Tourism Geographies

ISSN: 1461-6688 (Print) 1470-1340 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning: A

GIS-Supported Approach

Bas Boers & Stuart Cottrell

To cite this article: Bas Boers & Stuart Cottrell (2007) Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure
Planning: A GIS-Supported Approach, Tourism Geographies, 9:1, 1-21, DOI:
10.1080/14616680601092824

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680601092824

Published online: 31 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17842

View related articles

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtxg20
Tourism Geographies
Vol. 9, No. 1, 1–21, February 2007

Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure

Planning: A GIS-Supported Approach
BAS BOERS∗ & STUART COTTRELL∗∗
∗ Dutch Forest Service, Arnhem, The Netherlands
∗∗ Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, USA

ABSTRACT This paper presents a conceptual geographical information systems (GIS)-

supported sustainable tourism infrastructure planning (STIP) framework including attraction,
service and transportation facilities. This framework focuses on tourism planning as an inte-
grated approach based on sustainability criteria. STIP aims to integrate a set of sustainability
criteria (i.e. development objectives, visitor experience preferences, carrying capacity stan-
dards and resource impacts) into infrastructure planning via GIS. Based on these criteria, STIP
provides protected area management insights in the most sustainable locations and layout of
future infrastructure. STIP involves three phases: a visitor segmentation (not GIS supported)
phase, a zoning phase (GIS supported) and a transportation network planning phase (GIS
supported). To demonstrate the integration of these phases, STIP was applied as a trail plan-
ning demonstration on data (i.e. social and physical) from the Sinharaja Forest Reserve, a
tropical rainforest in Sri Lanka’s southwestern wet zone. The area experiences increasing
visitor use and requires additional trail development to mitigate resource stress. Nature and
cultural tourist opportunity trail networks were mapped based on the sustainability criteria
which provide directives for sustainable trail development within the reserve.

KEY WORDS: Sustainable development, trail planning, GIS, carrying capacities, visitor
behaviour, visitor opportunities

Introduction
For many decades, tourism destination development has been dominated by a phi-
losophy of promoting established attraction and service facilities with the assump-
tion that development of transportation network facilities would follow (Gunn 1994;
Gunn & Var 2002). However, since transportation network facilities are generally not
revenue-producing as a government-owned public resource, destinations usually lack
new transportation facilities (i.e. roads and trails) (Eagles & McCool 2002; Mowforth
& Munt 2003). Meanwhile, more commercial attraction and service facilities were
established independently of other developments along routes that formerly served

Correspondence Address: Stuart Cottrell, Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Fax: +970 491 2255; Tel.: +970 491 7074;
Email: cottrell@cnr.colostate.edu

ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /07/01/00001–21 

C 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14616680601092824
2 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

general community and economic development needs (Gunn & Var 2002). Although
such routes may suffice from an efficiency perspective, these may not be the most
sustainable as part of a transportation network (Inskeep 1991).
It is generally acknowledged that such ‘unplanned’ types (i.e. trail along an existing
logging road) of development are those most likely to be associated with lower visitor
satisfaction and adverse impacts on resources (Hultsman et al. 1999; Swarbrooke
1999; Mowforth & Munt 2003). Understanding past problems does not necessarily
ensure present-day solutions. Tourists demand ever more specialized and spatially
dispersed forms of development, implying a more extensive use of resources resulting
in potentially more impact than before (Williams 1998; Mowforth & Munt 2003). To
minimize impacts, while providing a coherent variety of experiences within a limited
time frame, requires a carefully planned visitor transportation network (Ceballos-
Lascuráin 1996; Hultsman et al. 1999; Gunn & Var 2002).
In response to problems ensuing from poor planning, models such as Gunn’s ‘re-
gional planning concept’ (1972, 1994) and ‘destination zone’ (1994) have, to a large
extent, contributed to the development of methodological processes for planning
tourism destinations (Inskeep 1988, 1991; Hall 2000). Yet, today’s tourism planners
still cope with a lack of spatial concepts, models and theories from which they can
draw (Dredge 1999). Pearce (1995) implied that many tourism planning models have
been developed independently, with little or no recognition or attempt to build on
previous efforts. Fagence (1995) added that these models have merely established
the relevance of geographical concepts, rather than integrating rules and procedures
regarding the functioning of these concepts. In the absence of geographical models,
researchers (van der Knaap 1997; Itami et al. 2002) have studied factors (i.e. visitor
education and information; regulation and enforcement; and markers and guides) that
determine visitor network use. While these studies contribute to understanding visitor
behaviour, their use in identifying generic, spatially preferred visitor transportation
network structures, or ‘opportunity networks’, remains limited (Elands 2002; Itami
et al. 2002). The identification of opportunity networks would require knowledge of
visitor-preferred spatial-temporal distributions of attraction, service and transporta-
tion facilities within protected areas. An understanding of the preferred nature of
facilities and the perceived hierarchies and relationships among facilities is another
prerequisite (Dredge 1999; Elands 2002).
To acquire better insights into the structure (i.e. morphology and connectivity)
and functioning (i.e. as perceived by the visitor) of visitor transportation networks,
and to plan more sustainable tourism infrastructure, geographical information sys-
tems (GIS) have great potential (Culbertson et al. 1994; Beedasy & Whyatt 1999;
McAdam 1999). GIS can describe and identify transportation network elements ge-
ometrically, thematically and topologically (McAdam 1999); and GIS integrates ob-
jects (i.e. visitor centres, trails, forest patches) with field data (i.e. humidity, slope,
altitude) (Malczewski 1999). GIS is described as hardware, software and proce-
dures collectively supporting the collection, input, storage, retrieval, manipulation,
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 3

transformation, analysis and presentation of geo-referenced object and field data

