Proceedings

Sustainable Planning Instruments and Biodiversity Conservation
Development of Visitor Impact Management in the Heritage Parks: Theoretical Findings
on the number of visitors “how to plan and manage a
particular recreation resource” (Lime, 1976). According
to Bo Shelby and Thomas A. Heberlein’s (1984) decision
on evaluative standards and descriptive information on
relationships between use, management and impacts, it is
a relatively simple matter to define a visitor management
program. Thus, the question revolves around “acceptable
change”. Management methods are approached to define
the objectives. It is an important task to determine which
among the small number of tourism frameworks available
are similar in their characteristics and most suitable
(Table 1). Model Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS) and Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), Visitor
Experience and Resource Protection Model (VERP)
(Yosemite National Park) have originated from the
United States, Visitor Activity Management Program
(VAMP) from Forest Tourism and Recreation in Canada,
but the Visitor Impact Management Model (VIMM) is
very similar to the LAC – devised specifically for the US
Parks Service.
Eventually, the Tourism Optimisation Management
Model (TOMM) originated from Australia. It is very
similar to LAC, with a focus on overcoming the lack
of stakeholder support in LAC and VIMM. The terms
‘impact’ and ‘limits’ are perceived as discouraging
growth by tourism businesses, and this model adapts to
tourism needs.
The development of recreation and tourism
frameworks has only occurred in the last 25 years. Such
development generally arose in response to specific
planning and implementation issues (Manning, 2004).
There is a significant body of literature related
to parks and protected area management (Butler &
Waldbrook, 2003; Cole et al, 1997; Manning, 1999;
Manidis, 1997). Recently, the literature has included
visitor impact management which is necessary in parks
and protected areas, like HP. Nowadays heritage parks
are becoming settings for activities that are beyond
recreation: cultural events, after-school activities, job
training, environmental programs, enterprises, volunteer
programs, family picnics, and more.
Recreational activity in HP has become more
prevalent, and many managers have noticed problems
associated with increased visitation. Many of these
problems require complex solutions through regulatory
methods (Payne & Graham, 1993).
According to the opinion of Australian scientists
Michel Hall and Simon McArthur (1998), two main
difficulties in choosing the Visitor Impact Management
Model are: (1) preparation for drafting of a management
plan, and (2) inability to write clear management
objectives.
The author of this article finds two more reasons
which hinder the process: (1) incomplete knowledge
about classical methods of Visitor Impact Management
Models, (2) lack of knowledge on using different
computer software for choosing better alternatives.
To make it easier to choose alternatives, the author
suggests using the software Expert Choice. This
program is devised for using the method of Analytic
Hierarchy Process. The initial version of Expert Choice
was programmed by Ernest Forman from George
Washington University – user-friendly software which
is not so time-consuming (Wasil, 2003).
The answer to the question which is the most
appropriate model for visitor management of heritage
parks is not simple. The following difficulties have been
mentioned by Stephen F. McCool: “Visitor management
framework provides a systematic process so that managers
who are decision makers are fully aware of (1) the desired
future they wish to attain, (2) the alternative routes to the
future, and (3) the consequences of those alternatives”
(McCool, 2005, p. 4).
The choice of alternative visitor management models
for the HP is a future task of the NVBR. It has been
scheduled to renew the Braslava HP near Mazsalaca
in the NVBR within the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and Global Environmental Facility
(GEF) project “Biodiversity Protection in the North
Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve.”
Heritage parks are intended to “provide a foundation
for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor
opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and
culturally compatible.” (WCMC, 2004)
4 Results and Discussion
After examining several parks in Canada, Switzerland,
Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom
in comparison with NVBR in Latvia, the author
established that in these countries HP have: (1) larger
areas; (2) predominance of public properties; (3) larger
HP activity commercialization. However, in the NVBR,
heritage parks have: (1) smaller areas; (2) different forms
of property; (3) each place has specific conditions which
require individual planning and management solutions
for each HP in the NVBR.
An analysis of the study data showed differences
among the HP, which indicated a necessity to choose the
most appropriate management model for each particular
NVBR heritage park.
As a result of this study, the author distinguished three
possible Visitor Management Models: VIMM, VAMP
and TOMM, which were used in further research. The
processing of response data from the research involving
three experts showed that (1) through the application of
three main criteria, the highest ranked was the level of
sustainable tourism followed by the level of application
by management and the level of visitor friendliness. In
the case if the data consistency ratio (CR) = 0.1 or more,
for example, for TOMM with the advantage of 35.7%,
inconsistency and lack of uniformity among the criteria
occur. However, if the value of the consistency ratio is
smaller or equal to 10%, the inconsistency is acceptable.
