Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEA

Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEALas Piñas – Parañaque Critical Habitat Ecotourism Area

Aaron Julius M. Lecciones, UAP, MScPLAN 222 – Dr Candido Cabrido, Jr

1

Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEAI. IntroductionII. Characteristics of LPPCHEAIII. Defining Tourism Carrying CapacityIV. Methodology for Carrying Capacity AssessmentV. Results and DiscussionVI. Conclusion

A. Lecciones | PLAN

222Assessing the Tourism

Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEA

2

INTR

ODU

CTIO

N

Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEA

A. Lecciones | PLAN


Carrying Capacity of the LPPCH

EA

3

IntroductionBackground and Rationale

Tourism is seen as an important contributor to the Philippine economy (DOT, 2011; NEDA, 2011).

Positive current account balance Priority development areas Highest growth potential for job generation Provides 10% of national employment Drives private and foreign investment in infrastructure

A. Lecciones | PLAN



4NEDA, 2011. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, Pasig City: National Economic and Development Authority.DOT, 2011. Philippines Tourism Overview and Directions 2011-2016, Manila: Department of Tourism


Tourism by numbers (DOT, 2011; DOT, 2014; iECONOMICS, 2015): PhP186.15B or US$4.4B worth of receipts in 2014 (2014 GDP: PhP2.196T) Expected US$6B in 2015

A. Lecciones | PLAN



5DOT, 2011. Philippines Tourism Overview and Directions 2011-2016, Manila: Department of TourismiECONOMICS, 2015. Philippines Gross National Product. Internet. Online. Available: http://ieconomics.com/philippines-gross-national-product-forecast. Accessed: 9 May, 2015.DOT, 2014. PH tourism registers 9.56% growth; tourism receipts up by 15.1%. [Online] Available at: http://www.gov.ph/2014/02/13/ph-tourism-registers-9-56-growth-tourism-receipts-up-by-15-1/ [Accessed 8 May 2015]

PhP4,149.29Per tourist

10.40nights on average

PhP43,152Spent per

trip

4.68MForeign tourist arrivals (2014)

9.56% annual increase

27.91Mdomestic

tourists (2014)


Tourists visit the country for its natural beauty, culture, adventure, medical, or similar recreation

Tourists shop for local crafts and delicacies, sightsee, go on beach holidays, scuba dive, and engage in various cultural, nature and adventure experiences.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



6NEDA, 2011. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, Pasig City: National Economic and Development Authority.


Island geography a predominance of tourism

sites are based primarily on the natural environment

critical habitats and sensitive or fragile environments such as riparian areas, coral reefs, lakes, small island, and other foreshore and wetland areas

A. Lecciones | PLAN



7NEDA, 2011. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, Pasig City: National Economic and Development Authority.DOT, 2011. Philippines Tourism Overview and Directions 2011-2016, Manila: Department of Tourism


Tourism sites are both home to commercial tourism activities and indigenous flora and fauna

Commercial tourism activities include mass tourism and ecotourism activities (Lopez & Baez, 2010). Ecotourism sites are primarily natural sites and can include a component of

cultural and adventure activities mass tourism is based mostly on the 3S – Sea, Sand, and Sun With the varied activities conducted on these tourism sites, the

increase in tourists, and the predominantly fragile status of tourism sites in the country, differing land use regimes put pressure on a shared ecosystem

A. Lecciones | PLAN



8Lopez, H. G. & Baez, H. H. S., 2010. Tourism Theory and Practice, Tunja: Pedagogical and Technological University of Colombia.


The Midterm Philippine Development Plan (2011, p. 87) states that tourism in the country must adhere

“[…] to sound and manageable environmental practices in the development and promotion of tourist destinations as well as enhancement of tourism products and services.”

Furthermore, tourism development must be socially and environmentally sustainable and economically viable and inclusive.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



9NEDA, 2011. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, Pasig City: National Economic and Development Authority.


