NEW MEDIT N.

312003

Carrying Capacity - An Old Concept:

Significance for the Management
of Urban Forest Resources
DIMITRIOS TRAKOLIS*
JEL classification: Q 230

1. Introduction Abstract well beyond the bound-

aries of urbanizing areas
Human life depends on In most countries, urban forests have been mainly used for recreation, at least,
(Dwyer et ai., 2000).
healthy ecosystems, during the last 30 to 40 years. The information on the actions to be taken to
The main land-use of
which supply life-sustain- prevent these problems is related to the concept of carrying capacity - a basic
issue in resources management - that is the link between demand for outdoor urban and forests in most
ing resources and absorb recreation and supply of recreational opportunities. A great many definitions
countries at least during
wastes. The industrial rev- have been proposed, but four approaches are clearly recognised; ecological,
the last 30 - 40 years has
olution stimulated the sociological or perceptual, physical, and economic carrying capacity. The con-
been recreation, due to
greatest human migration cept is multidimensional, and it is used as a planning and management frame-
work. It can be judged only against the management objectives for a specificfactors such as more
in history. This migration area.
leisure time, higher in-
Urban forests are the first recreation resources that accept pressure from
is still in the process of the city and town dwellers, thus the need to organize management around the
come and greater mobili-
transforming many parts capacity idea is essential. The relevance of the concept to that of sustainabili-
ty.
of the world, through the ty adds to its value. The review revealed a limited research work on the vari-
The increased partici-
mass movement of people ous aspects of carrying capacity. Feedback with reliable research information
pation in recreation has
is essential to sustain the urban forest resources and their benefits over the long
from farms and rural vil- term.
caused concern among
lages to cities. The seem-
Resume planners and managers of
ing abandonment of the
Ces 30 a 40 dernieres annees, l'utilisation these forests,
principale des Jorets urbaines dans which
countryside is creating an
stems from the evidence
la plupart des pays est la recreation. L 'information sur les actions qu 'on doit
urban world. Eighty per entreprendre pour prl3venir ces problemes est liee au concept de capacite de
that recreational use
cent or more of the peo- charge - une question majeure dans la gestion des ressources - c 'est-a-dire la causes damage to the re-
ple in some so-called in- connexion entre la demande de recreation en plein air et I 'o/Jre d 'opportunites
source and from the con-
dustrialized countries de recreation. On a propose de multiples definitions, mais quatre approches
sideration that increasing
now live in towns and c- peuvent essentiellement etre cernees: la capacite de charge ecolog ique, soci-
ologique ou perceptuelle, physique et economique. Le concept est multidimen-demand results in possi-
ities (Rees, 1996). ble visitor dissatisfaction.
sionnel et il est utilise comme un soubassement de la gestion. Il peut etre e-
Urban forests are signif- value seulement par rapport aux objectift d 'amenagement de la zone speci-
Information, therefore, is
icant and complex ecosys- fique. Les Jorets urbaines sont la premiere source de recreation et elles sont
sought on what action
tems with intricate links exposees a la press ion des citadins. Par consequent, if est necessaire d'axer
should be taken to pre-
among their physical, bio- I 'amenagement sur la notion de capacite. La pertinence de ce concept par
vent these problems.
rapport a celui de durabilite en augmente la valeur. Notre etude montre que la
logical, and social compo- recherche sur les diverses aspects de la capacite de charge est limitee. Voila
This kind of information
nents, as well as with oth- pourquoi if Jaut integrer toutes les inJormations disponibles pour soutenir les
relates to the concept of
er elements of urban and ressources des Jorets urbaines et garantir leurs bienfaits a I 'avenir.
carrying capacity, which
natural resource systems.
is the link between de-
Urban forests are also dynamic systems strongly influ-
mand for outdoor recreation and supply of recreational
enced by the relatively slow growth and development of
opportunities.
trees in the context of rapidly changing urban environ-
ments. To sustain forest structure, health, and benefits 2. Evolution of the concept of carrying
throughout urban ecosystem over the long term, compre-
hensive and adaptive management approaches are needed. capacity
The management of urban forests has important implica- Carrying capacity is a basic issue in resources manage-
tions for the health and well-being of the residents of ur- ment. It has a biological origin and it has been strongly
ban and urbanizing areas, with its influence extending linked with the concept of sustained yield. It is not a new
concept. For example, between the 13th and 16th cen-
turies Germany regulated timber cutting and thereby in-
* National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), Forest Re- troduced sustained yield (Bernhagen, 1974).
search Institute, Thessaloniki, Greece.

