International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology

ISSN: 1350-4509 (Print) 1745-2627 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Conceptual framework for evaluation of

ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable
development of Karkheh protected area, Iran

Mehdi Salemi, Seyed Ali Jozi, Saeed Malmasi & Sahar Rezaian

To cite this article: Mehdi Salemi, Seyed Ali Jozi, Saeed Malmasi & Sahar Rezaian (2019):
Conceptual framework for evaluation of ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable development
of Karkheh protected area, Iran, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1570379

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1570379

Published online: 08 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1570379

Conceptual framework for evaluation of ecotourism carrying capacity for

sustainable development of Karkheh protected area, Iran
Mehdi Salemi, Seyed Ali Jozi, Saeed Malmasi and Sahar Rezaian
Department of Environment, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The maintenance of natural and virgin ecosystems against an unnecessary influx of humans Received 16 November 2018
requires a modern and efficient model such as the carrying capacity model to optimize the Accepted 3 January 2019
management and development of ecotourism in these areas. The model is one of the key KEYWORDS
tools for conservation and sustainability of these areas. The present research attempts to Carrying capacity index; PSR
formulate a framework for the ecotourism carrying capacity model for sustainable develop- model; ecotourism;
ment of Karkheh protected area in Iran. The information was collected using a citation protected area; geographic
method as well as, interviews with experts, and visitors, and director of the region with 24 information system
key indicators being regulated by field surveys and library studies. In this study, the network
analysis process model, the Pressure-State-Response conceptual model, and Arc GIS10.5 soft-
ware were used to determine the potential for the establishment of ecotourism performance
in the scale of 1: 50,000. In this research, 70 questionnaires were completed by experts in the
field of environment and ecotourism to determine the relative importance of effective
pressures. According to the results, the highest values belonged to physical carrying capacity
(13,425,681 persons per day), ecological carrying capacity (2,482,226 persons per day), and
social and culture (985,706 people per day), respectively. Based on the regional carrying
capacity, the physical, ecological, and social carrying capacity index was calculated as 3356,
621, and 246 (greater than one), respectively. According to the results, the region has a high
carrying capacity, which can accept visitors.

Introduction was gradually introduced into environmental science,

demography, and economics (Li et al. 2017). Carrying
One of the important parts of the biodiversity conserva-
capacity is an ecological concept, which is defined as
tion is protected areas. These areas are categorized
a limited number of individuals who can be supported
according to the management objectives and the pur-
at a given level of consumption while the environment
poses of conserving biodiversity to achieve the long-
is not damaged. This definition shows the relationship
term advantages for related ecosystem services (Pasetta
between a population and the environment to ensure
2017). Human population growth is assumed as a threat
sustainability (Ma et al. 2017). Many scientists consider
to protected areas (Xu et al. 2016). One way to overcome
the carrying capacity as an effective strategy for tourism
the above-mentioned problems is ecotourism, which
managers an indispensable measurement tool
involves instruction through entertainment by incorpor-
(Bhattacharya 2005). The conventional definition of car-
ating environmental awareness into recreation beha-
rying capacity is the number of people visiting an area
viors (Tal 2017). Today, community-based Ecotourism
without damaging natural resources (Prato 2001). The
is increasingly considered as a part of sustainable devel-
other definition of carrying capacity is as follows: max-
opment to encourage local livelihood, environmental
imum possible number of people who can visit
conservation, and culture (Tran and Walter 2014). The
a naturally protected site causing any unacceptable
development of sustainable tourism is a common solu-
change in physical environment and reducing the qual-
tion, which is widely used to plan and manage sustain-
ity of the recreation aspect (Tisdell Clement and Julie
able performance of tourist areas (Ocampo et al. 2018).
2001). The research records in this regard can be sum-
Therefore, there are some factors with negative effects
marized as follows: in the Sagarmatha Conservation
on a restricted area and tourism improvement including
Area, evaluated the magnitude of this region’s carrying
a high number of visitors, accommodation facilities, and
capacity using the tourism carrying capacity and driver-
the related activities (Vujko et al. 2017).In the 1870s,
pressure-state-impact-response models (Salerno et al.
carrying capacity was applied to biological systems for
2013).In addition, the carrying capacity of Santana
the first time (Chapman and Byron 2017).In addition, the
Cave region was selected using the CCSC model. The
word ‘carrying capacity’ first appeared in ecology, which