(Malczewski 1999). Since GIS technology couples common database operations, such
as query and statistical analysis, to geographically represented data, GIS is considered
a decision support system involving spatially referenced data in a problem-solving
environment (Beedasy & Whyatt 1999; Malczewski 1999). In practice, managers
can test many scenarios with GIS as a tool to help determine who or what might be
affected by certain decisions (Landres et al. 2001).
Counter to the lack of tourism system models, the application of GIS for tourism has
been diverse, including the systematic inventory and audit of tourism resources and
conditions (Bruehler & Sondergaard 2004); identification of potential development
locations (Gunn 1994; Boyd & Butler 1996; Starr et al. 1999); simulating and mod-
elling spatial outcomes of proposed developments through visibility analysis (Selman
et al. 1991); and simulation modelling to facilitate monitoring and management of
visitor flows (Wing & Shelby 1999; Itami et al. 2002; Lawson et al. 2002). As GIS
technology advances, its application will expand (Bahaire & Elliott-White 1999).
In this paper, elements of both tourism and geo-information sciences are integrated
to demonstrate a new GIS-supported approach for sustainable tourism infrastruc-
ture planning (STIP) in protected areas. Tourism infrastructure planning refers to
the integrated planning of attraction (i.e. natural, cultural, man-made), service (i.e.
accommodation, shops, restaurants, visitor information, tour and travel operations,
money exchange, medical facilities, postal services, entry and exit facilitation) and
transportation facilities (i.e. both the physical infrastructure including trails and trans-
portation services) (Gunn 1994; Gunn & Var 2002). Although current GIS offer suf-
ficient network possibilities to explore complete transportation network structures,
due to a theoretical knowledge gap of sustainable tourism network configurations,
the discussion here is limited to the planning of sustainable trails or ‘transporta-
tion network linkages’. A ‘sustainable trail’ refers to a non-motorized pathway that
connects two attraction or service facility locations planned to incorporate natural,
cultural and economic resource use in a sustainable manner (Lindberg & Hawkins
1993; Hultsman et al. 1999). STIP sustainability criteria implemented in GIS include
(Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996; Swarbrooke 1999; Mowforth & Munt 2003):

1. a trail should contribute to the protected area development objectives;

2. a trail should enable visitors to realize their desired and expected experiences;
3. a trail should safeguard resource-carrying capacity standards (i.e. minimum ac-
ceptable resource conditions) (National Park Service 1997);
4. a trail layout should limit resource impacts.
Sustainable Tourism System
For practical applications such as STIP, tourism in protected areas (PAs) is best en-
visaged as a system of supply and demand that relies on a resource base (Eagles &
McCool 2002). In contrast to Gunn (1994), who excluded the resource base from
4 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

the basic tourism system, the natural, cultural and economic resources are treated as
intrinsic system components. PA resources are the foundation of tourism develop-
ment, and sustainability depends greatly on the quality of those resources. The sum
of the supply-side components, demand-side characteristics, resource conditions and
interrelations in between are considered as a tourism system (Hall 2000). Changes in
one system component automatically affect the other components, constantly chang-
ing the system (Gunn 1994). The advantage of using a system approach to tourism
planning is that it allows all elements to be defined, analysed, planned and managed
in a coherent way, while accounting for the dynamics within the system. The dis-
advantage, providing a coherently structured ‘high quality–right quantity’ provision
of attraction, service and transportation facilities, while keeping up with ‘carrying
capacity standards,’ requires an enormous understanding of the system’s components
and its interrelations (Gunn 1994; Gunn & Var 2002).
Like any other system, tourism is subject to external factors or influences (Gunn &
Var 2002). These provide the larger framework in which STIP is to be implemented
and affect – similar to management interventions – the functioning of the system.
External factors include political, legislative and socio-economic issues, such as the
national budget available for PA management, land property rights and household
income (Eagles & McCool 2002). In fact, external factors mirror stakeholder inter-
ests (except for those making up tourism supply, demand and management) in PA
development (Gunn 1994). To control external system influences, management devel-
opment objectives should reflect stakeholder interests (Gunn 1994; Hall 2000; Eagles
& McCool 2002; Gunn & Var 2002). This premise has been incorporated in STIP.
Besides a profound knowledge of system components and system relations, tourism
systems require a system-controlling force that warrants development objectives, visi-
tor satisfaction levels and resource standards to be identified and maintained (Eagles &
McCool 2002). PA management is the control point in the system responsible to moni-
tor change in supply, demand, external factors and the resource base, while managing –
based on feedback and evaluation from monitoring – both supply and demand ( Pearce
1995; Manning 1999). Moreover, PA management should involve all stakeholders in
determining the types of management actions appropriate when resource conditions
or visitor satisfaction levels deteriorate or fall outside the acceptable limits of change
as judged by established standards (National Park Service 1997; Manning 1999).
In sum, tourism is a system of supply and demand focused on a resource base,
affected by external factors and controlled by PA management (Hall 2000; Eagles
& McCool 2002). Tourism development refers to the way resources are allocated to
the system’s supply-side elements over time and space (Swarbrooke 1999; Gunn &
Var 2002). The temporal–spatial allocation of resources to supply-side elements is
the result of a continuous interaction process between tourism supply and demand,
which is subject to influences and interventions from external factors respectively –
PA management (Elands 2002). This sustainable tourism system, which provides the
context for implementing STIP, is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 precludes a direct
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 5

Figure 1. Sustainable tourism system. Source: Gunn (1994), Ceballos-Lascuráin (1996), Swar-
brooke (1999), Hall (2000) and Gunn and Var (2002).

linkage between supply and demand, since free market systems tend to externalize
the environmental costs associated with tourism development. Instead, a regulating
role is proposed for PA management. For clarification, the interlinkages between
the components of the sustainable tourism system relations are explained (Ceballos-
Lascuráin 1996; Gunn 1994; Swarbrooke 1999; Hall 2000; Gunn & Var 2002).

Sustainable Tourism System Interlinkages

1. Effects of changes in entrepreneurship, finance, labour, competition, community,
government, policy and organization or leadership on PA management and vice
versa.
2. PA management interventions on the supply side, with indirect effects on the re-
source base (i.e. non-resource related legislation, subsidies or taxes to discourage
particular types of development); effects of supply-side changes on PA manage-
ment, with indirect effects on the resource base (i.e. the adoption of new marketing
strategies to harmonize demand with the new supply structure); effects of changes
in external factors on the supply side; and effects of changes of the supply side on
external factors.
3. Interdependencies between attraction, service and transportation facilities.
6 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

4. Supply-side-caused impacts on the resource base and feedback on quality of the

resource base (i.e. natural, cultural and economic resource conditions) on the
supply side.
5. Effects of changes in external factors on the resource base and vice versa.
6. Monitoring resource conditions and visitor satisfaction by PA management to
implement interventions on the resource base, with direct effects on resource
use by supply and demand (i.e. resource-related subsidies or taxes to discourage
particular types of supply-side development at specific locations, the use of price-
differentiation strategies by place, visitor quota at entrances and attraction sites,
specially targeted information through guides and markers, or temporal closure of
attraction, service and transportation facilities to control visitor use).
7. Visitor impacts on the resource base and feedback about the quality of the re-
source to the demand side (i.e. through interpersonal communication of visitor
experiences or documentaries).
8. Effects of changes in demand characteristics on external factors and vice versa.
9. Management interventions on the demand side, with indirect effects on the re-
source base and monitoring market trends and visitor behaviour. For example, the
management of demand outside the destination region through specific marketing
strategies, or the application of price-differentiation strategies by type of activity.