Damage to the environment by tourism is well documented Exacerbated in areas of rapid growth and poverty (Alister & Geoffrey, 1982). Overuse in tourism areas can deteriorate land resources –

overcrowding or congestion can result in resource damage and degradation (IUCN, 1996).

The gradual shift of tourism from a Fordist to Post-Fordist paradigm (Arva & Deli-Gray, 2011) witnessed in developed countries has not been the case in many developing countries like the Philippines.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



10Alister, M. & Geoffrey, W., 1982. Tourism: economic, physical, and social impacts, London: LongmanIUCN, 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: Assessment, monitoring and management techniques. [Online] Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/html/Tourism/section9.html [Accessed 2 May 2015]Arva, L. & Deli-Gray, Z., 2011. New Types of Tourism and Tourism Marketing in the Post-industrial World. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, Volume 5, pp. 33-37.


Despite the push by industry and government to develop greener forms of tourism from mass tourism – modern forms of tourism are not fully capable of generating less impact on tourism environments (Burns and Holden, 1995).

Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessments is a way to determine the threshold of environments to absorb the impact of tourism activities and is a means towards ensuring a secured future growth for the tourism sector.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



11Burns, P. M. & Holden, A., 1995. Tourism: A New Perspective. 1st ed. New York: Prentice Hall.


The Las Piñas – Parañaque Critical Habitat Ecotourism Area or LPPCHEA is one of many tourism sites that is both a tourism area and a critical habitat for several species of migratory birds (DENR, 2012).

This study aims to measure the tourism carrying capacity of selected tourism activities in LPPCHEA. The study will not however discuss the dynamics of varying limits to ecological

thresholds that might be experienced in the study area nor its implication on policy and management than have a concomitant effect on overall carrying capacity.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



12DENR, 2012. Saving the Last Coastal Frontier: Framework Plan for the Coastal Lagoon of Las Pinas and Paranaque. Quezon City: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.


A. Lecciones | PLAN



EA

13

CHA

RAC

TERI

STIC

S O

F LP

PCHE

A

Characteristics of LPPCHEA

A. Lecciones | PLAN





A. Lecciones | PLAN




Located between 14.481158, 120.971586 and 14.502763, 120.988237 – the southwest portion of Metro Manila.

bounded by Pasay City on the northeast; by Bacoor, Cavite on the southwest; and Manila Bay on the west.

Straddling along the Manila- Cavite Coastal Road


A. Lecciones | PLAN




covers approximately one hundred seventy five hectares (175 has.)

encompasses two (2) land masses Long Island is at the southwest portion (Las

Piñas City) Freedom Island is at the northeast part

(Parañaque City)


A. Lecciones | PLAN




Is between the political-administrative jurisdiction of Las Pinas and Paranaque

No actual population but is adjacent to 8 coastal barangays

These are Brgys. Zapote, Pulanglupa, Elias Aldana, Ilaya, Manuyo Uno, and Daniel Fajardo in Las Piñas City and Brgys. La Huerta and San Dionisio in Parañaque City

Only a few number (less than 20) of permanent residents stay on the islands and are mostly caretakers, there are however incidences of ISF encroachment.

Characteristics of LPPCHEA Las Pinas City is fifth poorest in

the 4th district of NCR Paranaque is home to 25,073

informal settlers among which Brgy San Dionisio is prominent.

There are incidental instances of informal settlers in the LPPCHEA and are engaged in informal jobs – vending, fishing, shell cultivation, etc.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALand Cover / Present Land Use LPPCHEA is predominantly

covered by mudflats, both in the north and south islands.

Soil quality is relatively good due to presence of organic materials

114 hectares of mudflats in surrounding waters

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEAPlant Species Mangroves are the predominant

plant species Mangroves are salt-tolerant trees

adapted to living in salt and brackish water conditions and are critical spawning, nursery, feeding and temporary shelter areas not only to fishes but other animals, including wild birds

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEAPlant Species The DENR-ERDB introduced three (3) Rhizophora

species of mangroves along the Cavite-Manila Coastal Road sometime between 1998 and 2001

8 species of mangroves thrive in the area Bungalon (Avicennia marina) Kulasi (Lumnitzera racemosa) Pagatpat (Sonneratia alba) Bakauan (Rhizophora spp.) Pototan (Bruguiera sexangula) Nipa (Nypa fruticans) Tabigi (Xylocarpus granatum) Saging-saging (Aegiceras corniculatumI)

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Lies within the migration path of

migrant birds escaping the harsh Siberian winter

Wild Bird Club of the Philippines documented 80 migrant and resident wildbird species.

