which they have not experienced the
impacts. Nevertheless people can react on the different items in terms of statements and expectations. The
items mentioned in the method could be discussed in group meetings with stakeholders and/ or EPPO (local
PAN Park Organisation). If participants rate an item low, this will probably be a bottleneck for a successful
tourism development. Items rated high can be considered to be strengths.
Ecological carrying capacity
The approach is based on the key species of a protected area. These species are key elements in the
ecosystem of the area and their wellbeing form key indicators for negative impacts of tourism.Since the
situation of every protected area is unique, it is virtually impossible to work with a detailed method.
Ecological carrying capacity is related to the physical and management capacity. The same data can be
used as input for the analysis.
The first step is therefore to define the key species, emphasising those species that are considered to be
endangered and/or sensitive to visitor/ tourism use. The second step consists in making an analysis of the
habitat of every one of these species. For all key species Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) should be
defined, based on indicators of their well-being like: number of species, procreation, number of healthy
spring off, symptoms of stress or damage etc. The enormous know how of conservationists and guards in
the field can be helpful here. LACs can be specified for each zone, especially for those zones with intensive
visitor use.
The third step is to make an inventory of existing tourism flows and visitor flows and of the activities that
tourists undertake, specifying the places where these activities take place. All visitor patterns, infrastructure
and facilities should be put on detailed maps of the area (see physical/ management capacity).
The fourth step is to make an inventory of the negative impacts per activity (see schedule)
It is recommended to identify a number of impacts that can be attributed to visitor activities, in order to
exclude interfering factors that are not related to visitor use. Again the techniques of Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) show us, how we can use this information. Maps, which are equal in scale,
representing the information mentioned above, enable us to detect relationships and to get a complete
picture. All we have to do is to combine the information on the different maps by putting the different
layers of information together.
Where sensitive areas and visitor flows and/ or activities coincide, close monitoring is needed.
This method gives us an overview of all the risk zones. For each risk zone indicators will have to be
formulated which measure the wellbeing of the potentially endangered species or other elements.
It is also obvious that the conservation goals monitoring system and the monitoring of visitor impacts will
have to be united, or at least be compatible.
The fifth step is to fill out the “Criteria for ecological carrying capacity”.
The sixth step “Ecological Carrying capacity assessment” will be estimation based on the information
above and “best professional judgement”
Management carrying capacity
• Protected area
The metaphor of the creek should be kept in mind here when going through the checklist.
The goal is to detect bottlenecks in the visitor flow. The desired number of tourists/ visitors is an indication
for the ambitions of the area.
Elements of the spectre of facilities, services and products offered to visitors with a low capacity are
bottlenecks when they are musts. They should get priority in the visitor management strategy. Visitor flows
should be fluent. A crowded visitor centre not only affects the quality of the visit, but also keeps people
from obtaining crucial information on do’s and don’ts. Elements which are not considered relevant, like
accommodation, which is non existent in many areas, should not be rated.
Less important elements still can cause annoyance: litter piling up near full bins, crowded paths and
observation posts, queuing for a drink or a souvenir. If visitors feel that they are taken care of properly,
they will care themselves too.
• The region
Basically the approach is similar to the analysis of the area. Tourists need proper transport to travel to the
area and need other facilities. Items rated badly should be improved before as a part of the STDS.
• Bottlenecks
Items mentioned here should be taken into consideration, since they form serious obstacles for a STDS.
Psychological carrying capacity
The quality of the tourism experience can only be assessed by the tourists/ visitors themselves.
A questionnaire should be made including the items mentioned here. Interviews have a more informal and
personal character and provide more in depth information. If many different user groups with probably
conflicting expectations/ interests come to the area, it should be recommended to interview at least 50
members of each group. In all cases the survey should be held at various moments over the year and at
various places/entrances, in order to make the survey as representative as possible.
FIELD TEST IN DUNA-DRÁVA NATIONAL PARK
In order to provide a consistent and useful manual, it had to be tested in one of the Candidate PAN Parks.
The findings in this report which are regarded as most determining for the sustainable tourism potential of
the DDNP area, are summarised in the SWOT-matrix in figure 1. It states favourable –strengths and
opportunities- and unfavourable items –weaknesses and threats- for the sustainable tourism potential.
Strengths and weaknesses are determined by characteristics of the internal environment, which comprise
the (tourism) resources –their attractiveness for tourists (natural and cultural resources), capabilities for
tourism development and VIM (socio-economic resources) and their sensitivity to tourism development
(carrying capacity, all resources)- and current tourism supply for the DDNP area. Opportunities and threats
are formed by trends in the external environment, comprising: tourism demand, and impacts on the
resources and quality experience of the tourists caused by human activities.
