TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL.

31(2), 2006: 67-72

Research Probe

This department has been specifically created to include findings of special significance and problem areas of subtle nuances
in tourism research. Insightful contributions presenting the state-of-the-art, preferably from the developing societies, will
be appreciated. It will also encourage scholars and authors to think against the grain, probing the consistency of theoretical
notions and research trends whose heuristic value is all too often taken for granted. For details, contact Editor-in-Chief,
Tourism Recreation Research, A-965/6 Indira Nagar, Lucknow, India. e-mail: tvsingh@sancharnet.in

What’s Wrong with Carrying Capacity for Tourism?

Sagar Singh
Centre for Tourism Research and Development, A-965/6 Indira Nagar, Lucknow, India. e-mail: sagar_66@hotmail.com

Introduction simply on that basis. On the contrary, a grounding in post-

Should we make a whipping boy out of a concept that
heralded the quest for sustainability in tourism? Is
sustainability really a holy grail or is it an idea that has
borne fruit and is within our reach if only we tried to arrive
at a consensus? This article argues that the concept of carrying
capacity for tourism is just such an instance of an idea that
was almost crushed out of existence or maligned – not
because it failed to deliver, but because the idea of
sustainability that it presented was too young for most people
to fully comprehend its worth in the 1970s (cf. Young 1973),
the 1980s (cf. Western 1986) and the 1990s (see Middleton
and Hawkins 1998).
The continual revival of the concept in journals and
books (e.g., Coccossis and Mexa 2004) and its related concept
of destination area cycle of evolution (two edited books on
the subject have come out, see Butler 2006) points up the
misleading simplicity but inherent utility of the concept of
carrying capacity for tourism (CCT). Indeed, most researchers
mix up the idea of CCT, which is simple, with the concept,
which is complex (see e.g., Middleton and Hawkins 1998).
One can posit the argument that it is precisely because the
idea of CCT is simple that it appeals to so many, while its
complexity as a concept leads researchers to give it up.
But why should one abandon a concept merely because
it is complex? Life is complex; the natural sciences laboured
through many complexities before they arrived at relatively
simple explanations of the material world; the social sciences
have adopted many complex concepts and methods like
ethno-methodology, critical theory, grounded theory,
structuralism, and postmodernism (Punch 1998).
Postmodernism, whether in literature or the social sciences,
is an eclectic, controversial and, therefore, complex concept
(Bradbury 1988: 671) but researchers have not abandoned it
structuralism and postmodernism in literature (Ousby 1992:
739) as well as sociology (in its widest sense) is considered
important for higher education courses in many modern
universities. Post-structuralism has found its way into
tourism studies as well, if one notices the influence of
Foucault in writings such as those of Keith Hollinshead and
stray attempts to grasp Foucault’s works’ significance (e.g.,
Seaton 2000).
It should be noted that all these attempts to come to
terms with postmodernism and post-structuralism in tourism
have a reactionary flavour and are attempts towards
establishing a new theory for tourism. Isn’t it strange that
tourism studies, which have not fully comprehended
modernity (see Wang 2000; Singh 2003), should be dealing
with post-modernity? And why look into the other social
sciences and contemporary literature for concepts when
there are some viable concepts in tourism studies that just
need some vetting? All this indicates that tourism studies,
for want of a unifying theory, are given a jumpstart by
researchers through borrowing the theorization process from
other disciplines. This paper seeks to establish that CCT is a
concept that is ripe for further development and will provide
a unifying basis for tourism social science. It also argues
that the concept of CCT has not been given sufficient
importance to date and that is the main reason why it is
considered ‘outdated’ – a paradox and an irony together.
Problems in Conceptualization
Economists are fond of speaking about planning in the
short, medium and long term. Surprisingly, nobody in the
knowledge of this researcher has applied the same to tourism
planning (e.g., Goeldner 2000; Gunn and Var 2002) – not
even those who write on the economics of leisure and tourism

