Journal of Environmental Management (1999) 56, 271–284
Article No. jema.1999.0285, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
A management planning framework
based on ecological, perceptual and
economic carrying capacity: The case
study of Vikos-Aoos National Park,
Greece
K. Papageorgiou†∗ and I. Brotherton‡
Introduction
Recreation is claimed to be an essential com-
ponent of life (Seabrooke and Miles, 1993).
Today there are large numbers of people using
the countryside and natural resources for
their recreation, often congregating in re-
stricted spots causing pressure on the natural
resources. Moreover, the demand for new nat-
ural unspoiled areas has diverted tourism to
search for new tourist products and des-
tinations which inevitably include nature re-
serves. National parks have always been
exploited as recreational and tourist at-
tractions. In 1872 Yellowstone Park was foun-
ded for the enjoyment of the people (Packard,
1972). The IV World Congress on National
Parks and Protected Areas, clearly accepted
and recognized the value of tourism as a
use of national parks, provided that it was
environmentally and culturally compatible
with the maintenance of ecological integrity
(McNeely, 1994). In this respect, parks can
play a central role in the social and economic
development of rural environments. In re-
cognition of its importance to resident com-
munities, the Congress set out guiding
principles which should be followed if the
benefits are to be maximized and the prob-
lems minimized (Phillips, 1992).
Park planners are confronted with the prac-
tical difficulty in balancing preservation and
use to ascertain the appropriate levels of re-
creational use that can be sustained by the
0301–4797/99/080271+14 $30.00/0
environmental resources of the area. Im-
plementing the sustainability concept, en-
vironmental values should not be used up
faster than they are produced. The capability
of the resource base to continue to provide for
recreational use is generally viewed through
the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying cap-
acity can be distinguished into ecological car-
rying capacity, defined as the maximum level
of recreational use in terms of numbers and
activities that can be accommodated by an
area or an ecosystem before an unacceptable or
irreversible decline in ecological values occurs
(Pigram, 1983); and perceptual carrying cap-
acity, defined as the level of recreational use
which maximizes aggregate satisfaction to in-
dividuals (Brotherton, 1973). Moreover, an
economic aspect of carrying capacity is re-
cognized as the level of use of a site or facility
that is required to yield a given financial re-
turn (Patmore, 1983). Yet, carrying capacity
remains a highly elusive concept and its im-
∗ Corresponding author
plementation is linked with the practical prob-
lems involved in measuring it. These concerns Department of Landscape,
led Hayden (1975) to conclude that the concept Arts Tower. The University,
Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
is deficient in theory, unrealistic in im- † Present address:
plementation and impossible to measure. Agriculture Research
Station of Ioannina,
Stankey (1982) notes the absence of absolute E. Antistasis 1, 45500,
measurable conditions for defining perceptual Katsikas, Ioannina, Greece
capacity. Similarly, Manning et al. (1996) note ‡ Present address:
Moor Ghyll, West
that efforts to determine and apply the concept Scrafton, Leyburn, North
of perceptual carrying capacity to areas such Yorkshire, DL8 4RT, UK
as the national parks have remained prob-
Received 6 November
lematic. Recognizing the limitations of car- 1998; accepted 22 June
rying capacity models, Stankey et al. (1985) 1999
 1999 Academic Press
272 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton
and Roggenbuck et al. (1993) developed a plan-
ning approach which identified and monitored
a small number of wilderness quality in-
dicators that best provide for wilderness ex-
perience.
Despite these severe limitations, carrying
capacity remains a useful concept for en-
vironmental management, especially in pro-
viding insights about the interaction of
human activities with the environment. In a
recreational context, central to all definitions
of carrying capacity is the idea of main-
tenance of the integrity of the resource base
and the provision of a high-quality recreation
experience to users (Sowman, 1987). There
is a substantial literature on resource man-
agement, based on carrying capacity, in a
broad array of settings, from natural areas
(Lime and Stankey, 1979; Wang, 1996) to
heritage cities (Glasson et al., 1994). Hutman
(1978) noted that a carrying capacity ex-
pression can be integrated with a range of
social and economic indicators to achieve an
optimal solution whereby the environment
remains intact for sustained output.
The significance of nature reserves on local
economies calls for re-orientation of park ad-
ministration strategies focusing on economic
variables as integral parts of management
plans. Incorporating ecological and per-
ceptual capacities with economic capacity (to
meet the needs of local communities) to for-
mulate a management strategy has not been
undertaken before in the context of national
parks. It has however found application in a
number of marine and coastal park studies,
where carrying capacity has been used to
indicate utilization limits that provide be-
nefits to locals and protect the resource base
(Clark, 1991; Dixon et al., 1993), and in an
urban context, where optimal levels of use
take into account the distribution of benefits
and costs to resident populations (Canestrelli
and Costa, 1991).
The relationship between recreational use,
nature conservation and local economy re-
mains exceedingly complex in a national park
context. This article argues that planning
and development in national parks can be
regulated by a recreational carrying capacity
framework, in such a way as to provide for
the economic needs of the resident com-
munities, the quality of the visitor experience
and to ensure the perpetuation of natural
values. It seeks to provide a theoretical plan-
ning framework for national parks where
the level of use will be determined by the
thresholds or tolerance levels of the carrying
capacities. In other words, the founding
underlying concept in the planning frame-
work is to achieve balance between local de-
velopment, visitor quality and conservation.
The model aims to approximate the ap-
propriate use levels in a national park and
direct management strategies accordingly.
This study represents an initial effort to as-
sess current perceptual carrying capacity
across the Vikos-Aoos National Park and re-
cord its potential impacts. Some preliminary
estimates of ecological and economic capacity
are drawn, based mainly on literature sources
and in-field observation, which combined
with the study’s recreational findings can pro-
duce an overall assessment of the Park’s re-
creational carrying capacity. Furthermore, an
insight on visitor use and characteristics
could provide some valuable information on
selecting quality indicators of the resource
base and recreational experience in an at-
tempt to safeguard the quality of the resource
base, visitor experience and local interests in
a long-term perspective. Finally, the findings
can be used for reviewing the current master
plans and guidelines set for planning and
management in other Greek parks.
Carrying capacity as a guide
for planning
It has become clear in the IV World Congress
on National Parks and Protected Areas that
rather than selecting the extreme of strict
preservation, balanced use of the natural re-
sources in National Parks is central to their
sustainable management. Sustainable use in
return, is directly associated with the level
of use in a Park and maintaining high or
low use levels can cause negative or positive
effects on nature conservation and economic
gain. For example, high levels of use across
a Park could lead to serious habitat de-
gradation, disturbing animal populations or
impairing their viability or basic biological
functions. Likewise, as solitude remains an
important quality of the recreational ex-
perience of park users, high use levels could
 A management planning framework 273