Purpose
This paper investigates STIP’s potential, as a sustainable tourism infrastructure plan-
ning approach, to incorporate ‘sustainability criteria’ to realize development objec-
tives (Swarbrooke 1999), to enable desired and expected visitor experiences (Manning
1999), to not exceed carrying capacity standards (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996; Eagles
& McCool 2002) and minimize resource impacts (Manning 1999; Eagles & McCool
2002). The overall goal was to map via GIS sustainable trail development locations
by overlaying (using the grid data format) social (visitor opportunity) with resource
(carrying capacity) maps, while accounting for all STIP tourism system components
and their interrelations (see Figure 1). When the three-phase GIS-supported approach
(Figure 2) meets these goals, perhaps STIP can be considered a comprehensive and
operational approach for planning sustainable tourism infrastructure (i.e. trails).
Methods
During a field visit to Sri Lanka’s Sinharaja Forest Reserve (SFR) (February–April
2000), a tropical rainforest in Sri Lanka’s southwestern wet zone, case study data
were acquired via personal observations, informal stakeholder interviews and an on-
site survey to profile visitors at SFR. Since data were not collected specifically for a
STIP approach, data quality is limited and only suitable to illustrate STIP’s method-
ology. Unreliable or incomplete data were omitted or fictively created to include for
demonstration. The purpose of this case study was to demonstrate a comprehensive
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 7

Figure 2. STIP’s three-phase approach

and operational approach for planning sustainable tourism trails in PAs via GIS; not
to make recommendations for trail development in the SFR specifically.

STIP Implementation
STIP integrates three phases: visitor segmentation, zoning and a transportation net-
work planning phase (Figure 2). The integration of these phases allows for directing
visitors through preferred zones, to undertake preferred activities at preferred facility
locations, while accounting for development objectives and resource constraints.
Since it is believed that sustainable visitor transportation network structures and
functioning can be understood only when adopting a visitor point of view (Eagles
& McCool 2002), STIP starts with the acquisition of visitor information and visitor
segmentation using this information. Resulting visitor segments with their specific
preferences and characteristics form a starting point for planning sustainable trails.

Phase 1 – Visitor Segmentation

Accounting for visitor characteristics in destination planning is not new (Smith 1995;
Elands & Lengkeek 2000; Elands 2002). In 1979, Cohen was among the first to rec-
ognize that tourists vary in terms of needs and motivations, thus behavioural patterns.
Incorporating such differences in destination planning is likely to result in higher
visitor satisfaction and may even reduce resource impacts, or induce PA benefits
8 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

(Swarbrooke 1999; Elands & Lengkeek 2000; Haider 2002; Cottrell et al. 2004).
Although post-hoc visitor segmentation techniques – to group visitors on the basis of
revealed common characteristics – have already proven their relevance in tourism des-
tination planning and destination facility management, post-hoc segmentation forms
are seldom applied (Elands & Lengkeek 2000; Lengkeek 2000, 2001; McVetty 2002).
Visitors were segmented on ten survey items measured via a five-point importance
scale from ‘not all important’ to ‘very important’, dealing with visitor experience
preferences. The preference of each segment was translated twofold: first, into area-
specific zones of interest or ‘visitor opportunity zones’, to plan trails through; and,
secondly, into attraction and service facility locations or ‘visitor opportunities’, to
plan trails in between. Segment expected resource impact and induced PA benefit
characteristics were translated into carrying capacity and visitor opportunity zones
in STIP’s zoning phase (phase 2), which subsequently provides a basis for planning
sustainable tourism trails (phase 3).
Visitors (n = 60) were surveyed randomly prior to entering SFR at the Kudawe
entrance. Since 95 percent of the visitors travelled in a group with a 15-minute waiting
period while their guide arranged the group tickets, response rate was above 90
percent. The first step in the visitor segmentation process was a principal components
factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation on ten experience preference items. The
ratio of five cases to one variable criterion was met for this procedure (Hair et al.
1995). Next, hierarchical cluster analysis was applied to group respondents on the
basis of similarity in principal component scores (Hair et al. 1995; Johnson & Wichern
2002). PCA and hierarchical cluster analysis were used for segmentation since these
techniques match experience preferences with the area-specific opportunities that
provide these experiences (Smith 1995; Elands & Lengkeek 2000; Elands 2002).

Table 1. Principal components analysis of visitor experience preferences

a
Items Cultural interest Nature interest Bird watching
Visit local communities 0.766
Willing to support local communities 0.742
See historical/religious sites 0.709
Local food & beverage 0.632
Action 0.616
Visit nature centre 0.890
See flora & fauna 0.835
See unique natural features 0.572
Visit viewpoints 0.225
Birds 0.669
Eigenvalue 2.61 2.31 1.56
% Variance explained 26.1 23.1 15.6
a Itemsmeasured on a five-point importance scale, ranging from not at all important to very important.
65 percent of total variance explained.
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 9

The PCA (Table 1) resulted in three components with factor loadings >0.40 and
eigenvalues over 1.0, accounting for 65 percent of the total variance. Component 1,
cultural interest, included five items: visit local communities, willing to support
local communities, see cultural sites, eat local food and beverage, and take action on
behalf of the community. Component 2, nature interest, consisted of visit a nature
centre, see flora, fauna and unique natural features. Component 3 included one item,
to see birds. Visit viewpoints did not load on any of the factors at 0.40.
Next, a hierarchical cluster analysis was used to cluster respondents into visitor seg-
ment groups. Due to a small sample size, Ward’s clustering method, with a five-cluster
(segment) solution, turned out to be the most meaningful (Hair et al. 1995; Johnson
& Wichern 2002). When comparing respondents per cluster with their principal com-
ponent scores, ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ visitor segments were selected for planning trail
networks due to management goals to provide nature and cultural experiences in the
area. The ‘nature’ segment has a strong preference for learning about nature – both
through education as well as through real-life experiences – yet not a lot of physical
activity. The ‘culture’ segment wants to visit local communities, cultural markers and
consume food and beverages. This information was used to locate, per segment, the
SFR’s preferred attraction and service facility locations.