©2006 Tourism Recreation Research

What’s Wrong with Carrying Capacity for Tourism: S. Singh
(e.g., Tribe 1995). CCT is a concept that provides for all these
types of planning. Singh (1999, 2004) had analysed the
concept of CCT and insisted that there is need for consensus
in clarifying the confusion about whether CCT is a minimum
(e.g., WTO’s 1984 conceptualisation of economic carrying
capacity), an optimum (also presented by WTO as a range
for physical or site carrying capacity), or a maximum.
Peak carrying capacity is frequently taken into account
for calculation of numbers of tourist/sightseers that a site
can carry without posing problems of security (see Van der
Borg 1992 on the case of Venice). In fact, Van der Borg (1992)
has calculated an optimum tourism-carrying capacity and
compared it to the peak or maximum carrying capacity of
the city of Venice, which had been previously calculated by
the security services. The optimum was largely based on the
economic carrying capacity of the city and the suburbs, and
was expressed as a precise figure instead of as a range of
tourists and sightseers. Van der Borg also explained that
peak or maximum carrying capacity for the centre of Venice
would be exceeded (and controlled by the raising of the
drawbridge connecting the centre to the suburbs) by an
average of seven days a year over a couple of decades,
whereas the optimum or economic carrying capacity would
be increasingly exceeded over the same period. In other
words, he had calculated the minimum (calculated as an
‘optimum’) CCT and compared it with the maximum CCT.
His conclusion – as I interpret it – was that the maximum
carrying capacity, thought of in terms of security of visitors
and hosts, remained finite, whereas the ‘optimum’ could
change over the years. This is a good example of clarity of
thought that appears to be ‘muddled’.
A second example comes from WTO’s (1984)
exhortations that carrying capacity is an ‘optimum’ that can,
however, be ‘increased’. In other words, CCT is both an
optimum and a maximum limit. This is not a simple case of
a mix-up, but an actually existing situation that is explained
below.
Psychological (tourists’ and hosts’) carrying capacity
is frequently suggested to be an optimum. And this –
calculation of an optimum – has always proved to be a
problematic, not only in tourism studies, but also in other
disciplines like ecological anthropology; wherefore, it was
suggested, the concept of optimum carrying capacity is
‘hopelessly bogged down in confusion’ (Hardesty 1977: 211).
Singh (1999, 2004) had not been able to provide a solution
and had suggested that this confusion can be sorted out
through consensus. This has not been forthcoming.
Having considered many writings on the subject since
then, including the latest (Coccossis and Mexa 2004), this
68
author is of the opinion that the concept of CCT allows us to
think about all three criteria at the same time: a minimum in
the short term (for a resort to be a minimum money earner
and remain viable; and a minimum infrastructure that is
necessary to kick-start a destination); an optimum in the
medium term (where tourists and residents mix more and
develop their attitudes and thus arrive at an uneasy
understanding about the other culture, thus including both
social and psychological components; also an ideal of
controlled interaction between humans and the ecosystem);
and a maximum in the long term (since the site,
environmental and infrastructural capacities are finite).
Therefore, the concept allows planning through all the stages
of the evolution of a resort. The two concepts of CCT and
resort evolution, therefore, benefit from each other and their
complementarity can help us to think about what can be
sustainable tourism for a particular case.
But what about the contrary view, voiced many years
ago by Wall (1983), that cycles and capacity are a
contradiction in terms? Wall said that the concept of resort
cycle, which implies change, is amenable for building a
theoretical base for tourism studies, as against carrying
capacity, which implies a fixed limit and therefore
contradicts the first concept. Also, case studies have shown
that land and water bodies and parks appear to have no
finite limit as to the number of people that can enjoy
recreational facilities, according to Wall. Wall’s argument
can easily be put aside if we look at what wildlife parks
actually do: they either limit the number of tourists who can
stay inside the s park at any given time or divert them to
other sites within the park or divert the number of visitors
who are watching the more interesting animals (like the Big
Five in Amboseli, Kenya) to other, less interesting, ones
through the use of educated and skilled guides (Western
1986; Western and Henry 1979). And diversion of tourists to
other sites, as Young argued back in 1973, ‘does not
contradict the notion’ that there is a finite number of people
who can stay at a site at any given time (Young 1973: 112).
Besides, the destination area cycle of evolution also
points out that if the maximum capacity is breached it results
in irreversible changes in the resort that may lead to its decline
(Butler 1980). It is a fact that many Alpine and British seaside
resorts declined in popularity due to excess of tourists and
decay of the environment (Brown 1985). Also, islands and
coastal areas, which have a finite area available to tourists
and locals together, are often overwhelmed by the ‘invasion’
of chartered tourists: a reaction to which indicates that social,
cultural and hosts’ psychological carrying capacity is close
to being breached or has been breached (as happened in
coastal Goa, India in thes 1980s; see also Meyer-Arendt 1985).
It may be argued that the resort life cycle does not indicate
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