cause crowding problems thus reducing vis- (a)

Aggregate satisfaction
itor enjoyment. Contrary to nature resource
requirements and visitors experience how-
ever, the economic development of the local
communities is associated with increased
levels of use. The contradictory nature of
these inter-relationships highlights the dif-
ficult task that managers face in popular
parks. Furthermore, the nature of the re- Up
lationships may be more complex such as Level of use
for example, resource deterioration leads to
fewer visitors leading to reduced economic (b)

Resource deterioration
returns.
Based on the above requirements the de-
velopment of a National Park should then be
managed according to standards combining
knowledge based upon visitors perceptual
capacity, ecological capacity and on the eco-
nomic benefits to locals. In other words, the
recreational carrying capacity is influenced Ue
by the visitors characteristics, the resource Level of use
setting and the level of socio-economic welfare
that locals anticipate. It combines therefore Figure 1. Carrying capacity thresholds in theory, (a)
not only a biological and recreationl com- perceptual (source: Brotherton, 1973), (b) ecological.
ponent but also an economic one. A planning
framework utilizing the appropriate re-
creational carrying capacity of a National (a)
Aggregate satisfaction/
resource deterioration

Park should determine the optimal level of

use to ascertain satisfactory economic returns
for the resident populations provided that, at
this level of use, neither the ecological nor
the perceptual capacity is impaired. With
good management there is a maximum level
of use that is sustainable, both ecologically
and economically since excessive use will lead Ue Up
to Park degradation and ultimately to a de- Level of use
crease in visitors. A diagrammatic rep-
resentation of the theoretical planning (b)
Aggregate satisfaction/
resource deterioration

framework is given in Figures 1–3.