Phase 2 – Zoning
The purpose of zoning is to demarcate specific areas for different types of land use
and the development of standards to apply within each land-use zone to control land
use according to the plan and to ensure standard compliance (Inskeep 1991; Ceballos-
Lascuráin 1996). Zoning is particularly important since locations, regions, resources,
amenities and infrastructures have unequal potential and capacity for particular forms,
types and scales of development (Fagence 1991). When planning sustainable tourism
trails, it is argued that zones should comprise two criteria groups: ‘carrying capacity
criteria’ and ‘visitor opportunity criteria’, each group having its own purpose and ap-
plying its own set of indicators and standards (Manning 1999). Only when combining
these criteria can sustainable tourism trails be derived (Lindberg & Hawkins 1993).
In this paper, carrying capacity refers to the types, densities and patterns of tourism
trail development a specific ‘zone’ can sustain indefinitely without degrading its nat-
ural, cultural and economic resources beyond certain thresholds (Ceballos-Lascuráin
1996). Once a threshold has been exceeded, too many resources have been assigned for
tourism purposes and no further trail development is allowed. In this respect, the pur-
pose of carrying capacity-based zoning is to create geographical zones that ‘protect’
the natural, cultural and economic resources through allowing future development de-
pendent on the most sensitive carrying-capacity indicators (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996;
Eagles & McCool 2002).
Carrying-capacity indicators are specific, measurable characteristics or conditions
that reflect the status of the natural, cultural and economic resource base with respect to
pre-defined carrying-capacity standards (National Park Service 1997; Manning 1999).
10 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

Since the status of a resource indicator varies throughout a PA, these variations also
need to be accounted for by GIS. Therefore, a spatial unit of measurement should be
defined that can delineate precisely the changes in indicator status. In this paper, the
adopted spatial unit of measurement is 30×30 m, which coincides with the cell size
applied for the grids in the SFR case study. Each grid cell expresses per indicator that
indicator’s maximum trail density, or the maximum allowable square metres of trail
per hectare. Obviously, indicator densities should be set in accordance with the types
and patterns of trail to be developed.
To obtain carrying-capacity zones, each indicator must be mapped as a grid map
in GIS. Indicator data can be either object or field data, since both can be converted
into a grid. Next, all indicator grid maps were superimposed (i.e. overlain in Arc/Info
8.1), computing for each cell in the output grid map the lowest input indicator value.
Carrying-capacity zones were then derived through classifying the output grid map’s
cell values (i.e. maximum trail density values) and depicting all contiguous cells with
homogeneous class values geographically as ‘zones’ in GIS (De Vries & Goossen
2002). A ‘zone’ in tourism terminology (i.e. the terminology of this paper) is gener-
ally referred to as a ‘region’ in GIS terminology (Environmental Systems Research
Institute 2005).
Which indicators to include in the process depends on managers’ choice of relevant
and available data, and the indicators’ suitability to express in terms of trail density and
its ability to merge with other indicators. Conjoint analysis is recommended to define
composite indicators (i.e. composite indicators represent multiple environmental pro-
cesses or conditions) to render more meaningful results (Haider 2002). For example,
setting maximum trail density values for ‘precipitation’ and ‘slope’ as two separate in-
dicators for visitor-induced soil runoff is not meaningful, since this approach does not
tackle the detrimental erosion effects of visitors trampling on steep slopes with high
precipitation levels. The process of creating, standardizing and merging (composite)
indicators requires considerable follow-up research.
For the SFR case study, carrying-capacity-based zoning relied on two natural in-
dicators: ‘forest cover’ and ‘slope gradient’. Forest cover data were drawn from a
reprinted (1997) thematic map (1: 40,000) published by Sri Lanka’s Department of
Forestry. Slope data were derived from a digital elevation model (DEM) based on
a reprinted (1966) topographic map (1: 63,360) of the Rakwana region. Maximum
trail density values, attached to the various classes of the indicator ‘forest cover’ were
estimated roughly. Estimations were based on visitor profiles generated in the visitor
segmentation phase. For the indicator ‘slope gradient’, the maximum trail density
values were fictively created for demonstration to represent an indicator of carrying
capacity (Table 2).
Although carrying-capacity zones provide the natural, cultural and economic guide-
lines for STIP, little insight of visitor preference areas is given (Eagles & McCool
2002). Consequently, trail development, guided primarily by carrying-capacity zones,
would probably not meet the needs of either visitors or host regions (Lindberg &
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 11

Hawkins 1993). To provide visitors with experiences that match their reason of visit
most closely, STIP considers carrying-capacity zones as well as visitor opportunity
zones. A visitor opportunity refers to a preferred attraction, service or transporta-
tion facility within a setting that allows visitors to realize their desired and expected
experiences (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996).
Visitor opportunities can be described for four setting or zoning perspectives, which
all contribute to the overall visitor opportunity setting: experience, social, physical and
managerial (Lindberg & Hawkins 1993; Manning 1999). This case study, however,
incorporates only the experience and managerial setting perspectives, since social
and physical setting data (i.e. representing social and physical capacities) were un-
available. Experience setting zones refer to geographical zones that indicate (i.e. for
one or more criteria or indicators) the extent to which desired and expected visitor
experiences can be realized by one or more existing or latent available attraction, ser-
vice and transportation facilities. Managerial setting zones represent merely the PA
management’s development objectives (i.e. stakeholder interests) through pointing
out preferred development areas (Manning 1999).
Similar to the concept of carrying capacity, visitor opportunities can be defined and
mapped with respect to various indicators or setting attributes; however, rather than
expressing a measure of capacity, setting attributes articulate the visitor and manage-
rial development interest or preference (Manning 1999). This interest or preference
is incorporated in GIS by setting an interest or preference weight per grid cell per
setting attribute. Visitor opportunity zones result from overlaying (i.e. compute per
cell the accumulated weight of the individual setting attribute weights) the various
setting attribute weight maps, classifying the weights in the output weight map, and
depicting all contiguous cells with homogeneous class values geographically as zones
in GIS.
For the SFR case study, polygon-featured experience setting zones (i.e. visitor
preference areas) were derived through attaching an experience setting weight to the

Table 2. ‘Forest cover’ and ‘slope gradient’ estimated maximum trail density values in
square metres per trail hectare – per visitor segment
Carrying-capacity Nature Culture Carrying-capacity Nature Culture
indicator visitor visitor indicator visitor visitor
‘Forest cover’ Max. m2 trail/ha ‘Slope gradient’ (◦ ) Max. m2 trail/ha
Primary forest 20 14 0–5 100 100
Secondary forest 33 25 5–10 50 50
Degraded forest 25 20 10–14 33 33
Encroachment 33 33 14–19 25 25
Forest plantation 13 13 19–24 20 20
Ridge forest 11 11 24–29 17 17
Agriculture 17 17 29–33 14 14
Scrubland/grassland 25 25 33–38 13 13
12 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