If the consistency ratio is greater than 10%, the subjective
judgment needs to be revised. Synthesis with respect
to the level of sustainability gave preference to VAMP
by 39.9% and CR = 0.02. Synthesis with respect to the
level of application by management gave preference to
TOMM by 36.6% and CR = 0.01. Synthesis with respect
to the level of visitor friendliness with consistency ratio
(CR) = 0.1 gave preference to TOMM by 37.7%. Synthesis
with respect to the goal: best model with CR = 0.1 gave
preference to TOMM by 35.7%, VIMM was in the third
place – 29.5%.
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
As a result of the research, the author draws the
conclusion that, considering three alternatives – TOMM,
VIMM and VAMP – with the three criteria of the level
of sustainability, the level of application by management
and the level of visitor friendliness, the TOMM
alternative was given significant preference over other
alternatives, especially over VIMM. That means that it
is necessary to continue the research while expanding
the areas of research criteria. While performing the task
of the research, the author met an insufficient number
of experts in the sphere of Visitor Impact Management
Models because of the lack of knowledge on classical
methodical questions on visitor impact management.
The author concedes that the reason could be the lack of
education and language barriers. The author recommends
NVBR specialists to turn their attention to the choice of
a HP Visitor Impact Management Model and to improve
their knowledge in this particular field. Finally, different
methods and tools would allow heritage park managers
to have better insight into how the tourism industry
operates, which should make it possible for them to
minimize the impact of visitors on the heritage parks in
the NVBR through making use of the knowledge on the
HP Visitor Impact Management Model as a sustainable
planning instrument.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Iluta Bērziņa, Jānis
Sirlaks and Aleksandrs Raubiško for their participation
and contribution to this research.
References
About.com. US & Canadian Parks: National Parks – The
Classification System Designation of National Park
System Units. http://usparks.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.
html.
Answers.com. 2009. Public Health Encyclopedia Dictionary –
carrying-capacity. http://www.answers.com/topic/carrying-capacity.
The Australian Government, Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts. Australia's Heritage. http://
www.environment.gov.au/heritage/index.html.
Bouma, J., Brouwer, R., van Ek, R. 2000. The Use of Integrated
Assessment Methods in Dutch Water Management: a
Comparison of Cost-Benefit and Multi-Criteria Analysis.
In: Third International Conference of the European
Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, 3–28, 18–25.
Butler, R. W. and Boyd, S. W. 1996. Managing Ecotourism: An
Opportunity Spectrum Approach. Tourism Management
17(8), 557–566.
Butler, R. and Waldbrook, L. 2003. A New Planning Tool:
The Tourism Opportunity Spectrum. Journal of Tourism
Studies 1: 25–36.
Cole, D. N., Stankey, G. H. 1997. Historical Development of
Limits of Acceptable Change: Conceptual Clarifications
and Possible Extensions. United States Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report,
Issue 371. P. 5–9. http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?U
IN=042810071&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine.
Dictionary.com. 2009. Dictionary – carrying capacity. http://
dictionary.reference.com/browse/carrying%20capacity.
Eagles, Paul F. J., Stephen McCool and Christopher
Haynes. 2002. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas:
Guidelines for Planning and Management. United Nations
Environment Programme, World Tourism Organization,
and World Conservation Union.
Hall, C. M. and McArthur, S. 1998. Heritage Management
in New Zealand and Australia: Visitor Management,
Interpretation, and Marketing. Auckland: Oxford
University Press.
Lime, D. W. 1976. Principles of Recreational Carrying
Capacity. In: Proceedings of Southern States Recreation
Research Applications Workshop. General Technical
Report SE-9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, South-
Eastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC:
122–134.
Manning, R. E., Valliere, W. A. and Wang, B. 1999. Crowding
Norms: Alternative Measurement Approaches. Leisure
Sciences 21 (2): 97–115.
Manning, R. E. 2004. Recreation Planning Frameworks.
Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge
(eds. Manfredo, M. J. et al). Jefferson. P. 83–96.
Manidis, R. 1997. Developing a Tourism Optimisation
Management Model (TOMM). A model to monitor and
manage tourism on Kangaroo Island. Final Report, South
Australian Tourism Commission, Adelaide. http://tourism.
sa.gov.au/tourism/publications.asp.
McCool. S. 2005. Outdoor Recreation in the New
Century: Frameworks for Working Through the
Challenges. Presentation at the 2005 Society of
American Foresters National Convention, October
19–23, Ft. Worth, TX. P. 4. http://www.cfc.umt.edu/
personnel/.smccool/Recent%20Publications_ files/
McCool%20SAF%20paper.pdf.
Parks of the World. 2008a. International Park System. http://
parksoftheworld.org/worldparks.html
Parks of the World. 2008b. "The World is a Park with Countries
in It.” http://parksoftheworld.org/planearth.html
32
33