58
 NEW MEDII N. 312003

In traditional ecological usage, carrying capacity is a environment or the experience of the visitor".
complex concept broad in meaning, but it can be defined Recreational carrying capacity has been the subject of s-
in a general way as the total number of individuals of a tudy by scientists from different disciplines. Geographers,
species that can live in an ecosystem (or habitat) under sociologists, psychologists, economists, foresters, biolo-
certain conditions (Knight, 1965). The "certain condi- gists and engineers have been dealing with the problem.
tions" causing the complexity include individual, popula- As a result, a great many definitions have been proposed
tion, and environmental interactions and feedback mech- each reflecting the background of its author.
alllsms. In international bibliography, four approaches to carry-
In range management and game management, the term ing capacity are recognised. One is an ecologically deter-
has come to mean the number of a species the environ- mined capacity (ecological carrying capacity). _ second
ment can support on a sustained yield basis (e.g. number one is a sociologically or perceptually determined capaci-
of cattle per Ha per year). It has been given quantitative ty (social, perceptual, psychological, aesthetic carrying ca-
expression in such widely varying environments as the pacity). _ third one is the planner's approach (physical
moorlands and crofting areas of Scotland and the "public" carrying capacity), and a fourth one is the economist's ap-
rangelands of western U.s.A. (Tivy, 1972). proach (economic aspects of carrying capacity).
Carrying capacity has also been inherent in man: land A frequently used indicator to assess the price competi-
ratios, defined in subsistence economies as "the maximum tiveness of a country's foreign trade is given by the rela-
number of people that a given land area will maintain in tionship between export prices and import prices, ex-
perpetuity under a given system of usage without land pressed in the same currency, known as the exchanging
degradation setting in" (Allan, 1949). There are, however, price ratio. For the purposes of this study, the following
other contexts in which carrying capacity has been used. formula has been adopted to express the price ratio be-
It has been used to refer to the ability of foundations, ma- tween Turkey and the EU:
terials or structures to accommodate a given load, in
terms of either weight or volume and to the numbers of 3. Ecological carrying capacity
cars a freeway can carry smoothly. In zoning terms car- Ecological consideration of carrying capacity determi-
rying capacity is easily determined as, for example: one nation includes the impact of recreational activities upon
house for every residential zone unit, one car for every the environment. Ecological studies have been concerned
three customers. in the store, one parking space for every mainly with the need to prevent or limit damage to natu-
three seats in the restaurant, and enough impervious road ral or semi-natural habitats that may include areas of great
surface to access the properties, etc. In recreation plan- intrinsic ecological interest, while still allowing some lim-
ning and management, carrying capacity has received ited, or at least controlled, recreation use. These enquiries
much attention only since the 1960's, but the concept is adopt a practical approach to specific ecological problems,
much older. Ohmann (1973) states that overcrowding in and many conclude by drawing up a series of recom-
National Parks in the U.S.A. and consequent loss of wild mended management proposals for the area studied. In
land values were noted in the 1930's by Adams (1930). He doing this, the existence of a capacity figure is implied,
also notes that Wagar (1964) recognised the same concept this capacity representing the desired level to which use
in the restriction of hunting rights to the nobility during should be limited according to each author's individual
the reign of Charlemagne (768 - 814 A.D.). set of priorities. In these ecologically oriented studies, the
As early as 1960 the Californian Public Outdoor Recre- figure is related to the level of ecological change and phys-
ation Plan stated as one of its basic hypotheses "that each ical damage associated with a given level of recreational
recreation resource type within a region has a maximum use (Burton, 1974).
user carrying capacity (number of users per acre per day The problems to be solved when making any estimation
and season); when used beyond this capacity the character of ecological carrying capacity are: (1) to understand the
and quality of the resource are altered or destroyed". nature of recreational use and its distribution in space and
Within the U.S. Forest Service research workers had by time; (2) to understand the nature of the ecosystem with
1964 struggled to define and assess the implications of the which recreation use interacts; (3) to quantify the amount
concept of carrying capacity for either recreational land and type of recreation use which will bring about an un-
or wilderness areas. Wagar (1964) defined recreational car- acceptable degree of change; (4) to define what constitutes
rying capacity as "the level of recreational use an area can an unacceptable resource state. The last one is an evalua-
withstand while providing a sustained quality of recre- tive decision and the question arises as to whose values
ation". Lime and Stankey (1971), taking earlier attempts must prevail. Brotherton (1973) has answered this ques-
at defining recreational carrying capacity into account, de- tion considering the primary land use of the area. He
fined it as " .... the character of use that can be supported points out: "Even in the unlikely event of two areas hav-
over a specified time by an area developed at a certain lev- ing precisely the same ecological conditions, different cri-
el without causing excessive damage to either the physical teria will be needed to determine acceptable ecological