Figure 1: SWOT-analysis
Item(s) analysed
Strengths
Weaknesses
Resources
Natural
resources
and
cultural Wide range of natural and cultural Condition of the resources has been
resources forming tourist attractions (see harmed by human activities
attractions).
Most natural resources in the DDNP
are highly sensitive to tourism
development: delicate ecosystems,
threatened species.
Socio-economic resources
Local communities have a positive Low GDP, low standards of basic
attitude towards tourism, mainly caused community infrastructure, “aged”
by high unemployment figures and low demographic structure, low education
standard of living.
level, low institutional support for
tourism, low budget of DDNP
DDNP management has legal and management, lack of business
financial means for nature conservation partners. These elements reflect low
and therefore for guarding the value of possibility for tourism developments
natural attractions (includes possibilities and operations which require large
for VIM)
investments and know-how. Market
research has barely been executed
until now. Furthermore, low financial
means lead to limited capabilities for
applying VIM strategies.
The weak economic structure shows
high
sensitivity
to
tourism
development (resulting in relatively
high likability of negative socioeconomic impacts)
Tourism supply
- Attractions
Natural attractions
Wide range of natural attractions:
floodplains, hot springs, rivers (Drava,
Danube), wildlife (black stork, whitetailed eagle, other protected birds, deer,
wild boar), flora (forests, protected
species), climate (sunny weather in
summers), quiet surroundings, scenic
beauty, some hills in the region
Cultural attractions
Wide range of cultural attractions:
archaeological, historical and cultural
sites in the region, especially in the
towns. Furthermore: Distinctive cultural
patterns (Villány-Siklós, Ormánság,
Sárköz areas), arts and handicrafts
(wood carving, furniture paintings,
ceramics, etc.), interesting economic
activities (winegrowing and fishery),
museums, cultural festivals, and
friendliness of the residents
Attractions not particularly Excursion boats on both rivers, narrowrelated to the natural and gauge train. Ethnic, religious and
cultural resources
nostalgic associations. Destination travel
costs: good value for money.
Availability to tourists hampered by:
DDNP surface not managed by
DDNP
management,
border
restrictions,
characteristics
of
wildlife, flood periods, zoning and
jurisdiction imposed by DDNP
management
- Tourism services
Facilities (accommodation,
food & beverage, support
industries)
Limited number of accommodations
and F&B outlets, especially in the
Drava region, countryside in general
and at DDNP boundaries. Support
industries
are
in
general
underdeveloped: souvenir selling,
sports equipment/facilities, tourist
guides, car rent, tourist information,
tour and travel operations are present
at a very low level or lacking
Poor accessibility of the area.
Travelling around in the area is
difficult by limited number of roads
and railways and low availability of
public transport. Furthermore the
DDNP contains a low number of
watchtowers, information boards and
signage,
educational
trails,
walking/hiking/horse-riding routes.
Finally there is only one visitor centre
No hospitality training in the area, no
experience with tourists.
Infrastructure
Hospitality
Item(s) analysed
Opportunities
Threats
Tourism demand
Current
market
demand
for
attractions in the DDNP region,
which has been increasing in the
past years. Tourism trends indicate
further possibilities for growth of
volumes
of
current
market
segments. Involved activities in the
DDNP: walking / hiking, boating /
canoeing,
wildlife
watching,
hunting, angling, cycling, horse
riding, camping / picnic, education.
Involved activities in the region:
health tourism, wine tours, cultural
sight-seeing, experiencing culture
(by the trip itself or specific
activities such as attending cultural
programs, cultural festivals, etc.).
Furthermore, the development and
improvement of tourism services are
assumed to be able to increase
tourism volumes to the area.
Socio-economic
resources
Annual % increase of real GDP has Ageing population, decreasing
been considerably above EU available local labour force
average in the past years
Impacts on the resources and quality Currently the level of tourism
experience of the tourist
impacts at current sites is very low,
except of course for the sites where
unacceptable impacts occur.
Continuing economic use of the
natural resources will deteriorate
the condition of the resources,
therefore
harming
their
attractiveness
Unacceptable tourism impacts:
canoeing
tourists
disturbing
breeding
birds,
hunting
organisations altering habitats of
game animals, signals of frustration
of local population because not
encouraged and supported to
engage in the tourism business, no
proper collaboration and positive
attitude between all stakeholders.