CONTACT Seyed Ali Jozi sajozi@yahoo.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. SALEMI ET AL.
most important factors in this study were air tempera-
ture, CO2, relative humidity, and air pressure (Lobo et al.
2015). A research evaluated the ecological carrying
capacity using the photo linear transect technique on
the Malaysian island of Mabul (Zhang et al. 2016). The
space-mode model and the AHP model were used to
evaluate the carrying capacity of the Marine National
Marine Park (Jiang et al. 2017).
The issue underlying the research is that the mainte-
nance of natural and pristine ecosystems against the
massive human exploitation from these resources
requires a modern and efficient model such as the carry-
ing capacity in order to optimize the management of
these areas, where the current model is one of the key
tools to maintain these areas. Karkheh protected area is
located in the southwest of Iran. Due to its untouched
scenery, including the proximity to the Karkheh River and
the presence of natural landscapes, it has a variety of
plants and animal species. This region is one of the areas
with a high potential for ecotourism. Therefore, the status
of the carrying capacity of regional should be continu-
ously determined in line with the development of
ecotourism. Unfortunately, the role of ecotourism man-
agement in natural developmental areas is being over-
looked, while humans, having overexploited natural
resources, affect the environment of these areas. Hence,
we ignore our responsibility for managing and protecting
such areas. In this way, managers can plan more accu-
rately by gaining knowledge about the carrying capacity
of the protected areas and ecotourism-related businesses.
The major aims of this research are as follows: (a)
determining the potential of ecotourism in the study
area, (b) Identifying the effective indicators in the
ecological and social–cultural pressure in the study
area, (c) quantitatively calculating the physical, ecolo-
gical, social and cultural carrying capacity, and (d)
determining the physical carrying capacity index, eco-
logical carrying capacity index and social-cultural car-
rying capacity index of the studied area.
Materials and methods
Study area
Karkheh protected area is located about 2 km away
from the center of the city of Shush in the southwest
of Iran. This region has been registered as a protected
area since 1970 and is under the supervision of
the Environmental Protection organization. In addition,
it is an appropriate habitat for mammals such as
DamaDama Mesopotamia and is one of the major tour-
ist attractions in Khuzestan province, Iran. The geogra-
phical location of this area is 31°, 36ʹ to 32°, 57ʹ latitude
and 48°, 10ʹ to 48° 32ʹ longitude and in zone 39 in the
UTM system, with an area of about 2685 ha. This area
has the highest rainfall during the statistical period from
2009 to 2017(8 years), in December with 57.76 mm, and
has no rainfall during the summer. The average tem-
perature levels are 25.18°C and 13°C during June and
January, respectively (Figure 1). The Karkheh protected
area and its dependent wildlife has significant socio-
economic values. Vegetation within the region is con-
sidered as a pasture and source of food for livestock in
the marginal villagers. Fishery and hunting of aquatic
birds, in addition to the economic value and impor-
tance of living in the surrounding area, provide the
necessary ground for employment.
Methodology
In terms of objective, this research is of applied type and
has a descriptive-analytic method. General tools for col-
lecting information are library studies, interviews with
area managers, and completing the questionnaire by
visiting experts (environment and ecotourism). The gen-
eral stages of the research are as follows: investigating
and studying the existing scientific records in order to
identify all the ecological, social, and cultural factors in
determining the potential of ecotourism, determining
the relative importance of effective criteria using the
network analysis process model, generating maps from
existing resources using Arc GIS 10.5 software, weighted
linear combination technique of the layers and the zon-
ing of ecotourism, determining the quantitative physical
carrying capacity of the study area, identifying of effec-
tive indicators in the ecological, social, and cultural
pressure in the study area,creating a network modeling
structure and determining the relative importance of
effective indicators in the ecological, social, and cultural
pressure,grading the indicators on the ecological, social,
and cultural pressure, calculating the ecological carrying
capacity, calculating the social and cultural carrying
capacity, and calculating the carrying capacity index.
Figure 1. Geographical location of the study area.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
Identifying the effective factors in determining the
potential ecotourism
In this research, different data and maps were pre-
pared using various sources. In order to determine the
potential areas of ecotourism development, multi-
criteria assessment methods were used; they were
also employed to determine the relative importance
of the ANP model. According to Morteza et al. (2016),
the analytic network process model is composed of
three elements: (1) goal of selecting the best alterna-
tive, (2) criteria and sub-criteria of the model, and (3)
alternatives. The elements in the hierarchy of deter-
minants are divided into aspects and attribute
enablers. The main purpose of applying this model
in this study is to determine the significance of each
ecological, social, and cultural pressure, since all eco-
logical, social, and cultural pressure indices do not
have the same value, and each factor has a different
weight and value used by this technique. Arc GIS
10.5 and Super Decisions 2.8 software were used to
map and analyze the data and to determine the
relative importance and inconsistency ratio in the net-
work modeling process, respectively. In the next step,
the effective ecological and socio-cultural factors of
the study area were investigated and information
layers were prepared in the form of a map in order
to evaluate the ecotourism potential of the region. In
order to take into account the views of the visitors of
ecotourism in 2018, 384 questionnaires were distrib-
uted among respondents and the other sample,
which was related to the experts, was completed in
the form of 70 questionnaires by experts in the field
of ecotourism and environment familiar with the
region in 2017. The first questionnaire was designed
to determine the regional management status while
the second was used to show the relative importance
of effective factors on determiningthe potential and
relative importance of effective pressures on carrying
capacity. In all cases of binary comparison, the incom-
patibility coefficient was less than 0.1, indicating
a satisfactory state. Two of the best examinations to
determine the reliability and validity of the question-
naires are Cronbach’s alpha and Lawshe test. The
results of content validity index of all questions
exceeded 0.79, and therefore were appropriately
recognized with Cochran method employed to deter-
mine the number of required questionnaires.
Overlaying and creating potential of ecotourism
Taking into account the conditions of the region, the
classification of the ecotourism potential in the Arc
GIS10.5 was classified into three classes: the classification
of the layers included the suitability, moderate suitability,
and in suitability capability; the ratings were graded
according to the Satty method between 1 and 9. Then,
each of the layers was derived in terms of relative
3
importance according to the WLC method and finally,
the potential of the development of ecotourism in the
region was obtained. Indeed, the weighted linear combi-
nation technique method represents a useful tool for
prediction and quick assessments when the baseline
information and expert feedbacks are missing and time
constraints do not allow for data collection (Gulci and
Akay 2015).In other words, this technique is based on the
concept of weighted average. The reason for using this
method is that decision makers obtain the final value for
the potential of the development of ecotourism based on
the weights obtained by the ecological and socio-cultural
factors by multiplying the relative weights of factors,
where the amount with the highest value has a low
potential and a high potential for the target. The scale
used in this study was selected according to the area and
the target of 1: 50,000 and all baseline maps were pre-
pared in a coherent scale. The study area is located in the
northern zone of the UTM coordinate system WGS1984.
Evaluation of the carrying capacity of ecotourism
Calculation of the physical carrying capacity. In
the next step, the physical carrying capacity of the
area was calculated, and to determine the physical
carrying capacity of the studied area, we calculated
Equation (1) (Bera et al. 2015):
PCC ¼ A  V=a  RF (1)
In Equation (1), the parameters are as follows: A is the area
of the ecotourism zones used by the ecological, social,
and cultural potential assessment, and the ANP method;
v represents the value equal to 1 visitor; a shows the
amount of space required by each visitor determined
through a visitor’s questionnaire; RF is the ratio of the
usable time of the area to the average length of the visit
time. The time to use the area to protect the area and to
prevent more damages was determined by a 10-h inter-
view with the manager in the study area. In addition, the
average visiting time was calculated by answering the
questionnaire nature visitor distributed and calculated.
Identification of the effective indicators in the ecolo-
gical, social, and cultural pressure in the study area.
At this stage, the effective indicators in the ecological,
social, and cultural pressures in the study area were
identified and selected through retrospective surveys.
Creating a network modeling structure and determin-
ing the relative importance of the effective indicators
in the ecological, social, and cultural pressure. At this
stage, after identifying and selecting the effective pres-
sures for the ecological, social, and cultural pressure, the
structure of the network modeling associated with the
ecological, social, and cultural pressure was drawn up
and the questionnaire was prepared based on this struc-
ture. For calculating the statistical population at this
stage, questionnaires were distributed to among the
4 M. SALEMI ET AL.