59
 NEW MEDIT N. 312003

change if primary land uses, which determine the overall pletely destroyed the forest ground cover irrespective of
management aims, are different". site fertility. He states that comparisons made between
Planners and managers of recreation areas want to herb and grass cover showed that herb and grass cover is
know from ecologists the amount of change that will oc- in the long run the best alternative for the management of
cur under specific levels and types of use and they require ground cover in intensively used recreation areas.
advice on the level of change which, from an ecological Recent research, again in Finland, has among its objec-
viewpoint, could be regarded as acceptable in different tives the production of information about the minimum
habitats which are used for recreational purposes. size of ecologically sustainable forest patches, and the e-
Work by ecologists relating to carrying capacity and cological effects of fragmentation and consequent increas-
making contributions to satisfy the needs of planners and ing recreational use on vegetation and forest structures.
managers, has been mainly of four kinds: (i). descriptive Furthermore, the knowledge derived from this research
work of the impact of recreational activities upon the en- on the effects of trampling on different types of urban
vironment; (ii). work relating quantitatively the effects of forests (different biotopes, site types, soil fertility et c.) can
recreational pressure in field situations; (iii). controlled be used to predict the susceptibility of various kinds of
experimental work on the effects of trampling (in the field forests and biotopes to trampling. This information will
or laboratory); (iv). work on the recovery or recolonisa- be included as variables when developing methods that
tion of damaged sites. will take forest biodiversity into consideration in the best
Ecological studies have undoubtedly contributed to- way in the planning procedures (1. Lofstrom, pers.
wards a better understanding of the effects of recreational comm., 1999).
use upon different ecosystems. Foci of recreational activi-
ty are the first parts of an area to be affected, and can be 4. Perceptual carrying capacity
used to forecast changes likely to occur elsewhere in the Sociological factors limiting carrying capacity are those
event of increasing intensity of use. Speight (1973) has dependent on the attitudes or social behaviour of recre-
comprehensively reviewed the literature up to 1972 on ationists that is on the characteristics of the visitors.
the ecological effects of outdoor recreation in natural! se- Perceptual carrying capacity has been defined as "the
mi-natural areas. maximum level of recreation use, in terms of numbers
Burton (1974) states that the most obvious results of and activities, above which there is a decline i.n the recre-
recreational use appear to be a decrease in the height of ation experience from the point of view of the recreation
the vegetation, a decrease in the number of species present participant. Different users could have a different view of
and a marked increase over the normal percentage of bare the perceptual capacity of the same area according to their
ground. activity" (Countryside Recreation Research Advisory
In Poland, Kostrowicki (1970) applied geobotanical Group, 1970). In much of the existing research work, the
methods in appraising fitness of areas for purposes of concept is related to the effect of crowding on the level of
recreation and rest. He gives an index of the maximum satisfaction derived by the recreationist from the use of
number of people who for eight hours might be permit- the recreation areas.
ted to move about freely without causing irreparable Tivy (1972), in her review on the determination of
damage to the vegetation cover. recreational carrying capacity in the U.S.A., reports that
In Finland, Kellomaki (1973) carried out experiments social limits to carrying capacity are dependent on a vari-
on the trampling tolerance of forest vegetation in a Myr- ety of characteristics and mentions a few of them, such as
tillus site type, using a trampling simulation method. He age group, income levels and educational standards.
based the trampling estimation on coverage and biomass Brotherton (1973) gives curves, which relate the satis-
determination and found that trampling tolerance of the faction derived by an individual at different situations
bottom layer of vegetation is greater than that of the field (types of recreation use, such as country park, fun fair) to
layer, and grasses and dwarf scrubs have a higher toler- the level of use (Figure 1), and argues that, since all indi-
ance capacity than herbs. He states that despite certain d- viduals do not have the same reaction to crowding, in or-
eficiencies, the simulated trampling gave parallel results to der to determine the aggregate benefit derived from the
those obtained from real trampling. use of each type of area the individual satisfaction curves
In another study (Kellomaki 1977) he investigated the should be plotted. It seems reasonable to take the levels of
trampling tolerance of forest ground cover of the Calluna, recreation use that maximize aggregate benefit to partici-
Vaccinium and Myrtillus site types and found positive pating individuals as the perceptual capacity.
correlation between the site fertility and trampling toler- Veal (1973) sees perceptual carrying capacity as con-
ance of plant communities. Annual trampling at a level of tributing to the recreationist's decision-making - on
about 16,000 visits per hectare decreased the biomass of whether to enter, visit, leave or move about in a recre-
the ground cover to almost half the original amount, and ation site - and as contributing to his enjoyment of or sat-
annual trampling of about 160,000 visits per hectare com- isfaction with, the recreation experience. He also points