The inter-relationship between level of use
and perceptual and ecological capacity is
likely to follow the curves plotted in Figure
1(a) and 1(b), respectively. Figure 1(a) il-
lustrates that the aggregate visitor sat-
isfaction derived from the National Park is
likely to show a positive slope at low levels
Up Ue
of use but a negative slope at high levels as Level of use
further increases in use fail to offset the
consequential loss of average satisfaction Figure 2. Setting a level of use according to the
(Brotherton, 1973). Thus, the level of use capacity which is first exceeded, (a) ecological
which maximizes the aggregate enjoyment is capacity limiting, (b) perceptual capacity limiting.
defined as the perceptual capacity of the park
[point Up in Figure 1(a)]. Similarly, in Figure
1(b), visitors impinge upon the resource base be plotted against level of use. Increasing
and deterioration in this attribute can then levels of use have an increasingly damaging
274 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton
(a)
Y before any decline in the enjoyment product
Rp
Rr
Ur Up Ue
Level of use
Y = aggregate satisfaction, resource deterioration
and economic benefits
(b)
Y
Rr
Up Ur Ue Up 1
Level of use
Y = aggregate satisfaction, resource deterioration
and economic benefits
Figure 3. Combining ecological and perceptual
capacity with economic criteria when (a) economic
level of use occurs before the perceptual and (b)
economic level of use occurs above the perceptual.
effect. The level of use that causes un-
acceptable damage sets the ecological cap-
acity of the specific site [point Ue in Figure
1(b)].
The perceptual and ecological curves are
plotted together in Figure 2(a) and 2(b). The
maximum use of the Park should be main-
tained at the level at which neither the eco-
logical nor the perceptual capacity is
exceeded, that is Ue in Figure 2(a), which
shows ecological capacity exceeded before
perceptual capacity, and Up in Figure 2(b),
which shows perceptual capacity exceeded
before ecological capacity.
The economic repercussion that this level of
use has to residents adds another component,
which might affect the Park’s management
regime. Supposing the total income follows a
linear increase with visitor numbers (as
shown in Figure 3). In Figure 3(a), the desired
economic benefits accruing to locals (shown
as Rr) are achieved at the Ur level of use
or the ecological status (points Up and Ue,
respectively). Expansion of use can further
occur up to the point at which the limiting
capacity is exceeded [being the perceptual
capacity at point Up in Figure 3(a)]. At that
point the economic benefits accruing to locals
are increased to Rp, that is to those that
result from use level Up.
Conversely, a different management re-
gime must be developed when the level of use
associated with minimum acceptable eco-
nomic returns [point Ur in Figure 3(b)] ex-
ceeds either the ecological or perceptual
capacity [as in Figure 3(b) which shows
Ur>Up]. The income differential resulting
from limiting use at level Up as against Ur
then represents the income foregone by locals
as a result of managing the Park within
capacity constraints. If this is the case, the
Park Authority may need to develop com-
pensatory financial schemes to affected locals
so that minimum acceptable economic re-
turns are secured. Alternatively, man-
agement actions may be pursued to increase
the perceptual capacity Up to at least the
economically critical use level Ur or above as
shown in Figure 3(b) (new perceptual cap-
acity use level Up1>Ue). With this Ue be-
comes the new threshold so that returns
greater than Rr can be secured. Spreading
visitors, by for example designing new foot-
paths, providing new attractions, through in-
formation or increasing the park size, may
all be used to affect both perceptual and
ecological capacity. These measures do not
increase the tolerance of the system, rather
they help to distribute the use more widely
across the park and to divert it from par-
ticularly valuable and vulnerable areas.
National Parks in Greece
The 10 National Parks of Greece were des-
ignated over an extended period of time be-
tween 1938 and 1974. They cover an area
of 74 403 ha or 21·3% of the total statutory
protected area but only 0·56% of the total land
area of Greece, a particularly small figure by
international standards. All Parks are loc-
ated in mountainous areas where some of the
last remnants of Greek wilderness can be