any final carrying capacity since many areas have seen an
ever-increasing number of tourists over the years. However,
the life cycle concept has been confused with destination
area cycle of evolution, which was what Butler analysed
(Singh forthcoming). If we take the life cycle in the medium
to long term (i.e., micro-evolution, a span of at least 40-50
years), it does indicate a final carrying capacity (Singh
forthcoming).
Lastly, there is a diversity of opinions regarding how
many component carrying capacities should be taken into
account (Singh 1999). Thus, Wolters (1991) describes three
categories of capacities: biophysical, socio-cultural, and those
related to facilities. On the other hand, Inskeep (1991: 146)
and WTO (1984) differentiate between physical, economic,
social-cultural, and infrastructural components. More
recently, Fennell (1999) only differentiates between ecological,
social, and economic carrying capacities, while Swarbrooke
(1999) differentiates between physical, ecological, economic,
social/sociocultural, perceptual/psychological, and
infrastructure carrying capacities. Middleton and Hawkins
(1998), on the other hand conceive of only four types of
component carrying capacities: physical, social, economic
and psychological.
Through the analysis of the three time dimensions of
carrying capacity for tourism, it is clear that there should be
six component carrying capacities that refer to these
dimensions: minimum capacity (economic, infrastructural);
optimum capacity (social-cultural, psychological); and
maximum capacity (site or physical, infrastructural,
environmental). Here, roads and transport as well as
sewerage and solid waste disposal facilities are included in
infrastructure. Thus, minimum capacity should be calculated
for the short-term viability of the destination area; optimum
capacity for the medium-term viability and management of
the resort; and maximum for the long-term viability or
continued existence/sustainability of the tourist area. It
should be clear from this that unlike the usual conception of
sustainability, here sustainability is considered from the
perspective of business as well and that it takes into account
not only the long term but also the short term. This is the
beauty of the concept of CCT.
It should also be noted that in any assessment of total
carrying capacity, the calculation should not be limited to
the components that best represent the short-, medium- and
long-term sustainability of the destination. In other words,
all components should be assessed since ‘the environment’
is not merely the ecological or built environment, but also
the social, cultural, economic, and psychological
environment in which the hosts as well as the tourists operate.
However, the components linked most closely with either
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006
What’s Wrong with Carrying Capacity for Tourism: S. Singh
the short-, medium- or long-term existence of a destination
remain dominant in that period’s CCT calculation and,
therefore, provide the fulcrum for devising management
solutions.
Clearing Some Myths
The most frequent problem in the concept of CCT is the
difficulty in conceiving of the psychological or perceptual
carrying capacity component. Most often this is brushed aside
as an impossible to define and subjective part of the concept
of CCT. According to Saveriades (2000), perceptual carrying
capacity is part of social carrying capacity, although he has
not very clearly offered how this can be so. Perceptual
carrying capacity is defined as the maximum number of
visitors that an area or destination can hold without leading
to deterioration in the quality of the experience that tourists
have and an eventual decline in the number of visitors.
Saveriades says that perceptual carrying capacity is merely