environmental experts with 35 questionnaires distribu-
ted among ecotourism experts. The relative importance
of the effective pressures in the ecological, social, and
cultural was calculated using the ANP model and the
Super Decision2.8 software,where the incompatibility
coefficient was less than 0.1.
Grading the pressure indicators using the ecologi-
cal, social, and cultural pressures. At this stage, each
class of pressures on the ecological, social, and cultural
pressures was graded between 0 and 1, with the number
0 indicating the lowest degree of pressure and 1 showing
the highest degree of pressure in the studied area. Then,
pressure-status – response model was used to identify
the pressure on the carrying capacity of the area. This
model consisted of three pressure indicators, status, and
responses during the process of the research. In addition,
it is associated with the concept of causality (Huaa et al.
2011). The main purpose of this model in the present
study is that this model is a conceptual model and con-
sists of three indicators of pressure, state, and response.
Specifically, in this study, three indicators of pressure
(ecological, social, and cultural pressure), status
(ecological, social, and cultural status), and response (set
of measures that increase the areas with low carrying
capacity) were used and reviewed during the model
process. In order to calculate the ecological, social, and
cultural pressures of each class (Rice et al. 2001), its
resources and map should be known and (Table1),
where Equation(2) was used as follows:
Pi ¼ WI Di
In Equation (2), Pi reflects the ecological, social, and
cultural pressures; Wiis the ecological, social, and
cultural pressures determined using ANP technology
and expert opinions (environment and ecotourism); Di
denotes the degree of ecological, social, and cultural
pressures of each class, from 0 to 1. In this study, to
calculate the ecological, social, and cultural stress
percentage Equation (3) was used (Dong et al. 2011):
Pi  Ai
CFðPiÞ ¼ P  100 (3)
Ai
In Equation (3), Pi represents the ecological, social,
and cultural pressures; Ai is the area of the zone
with ecological, social, and cultural pressures; ΣAi
denotesthe total area of the zones for ecotourism (at
this stage, the area of each zone was calculated from
the Arc GIS10.5 and the total area of the zoning eco-
tourism was identified in the first phase of the study
and further used in this section).
Calculation of the ecological carrying capacity.
Equation (4) was used to quantitatively calculate the
ecological carrying capacity of the study area. In this
equation, PCCi is the physical carrying capacity of each
zone, Cf (pi) represents the ecological pressure percen-
tage; and ECCi reflects the ecological carrying capacity.
100  CfðP1Þ 100  CfðP1Þ
ECCi ¼ PCCi  
100 100
100  CfðPnÞ
 (4)
100
Calculation of the social and cultural carrying capa-
(2) city. In order to quantitatively determine the social
and cultural carrying capacity of the study area (Bera
et al. 2015), Equation (5) was employed, where Cf (pi) is
the cultural and social pressure percentage and SCCCi
denotes the social and cultural carrying capacity.

