Module 7: Visitor Management PDF

**MODULE 7: Visitor Management** **LEARNING OUTCOMES:** **At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:** - Define "visitor management"; - Explain the Principles of Visitor Management; - Explain the Different Frameworks for Formulating Visitor Management Techniques; -...

**MODULE 7: Visitor Management** **LEARNING OUTCOMES:** **At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:** - Define "visitor management"; - Explain the Principles of Visitor Management; - Explain the Different Frameworks for Formulating Visitor Management Techniques; - Enumerate the "Hard" and "Soft" Tools for Visitor Management; and - Know how to behave responsibly and ethically in ecotourism sites. **LEARNING CONTENT:** - Definition of Visitor Management and Its Principles; - Visitor Management Frameworks; - Visitor Management Tools; and - Tools for Influencing Visitor Behavior. **MODULE 7: Visitor Management** Visitor management is a key component in managing an ecotourism site. Visitor management involves managing the type of visitors that can be admitted into an ecotourism site, volume of visitors, density and spread of visitors within the site, frequency of visits, seasonality, and the behavior of tourists. These factors have implications on the kind of facilities to be put on the site, communication and interpretation strategies, signage, staffing, the degree of tourism impact, the quality of the tourism experience, and economic viability. Visitor number and their actions in an ecotourism site also affect other visitor\'s perceived satisfaction levels. This chapter focuses on the various aspects and tools for visitor management. **Definition of Visitor Management and Its Principles** Visitor management is defined as \"an administrative action oriented toward maintaining the quality of park resources and visitor experiences\" (Candrea & Ispas, 2009 in Antonio & Fadirugao, 2016). Visitor management can be described as the techniques and procedures adopted by the management staff of an ecotourism site to minimize negative impacts of visitation, protect visitors from natural and man-made dangers, and maximize visitor leisure satisfaction and education in the site. There are nine principles that should guide visitor management efforts (Eagles, McCool, & Haynes, 2002). These are: (1) the appropriateness of management tools with the objectives, (2) the desirability of diversity in resource and social conditions in protected areas, (3) the need to direct and influence human-induced change, (4) the inevitability of impacts on resource and social conditions as a result of human use, (5) the temporary and spatially discontinuous nature of impacts, (6) the multiplicity of variables that influence the use-impact relationship, (7) the realization that many management problems are not due to the number of users, (8) limiting use as being just one of many management options, and (9) the need to separate technical decisions from value judgments in decision-making. **Visitor Management Frameworks** There are a number of frameworks that can be used in formulating visitor management plans. They are the following: **Carrying Capacity (CC)** is probably the most popular framework for establishing limits to level of visitation in ecotourism sites. Basically, carrying capacity assumes that an area can accommodate a certain maximum number of people without degrading the place. The simplest method for calculating carrying capacity is through Boullon\'s mathematical model, where the carrying capacity is determined by dividing the area used by tourists by the average individual standard (average space needed per person) of 2 square meters (CC = area used by tourists in square meters / 2 square meters). For example, a park measuring 30,000 square meters will have a carrying capacity of 15,000. After that, the carrying capacity is multiplied by the rotation coefficient (RC) or the number of hours the site is open per day divided by the average number of hours per visit (RC = number of hours open daily / average number of hours per visit). For example, if the site is open for 8 hours each day, and the average time spent by a tourist on the site is 4 hours, then RC is 2. Potential carrying capacity (PCC) is the product of CC and RC. Thus, using the previous example, the PCC is 30,000 (15,000 x 2). **Carrying capacity** is a very simple concept to understand. However, the actual CC of a place is not a fixed number; it is determined by a host of environmental, social, and economic factors. Some of these factors are the fragility of the ecosystem (the presence of endangered species will limit activities and volume of visitors allowed in a wilderness area), cultural sensitivity and tolerance for outsiders by local residents (some cultural communities are not ready to allow visitors for fear of their culture being dominated), and labor policies (if projects require employing local people, then use of automation devices which could enable handling more guests will be constrained. The kind of activity should also be factored in (Inskeep, 1991) because the individual standard will vary depending on that. For example, if used for camping, an area will have less CC compared to if it was used as a theme park. Campers will want to feel that they are secluded from the rest, of visitors in a park so they will require more space around their tents. Picnickers