Assumed tourism impacts on
quality experience of tourists: rifleshots of hunters harming the
attraction of quietness and a true
wilderness
experience,
some
bottlenecks (congestion) because of
low capacity of tourism services
Carrying capacity
In general low utilisation of site- Unacceptable impacts indicate that
specific CC’s, by current tourism the CC is currently exceeded,
development and related activities.
harming resources and quality
experience of tourists.
Conclusions
The DDNP and its region have tourism potential -possibilities for tourism
development-, based on synergies between tourism demand and current and
possible tourism supply. It must however be mentioned that developments which
require high investments and know-how seem to be difficult to realise in the short
term due to low value of the socio-economic resources in the DDNP area. Therefore
a future EPPO will have to search sponsors for funding, or raise funding by
persuading business partners to become part of the EPPO.
No new market segments were identified and attractions were regarded as fixed, so tourism development is
aimed at creating and improving tourism services for current segments. Very little information was
available on the needs & wants of current market segments, which meant that required developments for
the market segments had to be mainly based on assumptions (best professional judgement).
It was assumed that there is market demand for the following developments:
- Increasing standards and capacity of accommodation (lodging), food & beverage outlets, support
industries. Especially in the Drava region and in general as close to the DDNP as possible.
- Increasing educational trails, walking routes, cycling and horse riding routes in the DDNP, especially
in Béda-Karapancsa
- Improve bike and boat rent, and facilities for hiking by horse as close to the DDNP as possible
- Increasing watch towers in the DDNP, as close to vulnerable areas as possible
- Increase and improve information boards in the DDNP
- More visitor centres at DDNP boundaries, Danube section
- Hiring more guides and educationists
- Improve distribution of information on the DDNP, covering an area as large as possible
- Establish hospitality training in the region
- Persuade tour & travel operations to offer tourism packages for the DDNP
- Improve sewerage in the region
- Improve accessibility (transport) to the DDNP
When increasing tourists numbers to the area by the suggested developments above,
this could result in negative impacts on the resources and the quality experience of
tourists. Potential impacts from the suggested tourism development and related
activities are stated in chapter 7. Increasing hiking activities by developing hiking
trails for example, could increase disturbance of valuable wildlife.
Within the context of the PAN Parks project, the sustainability of tourism
development in the DDNP area should be guaranteed. Research indicated that the
carrying capacity is currently exceeded, by identifying the occurrence of the
following unacceptable tourism impacts:
-
Canoeing tourists on the Drava disturb breeding birds
Hunting organisations altering habitats of game animals
Signals of frustration of local population because not encouraged and supported to engage in the
tourism business
- No proper collaboration and positive attitude between all stakeholders.
- Assumed tourism impacts on the quality experience of tourists
Considering implementation of additional tourism development in the DDNP area is only appropriate when
current unacceptable impacts are removed. Management strategies (VIM) should be applied to accomplish
this. Suggestions for management strategies to apply were given in chapter 8 and comprised among others:
informing canoeing tourists about their impacting behaviour, prohibiting hunting in the DDNP, providing
financial incentives, training and other techniques to encourage local ownership, management and
operation of tourist services, etc. It is still doubtful if all current unacceptable impacts can be banned.
Strategies are subject to a trial-and-error approach, because their effectiveness is not always guaranteed.
Furthermore, legal and financial means could prove to be insufficient for applying successful strategies.
Especially financial means are lacking.
In spite of the occurrence of some unacceptable impacts, in general the impact level of current type of
tourism use at current sites within the DDNP area is very low. Because the suggested development is aimed
at increasing the levels of current types of use, it can be assumed that there is room for growth (carrying
capacity) for tourism development and increased levels of current activities –except for hunting and
canoeing- at current sites. The maximum level of tourism use should be identified by a trial-and-error
approach. This approach is especially important for alternative locations because it has not been possible to
monitor tourism impacts at these places.
In this report cannot be indicated if the DDNP area has sustainable tourism potential because:
- it is unclear if stakeholders of the area (joined in an EPPO) can make enough financial means and
know-how available for proper implementation and operation of the suggested developments.
- Very little is known about the needs & wants of current market segments. Therefore the level and type
of psychological impacts is unclear.
- it is unclear if current unacceptable impacts can be removed.
- carrying capacities of potential sites for the suggested developments and related activities are unclear,
although can be assumed that increasing the current type of tourism use at current sites by the
suggested tourism developments will be sustainable.
It is assumed that tourism growth for the DDNP area can be accomplished by sustainable tourism
development. Enough tourism demand and unused carrying capacity is assumed to be available. Although
it could be hard to accomplish, due to low value of socio-economic resources in the area, financial means
and other support for most suggested developments in the area could be raised when developing a
convincing STDS, and attract sponsors and business partners by means of this. Furthermore, an increase of
tourists to the area by initial developments -for which the means are currently available-, could raise
sufficient financial means for further development. Therefore, the ability to remove current unacceptable
impacts is regarded as the most critical item for the sustainable tourism potential of the area.