14 species of gastropods 23 species of bivalves 8 species of juvenile sub-adult

sized fish

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Mangroves in the area have: milkfish (Chanos chanos), dusky frillgoby (Bathygodius forma

fuscus), striped poly fish (Leiognathus fasciatus), long-arm mullet (Valamugil cunesius), silver sillage (Sillago sihana), fourlined terapon (Pelates

quadrilineatus), fringe scale sardinella (Sardinelle

fimbria) and whipfin silverbiddy (Gernes

filamentousus).

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Avian species in the LPPCHEA as recorded by

DENR-NCR Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program: 44 bird species 29 are migratory 15 resident bird species (including endemic

Philippine Duck, Anas luzonica). In the area around LPPCHEA there are recorded

52-80 bird species (WBCP, DENR) Vulnerable and Endangered species include: Philippine Duck (Anas luzonica) Chinese Egret (Egretta eulophotes)

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Migratory birds feast on mudflat species from

August to April. Number of birds feeding and roosting reaches

5,000 heads per day 1,000 heads of Black-winged Stilts (Himantopus

himantopus) shore birds.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK LPPCHEA is the first critical habitat

established in the country and the first to be proclaimed by a President

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKPROCLAMATION 1412 Issued on 22 April 2007, Presidential Proclamation No. 1412 formally

establishes the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA).

This document defines, among others, the legal bases for its establishment and the specific geographic area under the jurisdiction of LPPCHEA.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKPROCLAMATION 1412-A This directs all relevant departments and instrumentalities under the executive

branch to ensure the preservation of existing mangrove, mudflats and ecosystems in the area defined under Proclamation 1412

directs the DENR to convene and chair a Manila Bay Critical Habitat Management Council composed of representatives from: the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA); Department of Tourism (DOT); the City Governments of Las Piñas and Parañaque; Non- Government Organizations (NGOs) and People’s Organizations (POs) with a

direct stake in the area.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKREPUBLIC ACT 9147 (WILDLIFE RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION ACT) Section 25 of R.A. 9147 provides the legal basis for the DENR Secretary in

declaring a particular geographical area—especially those outside the coverage of R.A. 7586 or the “National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992” like LPPCHEA—as a “critical habitat”.

The same law defines a critical habitat as areas where “threatened species are found” and moves to protect it “from any form of exploitation or destruction which may be detrimental to the survival of the threatened species dependent therein”.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKEXECUTIVE ORDER 111 E.O. 111 establishes the guidelines for ecotourism development in the

country to ensure the sustainable use, development, management, protection and conservation of the country’s environment and natural resources and cultural heritage for the enjoyment of the present and future generations.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKPRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1085 Issued during the heydays of military rule in the country, P.D. 1085

formally conveys the ownership and administration of reclaimed foreshore and offshore land in the Manila Bay, more particularly the area where the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road now stands, to the Public Estates Authority (PEA), now Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA).

Based on this issuance, LPPCHEA is owned by the PRA, hence a member of the Management Council and involved in the preparation of the management plan.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKREPUBLIC ACT 7160 (THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES) The law is meant to empower local government units (LGU) by granting them

greater autonomy from central agencies and offices. As such, it lays down the basis for greater involvement of LGUs in the conceptualization, development and implementation of national government projects or undertaking within their territorial jurisdiction.