can share a tighter space. **Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC)** process requires making decisions on what kind of conditions in an ecotourism site are acceptable and coming up with actions to achieve those conditions (adapted from the explanation of Stankey, Cole, Lucas, Petersen, and Frissell, 1985). According to Stankey et al. (1985), there are **nine steps involved in the LAC process:** (1) identify area issues and concerns, (2) define and describe opportunity classes, (3) select indicators of resource and social conditions, (4) inventory existing resource and social conditions, (5) specify standards for resource and social conditions for each opportunity class, (6) identify alternative opportunity class allocations reflecting area issues and concerns and existing resource and social conditions, (7) identify management actions for each alternative, (8) evaluate and select a preferred alternative, and (9) implement actions and monitor conditions. This approach is best applied to wilderness areas but could also be used in historic and tourism areas (UNEP, n.d.). **Visitor Impact Management (VIM) Framework** involves identifying the negative visitor impacts on an ecotourism site and devising programs to minimize the impacts before expensive restoration and rehabilitation become necessary (Farell & Marion, 2002). According to Farell and Marion (2002), the **advantages of VIM** include simplicity, flexibility, cost effectiveness, timeliness, and inclusion of input from stakeholders and local residents. **Disadvantages** include diminished objectivity and cultural sensitivity issues. The VIM process is very similar to LAC. **The steps in the VIM framework are**: (1) review and identification of issues, (2) selection of indicators, (3) resources inventory, (4) specification of standards for indicators, (5) implementation through an iterative process of monitoring, (6) comparison of impacts with standards, and (7) identification of alternative management options if standards are not met ([http://www.utok.cz/sites/](http://www.utok.cz/sites/#inbox/_blank) default/files/data/USERS/u28/VIM.pdf). **Visitor Experience and Resource Protection** is \"a planning and management framework that focuses on visitor use impacts on the visitor experience and the park resources. These impacts are primarily attributable to visitor behavior, use levels, types of use, timing of use, and location of use\" (US National Parks Service, 1997). **The process involves nine steps:** (1) assembling an interdisciplinary project team; (2) developing a public involvement strategy; (3) developing statements of (park) purpose, significance, and primary interpretive themes and identification of planning constraints; (4) analyzing resources and existing visitor use; (5) describing the potential range of visitor experiences and resource conditions; (6) allocating the potential zones to specific locations (prescriptive management zoning); (7) selecting indicators and specifying standards for each zone and developing a monitoring plan; (8) monitoring resource and social indicators; and (9) taking management action (US National Park Service, 1997). **Visitor Activity Management Process (VAMP)** aims to determine the kinds of activities that are suitable in a park and the strategies in making the public understand, appreciate, and enjoy the park\'s natural and cultural heritage (Graham, Nielsen, & Payne, 1988). Developed in Canada, VAMP is an integral part of the country\'s Park Management Planning Process. VAMP is problem-and-issue rather than data-driven. VAMP\'s primary purpose is for management to arrive at good decisions by providing data that include experiential and informal knowledge by the organization and resident populations, and customary users of a region. It combines social science and ecological data and places strong emphasis on the human element in park and protected area designation, planning, and management. **The VAMP model consists of six steps:** (1) objective(s), (2) terms of reference, (3) database analysis, (4) concept/options, (5) recommendations, and (6) approval and implementation. VAMP is also used to profile park visitors and their motivations in order to determine appropriate segments for a park and its surrounding region. VAMP is concerned with the socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages of the mix of opportunities, activities, services, and facilities in the park and the region. For example, a particular activity like Nordic skiing is analyzed by type, such as recreational use, for fitness or sport, competition, and backcountry skiing. Then, the specific types of Nordic skiing activities are segmented by demographic characteristics, market share, the setting or where they occur, the requirements in terms of access, facilities, and services, as well as other government and private entities involved. Finally, a determination of the appropriateness of the activity is determined (yes, doubtful, or no), by assessing the current conditions of the site and the cost of providing the additional access, facilities, and services to meet the requirements of each type of Nordic skiing, taking into consideration its respective market share. **Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)** (Clark & Stanley, 1979) is a framework for identifying the various opportunities for recreation. I**t is particularly