a component of social carrying capacity, which is taken to
mean both ‘the quality of experience that visitors will accept
before seeking alternative destinations’ and ‘the degree of
tolerance of the host population to the presence of tourists’
(Saveriades 2000: 149). Although I (2004: 71) had agreed
with Saveriades, I am now of the view that social, cultural
and psychological carrying capacities are separate but
always go together. Assessment of one will help determine
the other.
Saveriades (2000) must be commended for attempting
to explain social carrying capacity, which very few scholars
have done (indeed, some are of the firm opinion that nobody
has an idea of what social and cultural carrying capacity
is!). Saveriades appears to be of the view that we must consider
the perceptions of both the host and the tourist societies, as if
they were one society, and that perception is dependent on
‘things social’ (pace Durkheim). This is a sociological/
anthropological view, as against the psychological view
where individuals are studied rather than groups,
communities, and societies. Saveriades is not treading the
wrong path in insisting that societies are ultimately similar
and that we belong to one globalizing world. But the
argument wears thin. In considering host and tourist
societies to be similar, Saveriades is over-stretching the social
carrying capacity concept and generalizing too broadly. The
main argument of anthropologists, sociologists and linguists
studying tourism is that there are always considerable
differences between the tourist and host culture, the former
consisting of values that are usually integral to developed
societies and the latter consisting of values that are found in
developing or less developed countries. Mere changes in
dress codes (as happened in Bali, Indonesia (McKean 1977),
or, in the past century, in Japan) or the acquisition of a new
69
What’s Wrong with Carrying Capacity for Tourism: S. Singh
foreign language by people of a society does not substantially
change the culture of a population.
Saveriades divorces social from cultural carrying
capacity, even as he weds social and psychological carrying
capacity. This is a gross error. Singh (2004: 71) has pointed
out that social and cultural carrying capacity go together
and that it is the job of sociologists and cultural
anthropologists who study society and culture, respectively,
how to do it. It is true that such collaborations will prove
fruitful, but it can be explained beforehand what these
capacities are and how they can be assessed. Let us return
for a moment to Saveriades’ study of Cyprus, since it is a test
case for the CCT concept.
Saveriades (2000) finds evidence that tourism is
responsible for changes in the Cypriot communities that he
studied in many important ways such as changes in sexual
behaviour, use of drugs and increase in the number of
divorces, but does not see it as proof that social carrying
capacity has been exceeded. Saveriades’ study has an
atomistic approach and evidently he equates the opinion of
young people (“tourism is good”) with that of elders/highly-
cultured persons (“tourism is bad”). It is for this reason that
he is in a bind and says that an optimum tourist–host ratio
cannot be arrived at. Of course, answers to such complex
problems cannot be derived from simplistic methods but
require fieldwork and ethnographic approaches. As
Saveriades (2000: 152) himself points out, ‘tourism is held
responsible [in Cyprus] for changes in customs and social
practices, increases in the cost of living and land values,
and for the spread of diseases like AIDS’. As opposed to
Saveriades’ opinion, we can conclude that social carrying
capacity has been breached in the Cypriot communities
studied. That locals consider tourism necessary despite these