Sections 2 and 26 of R.A. 7160 mandates the conduct of consultations with “the local government units, nongovernmental organizations, and other sectors concerned” of any government initiated projects or program that may “cause pollution, climatic change, depletion of non-renewable resources, loss of crop land, rangeland, or forest cover, and extinction of animal or plant species”.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKREPUBLIC ACT 8550 (THE PHILIPPINE FISHERIES CODE OF 1998) R.A. 8550, or simply the “Fisheries Code of 1998”, provides the guidelines

for, among others, the “utilization, management, development, conservation and protection of fishery resources”.

Of specific importance for LPPCHEA is Section 94 of the law which makes the conversion of any mangrove area into fishponds or “any other purposes” unlawful.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKREPUBLIC ACT 9275 (PHILIPPINE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 2004) As its title suggests, R.A. 9275 is intended to protect all water bodies in

the country, including the wetlands and mudflats of LPPCHEA, against pollution by providing water quality standards and regulations, as well as penalties for violations of the same.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKPROCLAMATION 2152 Declares all mangrove swamps as forest reserves. As such, it makes

conversion of mangroves to fishponds illegal.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKLOCAL ORDINANCES Las Piñas City ORDINANCE NO. 754-07 This is an ordinance directing the registration of fishing vessels weighing five (5) gross tonnage and below to register with the city government. This is in keeping with Executive Order No. 305 mandating the devolution of said function from the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and into the local government unit concerned. ORDINANCE NO. 238-95, SERIES OF 1995 (AMENDED) An Ordinance prohibiting the littering of garbage, refuse, waste materials, remnants human or animal excrement, animal cadavers and the like on any public, road street, alley and sidewalks; deputizing elementary and high school students to apprehend an issue citations, tickets to any violation; granting a 255 share of the fine collected to the student fund apprehended a violation and imposing a penalty for any violation thereof.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKLOCAL ORDINANCES Las Piñas City ORDINANCE NO. 350-9, SERIES OF 1997 An ordinance prohibiting spitting in government offices and other public places and providing penalties for violations thereof. ORDINANCE NO. 578-02, SERIES OF 2002 An ordinance providing for the efficient and environmentally-sound collection, transportation, processing, storage and disposal of solid waste within the city of Las Piñas providing penalties for violations thereof.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKLOCAL ORDINANCES Parañaque City ORDINANCE NO. 05-018, SERIES OF 2005 An ordinance providing for the standard method of mandatory waste segregation at source in the city of Parañaque. ORDINANCE NO. 06-02 (104) An ordinance that aims to protect the natural resources and environment of the city against pollution and deleterious fishing methods.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKLOCAL AGREEMENTS MANILA BAY DECLARATION (2001), AS AMENDED The Manila Bay Coastal Strategy, which is a product of a series of consultations with stakeholders, embodies the visions and action programs for the restoration of Manila Bay. It was adopted by various stakeholders, with former Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as witness, in October 2001 in an event called the Manila Bay Declaration.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKLOCAL AGREEMENTS BOULEVARD 2000 FRAMEWORK Then Pres. Fidel V. Ramos issued on February 24, 1995 Administrative Order No. 176 creating the Presidential Task Force Boulevard 2000. The Task Force, Chaired and Co-chaired by the Secretaries of the DPWH and the DENR respectively, with the General Manager of the PEA as Vice-chair, is responsible for the preparation, integration and coordination of all development plans, projects and programs in the Boulevard Reclamation Area. This project shall be considered a priority infrastructure project of the government.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKINTERNATION AND REGIONAL AGREEMENTS CONVENTION ON MIGRATORY SPECIES (CMS,1994) Originally signed in 1979 at Bonn, Germany, CMS is an agreement that endeavours parties to work together in the protection of migratory species among states within their migration routes. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD,1992) CBD is a treaty aimed at conserving “biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.”