REFERENCES
Anon (2001) PAN Parks principles and criteria, principles 1-5, April 2001, draft for consultation
Blangy, S. & Vautier, S. (2001) Europe, in Weaver, D. (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, Wallingford: CABI.
European Commission (2000a), Sustainable tourism and Natura 2000, Guidelines, initiatives and good practices in Europe, DG ENV,
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2000b) Natura 2000, European Commission DG ENV Nature Newsletter, Issue 13, December 2000.
Font, X. (2002) Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and prospects, Tourism Management, 23(4)
Font. X. & Tribe, J. (2000), Recreation, conservation and timber production: a sustainable relationship? In Font, X. & Tribe, J. (Eds)
Forest tourism and recreation: case studies in environmental management, CAB International: Wallingford, United Kingdom, pp 122.
Font. X. & Tribe, J. (2001) The process of developing an ecolabel. In Font, X. & Buckley, R. (Eds) Tourism ecolabelling: certification
and promotion of sustainable management, CAB International: Wallingford, United Kingdom, pp 87-104.
FNNPE (1993) Loving them to death? The Need for Sustainable Tourism in Europe’s Nature and National Parks. The Federation of
Nature and National Parks of Europe: Grafenau, Germany
Kun, Z. (2000) PAN Parks verification, draft 3.2., 11th September 2000, WWF: Budapest, Hungary.
PAN Parks Courier, 2001, Summer 2001, Budapest: WWF Hungary.
PAN Parks Supervisory Board (2000), Resolutions meeting PAN Parks Supervisory Board (PPSB) on 29 September 2000.
Roerhorst, I. (2000) PAN Parks business parters: Quickscan of environmental assessment systems for the tourism industry, WWF:
Zeist, Holland.
Synergy Ltd (2000) Tourism certification: an analysis of Green Globe 21 and other certification programs, Godalming: WWF UK.
Toth, R. (2000) Elements of success and failure in certification/ accreditation. In Ecotourism & Sustainable Tourism Certification
Workshop, November 17-19 2000, Mohonk Mountain House, New Paltz, New York.
Van Ladesteijn, N. (2000) Picture of PAN Parks anno 2000, Communication: evaluation of current practices and future possibilities,
WWF: Zeist, Holland.
WWF (1998) PAN Parks: investing in Europe’s future, WWF: Zeist, Holland.
WWF (2000a) Squandering paradise? The importance and vulnerability of the world’s protected areas, WWF International: Gland,
Switzerland.
WWF (2000b) PAN Parks workshop on principles and criteria 4-6, Zeist (Holland) April 2000, minutes of meetings
WWF (2000c) PAN Parks workshop on principles and criteria 1-3, Gland (Switzerland) April 2000, minutes of meetings
APPENDIX
Principle 4: Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy
The Protected Area Authority and its relevant partners in the PAN Parks region aim at achieving a synergy between nature
conservation and sustainable tourism by developing and jointly implementing a Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy.
Criterion 4.1
The protected area and its region have sufficient tourism potential and carrying capacity for sustainable tourism.
Indicator 4.1.1.
Define the boundaries of the PAN Parks region (the protected area and its surrounding region, hereafter called the region)
that is subject to STDS. Provide a map indicating the boundaries of protected area and the municipalities!
Indicator 4.1.2.
Indicate that an analysis is carried out, using the best available methodology, on the present data and trends of tourism in
the protected area and its region. Describe methodology and other relevant research.
Indicator 4.1.3.
Indicate that an analysis is carried out, using the best available methodology, on the carrying capacity of the protected area
and its region including ecological, socio-economical, and cultural carrying capacity. Describe methodology and other
relevant research.
Indicator 4.1.3.
Indicate which steps are being taken in order to improve the tourism potential of the protected area and its region/adjacent
area.
Criterion 4.2.
An Executive PAN Park Organisation (hereafter EPPO) or an existing forum for co-operation, which could assume responsibility for
implementing PAN Parks, is established, whereby stakeholders formally confirm their support and commitment to the conservation
goals of the protected area and PAN Parks Organisation.
Indicator 4.2.1
Indicate that there is an EPPO or similar forum established in the region. Describe its legal status and responsibilities.
Indicator 4.2.2
List the stakeholders in the EPPO, including their legal status, role and the evidence that they represent their sector.