problems is not an indicator that social carrying capacity
has not been exceeded but that the people consider it a
‘necessary evil’ and have no option but to serve tourists.
Indeed, one can generalise and say that this is the situation
in many a less developed country as regards attitudes
towards, and the realities of, tourism. In communities that
are more cohesive (such as in Goa, India) there will likely be
protests against such breaches of social carrying capacity
while in less cohesive ones there will be only sporadic and/
or individual protests against the presence of large numbers
of tourists.
All the above changes were social ones and we can
proceed to understand cultural carrying capacity as well.
To date, there is only one indicator of cultural carrying
capacity and that is cultural loss and cultural fatigue (Kroeber
1948). The next stage is death of a culture or what can also be
called culture collapse or the result of cultural fatigue. This
70
happened in Hawaii Island (Kroeber 1948: 403) as a result
of the continuous ‘invasion’ of their culture by the culture of
the White people who descended in waves on the island
after Captain Cook ‘discovered’ it. Culture death means that
the fragile culture of the natives, or the essence of the culture,
represented by religion, is given up as a whole and the
dominating culture of the ‘Other’ is adopted as a whole.
Note, however, that though this appears to happen all of a
sudden, it is cumulative and happens gradually over the
years as a result of culture contact. It is clear from this example
that social change, which happens over a shorter period,
precedes cultural change. In other words, assessment of
social carrying capacity leads to insights on cultural carrying
capacity. It should be remembered that different cultures have
varying tolerance levels.
Returning to psychological or perceptual carrying
capacity, it is obvious that different persons will have
different opinions regarding tourism and its impact on
society. This is a result of differences in culture, among other
things. Societies, in fact, define how close strangers can stand
without it being considered offensive. Spanish and Mexican
people do not mind coming close to strangers and there is no
doubt, therefore, why Spain continues to host so many foreign
tourists and its people do not mind mingling with people of
other cultures. Therefore, risking repetition, this can be
established by studying societies and communities
anthropologically. Also, as Morris (1979) notes, each culture
‘defines’ how close you can stand to another human without
‘breaking’ taboos. This is especially so when you think of
societies that are used to crowds – like Indians – as opposed
to societies that prefer more individual (psychological) space.
Therefore, perceptual or psychological carrying capacity is
a function of a particular culture and its individuals and is
not simply an independent assessment. Hence the need to
calculate psychological carrying capacity in conjunction
with cultural carrying capacity.
Practical Aspects of CCT Assessment
This paper has focused on only the theoretical aspects
of carrying capacity for tourism, not on the practical aspects
like the many factors that influence actual assessment of
carrying capacity for tourism and ‘what happens after
carrying capacity has been exceeded?’ Singh (1999: 29-31)
has listed no less than 11 factors that influence, directly or
indirectly, how CCT is actually implemented.
The seven most important of these factors are:
delimitation of study area (will a recently settled migrant
minority be excluded or included? If it is to be included, will
it be given the same weightage as the ‘natives’? This
introduces complexity into research but can be overcome by
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006