Table 3. Experience setting weights per visitor segment for setting

attribute ‘forest cover’ (i.e. lower the weight the higher the visitor
preference)
Visitor segment preference weights
Experience setting attribute
‘Forest cover’ Nature visitor Culture visitor
Primary forest 100 300
Secondary forest 200 400
Degraded forest 300 200
Encroachment 600 500
Forest plantation 800 200
Ridge forest 400 100
Agriculture 500 100
Scrubland/grassland 700 100

various classes of the setting attribute: ‘forest cover’ for the ‘nature’ and ‘culture’
visitor segments (Table 3). These weights were extrapolated from the visitor segment
profiles.
Next, line and polygon-featured managerial setting zones were created through
attaching purely hypothetical managerial setting weights (Table 4) to the various
managerial setting attribute classes. Since setting attributes do not necessarily cover
every PA’s grid cell, a ‘weight if’ and a ‘weight if not’ class were defined in case

Table 4. Managerial setting weights

Weight if Weight if not
Managerial setting attribute (occurrence = yes) (occurrence = no)
Roads and trails (line)
Footpath 5 500
Logging road 10 500
Cart track 50 500
Minor road 100 500
Former logging road 100 500
Rivers (line)
Stream 400 0
River 1000 0
Buffers (polygon)
River plain buffer 0 400
Medical centre buffer 0 500
Encroachment buffer 0 600
Entrance point buffer 0 800
PA-boundary buffer 0 1000

Note: the lower the weight, the higher the managerial preference
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 13

a setting attribute ‘did’ or ‘did not’ occur. The following line and polygon features
were chosen.

r Line features: existing roads and trails were preferred to minimize both envi-
ronmental impact as well as capital investments; rivers were avoided to save on
construction costs.
r Polygon features: a 1,000 m buffer – from the border inside SFR – to stimulate trail
development on the peripheries and to protect the core area from fragmentation; a
250 m buffer on the river plains of SFR’s major rivers, since these plains were well
drained, have a lower groundwater table and are better suited for trail development;
a 4,000 m buffer around both entrances, especially for high-use attraction features
to prevent transportation facility development in the backcountry areas; a 500
m buffer around encroachment areas to stimulate tourism development in highly
forest-dependent regions and to provide local communities with a substitute source
of income, while opening up the market economy through better access to outside
markets and better facilities on the village level; and a 5,000 m buffer around SFR’s
nearest medical centre, to stimulate development in places where visitor safety can
be guaranteed.

Phase 3 – Transportation Network Planning

Once visitor segments are identified (phase 1) and zones produced (phase 2), visitor
segments should be directed to zones that provide a satisfying visitor experience. Due
to visitor and resource constraints (Hägerstrand 1979), not all preferred zones can
– in practice – be made accessible. Consequently, only zones expected to result in
a management-preferred composition and spatial distribution of costs and benefits
should be connected via a ‘visitor transportation network’ (van der Knaap 1997).
A visitor transportation network refers to the coherently organized trail sections
between visitor opportunity locations, enabling the transfer of visitors between one
place and another (Ritsema van Eck 1993).‘Coherently’ refers to visitor preferences
following three levels of coherence (Elands 2002): substantial (preferred combination
of preferred attraction and service facilities), spatial (preferred spatial characteristics
of preferred attraction and service facilities) and temporal (preferred temporal char-
acteristics of preferred attraction and service facilities). However, segmenting visitors
while integrating coherence levels is currently impossible, since no statistical tech-
nique exists to deal with the numerous variable combinations this requires (Elands
2002). As a consequence, STIP is restricted to incorporating substantial coherence
level information only. With respect to the SFR case study, this information is captured
in the ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ visitor segment profiles (phase 1).
Since tourism transportation network development implies various costs (construc-
tion, maintenance and resource related), STIP should account for these in terms
of impedance or resistance. In GIS, this is achieved through the application of a
14 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

grid-based ‘least cost path’ function (Environmental Systems Research Institute

2005). This function computes ‘least accumulated resistance paths’ (i.e. trails) be-
tween two visitor preferred attraction and service facilities (phase 1), using visitor
opportunity cell-weights (phase 2) as a measure of resistance. Since managerial setting
attribute weights comprise part of the visitor opportunity weights, PA management
has indirect influence on the location of trails, composition and spatial distribution
of tourism-related costs and benefits. Unfortunately, computing least-cost paths on a
cell-by-cell basis does not allow integrating ‘zonal’ side conditions, such as determin-
ing when too many resources (i.e. cells) in a carrying-capacity zone are allocated to
tourism (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2005). Therefore, the concept of
carrying capacity, which applies to zones of contiguous cells with homogeneous val-
ues, could not be implemented as intended. Although beyond the scope of this paper,
this might be resolved through adaptation of the least-cost path algorithm (Douglas
1994; Adriaensen et al. 2003).
To account for ‘carrying capacities’ in the SFR case study, the original maxi-
mum trail density values were translated into ‘carrying-capacity weights’ by dividing
10,000 by the original maximum trail density value to render the new carrying-
capacity weight (Malczewski 1999). This treats carrying capacities as visitor op-
portunities. Next, the carrying-capacity and visitor opportunity zoning maps were
overlaid to create a single output grid map in GIS called a STIP-weight map. Cell
weight is the sum of the cell’s carrying-capacity and visitor opportunity weights. The
higher a cell’s weight, the higher its resistance and the smaller its chance to be selected
by the least-cost path function for trail development. Thus, trail planning accounts
for visitor preferences, managerial development interests and resource sensitivities
simultaneously.
Next, least-cost paths were computed between all visitor preferred attraction and
service facility locations, based on the STIP-weight map. For each computed path
the accumulated costs (sum weight of the path’s individual cells) were divided by the
path’s length. Subsequently, the paths were classified into three equally-distributed
interval-scaled ‘cost’ classes (path cost divided by path length). To compare the nature
and culture visitor segment paths in terms of sustainability, the same definition of
classes was used. However, as the resulting classes do not literally represent the costs
associated with transportation network development, but form an indicator for trail
sustainability, these were arranged via an ordinal scale, ranging from ‘sustainable’ to
‘non-sustainable’.