useful for:** (1) allocating and planning recreational resources, (2) inventorying recreational resources, (3) estimating the consequences of management decisions on recreational opportunities, and (4) matching experiences visitors desire with available opportunities. In allocating and planning recreational resources, the relative availability of different opportunities (recreational supply), their reproducibility, reversibility, and spatial distribution must be considered. When a recreational opportunity is abundant, it may be a good idea to offer various types of recreation. **Reproducibility and reversibility** refer to the extent to which an opportunity can be technologically reproduced and the ability of management to reverse the outcome of decisions. **Modern (developed) recreational products** are generally easier to reproduce through capital infusion and technology than the primitive variety. A change from modern to primitive is more easily reversed than a change from primitive to modern. Therefore, management must be cautious in transforming an area from a primitive condition to a developed one. Managers must consider the spatial distribution of opportunities, with sharply dissimilar opportunities needing to be segregated to minimize conflicts or else, the negative impacts will spill over. As an example, sites with high-standard road systems and highly developed campgrounds should not be constructed adjacent to primitive opportunities as the noise from vehicles can pollute what should be a pristine wilderness area. However, the ideal spatial arrangement may be hard to implement because of previous management decisions, other resource uses, established recreational use and other factors. **ROS involves the following steps:** (1) inventory of recreational opportunities, (2) determining the kind of experiences that are desired by visitors, and (3) matching the recreational opportunities with the desired experiences. The inventory of opportunities should take note of specific situational attributes, such as access, facilities, and services, among others. The inventory should produce information about the relative availability of different settings in an area. This information can serve as basis for management decisions on whether to create or reduce certain types of opportunities or settings and in what specific spots they should be done. Inventories should cover an entire region and not just a particular political boundary. A comprehensive inventory conducted at a regional scale and involving public and private suppliers would provide information on the profile of existing and potential opportunities, a catalog of administrative responsibilities or networks, and the spatial relationships among various opportunities for recreation, which could suggest potential conflicts or complementary relationships. Combined with studies of recreation demand and preference, shortage or excess of opportunities could be determined and appropriate decisions to fill or reduce them could be made. Complementation among suppliers is deemed necessary because a lone supplier will not be capable of meeting all types of recreations demanded by visitors. In any decision, management should anticipate the outcomes (changes and impacts) on other opportunities and evaluate the desirability of the outcome. As a hypothetical example, the expansion of the airport capacity in Basco will affect Batanes, which is a protected landscape and seascape. It should be carefully analyzed before committing to the project. A bigger airport will open the province to mass tourism that could destroy the **\"innocence\"** of the residents. The final step is to enable matching visitors\' motivations with the appropriate recreational opportunity setting. This is best addressed by providing easy access to information to users about the nature and location of existing opportunity settings in an ecotourism site. This will help them choose the best locations for their particular types and styles of activity. For example, information on access, facilities, services, and seasonal weather conditions can help tourists determine the locations that best suit their interests. The **spectrum of recreation opportunity settings** proposed by Clark and Stanley (1979) ranges from primitive, semi-primitive, semi-modern, and modern. **This classification is based on six factors:** (1) access, (2) non-recreational resource uses, (3) on-site management or modification, (4) social interaction, (5) acceptability of impacts, and (6) acceptable regimentation. Access elements include the types of access (e.g., roads, trails, and cross-country travel), and the means of conveyance allowed (e.g. cars, all-terrain vehicles, horses, and feet). **On-site management elements** include extent of modifications, apparentness of modifications, complexity of modifications, and facilities. Social interaction ranges from zero human contact to excessive human interaction. Acceptability of impacts considers both the magnitude and importance of such impacts. **Acceptability of regimentation** refers to the techniques used to control visitors\' activities ranging from zero to excessive rules and regulations. **Tourism Optimization Management Model** is basically a framework for managing a tourism destination using sustainable tourism indicators. The model identifies strategic imperatives such as policies and emerging