simply asking the people how they view themselves. This is
known in tourism studies as ‘participant interpretation’
(Beeton 2006)); location (variation of climate, weather and
differences in components of ecosystems and their resilience:
the WTO has provided a range of capacities for beaches,
nature trails, etc., not only because it was searching for an
optimum, but because it was taking variations into account
(Inskeep 1991: 150)); time (attitudes of both residents and
visitors may change over time; there are also problems due
to various types of pollution associated with the stage of
touristic development of an area); non-touristic use and
development (which, incidentally, was taken into account
by Van der Borg (1992) in his study of Venice); political and
bureaucratic factors (the will to conduct such inquiries and
freedom from vested interests); financial constraints
(especially in LDCs and the developing world that is
becoming the playground of tourists from the rich, developed
world); and managerial attitudes and perceptions (CCT is
often thought to be a costly exercise and replaced by
Environmental Impact Assessments. The two are not the
same since the concept of CCT is much wider).
Lessons Learned
There are some lessons to be learned from the above
discussion. First, economic carrying capacity can be
exceeded and nothing more will happen than the diversion
of some tourists to other destinations for the time being. But
if ecological/environmental carrying capacity is exceeded it
depends on the resilience of the ecosystem what will happen.
Desertification is a natural process but has escalated due to
human interference with the environment in the past few
centuries. Deserts are only good for desert tourism. If
assessment of CCT is avoided, we risk ending up with a vast
area of the earth in the form of deserts.
Site carrying capacity, if exceeded, results in danger of
stampedes and problems of security of the tourists. Therefore,
this is also necessary. If social-cultural carrying capacity
and psychological carrying capacities are exceeded, we face
the prospects of loss of cultural diversity (which is already
happening due to globalization) and xenophobia,
respectively. Infrastructure carrying capacity, if exceeded
(and the concept of Limits of Acceptable Change is silent on
many of the preceding points, including on infrastructure),
will drive tourists away, resulting in death of destinations.
In sum, the concept of CCT is eminently useful.
Conclusion: CCT as an Explanans
An explanation is divided into two parts: the conclusion
(explanandum) and the set of statements that help explain
the thing to be explained (explanans). The concepts of CCT
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006
What’s Wrong with Carrying Capacity for Tourism: S. Singh
and destination evolution together help explain (i) why, as
the number (cf. Butler 1980) and certain types (cf. Smith 1977)
of tourists increase, there is need for management of resources
and (ii) why resorts and tourism areas decline in popularity
and what can be done to stave off the inevitable decline
through appropriate managerial interventions. (This agrees
with the second law of thermodynamics but exceeds it since
carrying capacity can be ‘maintained’.) Both concepts
consider tourism to be a finite phenomenon and look at
tourism in the short, medium and long term. The concept of
CCT, coupled with others, like Doxey’s (1975) Irridex,
explains what sustainability is and can be. No other concept
in tourism studies does this as elegantly and, therefore, CCT
can be said to offer us a deductive explanation, as opposed
to a causal one, of tourism in all its variety.
Following the logic of famous 20th century philosopher
Karl Popper, we can say that CCT allows us to think of
tourism in the hypothetico-deductive way. It is a ‘mode of
explanation’ that combines different methods of calculating
limits – scientific methods for ecological/environmental,
physical/site and infrastructural capacities, and social
scientific methods for social-cultural, psychological, and
economic carrying capacities. The idea of carrying capacity
is not new, but the concept was freshly applied to tourism
studies as far back as the 1970s and since then has continued
to spawn a ‘family of concepts’ (to paraphrase Wittgenstein),
such as the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) concept and
the conception of Growth Management Strategies. The
concept of CCT allows us to think simultaneously of the
three dimensions of planning – in the short, medium and
long term. The concept of LAC does not help except in the short
term, when social values remain the same. CCT explains that the
environment is one whole and no amount of academic
jugglery can completely separate the six dimensions of the
environment (ecological, built, social, cultural, economic and
psychological), which as a whole affects, and is affected by,
humans.
The concept, combined with the concept of tourism area
evolution (usually called the destination life cycle) provides
us with a comprehensive theory of tourism as just a human
phenomenon, fraught with all the difficulties and faults of
imperfect human existence where the rich get richer and the
poor poorer. However, the concept also reminds us that,
managed properly, tourism can be a big blessing, not only
for the burgeoning middle class, but also for the poor and
marginal people.
It may be concluded that the concept of CCT, with its
eclecticism – combining methods of both science and art – is
a post-modern explanans for the phenomenon of tourism.
71
What’s Wrong with Carrying Capacity for Tourism: S. Singh

