Research Article: 2022 Vol: 21 Issue: 3
Kassara Sukpatch, National Institute of Development Administration
Chokechai Suveatwatanakul, National Institute of Development Administration
Citation Information: Sukpatch, K., & Suveatwatanakul, C. (2022). Development of tourism carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 1-6.
This research was developed to develop the tourism carrying capacity indicators suitable for tourism in marine national parks in Thailand. the population and sample group of which were the stakeholders related to the tourism activities within the marine national parks, including national park officers, local operators, people living in the surrounding communities, and tourists with travelling experience in marine national parks, 456 persons in total. The suitableness evaluation of ecological carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks showed that 23 of 34 indicators were qualified. The suitableness evaluation of facility carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks showed that 25 of 30 indicators were qualified and the suitableness evaluation of facility carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks showed that all 17 indicators. The results can be applied to the sustainability management of marine national park tourism.
Tourism Carrying Capacity Indicators, Marine National Park.
Tourism activities generate economic wealth to the countries across the globe, including Thailand which unceasingly benefits from such activities during the past years in terms of reputation, revenue and global recognition (Suveatwatanakul & Sukpatch, 2021). The number of tourists in each area in Thailand steadily increases; the number went from 159,197,021 persons/time in 2014 to 205,120,684 persons/time in 2018, equal to 28.84% increment (Ministry of Tourism and Sports, 2019), resulting in huge revenue generation from 1,874.249 billion baht in 2017 to 2,947.479 billion baht in 2018 or 57.26% increment (Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2019). This also reflects the number of tourists in each attraction, including national parks, which increased from 12,605,854 persons/time to 20,792,834 persons/time, equal to 39.37%, resulting in revenue generation from 102,740,312 baht in 2014 to 2,702,657,746 baht in 2018 (Department of National Parks, 2019).
Although the growing number of tourists contributes to the revenue generation of national parks, it causes the significant damage and loss of natural resources in the area, especially in the national parks. The government announced the temporary close of many national parks, some longer than expected due to the deterioration of the area as a result of the inordinately high number of visiting tourists, causing the conflict between the local operators and security personnel as constantly reported in the news.
A widely discussed concept for determining the number of tourists allowed in the area is the tourism carrying capacity which creates the balance between nature conservation and revenue generation, leading to the sustainable development of the area. This study, therefore, has the key objective to develop the tourism carrying capacity indicators suitable for tourism in marine national parks in Thailand in order to sustainably utilize and conserve the nature which can be further developed and referred to by other Thai and foreign researchers in the future.
Research Objectives
To develop the tourism carrying capacity indicators suitable for tourism in marine national parks.
The study of relevant documents and researches concluded the meaning of tourism carrying capacity as the maximum number of visiting tourists that an area can accommodate without deteriorating the natural resources within (Aguilar et al., 2021; Bertocchi et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2020). This study of tourism carrying capacity aims to study the indicators related to the effects caused by the tourism activities on the ecosystem, natural resources and environment in order to evaluate the tourism carrying capacity. The general characteristics of tourism carrying capacity are subject to the geography, size of area, type of activity, experience or character of the visiting tourists, and density level acceptable for the recreational activities of the visiting tourists, all of which are varied to each area.
The tourism carrying capacity indicators under this study include (Aguilar et al., 2021; Amerta et al., 2018; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; de Sousa et al., 2014; Han, 2018; Hongyun, 2016; Hu et al., 2021; Anindika et al., 2020; Mansfeld & Jonas, 2006; McCool, 1996; Meshkini et al., 2013; Salerno et al., 2013; Sha, 2020; Shi et al., 2015; Wang, 2018; Zhongbin, 2018):
1. Ecological carrying capacity: The maximum number of species that an ecosystem can accommodate the quality living within while maintaining the system output level, adaptability and replacement. This is the study of maximum capacity that an ecosystem or environmental system can support without deteriorating or causing permanent damage to such system.
2. Facility carrying capacity: The maximum number of visiting tourists that the facility in an area can accommodate. It is used to evaluate the carrying capacity of an area in terms of buildings and operations within.
3. Psychological carrying capacity: It is used to evaluate the carrying capacity of an area in terms of feeling and experience of visiting tourists, and density level.