issues. It considers community values, product characteristics, growth patterns, market trends and opportunities, positioning and branding, and alternative scenarios for tourism in a region. It also identifies optimum conditions, indicators, acceptable ranges, monitoring techniques, benchmarks, annual performance, and predicted performance. In case of poor performance, the cause-and-effect relationships are analyzed to determine the results that require a tourism response. Management options are then considered to address such poor performance. **Visitor Management Tools** Visitor management tools can be grouped into two general categories: hard and soft. **Hard** approaches emphasize physical, regulatory, and economic management. These include the construction of facilities or infrastructure to control the movement of visitors in a park, enforcement of laws by fines and imprisonment, and pricing mechanisms. **Soft** approaches focus on education and interpretation. Mason criticizes these approaches as assuming that visitors will not behave properly in a site \" until proven innocent\" and overlooks the importance of visitor experience in visitor management (Mason, 2005). Leung, Spenceley, Hvenegaard, and Buckley (2014) identified **three direct visitor management practices:** (1) limitations on visitor use, (2) rules and regulations, and (3) zoning. Limiting visitor use can be done by using reservation systems, lotteries, queuing, pricing, and merit. A **reservation system** requires potential visitors to reserve a space or obtain permit ahead of their visit. A **lottery** allocates opportunities or permits on a random basis. A **queuing system** (first-come, first-served) involves waiting for available spaces or permits. A **pricing system** requires visitors to pay a fee for a permit. This practice excludes people who cannot or are unwilling to pay. Pricing mechanisms may have differential pricing for locals and outside visitors, seasonal pricing, and premium pricing. These mechanisms address different concerns: equity, evening out seasonal fluctuations, and demarcating or discouraging visitation to enable a damaged or vulnerable site to recover. A **merit system** requires potential visitors to \"earn \" their permit by demonstrating their knowledge or skill. Leung et al (2014) also emphasized that fairness is the critical element to these practices. There should be no palakasan system when it comes to queuing. **Rules and regulations according to Leung et al. (2014) include:** group size limits, assigning campsites and/or travel itineraries, area closures, length of stay limitations, and prohibitions on activities that create substantive impacts on resource and quality of experience. Some examples of detrimental activities committed by tourists in an ecotourism site are picking of flowers, building fires, leaving fires unextinguished, smoking and throwing away cigarette butts into the woods, not wearing proper outdoor gear (e.g., slippers instead of hiking boots), and diving in waters of unknown depth. Limiting group size is also imposed not only to make sure that everyone in a group is able to hear the tour guide, but also to give chance to other guides to make money. For example, a group of 18 people will be split into two with maximum of ten persons per group. So instead of just one tour guide being able to earn, two tour guides at the least can make money. **Zoning** is assigning certain activities to selected areas, restricting activities from areas, and separating conflicting uses of an area. Zoning can also be time-determined It can be used to create different types of tourism opportunities. The basic concept of zoning is at the heart of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), a concept and framework that is widely used in protected area management. Establishing ecotourism zones involves ten steps according to Calanog et al. (2014): 1. If within a protected area (PA), refer to the General Management Plan (GMP) for determining where tourism activities are allowed. If outside a PA, refer to the municipality\'s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), tourism master plan, business district, and transport bays, among others. 2. Obtain a site base map, which will be used for planning and placing specific attractions, facilities, and infrastructure. 3. Locate sensitive or environmentally fragile sites. 4. Identify the kind of experience or situation the visitors would wish to have at the site. 5. Compare the proposed location of tourist attractions and infrastructure with the location of environmentally sensitive sites and present zoning system. 6. Determine the final location of visitor infrastructure and attractions through site visits verification and consultations with local communities and other stakeholders. 7. Prepare a preliminary zoning system that incorporates recommendations for visitor use zones. 8. Compare the proposed zoning system with the pre-existing system to determine if changes are necessary. 9. Develop the final zoning system where each zone is described following the prescribed zoning format. 