60
 NEW MEDIT N. 3;2003

Fig. 1 Satisfaction curves derived from Brotherton standards (Burton, 1974).

Physical capacity figures are found in out-
door recreation literature and recreation
management and development plans but

Satisfaction
derived by an
appreciating
user
I a. Country Park

1
b. Urban fun-fair they have little or no scientific basis. They
have mainly been decided by trial and error
because of the difficulties inherent in any ob-
jective
Most
assessment of carrying capacity.
standards of capacity have been based
on American experience and particularly re-
lated to intensive use of land and water in
managed recreation areas. In a 1959 nation-
Level of use Level of use
wide survey of recreation resources in the
U.S.A., the Forest Service attempted to de-
velop guidelines by which the capacity of

I I
recreational areas could be estimated. Efforts
were directed at creating "converting factors"
which represented the acreage of a recreation
Aggregate resource needed to satisfactorily accommo-
satisfaction
derived from
date one man-day for that resource. In re-
use of the site sponse to the growing demand for assistance
in the establishment of "space standards" that
could be used by planners, the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation published a survey of
Level of use Level of use Outdoor Recreation Space Standards in
1965, which was revised in 1967. It included
out (Veal, 1974) that for most users of most outdoor the most reliable and comprehensive examples of guide-
recreation sites it is likely that increasing numbers of oth- lines currently available for use in providing adequate
er users leads to reduced satisfaction. But it should be recreation areas and facilities. It lists acreage: population
borne in mind that for many recreation activities, in- ratios recommended by a variety of private and public a-
creasing numbers of other participants, up to a certain lev- gencies for facilities in certain types of areas and for dif-
el, increase satisfaction. Examples are fairgrounds and ferent types of activity. The Wisconsin Outdoor Recre-
most spectator or audience events. ation Plan of 1966 also lists four though not mutually ex-
Recent research in the Urban National Forests of Cali- clusive types of standards: design standards, use standards,
fornia (USDA Forest Service, 2001a) revealed that at some health and sanitation standards or codes, facilities stan-
sites in these forests there are so many visitors that sites dards or acres per unit of population (Tivy, 1972).
are closed to additional visitors who where hoping to In the U.S.A. again, the National Recreation and Park
recreate at those sites. One area, located on the Angeles Association (2001) recognizes the importance of establish-
National Forest in southern California, is frequently ing and using park and recreation standards as:
closed to additional visitation because of the crowded con- • A national expression of minimum acceptable facilities
ditions. Data were collected from visitors to this forest in for the citizens of urban and rural communities.
order to learn more about recreation patterns and the • A guideline to determine land requirements for various
preferences of visitors for handling crowded conditions. kinds of park and recreation areas and facilities.
Managers must consider all the options available to them • A basis for relating recreational needs to spatial analysis
including teaming with other agencies and groups to serve within a community-wide system of parks and open
the populous and diverse southern California. space areas.
• One of the major structuring elements that can be used
5. The planner's approach to carrying ca- to guide and assist regional development.
• A means to justify the need for parks and open space
pacity with~n the overall land-use pattern of a region or com-
Planners need capacity estimates that will guide them in mumty.
their effort to achieve the goals set for a specific area. It ap- The purpose of these guidelines is to present park and
pears to have become accepted among many planners that recreation space standards that are applicable nationwide
once capacity standards have been defined, the process of for planning, acquisition, and development of park, recre-
relating demand and supply of resources will become a ation, and open space lands, primarily at the community
more straightforward task than without the use of any level. The standards should be viewed as a guide.