This study employed the quantitative research, the population and sample group of which were the stakeholders related to the tourism activities within the marine national parks, including national park officers, local operators, people living in the surrounding communities, and tourists with travelling experience in marine national parks.
Selected Tools
This survey research used the questionnaire created and developed following the objective of the research to collect data. Having assessed by 3 specialists using content validity method, the test was then modified and adjusted to cover all aspects of the content in proper language level. Its reliability was also pre-tested by a group of 30 persons who were not the members of the sample group in order to calculate the reliability (De Costa et al., 2019; Tonioli, 2018).
After studying the indicators on other relevant researches and theories, the tourism carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks produced the results as follows:
Indicator Evaluation
The data collected by the questionnaires was analyzed using the following steps:
1. Step 1: The answers provided in the questionnaire were converted to score. 1-3 meant that the indicator was unsuitable for the further evaluation. 4-5 meant that the indicator was suitable for the further evaluation.
2. Step 2: The binomial test was employed to test the converted scores to indicate the suitableness of the indicators and selected only the qualified indicators. 65 indicators from 3 categories were qualified and suitable.
The suitableness evaluation of ecological carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks showed that 23 of 34 indicators were qualified as presented in Table 1. The unqualified indicators were salinity of seawater, average area temperature, average area humidity, number of trees, tree species, tree density, restricted wood species, number of restricted wood species, tree damage, marine animal death rate, and damage on other nature elements apart from marine animals and marine plants.
| Table 1 Results Of Suitableness Evaluation Of Ecological Carrying Capacity Indicators For Tourism In Marine National Parks |
||
|---|---|---|
| Ecological Carrying Capacity Indicator | Binomial (p) | Result |
| A1 Cleanness of Seawater | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A2 Average Oxygen in Seawater | 0.78 (0.01*) | Suitable |
| A3 Cleanness of Natural Freshwater | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A4 Salinity of Seawater | 0.65 (0.21) | Unsuitable |
| A5 Average Oxygen in Air | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A6 Sand Erosion Rate | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A7 Particulate Matter Concentration (PM 2.5) | 0.74 (0.04*) | Suitable |
| A8 Average Area Temperature | 0.61 (0.41) | Unsuitable |
| A9 Average Area Humidity | 0.52 (1.00) | Unsuitable |
| A10 Area Size | 0.74 (0.04*) | Suitable |
| A11 Number of Trees | 0.70 (0.09) | Unsuitable |
| A12 Tree Species | 0.61 (0.41) | Unsuitable |
| A13 Tree Density | 0.65 (0.21) | Unsuitable |
| A14 Restricted Wood Species | 0.52 (1.00) | Unsuitable |
| A15 Number of Restricted Wood Species | 0.61 (0.51) | Unsuitable |
| A16 Tree Damage | 0.57 (0.68) | Unsuitable |
| A17 Number of Marine Plants | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A18 Marine Plant Species | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A19 Marine Plant Density | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A20 Marine Plant Damage | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A21 Number of Corals | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A22 Coral Species | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A23 Coral Density | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A24 Coral Damage | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A25 Number of Marine Animals | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A26 Marine Animal Species | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A27 Marine Animal Density | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A28 Marine Animal Birth Rate | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A29 Marine Animal Death Rate | 0.61 (0.41) | Unsuitable |
| A30 Reserved Marine Animal Species | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A31 Number of Reserved Marine Animals | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A32 Size of Conservation Area for Wildlife/Wood | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A33 Size of Conservation Area for Marine Animals and Marine Plants | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| A34 Damage on Other Nature Elements Apart from Marine Animals and Marine Plants | 0.65 (0.21) | Unsuitable |
Note: * p<0.05
The suitableness evaluation of facility carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks showed that 25 of 30 indicators were qualified as presented in Table 2. The unqualified indicators were number of shops within area, number of alcoholic beverages and tobacco found within area, number of alcoholic beverages and tobacco for sale within area, number of quarrel cases within area, and number of narcotic cases within area.