10. Set the rules and regulations that will be applied in the zones. The **zoning format** should contain the following information: name of the zone, general objectives, zone description, zone boundaries, management rules, regulations, and policies. The **name of the zone** describes the type of activity permitted in the zone such intensive use, religious zone, or wilderness. The **general objectives** set expectations and list the management objectives. **Zone description** summarizes site attributes (biophysical, social, and administrative). **Zone boundaries** specify the location and the geographical bearings of the site. **Management rules, regulations, and policies** list the requirements for entering the site and the \"do\'s and don\'ts\" in the site, such as permits, campfires, group size, etc. (Calanog et al., 2014). **Tools for Influencing Visitor Behavior** Influencing visitor behavior may be done through **two types of law enforcement** (Leung et al., 2014). **Soft enforcement** involves park design, signage, interpretation, or mere presence of a security officer. Part of soft enforcement involves informing the public of the relevant rules and explaining why such rules exist, as well as the penalty for non-compliance. **Hard enforcement** involves the issuance of citations, fines, and arrests. The choice of enforcement techniques used in a park should strike a balance between visitor safety, compliance to rules, and visitor enjoyment. That choice is dependent on the cultural context, gravity of environmental concerns, and crime situation. In a place where people are disciplined, soft enforcement may be enough and security guards without guns may be sufficient. However, in areas where there are endangered species of animals that are being ravaged by poachers, armed guards, or even soldiers may have to be present. Despite park management\' intention to provide visitor enjoyment and experience, visitor manners with \"depreciative behaviors\" are still prevalent. **Depreciative behaviors** are defined as deeds that \"degrade park resources or experiences of other visitors\" (National Park Service, 2016 in Antonio & Fadirugao, 2016). Littering, improper disposal of waste, damaging trees and rocks, feeding of wildlife, vandalism, and the like are examples of these inappropriate behaviors. It is important to take these acts seriously as it may result in resource damage or destruction, alter behavior of wildlife, or pose public health risks within an area (National Park Service, 2016). **Measures to Provide Security and Safety** **Security and safety** are paramount considerations in planning trips to a destination. Places where there is insurgency, high crime rate, and are prone to natural calamities will not be able to attract many visitors. In an ecotourism site, safety can be enhanced by employing security personnel; orienting visitors about the potential hazards in the place and emergency procedures; requiring visitors to present valid IDs; wearing proper attire and equipment for certain activities like caving and rappelling; prohibiting the bringing of dangerous materials like guns, drugs, and alcohol inside the ecotourism premises; and having warning signs. It is also important to have properly trained tour guides and staff who can perform first aid to visitors when necessary. security cameras may also be installed all over the site (Calanog et al., 2012). Various ways of minimizing accidents and emergencies in the park also include releasing advisories during rainy days, assigning people to handle crowd control during peak season, providing emergency equipment on standby, and assigning trained people in cases of emergencies (Antonio & Fadirugao, 2016). **Minimizing Visitor Impacts** There are several strategies for minimizing the negative impacts of visitors\' activities on a site. **These strategies could be:** (1) restricting the number of visitors entering the site, (2) putting a maximum number of people per group of tourists together, (3) preassigning sites to specific groups of visitors to distribute their impacts, (4) area closures during bird periods, (5) limiting the length of stay on the site, (6) putting barriers to restrict access to danger zones, (7) prohibiting certain activities like hunting or making fire, and (8) restricting vehicle access to the site and concentrating facilities in a specific part of the site (Calanog et al., 2012). In addition, it is important to note that enabling conditions must be present to encourage all stakeholders to cooperate in minimizing the negative impacts of visitation. For example, there should be adequate and properly placed trash bins in an ecotourism site to encourage tourists to observe proper waste disposal, toilets must be sufficient to prevent tourists from relieving themselves somewhere else, and there should be ample water supply to clean the facilities. Tourists tend to show more respect to a facility when it is clean. On the other hand, dirty places get dirtier as tourists are likely to be careless in disposing their garbage or not flushing toilets when the place is not properly maintained. Limiting the number of visitors to a vulnerable site like the Puerto Princesa Underground River (PPUR) is being done through reservation or booking system, registration, charging high entrance fees, and controlling transportation to the site. At the PPUR, vehicles cannot go directly to the cave; passengers have to alight at Sabang Port to take the boats that will ferry them to the cave. Because of limited carrying capacity of the ferryboats that bring tourists inside the cave, passengers need to wait to take their turns, effectively controlling the number of tourists that are inside the cave at a given time. Moreover, the landing site, visitor center, photo booth, toilets, and boat station are located adjacent to each other at the PPUR. To minimize trampling on vegetation, walking paths can be covered with some hard materials like gravel, or tiles, or ground tire rubber like in South Korea. Boardwalks, viewing platforms, and hides may also be built in specific areas to preclude encounters between humans and wild animals. Other methods involve the enforcement of penalties like fines for violation of park rules such as hunting ban or prohibition on feeding animals. The impact exerted by tourists on an ecotourism site can also be controlled by soft measures, such as **information, education, and communication (IEC) strategies.