found. In most cases, Greek Parks are char-
acterized by an absence of communities
within or in close distance to the Park’s bor-
ders. National Park is one of the three cat-
egories under statutory protection by the Law
996/1971 passed in 1971 which remains,
largely unchanged, in use today. The founding
law defined two zones for each park: the core
to provide strict protection to valuable and
sensitive natural ecosystems; and the peri-
phery, of greater than or at least equal size
to the core. The periphery enables the de-
velopment of the resource base and land use
to be organized so as to aid fulfilment of the
aims for which the core of the park was
created (Kassioumis, 1990). National Parks
today, though primarily set aside for con-
servation interests are being increasingly fur-
nished with recreational facilities and it is
amongst the duties of the park authorities to
provide for public enjoyment (Government
Gazette, 1971). A special park authority
solely responsible for their management does
not exist in Greece and the main authority
charged with the responsibility for nature
conservation and administration of National
Parks is the Forest Service through its Forest
District offices. Scarce funding, insufficient
staff, often inadequately trained in park man-
agement, and lack of a special independent
administrative body are bottlenecks in effect-
ive protection of Greek nature (ICPMP, 1989).
Despite administration barriers, it is the re-
moteness of Greek Parks that has sig-
nificantly restricted the development of acute
pressures and site impacts and has preserved
the natural values. Parks contain ecologically
sensitive areas and a magnitude of
threatened and rare flora and fauna. Illegal
hunting, logging and grazing still occur in
most Parks and today, along with tourist
pressures, constitute some of the major
threats to their ecological integrity.
The survey area
Vikos-Aoos National Park was designated in
1973 and is situated in the northern Pindos
mountain range in the north-west of Greece
(Figure 4). The Park is predominantly state
owned and covers 15 637 ha of which 3412 ha
form the core. The Park extends over spec-
tacular mountainous scenery of broad-leaved
A management planning framework 275
and evergreen mixed forests dominated by
oak, beech and firs mingled with alpine pas-
ture lands at higher elevations. The altitude
ranges from 800 to 2497 m. The natural eco-
system of the Park is highly valued, and rich
in terms of large mammal species. It is one
of the last European strongholds of the brown
bear (Ursus arctos) (Duffey, 1982). There are
also indications for the presence of lynx
(Lynxs lynxs) though the populations are not
exclusive to the Park but extend to the Pindos
massif (Kassioumis, 1987). In common with
other Parks in Greece, its protective status
has caused pressures and developed conflicts
which the current management has failed
to contain successfully (Kassioumis, 1994).
Some illegal hunting, grazing and logging
still occurs in Vikos-Aoos, but now constitutes
a lesser threat than it used to in the past. As
a result of organizational and institutional
difficulties, and limited funding, man-
agement practices have focused only on set-
ting up prohibitive measures and furnishing
the Park with limited recreational facilities.
Consequently, the Park Authority’s powers,
although wide and extensive in law, are in
practice limited solely to the enforcement of
the Park’s regulations and not always with
great success.
A number of small villages are found in
close distance to the Park, with four being
located within the periphery (Figure 4),
whose economies are directly or indirectly
dependent on and impinge on the Park’s bio-
logical systems and resources. With massive
urbanization elsewhere in Greece, especially
in the 1970s and 1980s, out-migration has
diminished the local populations, leading to
a considerable shrinkage of rural economies.
The ongoing traditional pressures such as
grazing and logging are in decline as a result
of these demographic and socio-economic
transformations whereas those induced by
tourism activity increasingly impact upon the
natural systems. The easy accessibility to the
Park, through the existing road network, of
the villages of Aristi, Mikro Papigo, Megalo
Papigo and Monodendri has significantly re-
orientated their local economies in becoming
increasingly tourism dependent. The tra-
ditional local architecture and rich cultural
heritage interact with the surrounding land-
scape creating a cultural landscape which
has long been valued for its biophysical and
cultural qualities. As a result Vikos-Aoos
276 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton
Konitsa
Megalo Papigo
Mikro Papigo
Vo
ulo
m
at
is
riv
Aristi
Monodendri
Periphery
Core
Village Vista
Monastery
Figure 4. Vikos-Aoos National Park.
Park has been subject to growing visitor pres-
sure. Visitors have been estimated at 91 000
in 1994 but this is likely to be an under-
estimate and the figure probably exceeds
100 000 (Papageorgiou, 1996). Most use
occurs during summer, Christmas, Easter
and public holiday. Similarly, tourism in-
frastructure has been developing over the
years and hotel rooms mushroom at a rate
proportional to visitor increase. Ap-
proximately one-quarter of all visitors stay
overnight in the four villages within the peri-
phery, the remaining two-thirds are day trip-
pers travelling distances of up to 120 km
(round trip) to visit the Park. Visitors can
find in the area an extensive trail network
and a few recreational facilities. These last
include a number of family run hotels, res-
taurants, art and craft and coffee shops, mak-
ing the tourist industry the economic
mainstay for these communities.
A wealth of rare species and a plethora of
natural habitats and ecosystems puts Vikos-
Aoos amongst the most valuable Greek parks
for nature conservation. However, it is the
remarkable cultural element, the product of
villages in close vicinity to the Park’s bound-
aries (in contrast to other Parks), along with
the tourist potential, that distinguishes
Vikos-Aoos from all other parks. The theme of
Aoos river
Drakolimni Lake
Vikos Aoos Park
er
Tsepelovo
Agia Paraskeui
Koukouli
Kipi
this study is to explore the inter-relationships
between local interest, conservation and re-
creation and in particular, ways to enhance
the socio-economic welfare of locals and pre-
serve the natural qualities. The above inter-
relationships are apparent in the project area
which also shows a potential for recreation
development and can be used as reference
for the planning and management of other
National Parks in Greece.
Research methods
Due to the site-oriented nature of the study,
analysis of responses is only meaningful if
respondents have experienced at least one
visit to the Vikos-Aoos Park. To estimate the
perceptual carrying capacity and to acquire
the pertinent information to formulate a man-
agement strategy, a systematic survey was
undertaken in the summer of 1993 at two
park locations. Due to the limited road access,
the two selected locations are essentially the
starting points for almost all visitor activities
(active or passive) occurring in the Park.
Summer was regarded as the most ap-
propriate survey time so that a reflection of
maximum visitor pressure can be obtained.