61
 NEW MEDII N. 312003

Table 1. Examples afcarrying capacity sta ndards Urban forests are mainly for people, so
planning professionals must integrate the art
N Reso urce ancVar activity Capacity sta ndards Source
and science of management of this kind of
Detroit parks around fringes 10 person s/ acre Patmor e (1970) forests in order to balance the various re-
2 a Family picnicking 4 - 8 fam ily uni ts/acre Smith and source values. Carrying capacity standards re-
b. Gro up p icnick ing 10 - 25 units/ac re M atth ews (1972)
lated to urban forests can be found in many
3 a Grassy areas in parks 100 - 200 person!i"ha Sidaway (1974)
sources, such as Patmore (1970), Smith and
b. Fo rest area of park 10 - 20 person s/ha
Matthews (1972), Sidaway (1974), Spon Ltd
4 Stati c ho lid ay caravan sites 60 - 75 carava n s! h a Spon Ltd (1974)
(1974), Heytze (1976), Jacobi and Manning
5 a Park areas near cities 40 person s/ha Heytze (1976)
b. Pinewood s or moors 3 p ersonsih a
(1999), and some selected examples from
outside urban areas these sources are presented in Table 1.
6 Carriage road s cJ Acadia Jacobi and
Nation al Park ( USA) Mann ing (1999) 6. The economist's approach to
a A two-hour visit in the
peak zone
Visitors
than:
shoul d experien ce no more carrying capacity
2 bicycli sts travel ling at excessive speed Economists seem to have approached carry-
2 bicycl ists passing from behind without ing capacity in various ways. Brotherton
warning (1973) states that economic capacity relates to
1 vi sitar obstru cti ng the road ... co nt/d situation of multi - purpose usage (recreation
2 dogs off l eash ... co nt/d plus some other land use), and depends upon
b. A two-ho ur visit in the no Visitors should experience no mare the economic interaction between different
peak zon e than:
1 bicycl ist travelling at excessive speed
intensities of two or more uses on the same
site. It can be viewed as defining the intensi-
1 b icycl ist passing from behind withou t
warning ties of the different uses at which maximum
1 vi sitor obstructi ng the road aggregate benefit accrues from the use.
o dogs off leash Bury (1976) explains how financial carrying
b. A two-hour vis it in the no Visitors shoul d experien ce no more capacity could be viewed: financial capacity
peak zone than:
may be the point at which management cost
1 bicycl ist travelling at excessive speed
per visitor served begins to increase marked-
1 b icyc l ist passing from behind w ithout
w arning ly. If accurate cost records for development
1 vi sitar obstru cti ng the road and operation are available this point can be
o dogs off l eash determined rather well. Alternatively, finan-
cial carrying capacity might be set as that
In Holland absorption capacity standards have been es- number of visitors that can be accommodated with the
tablished based on the assumption that the various envi- approved level of program funding under accepted crite-
ronments to which the standards refer retain their poten- ria for maintenance and operations. Or it could be the
tial properties. These standards are expressed in terms of point at which income from visitor fees would equal costs
number of persons per hectare of park areas near cities, plus reasonable profit - or it might be the point at which
pinewoods and moors outside urban areas, etc. (Heytze, the cost of minimizing adverse environmental impacts be-
1976). gins to rise steeply.
In Britain, Hockin et al. (1977) gathered information on In an urban context, economic aspects of carrying ca-
the minimum physical standards required by a number of pacity have found application, where optimal levels of use
outdoor recreation activities (minimum user require- take into account the distribution of benefits and costs to
ments) and on the possible constraints of each activity. resident populations (Canestrelli and Costa, 1991).
The requirements serve as design standards to guide the Recent research related to economic aspects of carrying
development of a site for local recreation purposes in capacity and organized around the concept of Sustainable
t~rms of the space needed, layout, number and type of fa- Urban Ecosystems, includes the Cooperative Regional
cility required. Research Project in the USA (USDA Forest service,
There is no doubt that capacity standards are valuable 2001b). In this project "sustainable urban ecosystems" are
to planners and managers and should be used when prac- defined as landscapes that are designed and managed to
ticable. But it is evident that they have only local value. In minimize impact on the environment and maximize the
a repetitive landscape or in relation to sports facilities, it value received for the money expended in the long term.
is possible to arrive at standards that can be applied from The main objectives of this study focus on the benefits,
one place to another. But landscapes are rarely repetitive, costs, and sustain ability of ecosystems, including: identifi-
so each site must be evaluated individually to determine cation, designation, and promotion of practices that max-
its capacity. imize net benefits and minimize adverse effects on urban