Indicate the role of these stakeholders and what will be their obligations and benefits. Provide a list of potential
stakeholders participating in the EPPO in the future.
Criterion 4.3.
The EPPO (or similar) formulates, implements and monitors a Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy (hereafter STDS) for the
protected area and its surrounding region.
Indicator 4.3.1
Indicate that the region has a STDS. Specify how its contents meet the "Guidelines for the process to develop a
sustainable tourism strategy for a PAN Parks region” (see Annex 1 for the guidelines).
Indicator 4.3.2
Describe the process leading to the production of the STDS including the procedure of revision, the participation of
different parties involved in this process, and who approves it.
Indicator 4.3.3
Provide information of the STDS’ long- and short-term objectives, including communications towards different target
groups and funding. Describe its vision, goals and time schedule.
Indicator 4.3.4
Indicate how the STDS provides benefits for nature conservation. Indicate how integration with other relevant economic
sectors (especially agriculture, forestry, fishery) is being realised. Indicate how the plan is integrated into regional land
use and urban planning and legislation.
Indicator 4.3.5.
Describe the research that supported the development of the STDS.
Indicator 4.3.6
Please provide a map and description of zoning system (or similar system which defines the degree of vulnerability of
each part) of the STDS, specifying differences in tourism access and use.
Indicator 4.3.7
Indicate that the STDS has sufficient funds and other means for implementation, monitoring and revision. Present a
financial blueprint for the STDS, including a financial plan, which clearly defines responsibilities for and commitment to
investments and other costs, and clearly estimates the expected benefits and the way those benefits will be distributed.
Indicate the role of stakeholders of different sectors in the implementation of STDS.
Indicator 4.3.8
Describe how the effects of the STDS are being monitored systematically. Indicate how monitoring contributes to
increasing the quality of tourism product offered by the STDS.
Criterion 4.4
Tourism development and existing tourism activities are based on sustainable use of the ecological resources of the region.
Indicator 4.4.1
Provide concrete, specified goals for the utilisation of ecological resources of the area considered to have a potential use
for the STDS.
Indicator 4.4.2
Indicate that the STDS specifies the ecological carrying capacity of different zones in the protected area and the region,
in terms of clear limits to numbers of tourists, number and kind of accommodation, development of other tourism
infrastructure and to activities and attractions.
Indicator 4.4.3
Describe the measures to avoid negative impacts of tourism use of those zones of the region considered ecologically
vulnerable.
Indicator 4.4.4
List any existing tourism related activity, facility, product and/or service, which threatens the sustainable use of
ecological resources. Describe strategies to reduce and when possible to eliminate these activities.
Criterion 4.5
Tourism development and tourism activities are based on sustainable use of the socio-economic resources of the region, including
minority and if necessary indigenous people issues.
Indicator 4.5.1
Provide concrete, specified goals for the utilisation of socio-economic resources of the area considered to have a
potential use for the STDS.
Indicator 4.5.2
Indicate how special attention is paid to traditional activities and modes of production.
Indicator 4.5.3
Indicate the goals of the STDS in reference to local and regional employment and specify by number, type and level the
anticipated employment opportunities. Indicate how the STDS maximises positive impacts on local livelihood.
Indicator 4.5.4
Indicate the goals of the STDS in reference to training and education for the region and specify by number, qualification
and level the anticipated training and education results.
Indicator 4.5.5
Indicate how the STDS seeks sound political and social support at all relevant levels.
Criterion 4.6
Tourism development and tourism activities are based on sustainable use of the cultural resources of the region.
Indicator 4.6.1
Provide concrete, specified goals for the utilisation of the cultural resources of the region considered to have a potential
use for the STDS (cultural and industrial heritage, architecture, cultural aspects of landscapes and socio-cultural
resources).
Indicator 4.6.2
Indicate how the STDS ensures local communities maintain control over their culture (way of life, values, norms,
lifestyles, customs, traditions, religion) and their cultural heritage.
Criterion 4.7
The STDS’ communications and marketing strategy aims at informing all target groups.
Indicator 4.7.1
Indicate that the STDS includes a communication and marketing plan.
Indicator 4.7.2
Indicate that the communication plan provides objective information on the region, and its accommodations, services,
products, attractions and activities. Specify if information is available in English and other relevant foreign languages for
the different target groups (e.g. low budget group, handicapped people, etc…).
Indicator 4.7.3
Indicate how number and type of visitors, their activities, their use of facilities, services and their satisfaction levels are
being monitored.
Indicator 4.7.4
Indicate how quality of the tourism product (accommodations, products, services and activities offered) is monitored.