Table 1. The effective carrying capacity pressures and data sources for the input layers.
Coordinate
Sub-pressures Indicators Projection Source Refs.
Soil Distance from fault, Soil Depth, Soil WGS1984 Raster Geology organization Khuzestan province, Iran (2017)
texture, Soil erosion
Water Distance from river, Distance from WGS1984 Raster Water and wastewater organization of the village
wells Khuzestan province, Iran (2017)
Vegetation Coverage of vegetation WGS1984 Raster Landsat satellite image 8 sensors (OLI/TIRS 2017)
Physiography Slope, Elevation, Aspect WGS1984 Raster Mapping organization of Khuzestan province,
Iran (2017)
Climate Extreme sunny, Sultry, Dust, Rainfall - - Meteorological organization of Khuzestan Province,
Iran (2009–2017)
Animals Breeding season of animals - - Organization of environment of Khuzestan province,
Iran (2017)
Communication path Distance from communication path WGS1984 Raster Organization of planning and budget of Khuzestan
Urban areas Distance from urban areas WGS1984 Raster province, Iran (2017)
Power line Distance from power line WGS1984 Raster
Historical religious and Distance from historical religious and WGS1984 Raster Cultural heritage of handicrafts and tourism of
ancient ancient Khuzestan province, Iran (2017)
Facilities and infrastructure Distance from facilities and WGS1984 Raster Mapping organization of Khuzestan province,
infrastructure Iran (2017)
Land use Land use WGS1984 Raster
Rural areas Distance from rural areas WGS1984 Raster Organization of planning and budget of Khuzestan
province, Iran (2017)
Agricultural land Distance from agricultural land WGS1984 Raster Organization of planning and budget of Khuzestan
province, Iran (2017)
Natural landscape Distance from natural landscape WGS1984 Raster Organization of environment of Khuzestan province,
Iran (2017)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 5

100  Cfp1 100  cfp2 100  cfpn CSCCi

SCCCi ¼   (5) CCISC ¼ (9)
100 100 100 P

In Equations (6), (7), and (8), CCIP is the physical carrying

Calculation of the carrying capacity index. In the
next stage, the regional carrying capacity index was
calculated. At this stage, the statistical information
related to the population of visitors Corresponding
to 2017 was collected to determine the carrying
capacity index of the studied area. In this step,
Equations (6), (7), and (8) were used to calculate
the carrying capacity index of the study area (Liu
et al. 2011).
PCCi
CCIP ¼
P capacity of the area is normal; and it is greater than 1,
ECCi
CCIE ¼
P
capacity index, PCCirepresents the physical carrying
capacity; CCIE shows the ecological carrying capacity
index; ECCi denotes the ecological carrying capacity:
CCISC is the social and cultural carrying capacity index;
CSCCi represents the social and cultural carrying capa-
city; and P is the total number of visitors in a year (about
4000 people, April 2017). With carrying capacity index
(physical, ecological, and socio-cultural) being as fol-
lows: if the carrying capacity Index value is less than 1,
then the area is not able to accept the number of
visitors; if the index is equal to 1, then the carrying
(7)
then the area is capable of accepting more visitors. The
(8) procedure has been presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The flowchart of the PCC, ECC, SCCC, and CCITevaluation process.
6 M. SALEMI ET AL.

Results and discussion considered as the highest total percentage of pressure.