62
 NEW MEDIT N. 312003

vege~ation; the use of regionally native plants for land- Urban forestry is an essential and highly valued compo-
scaplllg; and the development of demonstration and ex- nent of large-scale, long-term environmental and commu-
tension projects. nity s~sta~nability. In developing management programs
to m~llltalll th~ res~>urce and enhance important forest
7. Other approaches to carrying capaci- benefIt~, the dIverSIty, complexity, connectedness, and
ty dynamlCs of urban forests must be considered. These fea-
Burton (1974). introduces the term landscape capacity tures have ~n array of management implications, particu-
and states that It could be defined as the ability of the larly regardlllg t~e. s~ale of p~licies and programs, types of
landscape to absor? recr:ational use. There are landscapes management actIvltles, duratlOn of efforts and links with
that may be very llltenslvely used (in terms of people or a wide range of urban initiatives and individuals and
c~rs per acre), but, because of their physical characteris-
groups involved in the planning and management of ur-
tiCS, .they may not appear to be so; in such landscapes a ban forests (Dwyer et aI., 2000).
r~latIvely low number of cars or people can be seen at any
Urban forests are the first recreation resources that ac-
time. On the contrary, there are landscapes that could ap- cept pressure from the city and town dwellers almost
pear relatively intensively used, even though the actual every day, w?ich reaches its peak during the ~eekends
level of use was low. Most forest, woodland and scrub en- and bank hohdays. The need therefore to organize man-
vironments could be classified as high-capacity landscapes, agement of these forests around the capacity idea is neces-
whereas open woodland and down land are low-capacity sary.
landscapes. The relevance of the concept of carrying capacity to the
R~lated to the above aspect of carrying capacity is the
concept of sustain ability adds to its value as an organizing
envIronm~ntal capacity mentioned by Patmore (1970), management ~ramework. Implementing the sustainability
and Hardlllg et al. (1972), and defined as "the maximum concept, envIronmental values should not be used up
number of cars/persons that a site may carry without de- faster than they are produced. The capability of the re-
tracting from the visual amenity of the area". source base to continue to provide for recreational use is
generally viewed through the concept of carrying capaci-
8. Conclusions ty (Papageorgiou and Brotherton 1999).
All aspects and approaches mentioned above are inte- In a European context, management of urban forests for
gral parts of the capacity idea, which has not an absolute carrying capacity means management that it is in accor-
~alue, and there is ~o generally accepted approach of how
dance with the resolutions on sustainable forest manage-
ment, use and protection of forests, and on the conserva-
It sho.uld be determlll~d. !he criteria for defining carrying
t~on of forest biological diversity of the Helsinki Ministe-
capacIty are very subjective and vary from location to 10-
catio~ depending upon the sensitivity of the resources,
nal Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe as
and differ fro?I individu~l to individual based upon their they. appear in the Progress Report of the Conferedce,
own expectatlOns. Carrylllg capacity is a multidimension- pubhshed by the Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture,
Rura~ Development and Fisheries in 1996. In this report
al concept, which is used as a framework around which
recreati~n plannin~ and management are organised.
sustalllable forest management is defined as the steward-
The bIbhographlc and other work presented in this pa- ship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a
rat~, tha~ ~aintains t~eir productivity, regeneration ca-
per leads to the following main conclusions:
• Carrying capacity is a complex concept. It relates to pacity, vItahty and theIr potential to fulfil, now and in the
many aspects of use in addition to numbers of users. future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions
• Carrying c~pacity can be judged only against the man- at local, national and global levels, and that does not caus~
agement. ~bJectives for a specific area. Without explicit damage to other ecosystems.
and sp~cIflC m~nagement objectives, carrying capacity is To facilitate comprehensive and adaptive management
an elUSIve notion. to h.elp sus~ain the entire urban forest ecosystem, the fol-
• Apart from management objectives two other factors 10Wlllg topIC areas need to be emphasized in the years a-
are equal~y important. These factors are the impact on head (Dwyer et aI., 2000):
the phYSIcal resource and visitor attitudes. All factors • Improving inventory and monitoring
are equally important but their significance varies from • Impro~ing dialogue among owners, managers, and users
one opportunity to another. • Fosten~g collaboration a~ong agencies and groups
• The physical extent of an area and economic considera- • I?Ipr~vlllg the understandlllg of how forest configura-
tions. ha,,:e also been i.dentified as factors affecting the de- tions lllfluence forest use and benefits
termlllatIon of carrylllg capacity. • Increasing knowledge about factors that influence urban
• Carrying capacity is a management system directed to- forest health
,,:,ard ma~~tenance. or restoration of ecological and so- • Improving dissemination of information about urban
CIal condItions defllled as acceptable and appropriate. forests and their management.
As urbanization continues and urban populations in-