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKINTERNATION AND REGIONAL AGREEMENTS CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF

WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES) Also known as the “Washington Convention”, CITES is a multilateral treaty that aims to ensure that trade of wild animals and plants across signatory countries does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF WETLANDS (RAMSAR CONVENTION) The RAMSAR Convention is an environmental treaty that provides framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources in member countries.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEALEGAL and INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKSUPREME COURT MANDAMUSThe Supreme Court directed government agencies to cleanup and/or restore the Manila Bay, and thereafter the preservation of the water quality of the bay after the rehabilitation process. The agencies that were ordered by the Supreme Court in its Decision in G.R. Nos. 171947-48 in their different capacities were the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the Philippine National Police Maritime Group, and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEAInstitutional and attitude issues

Poor institutional coordination and collaboration Different stakeholders and service

orientations increase difficulty Disorganised participation of NGOs

and Pos Differences in interests and

attitudes of stakeholders

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEAFishing related Issues

regulating or outright restriction of their access to the coastal lagoons and mudflats is difficult Local population derives livelihood

from local fishing Comprising policies of

environmental conservation and livelihood

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEALand use issues

Optimal and efficient land use is difficult because of competing uses Differing territorial jurisdiction Coordination of zoning ordinances Land is owned by Philippine

Reclamation Authority (PRA)

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEAPollution

Solid and Liquid Wastes Location makes LPPCHEA a

garbage sink Only 9 of 17 cities in MM have a

SWM plan in place Municipal and industrial effluents Commercial ships, trading ships,

small fishing boats

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEAPollution

Solid and Liquid Wastes Low levels of DO Acceptable levels for nitrates-

nitrogen and phosphate-phosphorous compounds are 0.2 mg/l and 0.4 mg/l respectively

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEABird strikes

Safety of aviation and birds Inconclusive status regarding bird

strikes and commercial aviation Airports and bird habitats can co-

exist if properly managed

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEACRITICAL ISSUES IN LPPCHEASoil Erosion

High rate of soil erosion Garbage scouring and siltation are

the two major causes of soil erosion

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEAWise Use management and strategy Strict Zone (SZ); Recreational Zone (RZ); and Sustainable Use Zone (SU).

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Strict Zone (SZ)devoted to habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement. Public access to said areas, therefore, is strictly limited. The mangrove areas, salt marshes and mud flats (north and south lagoons) are all part of the Strict Zones.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Recreational Zone (RZ)The stretch of the Long Island, except the mangrove areas and lagoons, and certain portions of Freedom Island are designated as Recreational Zones. Visitors are given free access to this area.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Recreational Zone (RZ)Approximately 3,000 meters of nature trails and boardwalks

Approximately 1,000 meters of beach head for beach walking

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Characteristics of LPPCHEA Sustainable Use Zone (SU)reserved for use and access of local communities for livelihood development purposes. Fishing, shellfish collection, and other low impact economic activities will be allowed here.

A. Lecciones | PLAN





A. Lecciones | PLAN



EA

56

Defin

ing

Tour

ism

Car

ryin

g C

apac

ity

Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity Derives from wildlife ecology where it has been used to define the

maximal population size of a certain species that an area can support without reducing its ability to support the same species in the future.

Carrying capacity has been described as an appropriate tool for beach management, as it “enables the preservation of the high quality and quantity of coastal resources whilst meeting not only the current needs, but also securing long-term economic and ecological benefits for future generations” (UNEP/PAP, 1997:8)

Planners have enlarged the definition of carrying capacity by including many variables inherent to man-made systems (Hall and Lew, 1998)

A. Lecciones | PLAN



57UADES, 2002. “DEFINING, MEASURING AND EVALUATING CARRYING CAPACITY IN EUROPEAN TOURISM DESTINATIONS. Athens: University of the Aegean, Department of Environmental Studies.Carrying Capacity Assessment for Sustainable Tourism Development: A Proposal for the Saint Martin’s Island

Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity tourism carrying capacity arises from a perception that tourism cannot

grow forever in a place without causing irreversible damage to the local system (Coccossis and Mexa, 2004)

World Tourism Organization (1994) definition of TCC is:

“The maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic, socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors' satisfaction"

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity Luc Hens defined the tourism carrying capacity as

"The maximum number of people that use tourism site without unacceptable effect on environmental resources while meeting the demand of tourists".