To gain greater insight, three visitor clusters
were discerned according to nationality and
distance travelled to reach the Park. They
are: foreigners; local Greeks, including all
those who reside within 60 km distance from
the park; and non-local Greeks who originate
from the rest of the country. Differences be-
tween groups were identified and different
attitudes and preferences were established.
An effort was made for the three target groups
to be of equal size, 170 each. However, the
paucity of local Greek visitors during the
survey period precluded this. A data set of
461 questionnaires, including 173 foreigners,
195 non-local Greeks and 93 local Greeks, was
eventually collected and used in the analysis.
In both entry spots, every fifth visitor leav-
ing the survey location was approached, a
short account of the survey scope was given
and willingness to fill in a questionnaire was
requested. This sampling strategy ensured
representation and helped reduce bias in the
sample. When a visitor’s consent to par-
ticipate was obtained, a questionnaire was
handed to the respondent to record basic
visitor use and user characteristics as well
as the participation in various types of leisure
activities. Questionnaires were handed back
in collection boxes placed at restaurants, cof-
fee shops and parking lots. To assess crowd-
ing, respondents were asked to give a
qualitative measure of the discomfort caused
by encounters with others across the Park
in a closed format question with answers
ranging from ‘too few’, ‘about right’ to ‘too
many’. Similar information concerning the
level of use of the recreational facilities, rest-
ing areas and parking lots were requested.
Responses to two open-ended questions to
elicit visitors’ likes and dislikes about their
visit to the Park, helped to identify quality
indicators of visitors’ recreational experience
and revealed some major areas of concern.
The research in this respect was qualitative
in nature and provided only preliminary in-
formation to help select potential indicator
variables. A weakness attached to this ap-
proach relates to the difficulty in establishing
justifiable standards based solely upon this
kind of information since there is not always
substantial agreement among visitors re-
garding pleasant or unpleasant attributes
and further research is required in this field.
Only a small number of refusals to par-
ticipate in the study were recorded, and the
A management planning framework 277
response rate to the self-administered ques-
tionnaire was generally high: 74·7%. Foreign
visitors made up 37·5%. Greek non-local vis-
itors accounted for 42·3% and Greek local
visitors represented 20·1% of the total
sample.
Application of the planning
framework in Vikos-Aoos Park
Assessing perceptual capacity
Regarding the visitors’ recreational util-
ization of the Park, knowledge is required of
the relative significance of the activities that
visitors undertake. A breakdown of the vis-
itors’ reported activities in Table 1 reveals
passive activities such as walking, admiring
the view, photography and observing flora
and fauna to be the most undertaken in every
visitor group (foreigners 55%, non-local
Greeks 58%, local Greeks 61%). A group of
activities, ranked second, relating to visiting
villages adjacent to the Park and mon-
asteries, museums and restaurants or coffee
shops is characterized by built and cultural
elements (foreigners 35%, non-local Greeks
40%, local Greeks 35%). Finally, the least
popular group of activities that visitors ex-
perienced in Vikos-Aoos includes ‘active’ or
specialized activities requiring some special
equipment such as climbing, camping and
canoeing, and are related to a setting char-
acterized by modified access and visitor facil-
ities (foreigners 9%, non-local Greeks 2%,
local Greeks 4%). In most activities, some
variation between visitor groups is apparent
but this is not statistically significant unless
shown in Table I.
All types of activities are likely to be affected
by crowding. Results in Table 2 indicate no
consensus with regard to visitors’ perception
of crowding level. Eighty-four percent of
foreigners perceived the number of other vis-
itors to be about right as against 61% of local
Greeks and only 49% of non-local Greeks. Sim-
ilarly, a substantially higher proportion of
Greek visitors (particularly non-local Greeks)
felt that the number of visitors was too small
during their visit. The differences amongst the
three visitor groups are statistically sig-
nificant (x2=80·33; P=0·0001). Table 2 shows
that the balance between those who think
278 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton

Table 1. Visitors’ activities in Vikos-Aoos

Foreigners Non-local Greeks Local Greeks

Potential group size 173 195 93

Sample size 167 97% 188 96% 92 99%
Reported answers 1055 1132 491

Walking 157 94% 172 91% 83 90%

Picnicking 38 23% 33 18% 17 18%
Observing flora and fauna∗ 92 55% 153 81% 70 76%
Looking at the view 149 89% 156 83% 76 83%
Photography∗ 146 87% 141 75% 51 55%
Total passive 582 55% 655 58% 297 61%

Visit monastery 108 65% 104 55% 52 57%

Visit villages∗ 130 78% 141 75% 50 54%
Visit dragonlake 13 8% 18 10% 10 11%
Eating/drinking in a restaurant 121 72% 126 67% 55 60%
Visit museums 0 0% 58 31% 4 4%
Total visiting 372 35% 447 40% 171 35%

Camping 36 22% 0 0% 0 0%
Sports 5 6% 4 2% 6 7%
Climbing, hill walking∗ 51 5% 19 10% 15 16%
Total active/specialized 92 9% 23 2% 21 4%

Other activities 9 5% 7 4% 2 2%
NB: asterisk indicates significant difference between groups at the 5% level.

Table 2. Congestion level in Vikos-Aoos Park

Foreigners Non-local Greeks Local Greeks

Potential group size 173 195 93

Sample size 157 91% 185 95% 88 95%
Too few 13 8% 91 49% 22 25%
About right 132 84% 91 49% 54 61%
Too many 12 8% 3 2% 12 14%