63
 NEW MEDIT N. 312003

creasingly dominate the social and political structure of many planning of outdoor recreation activities. Department of Geography,
countries, understanding and managing urban forest resources Universlty of Reading. Geographical papers, no. 54.
will be a critical mechanism for connecting people with e- Jacobi C., Manning R. 1999. Crowding and conflict on the carriage
cosystems. roads of Acadia National Park: An application of the Visitor Experi-
ence Resource Protection Framework. Park Science 19 (2)
Choosing the best management approach involves judgment http://www.aqd.nps.gov/parksci/voI19%282%29/13-ljacobi.htm
and is dependent upon good information about desired condi- Kellomaki S. 1973. Ground cover response to trampling in a spruce
tions, current conditions, and the consequences of alternative stand of Myrtillus type. Silva Fennica, 7 (2), 96 - 113.
management actions. Attention should be focused on critical Kellomaki S., 1977. Deterioration of forest ground cover during
problems at specific locations, and the public should be in- trampling. Silva Fennica, 11 (3), 153 - 161.
volved throughout the planning process. Monitoring is neces- Knight C. B., 1965. Basic concepts of ecology. Macmillan Co., New
sary to provide feedback to periodically modify management York.
actions or, in some cases, standards or objectives. By carefully Kostrowicki A. S., 1970. Application of geobotanical methods of ap-
organizing management of urban forests within the frame- praising fitness of regions for purposes of recreation and rest.
work of carrying capacity, managers should be able to avoid re- Przeglad Geografiezny, 644 - 645 (English summary).
stricting and regulating visitors when and where it is truly nec- Lime D. W., Stankey G. H., 1971. Carrying Capacity: Maintaining
essary. Outdoor Recreation Quality. In Recreation Symposium Proceed-
ings, North-eastern Forest Experiment Station U.S.D.A. Forest Ser-
At the European level, and internationally, research on the vice, Upper Darby, Pa., 174 - 184.
various dimensions of carrying capacity is very limited. As an Ohmann L. F. 1973. Ecological carrying capacity. USDA Forest Ser-
organizing framework for recreation planning and manage- vice General Technical Report NC-9, 24 - 28.
ment, it needs feedback with reliable information derived from Papageorgiou K., Brotherton 1., 1999. A management planning
research. In this respect, investigating even selected aspects of framework based on ecological, perceptual and economic carrying ca-
carrying capacity would be very useful. pacity: The case study of Vikos-Aoos Natrional Park, Greece. Jour-
nal of Environmental Management, 56, 271-284.
References Patmore J. A. 1970. Problems in modern Geography - Land and
Adams J. T., 1930. Diminishing returns in modern life. In: Ohmann, Leisure. David and Charles Newton Abbot.
L. F. 1973. Ecological carrying capacity. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Rees W. E., 1996. Carrying capacity and ecological footprints - A
General Technical Report NC-9, 24 - 28. new imperative for urban - rural sustain ability. Paper prepared for
Bernhagen W. R., 1974. Outdoor recreation in the Lake Superior the Second International Training Session, Leadership for Environ-
area. A study of recreational carrying capacity, resource allocation ment and Development. Okinawa, Japan 16-27 October 1996. Uni-