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity It is understood in concept that: Tourist attractions are assets which cannot be reproduced Treated as a public good where market mechanisms do not show their normal

allocative functions A maximum number of users visiting tourist attractions lead to their saturation,

resulting in a poorer quality of tourist experience Negative effects are felt collaterally:

Diminished environment Lower quality of tourist demand Lower economic utility

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity It is understood in concept that: Negative impacts can be controlled by a threshold for capacity which is the

proxy indicated by the maximum number of visitors. If the physical capacity of a tourist attraction is determined by a maximum

number of visitors there at one point in time, the balance can be maintained by physically limiting the number of visitors at a time.

Public goods in the form of tourism assets usually have an additional contingent value attached to them. If the real price were to be paid then the visitors would pay enough to absorb higher saturation rates and thresholds would adjust.

Any increase in supporting facilities would have both a negative and positive impact on the area.

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity Therefore, setting a carrying capacity for a tourist destination is used as a

management tool towards a comprehensive and sustainable development of tourism in a particular area (EU-UADES, 2002).

A study by the European Union and University of Aegean, Greece generated a framework for TCC divided into two parts: Descriptive Evaluative

A. Lecciones | PLAN



62EU-UADES, 2002. “DEFINING, MEASURING AND EVALUATING CARRYING CAPACITY IN EUROPEAN TOURISM DESTINATIONS. Athens: University of the Aegean, Department of Environmental Studies.Carrying Capacity Assessment for Sustainable Tourism Development: A Proposal for the Saint Martin’s Island

Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity Descriptive Framework

Describes how the system under study works, including physical, ecological, social, political and economic aspects of tourist development. Within this context of particular importance is the identification of: Constraints: limiting factors that cannot easily be managed. They are not

flexible, in the sense that the application of organizational, planning and management approaches, or the development of appropriate infrastructure does not alter the thresholds associated with such constraints.

Bottlenecks: limiting factors of the system which managers can manipulate (numbers at a particular place).

Impacts: elements of the system affected by the intensity and type of use. The type of impact determines the type of capacity (ecological/physical, social etc)

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity Evaluative Framework

Describes how an area should be managed and the level of acceptable impacts. This part starts with the identification (if it does not exist already) of the desirable condition/preferable type of development. Within this context goals and management objectives need to be defined, alternative actions evaluated and a strategy for tourism development formulated. Of key importance is the identification of: Goals/objectives: define the type of experience or other outcomes that a

tourism setting for destinations should provide Evaluative criteria: specify acceptable levels of change

A. Lecciones | PLAN




Defining Tourism Carrying Capacity

A. Lecciones | PLAN





A. Lecciones | PLAN



EA

66

Met

hodo

logy

for C

arry

ing

Cap

acity

Ass

essm

ent

Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment The Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment used in this study is adapted

from by Cifuentes and Ceballos - Lascurain which is a IUCN adopted and endorsed.

Further modifications from the assessment methodology are made to incorporate realities in available data for LPPCHEA and are broadly based on the modifications in the study in “Carrying Capacity Assessment for Sustainable Tourism Development: A Proposal for the Saint Martin’s Island”.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



67

EU-UADES, 2002. “DEFINING, MEASURING AND EVALUATING CARRYING CAPACITY IN EUROPEAN TOURISM DESTINATIONS. Athens: University of the Aegean, Department of Environmental Studies.Carrying Capacity Assessment for Sustainable Tourism Development: A Proposal for the Saint Martin’s IslandIUCN, 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: Assessment, monitoring and management techniques. [Online] Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/html/Tourism/section9.html [Accessed 2 May 2015]

Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment The levels that will be assessed are: The Physical carrying capacity (PCC) and Effective Real Carrying Capacity

(ERCC) The activities to be assessed in LPPCHEA are: Board walking Bird watching Beach walking

A. Lecciones | PLAN



68


Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment The Physical carrying capacity (PCC) Definition: PCC is the maximum number of tourists that can physically fit into

or onto a specific area, over particular time:

PCC = A× D× Rf

Where: A: available area for use (m2);D: tourist density (tourists / m2);Rf: Rotation factor (number of visits per day).