Total 157 100% 185 100% 88 100%

Too many/too few ratio 1:1 1:30 1:1,8

there are too many visitors present and those
who think there are too few is 1:1 for for-
eigners, 1:2 for local Greeks and 1:30 for non-
local Greeks. Foreigners therefore appear
more sensitive to crowding than do Greeks. As
use levels increase in Vikos-Aoos, perceptual
capacity may be reached first for foreigners,
second for local Greeks and third for non-local
Greeks. Different reasons can explain the dif-
ference in the perception of crowding for each
group. A study on visitors motives to visit the
Park suggests that foreigners are more wil-
derness oriented, seeking mainly nature con-
tact (Papageorgiou, 1996). Thus, they may be
less tolerant than those in the other two groups
and increasing use levels may affect adversely
their wilderness experience. The fact that ad-
ditional visitors will bring problems, as well
as benefits, seems to be the main concern for
local Greeks. The fact that 67% of non-local
Greeks originate from Athens and Salonica
(Papageorgiou, 1996), the two biggest urban
centres in Greece, could be an explanation for
the higher tolerance that this group showed
for other visitors, probably because they are
used to, and are more comfortable in, rel-
atively crowded environments.
A practical question that Park planners
face that emerges from the visitor groups’
perception of crowding, relates to which

groups should set the Park’s perceptual car-
rying capacity. Setting a carrying capacity in
Vikos-Aoos for the whole visitor population
posses some practical difficulties of how to
calculate the average capacity for all groups
and it might suggest a level of use that will
be higher than the one that foreigners per-
ceive to be appropriate. This conclusion is
reached from the balance ratios in Table 2
since, as a first approximation, aggregate sat-
isfaction is maximized when the ratio be-
tween too many and too few is 1. Thus, as
Table 2 shows the perceptual capacity has
now then reached for foreigners whereas the
satisfaction of Greek groups (particularly
Greek non-locals) may be increased with more
visitors.
Assessing ecological and economic
capacity
This section of the carrying capacity assess-
ment is concerned with the magnitude of the
impacts on the Park’s biological systems and
flora and fauna (such as soil compaction, de-
struction of vegetation and animal dis-
turbance) by virtue of recreational activities
and increasing number of visitors. No long-
term monitoring has been conducted to give
a quantitative measure of potential habitat
degradation or fauna loss as a result of visitor
pressure and this adds a limitation in as-
sessing the current status accurately. Al-
ternatively, Katsadorakis (1985), has
questioned the viability of large mammals in
the Park, suggesting that their populations
are under constant threat as a result of in-
sufficient protection but have failed to provide
concrete numerical data. Specifically, the
populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf
(Canis lupus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) ex-
tend outside the Park boundaries, one bird
species has stopped reproducing and four
others make only rare appearances. Yet,
knowledge of the potential impact of spe-
cialized activities on flora and fauna is hardly
explicit and conclusive in those literature
sources. They allow only a sketchy ap-
proximation of the condition of the natural
systems of the Park with regard to visitors.
In general, neither literature sources, nor the
state of the vegetation alongside the most
A management planning framework 279
popular paths, suggest any noticeable pres-
sure on the natural systems induced by vis-
itors. Considered in this manner, the current
use appears not to be seriously damaging to
the natural systems. A further complication
however, is that some ecosystems react slowly
to recreational pressure and changes may
manifest themselves at a later stage.
Vikos-Aoos National Park is the des-
tination of a relatively large number of vis-
itors (compared to visitation rates in other
Greek Parks) who set off from nearby tourist
destinations or hotel accommodation located
in villages in the vicinity to the Park. Visitor
arrivals had grown to 91 000 in 1994 with
a quarter of visitors staying overnight. A
recorded increase in hotel units and available
beds ranks the area amongst those with the
highest tourist potential in the province
(GNTO, 1995). However, tourism does not
account for the whole economic base of the
communities around the Park. Revenues
from the tourist industry accrue only to the
tourist-dependent villages (Monodendri, Me-
galo Papigo, Mikro Papigo, Aristi and Vitsa,
see Figure 4). Yet, tourism imposes a cost to
non-tourism dependent populations relating
to their quality of life, as a result of growing
tourism pressure. An assessment of the eco-
nomic welfare of locals may be made by com-
paring their economic benefits with those of
the rest of the province. Monthly average
income enables a preliminary comparison.
The average monthly income of the four com-
munities located within the periphery of the
Park amounts to 98 790 Grd ($326), (GNHM,
1992, corrected for 1993). The equivalent in-
come for the province is 248 630 GRD ($821),
(GNHM, 1992, corrected for 1993) or 2·5 times
higher. Current levels of Park use have, pro-
duced economic returns below the provincial
equivalent. However, as noted above, not all
the resident populations in the nearby com-
munities get their income from tourism ac-
tivities and average income has failed to show
the benefits in each population subgroup.
In summary, it can be inferred from the
above the current use approximates per-
ceptual carrying capacity for the foreign
group, approaches it for the local Greeks but
is substantially below it for the non-local
Greeks. Impacts on biological systems appear
not to be unduly damaging. The economic
criteria for tourism-dependent communities
are not satisfied. Graphically, the current use
280 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton
levels lie below the perceptual threshold Up
in Figure 3(a) and also below the desired
economic benefits (Rr).
Monitoring carrying capacity
Maintaining high-quality
recreational experience
A carrying capacity based management strat-
egy in a National Park can ensure the natural
quality but it cannot ensure a high-quality
recreational product. The quality of the re-
creational experience in Vikos-Aoos is a func-
tion of crowding or of the number of
encounters and the quality of the recreational
setting. Since current levels of use fall below
the perceptual capacity, attention is turned
to the quality of elements of the resource
base. Manning et al. (1996) identified in-
dicators and standards of quality that can
define the visitor experience and determine
the carrying capacity through a monitoring
programme of these indicators. Stankey et al.
(1985) developed a planning framework based
on monitoring a small number of indicators
that specify an acceptable level of naturalness
and the quality of the experience.
Positive visitor comments about Vikos-Aoos
Park form the bottom line for suggesting
some indicator variables to be developed and
monitored to ensure that quality is not dimin-
ished through damage to natural features or
through facility development that detracts
from the features’ appreciation. Findings in
Table 3 suggest that the most frequently
offered comment was that visitors enjoyed
and appreciated the Parks scenic beauty,
views and landscape (foreigners 60%, non-
local Greeks 54%, local Greeks 61%). Re-
sponses were also focused on the beauty of
the cultural environment and building ar-
chitecture. Some responses expressed an ap-
preciation for natural features and lastly, few
responses highlighted some spiritual values
found in a National Park.
On the other hand, considerable visitor
concern was focused on a variety of issues
which were grouped into facility provision
and improvements, inadequate management
and level of development of the Park. Detailed
examination of responses suggests broad
agreement, particularly between foreigner
and non-local Greek, groups (foreigners 68%;
non-local Greeks 64%; local Greeks 52%) that
the most influential indicators in decreasing
wilderness quality and recreational en-
joyment were the amount of litter along the
footpaths and inadequate or poorly main-
tained road network and information signs.
(Table 4). Feelings of pride of local Greeks,
for the Park, may have caused fewer negative
comments and this likely explains the lower
percentage recorded. Conversely, en-
couraging more visitors and building more
shops in the Park area have attracted only a
small portion of respondents (foreigners 6%;
non-local Greeks 9%; local Greeks 4%).
A national park planning system relies on
keeping its natural and cultural values con-
stantly at a high-quality level and ma-
nagerially this is feasible by identifying
quality indicators and monitoring them (Rog-
genbuck et al., 1993). In the Vikos-Aoos study
the views of Park users recorded as negative
or positive comments about the park (Tables
3, 4), are critically important in this respect.
Since nature and build environment are the
Parks main attractions the best indicators are
those that reflect the degree of naturalness of
the Park (natural beauty, landscape, wild
nature), preserve the quality of the build
environment (villages, local architecture) as
well as those related to recreational facilities
(information, road network, rubbish). Vis-
itors’ positive comments suggest that Park
users are primarily concerned with the qual-
ity of the natural resource and to a lesser
extent by the cultural and architectural ele-
ments. However, all indicators as grouped in
Tables 3 and 4 are significant in a managerial
context and cannot be distinguished from
those ranked first. Monitoring these in-
dicators and the level of satisfaction through
social gathering techniques (visitor ques-
tionnaire, personal interviews, etc.) can help
to maintain and improve the quality of the
park to high standards. Some of the indicators
rated as less important might be incorporated
in other top ranked indicators. This could be
done for comments associated with lack of
management and those which ask for im-
proved facilities. Where as, however, man-
agers can practically preserve and improve
the cultural aspect, most of the indicators
assigned to the natural environment are
largely beyond the manager’s control. Thus,
manipulation of visitors through information,
 A management planning framework 281