GIS Mapping Results

A PCA–cluster analysis procedure using visitor survey data rendered a ‘nature’ and
‘culture’ visitor segment. Segment-specific preferences and associated behaviour
served, besides natural resource conditions and managerial objectives (i.e. the sus-
tainability criteria), as input for the development of carrying-capacity and visitor
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 15

Figure 3. Culture segment opportunity network (i.e. including preferred attractions and trails
based upon visitor opportunity and carrying-capacity zones).

opportunity zones. These were created through grid overlays in GIS. In addition, vis-
itor preferences were translated directly into the SFR’s attraction and service facility
locations. Together, these zones and locations served as input for computing, using
Arc/Info’s least-cost path function, the most ‘sustainable’ trail layouts to accommo-
date ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ visitors’ experiential needs (Figures 3, 4). With respect
to Figures 3 and 4, a number of differences can be observed between the nature
and cultural visitor segment. First, due to segment-specific preferences, the legend
of Figure 3 (i.e. culture segment) depicts a different set of attraction and service fa-
cilities than Figure 4 (i.e. nature segment). Secondly, since the nature segment has
a higher preference to visit primary, secondary and degraded forest (Table 3) and is
expected to cause less resource impacts (Table 2), trails for the nature segment tend
to be more sustainable than those for the cultural segment in most of the reserve.

Figure 4. Nature segment opportunity network (i.e. including preferred attractions and trails
based upon visitor opportunity and carrying-capacity zones).
16 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

Note that the depicted trail width in both figures has – for display purposes – been
exaggerated deliberately, and that new trail segments are introduced where overlaps
occur (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2005).

Conclusions
This study investigated STIP’s potential as a GIS-supported tourism trail planning
approach, incorporating sustainability criteria (development objectives, visitor ex-
perience preferences, carrying-capacity standards and resource impacts). Integrating
social data with resource data in GIS, STIP sought to map trails in sustainable loca-
tions (identified spatially) rather than along existing routes, which are not necessarily
sustainable (Gunn & Var 2002).
Since trails imply travel from one place to another, each location should be analysed
within a spatial context (Boyd & Butler 1996). Although GIS are ultimately suited to
perform these tasks, a lot of spatial data and analysis is necessary (Beedasy & Whyatt
1999). In the SFR case study GIS allowed the integration of object with field data and
social with resource data. The difficulty was not the technical aspects of data inte-
gration, but its theoretical justification. Nevertheless, with respect to data integration
(phase 2), two visitor segments were mapped, demonstrating STIP’s application as a
‘comprehensive’ and ‘operational’ planning approach.
Other challenges were posed in the process as well. A gap exists in the literature
concerning visitor transportation networks and their function in relation to visitor
satisfaction in specific and sustainable trail developments in general (Elands 2002).
Since techniques for analysing visitor preferences on a substantial, spatial and tempo-
ral coherence level simultaneously are lacking, visitor transportation network plan-
ning is restricted to incorporating substantial coherence level information only (van
der Knaap 1997). As a consequence, spatial and temporal visitor preferences were
not accounted for in maps created, while this is a prerequisite for sustainable trail
development warranting further research. Secondly, the GIS version (Arc/Info 8.1)
used did not allow computing least-cost paths while applying zonal side-conditions
(Environmental Systems Research Institute 2005). Hence, the concept of carrying ca-
pacity could not be implemented fully. Possibly, this ‘sustainability’ constraint could
be resolved through modification of the least-cost path algorithm (Douglas 1994;
Adriaensen et al. 2003).
Considering the numerous constraints and lack of case study data, conclusions
should not be drawn regarding sustainable trail development in SFR. This does
not mean that STIP does not have potential as a trail planning approach. STIP’s
three-phase GIS-supported approach (up to a certain level) incorporates sustainabil-
ity criteria in tourism planning. Development objectives (PA management), includ-
ing stakeholder interests (external factors), were accounted for through inclusion
of managerial setting zones. Desired and expected visitor experiences (demand)
through experience setting zones, carrying capacities (the resource base) through
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 17

carrying-capacity zones, and resource impacts were minimized with Arc/Info’s least-
cost path function. Provided that identified constraints are overcome, STIP allows
directing visitors to preferred attraction and service facilities (supply) using trails
(supply) that accommodate visitors’ experiential needs while minimizing adverse
impacts on resources that have been developed in line with PA development objec-
tives. In that event, higher visitor satisfaction could be achieved and sustained while
directing development-associated costs and benefits to desirable places.
STIP can be improved through the inclusion of additional indicators in the zoning
process. The more indicators included in the zoning phase, the more variation in the
output grid weight map, and curvature in the transportation network linkages can be
observed (more interesting from a visitor point of view). However, the inclusion of
additional indicators does not necessarily improve the reliability of the output zones.
This depends, among other factors, on the indicator’s comprehensiveness. Although
indicators that represent a single environmental process or condition can be overlaid
easily, this does not account for the interrelations between the various environmental
processes or conditions. Therefore, to derive more reliable and meaningful carrying-
capacity and visitor opportunity zones, it is suggested rather to define composite
indicators, through conjoint analysis, as an aggregate of environmental processes
and conditions (Haider 2002). A disadvantage of such analysis is that it requires
considerably more effort in data acquisition, because such data are seldom available.
To create, standardize and merge (composite) indicators requires further research.

Recommendations
As shown in Figures 3 and 4, not all transportation network trails are equally sus-
tainable. STIP’s trail networks might be useful in assisting managers to decide, on
a substantial coherence level, which trails to develop and for whom. Optionally, PA
management may impose a ‘quality threshold’ as a constraint to trail development.
That is, the sum of a trail’s experience setting weights is supposed to exceed this
threshold to obtain a satisfying visitor experience. If a trail does not exceed this
threshold, it does not have enough potential to accommodate a segment’s experiential
needs. Similarly, PA management may incorporate a ‘resource impact upper limit’
(or a ‘quality threshold’ in combination with a ‘resource impact upper limit’). If a
trail exceeds this limit, too many resources have been assigned to trail development.
Another possible application of STIP is to test whether or not existing trails possess
an acceptable level of sustainability.
Once the location and layout of future trails have been determined, Intelligent
Agent Systems (i.e. programmed based on the visitor segment profiles derived in STIP
phase 1) may be integrated in GIS to simulate visitor flows and encounters within the
trail network (Itami et al. 2002). Such simulation efforts can provide information on
current and future trail use and PA conditions, so park managers can identify points of
overcrowding, bottlenecks in circulation systems and conflicts between different user
18 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

groups (Itami et al. 2002). Apart from the level of trail sustainability, these insights
might be useful when deciding whether or not to develop a certain trail section.
Other important considerations regarding the implementation of STIP relate to a
destination’s system dynamics (Figure 1). Trails should be developed with an eye on
the future, as changes in demand, supply, external factors, PA management and the
resource base may require quick adaptation to prevailing trends, goals, circumstances
and conditions to remain sustainable in the long run. Making the proposed STIP-
approach adaptable to system changes is another challenge for further research.