** These can be provided through seminars in visitor information center at the site entrance not only educate tourists. But also influence them to behave in a responsible manner. A very important feature of IC is interpretation, which is the presentation of data and facts in a manner that makes a connection with the tourists. Visitors get to appreciate the site more when a trained tour guide is able to reveal \"secrets\" about the site that one will not be able to encounter simply by reading written materials. To compensate for the negative effect, visitors may also be asked or encouraged to plant mangrove seedlings or donate to environmental conservation Tourists must also be reminded to behave ethically and respect local culture; they must not engage in sex tourism of any form and must not corrupt the locals by giving excessive tips (Calanog et al., 2012). Some examples of ethical practices include not leaving bottles, packaging materials, and leftover food at the site; not plucking flowers; not feeding wild animals; and not being noisy. Leaving food behind or feeding wild animals can condition them to depend on human beings for food. This can make them lose their survival skills of hunting or food gathering; or even make them attack people for food. In Oslob, Cebu where 97% of the tourists violate the two-meter minimum distance from the whale sharks, and feed the whale sharks, it was found that the animals easily learn to associate boats with food rewards, and whale sharks which have been at Oslob several times were more likely to show \"anticipatory behavior\" and arrive at the site on average five minutes after the arrival of feeder boats (Schleimer et al., 2015). The same is true of Macaque monkeys in Subic which have been observed to come near people and snatch anything that looks like food packaging or containers. Another bad practice is disturbing fruit bats by throwing stones at them while hanging upside down on tree branches or banging the side of the boat with oar to make bats come out of a cave. These disturb the circadian rhythm of these nocturnal animals. **Safety-oriented behavior** include not drinking unpurified water, rehydrating regularly and wearing hats to avoid direct exposure to the sun and prevent heat stroke, avoiding hypothermia by wearing appropriate clothes, staying with one\'s group to avoid getting lost, using insect repellent and wearing protective clothing in areas where poisonous plants exist, and washing clothes when you leave the trail. Visitors must also prepare for their adventure by knowing the weather, reading about the site, and studying its trail conditions (Calanog et al., 2012). **Responsible and Ethical Behavior in Ecotourism Sites** Schools, government, resorts, tour operators, and other tourism stakeholders have a responsibility to educate or remind tourists to behave/dress appropriately in places they will be visiting, to seek out as much information before traveling to a destination, pay fair price for goods and services in the destination, to travel light to minimize the need for big transport vehicles, to use rechargeable batteries and reusable water bottles, and to use biodegradable soaps and shampoos. They should also remind visitors that when taking photos, ask for permission first; do not use flash with animals who are light sensitive (nocturnal animals); and do not give money to children as this encourages begging (The Educational Travel Community, 2006). Moreover, stakeholders themselves have a responsibility to conduct business in an ethical manner (TETC, 2006). They should: - obtain the consent of local communities before they establish their business; - give back a fair share of their profits to the local community, in cash and social projects like community projects in health, education, etc.; - contribute to the nature conservation of biodiversity; - minimize consumption of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuel; - respect traditional culture and social structures; and - limit group size to minimize cultural/environmental impacts. **Factors Influencing Environmental Behavior** A person\'s behavior reflects his or her knowledge, attitude, and values. Several studies cited by Chi, Lee, and Chen (2014) positively correlated environmentally responsible behavior to factors like sense of responsibility, place attachment, travel motivation, tourism satisfaction, perceived value of the place (money paid vs. benefits), and activity involvement. In an ecotourism setting, a person can display his environmental and social concern by not littering or keeping his trash and disposing of it properly in trash bins.