Also, socio-cultural factors including facilities and infra-
The weight of effective factors extracted from the
structure (0.814,0.959,0.894), communication routes
extreme super-matrix showed that the factors such
(0.887,0.969,0.921), agricultural land (0.921,0.938,0.945),
as distance from wells, slope, coverage of vegetation,
and rural areas (0.918,0.977,0.940) were found as the
and distance from river with significance coefficients
highest total pressure percentage on the carrying capa-
of 0.078, 0.065, 0.059, and 0.059, respectively, had the
city((low suitability zone, medium suitability zone, and
highest importance in the process of determining the
high suitability zone), according to Appendices 1 and 2.
potential of ecotourism development (Figure 3).
Finally, to calculate the socio-cultural carrying capa-
Based on the results of the map of the potential of
city, Equation 5 was used as along with the results of
ecotourism in the study area (Figure 4), 24% and 60%
physical carrying capacity, pressures, and ecological
of the area had high (629 ha) and moderate suitability
carrying capacity. According to Table 2, the results of
(1616 ha), respectively.
calculating the physical carrying capacity of the studied
The weight of ecological pressures extracted from
area indicated that the zone with the suitability poten-
the extreme super-matrix showed that the pressures
tial was equal to 3,143,997 people per day while the
such as coverage of vegetation (0.078) and distance
zone with the medium suitability was equal to
from river (0.069) had the greatest importance in deter-
8,081,249 people per day. Further, calculation of the
mining the ecological carrying capacity of ecotourism
ecological carrying capacity of the studied area showed
developmentFigure 5(a).On the other hand, the weight
that the zone with the high suitability was equal to
of socio-cultural pressures such as distance from facil-
522,983 people per day while the zone with the med-
ities and infrastructure and natural landscape with sig-
ium suitability was equal to 1,650,343 people per day.
nificance coefficients of 0.249 and 0.131, respectively,
Finally, calculation of the socio-cultural carrying capa-
had the highest importance in the process of determin-
city of the studied area demonstrated that the zone
ing the socio-cultural carrying capacity of ecotourism
with the high suitability was equal to 177,269 people
development (Figure 5(b)).
per day while the zone with the medium suitability was
In this research, ecological pressures including sun-
equal to 728,152 people per day.
shine (0.488,0.488,0.488), sultry days (0.723,0.723,0.723),
The results of the carrying capacity index measured
dust (0.769,0.769,0.769), soil erosion (0.799,0.945,0.859),
based on the statistical information about the number
and coverage of vegetation (0.878,0.967,0.915) were
of visitors in April 2017, which was visited by 4000

Figure 3. Factor preference used for the potential of ecotourism development of the study area.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 7

Figure 4. The final mapping the potential of the development of ecotourism in the region.

Figure 5. Preference of pressures used for carrying capacity ecotourism of the study area (a-b).