Table 3. Visitors’ positive comments about the Park

Foreigners Non-local Greeks Local Greeks

Number of comments 273 228 117

Related to natural environment 143 (60%) 122 (54%) 71 (61%)

Nature/natural beauty 34 63 29
Wild nature 9 22 12
View 25 13 13
Landscape/scenery 68 13 10
Flora and fauna 7 11 7

Related to natural features 15 (6%) 48 (21%) 25 (21%)

Gorge 9 28 14
River 1 12 4
Forest — 3 1
Cliffs 4 3 2
Dragon lake 1 2 4

Related to cultural elements 54 (23%) 48 (21%) 18 (15%)

Villages 36 25 8
Architecture 2 10 3
People 5 4 1
Traditional character — 3 4
Bridges 3 —
Footpaths/pathways 3 2 1
Monastery 8 2 1

Related to national park 25 (11%) 10 (4%) 3 (3%)

Silence 13 6 3
Feeling of freedom — 1 —
Altitude — 1 —
National park 12 1 —
Doing different activities — 1 —

Table 4. Visitors’ negative comments about the Park

Foreigners Non-local Greeks Local Greeks

Number of comments 66 116 46

Related to greater provision and 45 (68%) 74 (64%) 24 (52%)

improvement of facilities
Too much rubbish 20 21 15
Bad road network 5 20 2
No information/signs/maps 11 18 3
Too few facilities 9 15 4

Related to lack of management 10 (15%) 26 (22%) 17 (37%)

State is absent 1 10
No wardens 2 4 1
Too many vehicles in the village 3 3 1
Too many visitors 4 2 4
Poor patrolling — 7 11