References
Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J.P., De Blust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H. & Matthysen, E. (2003)
The application of ’least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 64(4), pp. 233–247.
Bahaire, T. & Elliott-White, M. (1999) The Application of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in
Sustainable Tourism Planning: A Review, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(2), pp. 152–174.
Beedasy, J. & Whyatt, D. (1999) Diverting tourists: a spatial decision-support system for tourism planning
on a developing island, JAG, 1(3/4), pp. 163–174.
Boyd, S.W. & Butler, R.W. (1996) Seeing the forest through the trees: Using GIS to identify potential
ecotourism sites in Northern Ontario, in: L.C. Harrison & W. Husbands (Eds) Practising responsible
tourism: International case studies in tourism planning, policy & development, pp. 380–403 (New
York: J. Wiley & Sons).
Bruehler, G. & Sondergaard, M. (2004) GIS/GPS Trail Condition Inventories: A Virtual Toolbox for Trail
Managers, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ESRI User Conference, 9–13 August (San
Diego, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA).
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas – The state of nature-based tourism
around the world and guidelines for its development (Cambridge, UK: IUCN).
Cohen, E. (1979) A phenomenology of tourist experiences, Journal of the British Sociological Association,
13, pp. 179–201.
Cottrell, S.P., Lengkeek, J. & Marwijk, R. (2005) Typology of recreation experiences: Application in a
Dutch Forest Service visitor monitoring survey, Managing Leisure, 10(1), pp. 54–72.
Culbertson, K., Hershberger, B., Jackson, S., Mullen, S. & Olson, H. (1994) GIS as a tool for regional
planning in mountain regions: Case studies from Canada, Brazil, Japan, and the USA, in: M.F. Price
& D.I. Heywood (Eds) Mountain Environments and GIS, pp. 99–118. (London: Taylor & Francis).
De Vries, S. & Goossen, M. (2002) Modelling recreational visits to forests and nature areas, Urban Forest
Urban Green, 1, pp. 5–14.
Douglas, D.H. (1994) Least-cost Path in GIS Using an Accumulated Cost Surface and Slopelines, Carto-
graphica, 31(3), pp. 37–51.
Dredge, D. (1999) Destination Place Planning and Design, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), pp. 772–791.
Eagles, P. & McCool, S. (2002) Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management
(New York: CABI Publishing).
Elands, B. (2002) De Toerist op het spoor – Onderzoek naar tijd-ruimtelijke samenhang in toeristisch
gedrag als expressie van een zoektocht naar betekenisvolle ervaringen, PhD dissertation, Socio-
spatial Analysis Chairgroup, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Elands, B.H.M. & Lengkeek, J. (2000) Typical Tourists: Research into the theoretical and methodological
foundations of a typology of tourism and recreation experiences (Leiden, NL: Backhuys Publishers).
Environmental Systems Research Institute (2005) ArcGIS Desktop Help, Release 9.1. (Washington, DC).
Fagence, M. (1991) Geographic referencing of Public Policies in Tourism, The Tourist Review, 3, pp. 8–19.
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 19

Fagence, M. (1995) Changing Paradigms of Orthodoxy: The Case of Spatial Models in Tourism Planning.
Les Cahiers du Tourisme (Aix-en-Provence: Centre Des Hautes Etudes Touristiques).
Gunn, C.A. (1972) Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions (Austin, TX: University of Texas).
Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases, 3rd edn (Washington, DC: Taylor &
Francis).
Gunn, C.A. & Var, T. (2002) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases, 4th edn (UK: Routledge).
Hägerstrand, T. (1979) What about people in regional science? European Congress of Regional Science,
24 (Heidelberg, Germany: Regional Science Association).
Haider, W. (2002) Stated Preference & Choice Models – A Versatile Alternative to Traditional Recre-
ation Research, in: Proceedings Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and
Protected Areas, 30 January–2 February (Vienna, Austria: Bodenkultur University).
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1995)Multivariate data analysis: with readings,
4th edn (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall).
Hall, C.M. (2000) Tourism planning: policies, processes and relationships (New York: Prentice Hall).
Hultsman, J., Cottrell, R. L. & Zales-Hultsman, W. (1999) Planning Parks for People (State College,
Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing Company).
Inskeep, E. (1988) Tourism Planning: An Emerging Specialization,Journal of the American Planning
Association, 54, pp. 360–372.
Inskeep, E. (1991) Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach (New York,
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Itami, R., Raulings, R., Maclaren, G., Hirst, K., Gimblett, G., Zanon, D. & Chladek, P. (2002) RBSim
2: Simulating the Complex Interactions between Human Movement and the Outdoor Recreation
Environment, in: Proceedings Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and
Protected Areas, 30 January–2 February (Vienna, Austria: Bodenkultur University).
Johnson, R.A. & Wichern, D.W. (2002) Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 5th edn (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Landres, P., Spildie, D.R. & Queen, L.P. (2001) GIS Applications to wilderness management: Potential
uses and limitations, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-80 (Fort Collins, CO: US Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station).
Lawson, S., Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B. & Budruk, M. (2002) Using Simulation Modeling to
Facilitate Proactive Monitoring and Adaptive Management of Social Carrying Capacity in Arches
National Park, Utah, USA, in: Proceedings Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recre-
ational and Protected Areas, pp. 205–210, January 30–February 2 (Vienna, Austria: Bodenkultur
University).
Lengkeek, J. (2000) Imagination and differences in tourist experience, World Leisure, 3, pp. 11–17.
Lengkeek, J. (2001) Leisure Experience and Imagination: Rethinking Cohen’s Modes of tourist Experience,
International Sociology, 16(2), pp. 173–184.
Lindberg, K. & Hawkins, D.E. (Eds) (1993) Ecotourism – A Guide for Planners and Managers (North
Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society).
Malczewski, J. (1999) GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis (New York, NY: Wiley).
Manning, R.E. (1999) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction (Corvallis: Oregon
State University Press).
McAdam, D. (1999) The Value and Scope of Geographical Information Systems in Tourism Management,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(1), pp. 77–92.
McVetty, D. (2002) Understanding Visitor Flows in Canada’s National Parks: the Patterns of Visitor Use
Study in Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho National Parks, in: Proceedings Monitoring and Management
of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, 30 January–2 February (Vienna, Austria:
Bodenkultur University).
Mowforth, M. & Munt, I. (2003) Tourism and Sustainability: Development and new tourism in the Third
World, 2nd edn (New York: Routledge).
20 B. Boers & S. Cottrell