Table 2. Estimating the physical, ecological, and socio- people persons per year, indicated that the physical,
cultural carrying capacity of the study area. ecological and social-cultural carrying capacity indices
Zoning of the region were 3356, 621, and 246, respectively
Carrying capacity Low Moderate Suitability (Table 3).
Physical carrying capacity 2,200,435 8,081,249 3,143,997
Total 13,425,681
In this research, the potential of ecotourism in the
Ecological carrying capacity 308,900 1,650,343 522,983 region was determined, considering the influential pres-
Total 2,482,226 sures carrying capacity on the area’s and determining
Socio-cultural carrying 80,285 728,152 177,269
capacity the relative importance of each the pressures, specified
Total 985,706 by a questionnaire. The carrying capacity of the studied
8 M. SALEMI ET AL.
Table 3. Estimating the physical, ecological, and socio-
cultural carrying capacity index.
Zoning
CCI Status Low Moderate Suitability
CCIP 550.1 2020.3 785.9
Total 3356.3
CCIE 77.2 412.6 130.7
Total 246.4
CCICS 20.1 182 44.3
Total 620.5
area included 13,425,681 persons per day for the physi-
cal carrying capacity, 2,482,226 persons per day for the
ecological carrying capacity, and 985,706 persons
per day for the socio-cultural carrying capacity. In addi-
tion, to determine the carrying capacity index of the
study area, the results indicated that the physical, ecolo-
gical, the socio-cultural carrying capacity index were
3356, 621, and 246, respectively. Each of the numbers
obtained was higher than the value obtained because of
the region’s ability to accept the number of tourists. In
a study by Wiyono et al. (2018), in the Ujung Kulon
national park, the physical, actual, and effective physical
carrying capacity was estimated as20,000, 4838, and 6 -
per day, respectively. Also, in the other study by Sousa
et al. (2017), in the Amazon coastal region, there have
been some limiting factors such as water quality, envir-
onmental quality, physical-chemical variables, ecological
quality, service quality, landscape, coastal condition, and
infrastructure factors. Landscape and infrastructure were
the important factors in the present article. Zacarias et al.
(2011) estimated the physical-ecological carrying capa-
city between 1385 and 2628 persons per day in the Praia
de Faro region. The limiting factors in the area included
snowfall, temporary holidays, erosion, rainfall, and wind
speed, where only two of them corresponded with the
current research (rainfall, and erosion).
Conclusion
In the study area, the carrying capacity was not equally
observed due to the governing conditions in the region.
The most important solutions to improve the status of
the carrying capacity of the studied area included:
adopting entry-exit policies for low carrying capacity
areas, providing useful training and information ses-
sions in the places where nature-to-nature enthusiasts
come to the area, and sequential monitoring of the
study area, given that the possibility of assessing the
carrying capacity is limited to a certain period of time. It
is clear that the scheduled continuous monitoring of
the regional carrying capacity is necessary.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely appreciate the support provided by
Alvandi, the manager of Karkheh protected area, who
helped us in writing this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Bera S, Majumdar DD, Kumar Paul A. 2015. Estimation of
tourism carrying capacity for Neil Island, South Andaman,
India. J Coastal Sci. 2(2):46–53.
Bhattacharya AK. 2005. Ecotourism and livelihoods capacity
building and local authorities. New Delhi: Concept
Publishing Company; 140.
Chapman EJ, Byron CJ. 2017. The flexible application of
carrying capacity in ecology. Global Ecol Conserv. 13:
e00365.
Dong L, Zhiming F, Yanzhao Y, Zhen Y. 2011. Spatial pat-
terns of ecological carrying capacity supply-demand
balance in China at county level. J Geogr Sci. 21
(5):833–844.
Gulci S, Akay AE. 2015. Assessment of ecological passages
along road networks within the Mediterranean forest
using Gis-based multi- criteria evaluation approach.
Environ Monit Assess. 187:779.
Huaa YE, Yana MA, Dong L. 2011. Land ecological security
assessment for baiautonomous prefecture of Dali based
using PSR model-with data in 2009 as case. Energy
Procedia. 5:2172–2177.
Jiang D, Chen Z, Dai G. 2017. Evaluation of the carrying
capacity of marine industrial parks: a case study in
china. Marine Policy. 77:111–119.
Li J, Ling MA, Shaohu M, Xingpeng C. 2017. Analysis of urban
comprehensive carrying capacity of the prefecture-level
city in Gansu province. J Phys Conf Ser. 622:012017.
Liu D, Feng Z, YangY YZ. 2011. Spatial patterns of ecological
carrying capacity supply-demand balance in China at
county level. J Geog Sci. 21(5):833–844.
Lobo HAS, Trajano E, Marinho MA, Bichuette ME,
Scaleante JAB, Scaleante OAF, Nazare Rocha B,
VillellaLaterza F. 2015. Tourism carrying capacity of
Santana cave (PETAR-SP, Brazil): a new method based
on a critical atmospheric parameter. Tourism Manage
Perspect. 16:67–75. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2015.07.001
Ma P, Ye G, Peng X, Liu J, Qi J, Jia S. 2017. Development of
an index system for evaluation of ecological carrying
capacity of marine ecosystems. Ocean Coast Manag.
144:23–30.
Morteza Z, Mohamad Reza F, Mohammad Seddiq M,
Sharareh P, Jamal G. 2016. Selection of the optimal
tourism site using the ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS in the
framework of integrated coastal zone management:
a case of Qeshm Island. Ocean Coast Manag.
130:179–187. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.06.012
Ocampo L, Ebisa JA, Ombe J, Escoto MG. 2018. Sustainable
ecotourism indicators with fuzzy Delphi method
a Philippine perspective. Ecol Indic. 93:874–888.
Pasetta C. 2017. Protected areas. Inter Encycl Primatol. 1–4.
Prato T. 2001. Modeling carrying capacity for national parks.
Ecol Econ. 39(3):321–331.
Rice JA, MacDonald GB, Weingartner DH. 2001. Precommercial
thinning of trembling aspen in northern Ontario: part 1 –
Growth responses. Forest Chronol. 5(77):893–901.
Salerno F, Viviano GB, Manfredi EC, Caroli P, Thakuri S,
Tartari G. 2013. Multiple carrying capacities from a
management-oriented perspective to operationalize sus-
tainable tourism in protected areas. J Environ Manage.
128:116–125.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
Sousa A, Rosigleyse C, Cajueiro L, Pereira B, Marinho R, Da
Costa AC, Jose A, Jim Enez B. 2017. Management of
estuarine beaches on the Amazon coasts though the
application of recreational carrying capacity indices.
Tourism Manage. 59:216–225.
Tal YN. 2017. A study on the ecotourism cognition and ITS
factors. Appl Ecol Env Res. 15(2):123–132.
Wen JJ, Tisdell CA. 2001. Tourism and Chinas development,
policies. In: Regional economic growth and ecotourism.
World Science Publishing Co.pte.Ltd; p. 46.
Tran L, Walter P. 2014. Ecotourism, gender and development
in northern Vietnam. Ann Tourism Res. 44:116–130.
Vujko A, Plavsa J, Petrovic MD, Radovanovic M, Gajic T.
2017. Modeling of carrying capacity in National Park -
Fruska Gora (Serbia) case study. Open Geosci. 9:61–72
9
Wiyono KH, Muntasib EKSH, Yulianda F. 2018. Carrying capa-
city of Peucang Island for ecotourism management in
Ujung Kulon National Park. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ
Sci. 149(012018):1–12
Xu W, Li X, Pimm SL, Hull V, Zhang J, Zhang L, Xiao Y,
Zheng H, Ouyang Z. 2016. The effectiveness of the
zoning of china’s protected areas. Biol Conserv.
204:231–236.
Zacarias D, Williams A, Allan T, Alice N. 2011. Recreation
carrying capacity estimations to support beach man-
agement at Praia de Faro. Portugal Appl Geogr. 31
(3):1075–1081.
Zhang LY, Chung SS, Qiu JW. 2016. Ecological carrying
capacity assessment of diving Site: a case study of
Mabul Island, Malaysia. J Environ Manage. Xxx:1–7.
 10

Appendix 1. Calculation of ecological pressures indicator the percentage

Ecological pressures Suitability class

100-
EPT1/ Medium Low
M. SALEMI ET AL.