| Table 2 Results Of Suitableness Evaluation Of Facility Carrying Capacity Indicators For Tourism In Marine National Park |
||
|---|---|---|
| Facility Carrying Capacity Indicator | Binomial (p) | Result |
| B1 Number of Visiting Tourists at Any Given Time | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B2 Number of Visiting Tourists throughout the Year | 0.78 (0.01*) | Suitable |
| B3 Waste Management Efficiency | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B4 Number of Garbage Bins | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B5 Amount of Clean Water for Usage by Visiting Tourists | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B6 Sewage Management Efficiency | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B7 Noise Level from Tourism Activities | 0.78 (0.01*) | Suitable |
| B8 Size of Parking Area | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B9 Number of Visiting Tourists Moving through Area | 0.78 (0.01*) | Suitable |
| B10 Number of Restrooms | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B11 Number of Accommodations within Area | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B12 Number of Accommodations Surrounding Area | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B13 Size of Camping Area | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B14 Size of Recreational Activity Area (e.g. Diving) | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B15 Size of Relaxing Area for Visiting Tourists | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B16 Size of Tourist Service Center | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B17 Number of Officers in Charge of Tourism Activities | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B18 Number of Tourism Activities | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B19 Average Number of Overnight Visiting Tourists within Area | 0.78 (0.01*) | Suitable |
| B20 Average Number of Non-Overnight Visiting Tourists within Area | 0.74 (0.04*) | Suitable |
| B21 Number of Shops within Area | 0.61 (0.41) | Unsuitable |
| B22 Number of Restaurants within Area | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B23 Number of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Found within Area | 0.61 (0.41) | Unsuitable |
| B24 Number of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for Sale within Area | 0.57 (0.68) | Unsuitable |
| B25 Number of Quarrel Cases within Area | 0.61 (0.41) | Unsuitable |
| B26 Number of Narcotic Cases within Area | 0.52 (1.00) | Unsuitable |
| B27 Profession Change Rate of Locals to Tourism-Related Professions | 0.74 (0.04*) | Suitable |
| B28 Number of Tourism-Related Local Operators within Area | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B29 Revenue Generated from Tourism of National Parks | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| B30 Revenue Generated from Tourism of Surrounding Communities | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
Note: * p < 0.05.
The suitableness evaluation of facility carrying capacity indicators for tourism in marine national parks showed that all 17 indicators were qualified as presented in Table 3.
| Table 3 Results Of Suitableness Evaluation Of Psychological Carrying Capacity Indicators For Tourism In Marine National Parks | ||
|---|---|---|
| Psychological Carrying Capacity Indicator | Binomial (p) | Result |
| C1 Feeling of All Stakeholders Towards Waste Odor | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C2 Feeling of All Stakeholders Towards Air Ventilation | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C3 Feeling of All Stakeholders Towards Restroom Cleanness | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C4 Discomfort Level of Visiting Tourists | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C5 Safety Level of Visiting Tourists | 1.00 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C6 Satisfaction Level of Visiting Tourists | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C7 Revisiting Desire of Visiting Tourists | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C8 Satisfaction Level of Surrounding Communities towards Tourism Activities within Area | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C9 Satisfaction Level of Surrounding Communities towards Revenue Generated from Tourism | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C10 Feeling of Surrounding Communities Towards Negative Effects Created by Tourism Activities within Area | 0.91 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C11 Discomfort Level of Surrounding Communities | 0.87 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C12 Safety Level of Surrounding Communities | 0.96 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C13 Dispute Level between Visiting Tourists and Local Residents | 0.78 (0.01*) | Suitable |
| C14 Dispute Level between National Park Officers and Local Residents | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C15 Dispute Level of Local Operators | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C16 Dispute Level between Local Operators and Visiting Tourists | 0.83 (0.00*) | Suitable |
| C17 Dispute Level between National Park Officers and Local Operators | 0.74 (0.04*) | Suitable |
Note: * p<0.05
This study has the key objective to develop the tourism carrying capacity indicators suitable for tourism in marine national parks. The stakeholders were asked for the opinion on the indicators gathered from the relevant theories and researches in order to develop the suitable indicators in accordance with the objective of this study. It can be concluded that 65 indicators from 3 categories were suitable, comprising 23 ecological carrying capacity indicators, 25 facility carrying capacity indicators, and 17 psychological carrying capacity indicators. The results can be applied to the sustainability management of marine national park tourism.
Aguilar, P., Mendoza, E., & Silva, R. (2021). Interaction between tourism carrying capacity and coastal squeeze in Mazatlan, Mexico.Land,10(9), 900.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Amerta, I.M.S., Sara, I.M., & Bagiada, K. (2018). Sustainable tourism development.International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences,5(2), 248-254.