and control measures. Ph.D. Thesis, the University of Wisconsin. versity of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional
Brotherton D. 1., 1973. The concept of carrying capacity of country- Planning, Vancouver, BC, Canada. http://www.lead.org/leadltrain-
side recreation areas. Countryside Commission. Recreation News ing/international! okinawa/papers/ rees.htm
Supplement, 9, 6 -10. Smith J. H. G., Matthews J. R., 1972. Environmental tolerances and
Burton R. C. J., 1974. The recreational carrying capacity of the coun- visitor preferences for some forest recreation habitats in British Co-
tryside. A research report presenting the methodology and the results lumbia. Forestry Chronicle, 48 (3), 133 - 137.
of ecological and psychological surveys of Cannock Chase, Stafford- Speight M. C. D., 1973. Outdoor recreation and its ecological effects.
shire. Keele University Library, Occasional Publication no. 11. Discussion paper in conservation no.4, University College, London.
Bury R. L., 1976. Recreation carrying capacity. Hypothesis or reali- Spon Ltd E. & F. N., 1974. Spon's Landscape Handbook. Specifica-
ty? Parks and Recreation, 11 (1), 22 - 25 and 56 - 57. tions and prices (eds Lovejoy D & Partners). Second Edition. E &
Canestrelli E., Costa P., 1991. Tourism carrying capacity: a fuzzy ap- FN Spon Ltd, London.
proach. Tourism Research, 18,295-311. Tivy J. 1972. The concept and determination of carrying capacity of
Countryside Recreation Research Advisory Group, 1970. Country- recreation land in the U.S.A. Countryside Commission for Scotland,
side Recreation Glossary. Countryside Commission. Occasional Paper no. 3.
Dwyer J. F., Nowak D. J., Noble M. H., Sisinni S. M., 2000. Con- Veal A. J" 1973. Perceptual capacity: A discussion and some research
nectingpeople with ecosystems in the 21st century: an assessment of proposals. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of
our nation's urban forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Birmingham, Working paper no. 1.
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Veal A. J., 1974. Environmental perception and recreation. A review
Technical Report PNW-GTR-490. and annotated bibliography. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies,
Harding D. M., Smith P. M., Humphrys G., Edwards A. G., Jones University of Birmingham, Research Memorandum no. 39.
A. D. 1972. A recreation and amenity study of the Uyn Brianne area. USDA Forest Service, 200la. Wild land Recreation and Urban Cul-
A report of an investigation carried out by a Study Group at the De- tures. Recreation Research Update, July 2001 No. 37. http://www.r-
partment of Geography at the University College of Swansea, Wales, fl.psw.fs.fed.us/ recreation/ ujul2001.html
U.K., for the West Glamorgan Water Board. USDA Forest Service, 2001b. Cooperative Regional Research Pro-
Heytze l c., 1976. Non-wood producing functions of the forest and ject. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station
man's demand for them. Paper presented to the U.N. Economic (http://wcufre.ucdavis.edu/sustaina.htm)
Commission for Europe - F.A.O. symposium on forests and wood, Wagar J. A., 1964. The carrying capacity of wild lands for recreation.
their role in the environment. Supplement 4 to Vol. XXVIII of the Forest Science Monograph no.7.
Timber Bulletin for Europe, Part Il, 124 - 132.
Hockin R., Goodall B., Whittow J., 1977. The site requirements and

64