100- EPT3/100 100- EPT2/100 100 EP3 EP2 EP1 WPi EPAi Di Aspect High suitability suitability suitability
0.571 0.222 0.816 0.029 5,982,185 0.19 N 6,287,994 16,162,497 4,400,870 Area(m2)
0.971 0.378 1.39 0.029 6,780,686 0.32 E
1.69 0.659 2.42 0.029 7,602,686 0.49 S
2.17 0.846 3.11 0.029 7,196,624 0.66 W
0.987 0.995 0.981 1.35 0.526 1.93 EPTi
Distance from wells
0.571 1.42 5.22 0.043 5,343,020 1 84–1300
0.971 0.959 3.52 0.043 5,538,136 0.66 1300–1700
1.69 0.714 2.63 0.043 5,501,744 0.49 1700–2100
2.17 0.496 1.82 0.043 5,723,489 0.32 2100–2700
1.35 0.272 0.998 0.043 5,489,892 0.19 More 2700
0.980 0.999 0.972 0.571 0.077 2.84 EPTi
Soil erosion
14.09 5.48 20.13 0.033 26,851,361 1 High
0.859 0.945 0.799 14.09 5.48 20.13 EPTi
Soil texture
2.99 1.16 4.27 0.021 26,851,361 0.32 Sandy-loam
0.970 0.988 0.957 2.99 1.16 EPTi
Soil Depth
1.46 0.566 2.08 0.015 13,079,000 0.49 Low deep
0.573 0.223 0.819 0.015 7,212,199 0.32 Medium deep
0.356 0.138 0.508 0.015 7,455,683 0.19 Deep
0.992 0.997 0.989 0.796 0.309 1.14 EPTi
1.86 1.86 1.86 0.041 - 1 Rainfall
0.981 0.981 0.981 1.86 1.86 1.86 EPTi
23.08 23.08 23.08 0.064 - 1 Dust
0.769 0.769 0.769 23.08 23.08 23.08 EPTi
0.723 0.723 0.723 27.72 27.72 27.72 0.023 - 1 Sultry
 Ecological pressures Suitability class
100- EPT3/100 100- EPT2/100 100- EPT1/100 EP3 EP2 EP1 WPi EPAi Di Distance from river High suitability Medium suitability Low suitability
7.4 2.88 10.57 0.069 67,38,710 1 0–40 62,87,994 1,61,62,497 44,00,870 Area(m2)
0.325 0.127 5.1 0.069 40,89,442 0.66 40–100
3.37 1.31 4.82 0.069 62,39,418 0.49 100–400
2.26 0.878 3.22 0.069 64,49,891 0.32 400–800
0.827 0.322 1.18 0.069 39,98,591 0.19 More 800
0.972 0.989 0.95 2.84 1.1 4.98 EPTi
Coverage of vegetation
17.18 6.68 24.55 0.078 1,38,51,037 1 Coverage of low vegetation
8.16 3.17 11.66 0.078 1,35,00,323 0.49 Coverage of medium vegetation
0.315 0.123 0.45 0.078 7,92,360 0.32 Coverage of high vegetation
0.915 0.967 0.878 8.55 3.32 12.22 EPTi
Slope
2.99 1.16 4.27 0.037 2,68,51,361 0.19 0–5
0.97 0.988 0.957 2.99 1.16 4.27 EPTi
Elevation
2.56 0.997 3.66 0.032 2,68,51,361 0.19 58–89
0.974 0.99 0.963 2.56 0.997 3.66 EPTi
Distance from fault
0.427 0.166 0.61 0.007 2,68,51,361 0.19 21,000–30,000
0.995 0.998 0.994 0.427 0.166 0.61 EPTi
8.33 8.33 8.33 0.036 - 1 Breeding season of animals
0.917 0.917 0.917 8.33 8.33 8.33 EPTi
51.21 51.21 51.21 0.018 - 1 Extreme sunny
0.488 0.488 0.488 51.21 51.21 51.21 EPTi
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
11
 12

Appendix 2. Calculation of social, and cultural pressures indicator the percentage.