Anindika, P.L., Ekayani, M., & Sunkar, A. (2020). Carrying capacity assessment of Cibeureum Waterfall tourism in Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park.Media Konservasi,25(3), 203-211.
Bertocchi, D., Camatti, N., Giove, S., & van der Borg, J. (2020). Venice and overtourism: Simulating sustainable development scenarios through a tourism carrying capacity model.Sustainability,12(2), 512.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Choi, H.C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism.Tourism Management,27(6), 1274-1289.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
De Costa, P.I., Crowther, D., & Maloney, J. (Eds.). (2019).Investigating world Englishes: Research methodology and practical applications. Routledge.
De Sousa, R.C., Pereira, L.C., da Costa, R.M., & Jiménez, J.A. (2014). Tourism carrying capacity on estuarine beaches in the Brazilian Amazon region.Journal of Coastal Research, (70 (10070)), 545-550.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Department of National Parks. (2019). National park visitation statistics. Bangkok: Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation.
Han, J. (2018). Carrying capacity of low carbon tourism environment in coastal areas from the perspective of ecological efficiency.Journal of Coastal Research, (83 (10083)), 199-203.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Hongyun, W.A.N.G. (2016). Analysis on tourism carrying capacity of tourist destination.Journal of Landscape Research,8(4), 119.
Hu, J., Huang, Y., & Du, J. (2021). The impact of urban development intensity on ecological carrying capacity: A case study of ecologically fragile areas.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(13), 7094.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Mansfeld, Y., & Jonas, A. (2006). Evaluating the socio-cultural carrying capacity of rural tourism communities: a ‘value stretch’approach.Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie,97(5), 583-601.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
McCool, S.F. (1996). Limits of acceptable change: a framework for managing national protected areas: experiences from the United States. InKuala Lumpur, Malasia, Trabalho apresentado no Workshop on Impact Management in Marine Parks.
Meshkini, A., Heydari, T., & Nemati, T. (2013). Quantitative estimation of tourism carrying capacity of zanjanroud riverine. Geography & Environmental Planning, 24(3), 19-22.
Ministry of Tourism and Sports. (2019). Tourism statistics. Bangkok: Ministry of Tourism and Sports.
Salerno, F., Viviano, G., Manfredi, E.C., Caroli, P., Thakuri, S., & Tartari, G. (2013). Multiple carrying capacities from a management-oriented perspective to operationalize sustainable tourism in protected areas.Journal of Environmental Management,128, 116-125.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Sha, S. (2020). The early warning model of tourism environmental carrying capacity measurement in coast and Island regions.Journal of Coastal Research,103(SI), 1042-1046.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Shi, L., Zhao, H., Li, Y., Ma, H., Yang, S., & Wang, H. (2015). Evaluation of Shangri-La county’s tourism resources and ecotourism carrying capacity.International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,22(2), 103-109.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Suveatwatanakul, C., & Sukpatch, K. (2021). The influence of positive work attitudes towards service quality of front office and independent hotel in Thailand. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(2).
Tonioli, V. (2018). The study and research methodology: Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tourism Authority of Thailand. (2019). Thailand's tourism revenue. Bangkok: Tourism Authority of Thailand.
Wang, Z. (2018). Evaluation of tourism environmental carrying capacity of pai town-medog county hiking route.Journal of Landscape Research,10(2), 69-74.
Yang, H. (2017). Study on the optimization model of tourism environmental carrying capacity based on tourism planning.Revista de La Facultad de Ingeniería,32(12), 1082-1089.
Ye, F., Park, J., Wang, F., & Hu, X. (2020). Analysis of early warning spatial and temporal differences of tourism carrying capacity in China’s island cities.Sustainability,12(4), 1328.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Zhongbin, W.A.N.G. (2018). Construction of evaluation index system of tourism carrying capacity of the Jokhang temple scenic spot.Journal of Landscape Research,10(1), 90-96.
Received: 03-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. ASMJ-22-10731; Editor assigned: 04-Jan-2022, PreQC No. ASMJ-22-10731(PQ); Reviewed:18-Jan-2022, QC No. ASMJ-22-10731; Revised: 25-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. ASMJ-22-10731(R); Published: 01-Feb-2022