Moreover, it is the only concept that combines two – often explanans and should be studied in greater detail and with
thought bipolar – modes of explanation: the scientific and all the muster of a collaborative field that tourism scholars
the social (usually represented by the religion of a community can provide in their search for a definition (definition is half
or society). It, therefore, fully qualifies as a post-modern the battle won) of sustainability.

References
BEETON, S. (2006). From Theory to Practice: Participant Interpretation of Research Results. Tourism Recreation Research 31(2): 3-9.
BRADBURY, M. (1988). Post-modernism. In Bullock, A., Stallybrass, O. and Trombley, S. (eds) The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (2nd
edition). London. Fontana Press.
BROWN, B. J. (1985). Personal Perception and Community Speculation: A British Resort in the 19th Century. Annals of Tourism Research 12(3): 355-
369.
BUTLER, R. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1): 5-12.
BUTLER, R. (ed) (2006). The Tourism Area Life cycle. Volumes 1 and 2. Clevedon, UK. Channel View Publications.
COCCOSSIS, H. and MEXA, A. (eds) (2004). The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment. Aldershot, UK. Ashgate.
DOXEY, G. V. (1975). A Causation Theory of Visitor-resident Irritants: Methodology and Research Inferences. 6th Annual Conference Proceedings of the
Travel Research Association. Salt Lake City, Utah: 195-198.
FENNELL, D. A. (1999). Ecotourism: An Introduction. London. Routledge.
GOELDNER, C., BRENT RITCHIE, J. R. and MCINTOSH, R. (2000). Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. New York. John Wiley.
GUNN, C. and VAR, T. (2002). Tourism Planning (4th edition). Routledge. New York.
HARDESTY, D. L. (1977). Ecological Anthropology. New York. John Wiley.
INSKEEP, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
KROEBER, A. L. (1948). Anthropology. New York. Harcourt Brace.
MCKEAN, P. F. (1977). Toward a Theoretical Analysis of Tourism: Economic Dualism and Cultural Involution in Bali. In Smith, V. L. (ed) Hosts and
Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press: 93-107.
MEYER-ARENDT, K. J. (1985). The Grand Isle, Louisiana Resort Cycle. Annals of Tourism Research 12(3): 449-465.
MIDDLETON, V. T. C. and HAWKINS, R. (1998). Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Perspective. Oxford. Butterworth-Heinemann.
MORRIS, D. (1979). The Human Zoo. New York. Bantam Books.
OUSBY, I. (ed) (1992). The Wordsworth Companion to Literature in English. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press and Hamlyn.
PUNCH, K. F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London. Sage Publications.
SAVERIADES, A. (2000). Establishing the Social Carrying Capacity for the Tourist Resorts of the East Coast of the Republic of Cyprus. Tourism
Management 21: 147-156.
SEATON, A.V. (2000). Battlefield Tourism in the Somme and at Flanders. Tourism Recreation Research 25(3): 63-78.
SINGH, SAGAR (1999). Studies in Tourism: Key Issues for Effective Management. Delhi. APH Publishing Corporation.
SINGH, SAGAR (2003). Travel and Aspects of Societal Structure: A Comparison of India and the United States. Current Issues in Tourism 6(3): 209-
234.
SINGH, SAGAR (2004). Shades of Green: Ecotourism for Sustainability. New Delhi. TERI Press.
SINGH, SAGAR (forthcoming). Time and Destination Life Cycle: An Analysis.
SMITH, V. L. (1977). Introduction. In Smith, V. L. (ed) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press:
9.
SWARBROOKE, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. Wallingford, Oxon. CABI Publishing.
TRIBE, J. (1995). The Economics of Leisure and Tourism: Environments, Markets, Impacts. Oxford. Butterworth-Heinemann.
VAN DER BORG, J. (1992). Tourism and Urban Development: The Case of Venice, Italy. Tourism Recreation Research 17(2): 46-56.
WALL, G. (1983). Cycles and Capacity: A Contradiction in Terms? Annals of Tourism Research 10(2): 268-269.
WANG, N. (2000). Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis. Oxford. Pergamon.
WESTERN, D. (1986). Tourist capacity in East African Parks. UNEP Industry and Environment 9(1): 14-16.
WESTERN, D. and HENRY, W. (1979). Economics and Conservation in Third World National Parks. Bioscience 29(7).
WOLTERS, T. (1991). Tourism Carrying Capacity. Report of the UNEP/WTO/French Ministry of the Environment senior-level expert group meeting,
7-8 June, 1990. Paris. UNEP/WTO/FMoE.
WTO (World Tourism Organization) (1984). Tourist Carrying Capacity. UNEP Industry and Environment 7(1): 30-36.
YOUNG, G. (1973). Tourism: Blessing or Blight? Harmondsworth. Penguin.

Submitted: March 2, 2006

Accepted: April 19, 2006

72 Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 31, No. 2, 2006