National Park Service (1997) Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework: A Handbook
for Planners and Managers (Denver, CO: US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Denver’s
Service Center).
Pearce, D. (1995) Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis, 2nd edn (New York, NY: Longman Group
Limited).
Ritsema van Eck, J.R. (1993) Analyse van transportnetwerken in GIS voor sociaal – geografisch onderzoek
(Utrecht, NL: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap).
Selman, P., Davidson, D., Watson, A. & Winterbottom, S. (1991) GIS in rural environmental planning:
Visual and land-use analysis of major development proposals, Town Planning Review, 62(2), pp.
215–223.
Smith, S.L.J. (1995) Tourism Analysis: A Handbook (London: Longman Group Limited).
Starr, M.J., Gratzer, M.A. & Lewis, A.R. (1999) The use of GIS in recreation planning: an application of
spatial analysis to find suitable locations for recreational trails, in: Proceedings of the 1999 Northeast-
ern Recreation Research Symposium, 11–14 April, General Technical Report NC–269, pp. 391–396
(US Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station).
Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management (Wallingford, UK: CAB International).
van der Knaap, W. (1997) The Tourist’s Drives – GIS oriented methods for Analysing Tourist Recreation
Complexes, PhD Dissertation, Center for Recreation & Tourism Studies, Wageningen Agricultural
University, The Netherlands.
Williams, S. (1998) Tourism Geography (London: Routledge).
Wing, M. & Shelby, B. (1999) Using GIS to integrate Information on Forest Recreation, Journal of Forestry,
97(1) pp. 12–16.

Notes on Contributors
Bas Boers is currently employed as a GIS specialist for the Dutch Forest Service
(Staatsbosbeheer), a governmental body that manages nature, landscapes, recreation
and timber production in the Netherlands. He received his MS from Wageningen
University. Bas’ research interests concentrate on tourism planning and monitoring
using GIS.
Stuart P. Cottrell is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resource
Recreation and Tourism at Colorado State University. He is the coordinator of the
Global Tourism concentration. He received his BA from Western Illinois Univer-
sity, MA from Florida International University, and his PhD from the Pennsylvania
State University. Stuart’s areas of research include sustainable tourism development,
ecotourism and environmental behaviour.

Résumé: Planification pour une infrastructure de tourisme durable: Une ap-

proche basée sur les SIG (systèmes d’informations géographiques)
Cet article présente un cadre conceptuel pour la planification d’une infrastructure touristique
durable (STIP dans le texte), basé sur les SIG. Cette infrastructure comprend les attractions, les ser-
vices et les transports. Le cadre conceptuel fondé sur les SIG considère la planification du tourisme
comme une approche qui intègre certains critères de durabilité telles que la croissance économique,
les préférences expérientielles des touristes, les limites de capacité d’accueil et les impacts sur les
ressources. Ces critères permettent à la STIP de déceler, pour la gestion des zones protégées, les lo-
calisations les plus durables et la distribution spatiale de l’infrastructure future. La STIP se déroule
en trois phases: la phase de segmentation des touristes (sans utilisation des SIG), la phase de zoning
 Sustainable Tourism Infrastructure Planning 21

(avec les SIG) et la phase de planification du réseau des transports (avec les SIG). Afin de démontrer
l’intégration des trois phases on a appliqué ce cadre de STIP à la préparation de sentiers de ran-
donnée en utilisant des données (sociales et physiques) de la réserve forestière de Sinharaja, une forêt
tropicale du sud-ouest du Sri Lanka. Cette zone accueille un nombre croissant de touristes. Il faut y
développer plus de sentiers pour réduire la pression sur les ressources actuelles. On a cartographié
des réseaux de sentiers pour touristes qui s’intéressent à la nature et à la culture sur la base de
critères de durabilité qui ont dicté le tracé de sentiers durables à l’intérieur de la réserve.

Mots-clés: Développement durable, tracé de sentiers, SIG, capacités d’accueil, mode d’agir des touristes,
occasions pour les touristes

Zusammenfassung: Planung nachhaltiger Tourismusinfrastruktur: Ein GIS-

gestützter Ansatz
Dieses Beitrag stellt ein konzeptionelles GIS-gestütztes Rahmenwerk der nachhaltigen Planung
touristischer Infrastrukturen (STIP) vor, das Anziehung, Service und Transporteinrichtungen ein-
schließt. Dieses Rahmenwerk konzentriert sich auf Tourismusplanung als ein integrierter Ansatz,
der auf Nachhaltigkeitskriterien beruht. STIP zielt darauf ab, eine Reihe von Nachhaltigkeitskri-
terien (d.h. Entwicklungsziele, Vorlieben der Besuchererfahrung, Tragfähigkeitstandards und Hil-
fsmittelauswirkungen) in der Infrastrukturplanung über GIS zu integrieren. Gegründet auf diesen
Kriterien, liefert STIP Managementeinsichten für Schutzgebiete an den nachhaltigsten Orten und
einen Entwurf der zukünftigen Infrastruktur. STIP besteht dabei aus drei Phasen: Phase der Be-
suchersegmentation (nicht GIS-gestützt), Phase der Zonenaufteilung (GIS-gestützt) und die Trans-
portnetzplanung Phase (GIS-gestützt). Um die Integration dieser Phasen zu zeigen, wurde STIP
demonstrativ auf die Trailplanung von (sozialen und physischen) Daten des Sinharaja Forest Re-
serve, eines tropisches Regenwaldes in der südwestlichen Regenzone von Sri Lanka angewendet.
Dieser Bereich erfährt eine erhöhte Besuchernachfrage und erfordert zusätzliche Trailentwicklung,
um den Ressourcenstress abzuschwächen. Natürliche und kulturelle touristische Möglichkeiten für
Trailnetzwerke wurden kartiert auf der Grundlage von Nachhaltigkeitskriterien, die Richtlinien für
ein nachhaltiges Trailmanagement des Schutzgebiets zur Verfügung stellen.

Stichwörter: Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Trailplanung, GIS, Tragfähigkeiten, Besucherverhalten, Be-

suchergelegenheiten