A. Lecciones | PLAN



69


Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment A is determined by particular conditions of the considered area. In natural areas, this parameter can be determined by natural boundary

such as mountain range, river, stream or safety demand. In conservation area, where tourism is developed, the available area can

be estimated from the length of track in that area or the total area where tourists can do camping or walking.

The tourist density or the area required per tourist D is the area needed for a tourist who can undertake activities comfortably.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



70


Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment Rotation factor is the number of permissible visits over a specified time

(usually calculated by daily open hours) and expressed by:Rf = Open period / average time of visit

Assumptions: Groups of 6

A. Lecciones | PLAN



71


Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment Effective Real Carrying Capacity (ERCC) Definition: ERCC is the maximum number of tourists that is permitted by the

local conditions and management capacity without influencing the tourists’ demand:

⋯

where: Cf (corrective factors or limiting factors) are factors which have negative impact on tourism activities and assessed by limiting threshold which used for identifying impact level of a factor.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



72


Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment where limiting factors can be determined by:

Cf=M1/Mt

M1: limiting magnitude of variable;Mt : total magnitude of variable.

These factors are selected based on tourism activities and local conditions of the study area.

In consideration of tourism activities at National Parks, the following factors should be taken into account: environmental safety, conservation, natural resources managements, tourism activities, planning and local factors such as human resources, the contribution of tourism to local economic development, social crimination

A. Lecciones | PLAN



73


Methodology for Carrying Capacity Assessment For purposes of this study environmental indicators used to indicate

sensitivity of environment and development as well as other indicators for calculating TCC will be selected based on the following chracteristics: Computable (quantitative or semi-quantitative derived values). Easily surveyed and collected (by field research, including qualitative values).

A. Lecciones | PLAN



74


A. Lecciones | PLAN



75


A. Lecciones | PLAN



EA

76

Resu

lts &

Disc

ussio

n

ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEA The Framework Plan for the

Coastal Lagoons of Las Piñas and Parañaque has specified detailed use of the 175 hectares of land area including associated waters.

Only the recreational zones are allowed for tourism activities

The following activities are calculated for TCC: Board walking Bird watching Beach walking

A. Lecciones | PLAN



77


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEA Within the recreational area are: Boardwalks and nature trails: 3,000

meters Beach walking: 1,000 meters All three activities are considered

to have the same person-activity densities.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



78


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEA Seasonal Adjustment:

The Island receives tourists throughout the year with most bird watching activities done between August and April. For the rest of the year, coastal clean-ups are the regular activities and are classified under beach walking. For the purpose of the study there is no significant peak tourist months described by data or by anecdotal interviews.

There are however typhoons and other weather related disturbances which subtracts approximately 2 months worth of visitor time.

Therefore the practical adjustment for measurement is for an 10 month-period annually.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



79


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEA Physical Parameters: To calculate Effective Real Carrying Capacity (ERCC),

factors that affect tourist's comfort such as the necessary distance between two people and the distance between two groups on a route should be considered. Therefore the following physical parameters are included: Total Length of areas covered by tourist activities: 3,000 m Average Length of beach coastline and boardwalk/nature trail per person: 2.0

m per person Number of people in each group: 6 persons Distance between two groups in beach: 5m Average time for using walkable areas: 3 hours Beach using period: 6 hours (safe hours, high tide in daylight)

A. Lecciones | PLAN



80


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEA Let x to be the maximum number of groups going into the beach for

swimming and bath. The number of groups is expressed by equation:

(x× 6×2) + (x −1)×5 = 3000 x = 176 groups

Tourism activities occupy 6 hours a day, each tourist takes about 3 hours:Rf = 6/3

Number of visits per day = 2

A. Lecciones | PLAN



81


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEA PCC is the maximum number of tourists that can physically fit into or onto a

specific area, over particular time:

PCC = A× D× RfPCC = x ×6× 2 = 176×6× 2

= 2,112 visitors/day

Thus, the maximum number of tourists that LPPCHEA could physically serve is about 2,112 visitors/day.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



82


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEACorrective Factors: Bad Weather/ Ship Cancellation (Cf 1) Infrastructure limiting factor (Cf 2) Management Limiting Factor (Cf 3) Safety factor (Cf4)

⋯

A. Lecciones | PLAN



83


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEACorrective Factors: Bad Weather/ Ship Cancellation (Cf 1)Bad weather contributes significantly to tourism in LPPCHEA, including storms, storms surges, overcast weather, this averages to about 5 days of every month

M1: 5 12= 60 daysMt: 30 12= 300 daysThus, Cf 1= 60/300 = 20%

A. Lecciones | PLAN



84


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEACorrective Factors: Infrastructure limiting factor (Cf 2)Based on interviews and filed observations the quality of infrastructure present on the LPPCHEA can be assessed qualitatively as 80% in bad condition.

M1: 80% in bad conditionMt: 100 for perfect conditionThus, Cf 2= 80/100 = 80%

A. Lecciones | PLAN



85


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEACorrective Factors: Management Limiting Factor (Cf 3)Service management includes controlling high quality services, supplying news service activities, fresh water and energy (fuels) supply, waste and sewerage management. Based on field observations and interviews management can be rated at 50%.

M1: 50% under poor managementMt: 100 for perfect managementThus, Cf 3= 50/100 = 50%

A. Lecciones | PLAN



86


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEACorrective Factors: Safety factor (Cf4 )Areas identified under recreational areas are assess by field observation to have present hazards and potential risk to tourists safety is rated at approximately 30%.

M1: 30% assessed to have present hazards and potential riskMt: 100 for no hazardsThus, Cf 4= 30/100 = 30%

A. Lecciones | PLAN



87


ResultsCalculating the TCC of the LPPCHEAFrom the previous assessment, ERCC of the Saint Martin’s Island can be computed as:

⋯

. . . . /

The Effective Real Carrying Capacity (ERCC) of the LPPCHEA is 236 visitors/day.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



88


Discussion Based on calculating PCC and ERCC it is determined that The Effective

Real Carrying Capacity (ERCC) of the LPPCHEA is 236 visitors/day. Interviews of LPPCHEA Management (Rey Aguinaldo) shows the following

statistics: Total average visits in 2014:

4000 visitors for general sightseeing 3000 visitors for coastal cleanup activities

Which translates to: 7000 / 10 / 30 = 24 visitors per day.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



89


Discussion At 24 visitors per day, LPPCHEA is currently only carrying about 10% of its

potential capacity. This indicates that with the current situation the LPPCHEA can still expand

its tourism volume without significant changes to management strategies, this does not however indicate that this current situation is ideal, efficient, nor recommended.

The major threat to tourism is therefore still mainly pollution, political-administrative policies, and threats from urban land use and ISF livelihood conflicts.

However, this study notes that the very poor infrastructure and under-equipped management team hampers the full potential use of the LPPCHEA, which if properly addressed can help strengthen resiliency of the LPPCHEA ecosystem to its major threats.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



90



A. Lecciones | PLAN



EA

91

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

Recommendations The study notes that only 10% of the current capacity of the LPPCHEA is

used by extant tourism activities. It is recommended that: The existing 236 visitors per day become the threshold for guiding

development parameters for tourism facilities. Proper development is made to increase the capacity of the LPPCHEA to cater

to tourists to increase its draw on tourists and enhance financial feasibility of the operations which in turn will help in paying maintenance and operating costs.

A comprehensive feedback and monitoring system be put in place to dynamically assess the carrying capacity of the LPPCHEA.

A more detailed tourism carrying capacity framework be used once sufficient baseline indicators database have been established.

A. Lecciones | PLAN



92


Thank you very much!

SALAMAT!

9 May 2015

A. Lecciones | PLAN



Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEA

Documents

Transcript of Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacity of the LPPCHEA