Ecological pressures Suitability class

100- EPT3/100 100- EPT2/100 100- EPT1/100 EP3 EP2 EP1 WPi EPAi Di Aspect High suitability Medium suitability Low suitability
0.571 0.222 0.816 0.029 5,982,185 0.19 N 6,287,994 16,162,497 4,400,870 Area(m2)
0.971 0.378 1.39 0.029 6,780,686 0.32 E
M. SALEMI ET AL.

1.69 0.659 2.42 0.029 7,602,686 0.49 S

2.17 0.846 3.11 0.029 7,196,624 0.66 W
0.987 0.995 0.981 1.35 0.526 1.93 EPTi
Distance from wells
0.571 1.42 5.22 0.043 5,343,020 1 84–1300
0.971 0.959 3.52 0.043 5,538,136 0.66 1300–1700
1.69 0.714 2.63 0.043 5,501,744 0.49 1700–2100
2.17 0.496 1.82 0.043 5,723,489 0.32 2100–2700
1.35 0.272 0.998 0.043 5,489,892 0.19 More 2700
0.980 0.999 0.972 0.571 0.077 2.84 EPTi
Soil erosion
14.09 5.48 20.13 0.033 26,851,361 1 High
0.859 0.945 0.799 14.09 5.48 20.13 EPTi
Soil texture
2.99 1.16 4.27 0.021 26,851,361 0.32 Sandy-loam
0.970 0.988 0.957 2.99 1.16 EPTi
Soil Depth
1.46 0.566 2.08 0.015 13,079,000 0.49 Low deep
0.573 0.223 0.819 0.015 7,212,199 0.32 Medium deep
0.356 0.138 0.508 0.015 7,455,683 0.19 Deep
0.992 0.997 0.989 0.796 0.309 1.14 EPTi
1.86 1.86 1.86 0.041 - 1 Rainfall
0.981 0.981 0.981 1.86 1.86 1.86 EPTi
23.08 23.08 23.08 0.064 - 1 Dust
0.769 0.769 0.769 23.08 23.08 23.08 EPTi
0.723 0.723 0.723 27.72 27.72 27.72 0.023 - 1 Sultry

Social, and cultural pressures Suitability class

100- CSPT3/100 100- CSPT2/100 100- CSPT1/100 CSP3 CSP2 CSP1 WPi CSPAi Di Facilities and infrastructure High suitability Medium suitability Low suitability
1.30 0.508 18.64 0.249 329,450 1 0–161 6,287,994 16,162,497 4,400,870 Area(m2)
25.60 9.96 36.57 0.249 9,814,546 0.66 161–2800
15.42 6 22.04 0.249 7,950,110 0.49 2800–5400
9.26 3.60 13.23 0.249 7,278,992 0.32 5400–8100
1.67 0.648 2.38 0.249 2,229,226 0.19 More than 8100
0.894 0.959 0.814 10.65 4.14 18.57 CSPTi

(Continued )
(Continued).
Social, and cultural pressures Suitability class
100- CSPT3/100 100- CSPT2/100 100- CSPT1/100 CSP3 CSP2 CSP1 WPi CSPAi Di Facilities and infrastructure High suitability Medium suitability Low suitability
Historical religious and ancient
0.778 0.303 1.11 0.039 1,254,336 1 900–2000
3.85 1.50 5.49 0.039 9,293,940 0.66 2000–4300
2.27 0.884 3.25 0.039 7,520,220 0.49 4300–6600
1.39 0.541 1.99 0.039 7,288,951 0.32 6600–8900
0.25 0.098 0.360 0.039 2,260,250 0.19 More than 8900
0.983 0.993 0.976 1.71 0.665 2.4 CSPTi
Power line
10.69 4.16 15.27 0.087 7,724,620 1 361–1800
7.26 2.82 10.37 0.087 8,007,690 0.66 1800–3000
5.23 2.04 7.47 0.087 7,649,745 0.49 3000–6500
3.38 1.31 4.83 0.087 7,584,940 0.32 6500–9700
2.02 0.786 2.89 0.087 7,468,890 0.19 More 9700
0.943 0.978 0.918 5.72 2.22 8.17 CSPTi
Urban areas
0.539 0.523 0.771 0.054 628,188 1 30–515
1.345 0.523 1.92 0.054 2,348,726 0.66 515–2700
3.02 1.17 4.31 0.054 7,295,000 0.49 2700–4900
1.90 0.738 2.71 0.054 7,017,450 0.32 4900–7000
1.64 0.639 2.35 0.054 10,328,600 0.19 More than 7000
0.983 0.993 0.976 1.69 0.719 2.41 CSPTi
Communication path
14.66 5.70 20.94 0.122 7,554,387 1 0–1400
9.73 3.78 13.90 0.122 7,550,430 0.66 1400–2400
7.55 2.94 10.79 0.122 7,914,826 0.49 2400–5500
4.72 1.84 6.74 0.122 7,608,020 0.32 5500–7900
2.85 1.11 4.07 0.122 7,793,516 0.19 More than 7900
0.921 0.969 0.887 7.90 3.07 11.29 CSPTi
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
13