Related to greater development 4 (6%) 10 (9%) 2 (4%)

More shops in villages and more visitors 4 10 2
should be encouraged

Related to careful development 7 (11%) 6 (5%) 3 (7%)

Unsympathetic development 7 6 3
282 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton
control over the number of users of paths and
litter collection constitute ways of main-
taining high standards of visitor recreational
experience. Hence, long-term monitoring of
visitors’ appreciation of the natural and cul-
tural beauty through questionnaires could in
addition to consideration of crowding provide
information for satisfactory recreational en-
joyment. Yet, measuring the average income
of locals provides an assessment of the re-
percussion of the planning system to the local
communities in an economic context. Once
these indicators have been selected, man-
agers must decide upon the thresholds of
change or acceptable decline, if any, in each
indicator. This decision remains largely a
value judgment but is crucial in setting man-
agement guidelines.
Management implications and
conclusions
The rationale for developing a planning
framework based on the concepts of eco-
logical, perceptual and economic carrying
capacity is appropriate in a national park
context where management should consider
the resource base, not only for nature con-
servation or as recreational commodity, but
also as source of income for the local res-
idents. Vikos-Aoos National Park illustrates
the difficult trade-offs in combining satis-
factory economic goals to resident com-
munities without jeopardizing the natural
environment and whilst maintaining a high
quality of visitor experience.
The application of the planning framework
to Vikos-Aoos Park represents a first attempt
to account for the sociological aspect of Park
management. The current use seems to be
below any noticeable disruption to flora and
fauna, only marginally below the critical level
in relation to foreign visitors’ perception of
crowding but far from meeting the economic
aspirations of locals. Yet, though the economic
regeneration of the area, due to the Park
creation, is undisputed, especially for the
communities within the periphery, average
income within the Park still falls behind the
provincial equivalent. Data from the Vikos-
Aoos Park suggest that the current use of the
Park lies below Ur in Figure 3(a) so that
encouragement of further use is desirable.
Tracing the relative impact of use levels on
carrying capacities could also help review
management alternatives to reduce crowding
pressure (particularly as current use ap-
proximates perceptual capacity for the for-
eigner if not the Greek visitor groups) and
allow an increase of use to point higher than
Ur in Figure 3(a) (see page 274). The critical
satisfaction thresholds that foreigners ex-
perience today could be alleviated if man-
agers employ techniques targeting the
development of a more effective zoning of
the wilderness. Developing more extensive
footpaths to previously less accessible areas
to reduce pressure in the heavily used ones
and building education and information ser-
vices away from sensitive spots could spread
out visitor pressure across the Park allowing
an increase in the overall number of users
up to a level where economic targets are
fulfiled. Similarly, provision of basic facilities
such as litter bins, improved management,
greater presence of guards and appropriate
application of education and incentives to
improve visitors’ behaviour in the area, are
deemed imperative and could reduce sig-
nificantly problems such as litter and van-
dalism and above all enhance the users’
recreational experience. Dixon et al. (1993)
suggest for a marine park that only visitor
environmental education can further in-
crease the effective carrying capacity of the
park and contribute to the quality of the
visitor experience. Provision of adequate per-
tinent information was particularly high-
lighted by all visitor clusters in the Vikos-
Aoos Park. By managing the capacity of sup-
porting facilities such as number of hotel
rooms and the size of parking lots can con-
strain any future unwelcome expansion of
visitors in Vikos-Aoos. Alternatively, a man-
agement strategy could consider the design
of spots that offer acceptable conditions for
those activities which are significantly under-
taken by a specific visitor cluster (for ex-
ample, observing flora and fauna by Greek
users) or in areas used by sports enthusiasts.
Care should be taken in the above spots to
ensure the conservation of flora and fauna
(by, for example, the use of signs to encourage
certain behaviour of visitors towards sens-
itive floristic species) and keep the capacity
of sports facilities below critical levels. A
special sports user survey could enlighten
more the potential site impacts of this user

category. The results imply that managers
could set different capacities in the light of
different settings and demands by visitor
groups in the same resource area. Con-
sequently, adopting the above techniques
which aim for a more even distribution of
visitors, it seems realistic for the Park Au-
thority to encourage more visitors (to more
than 100 000) in order to satisfy the economic
dimension of management and this showed
be possible without exceeding either per-
ceptual or ecological capacities.
Implementing an entry fee scheme could
also improve the Park’s finances which in
return will help improve protection of the
resource base. Such a scheme constitutes a
very effective visitor control mechanism espe-
cially in those spots where use levels ap-
proach satisfaction thresholds. Additionally,
admission charges could facilitate a survey of
public opinion which in turn provide valuable
insights into people’s perception of what con-
stitutes a recreational experience of good
quality and also enable accurate visitor
counts.
The research illustrates that carrying cap-
acity remains an elusive concept and indeed,
consistent with other researchers (Stankey,
1982), this study has confirmed that a fixed
deterministic approach is inappropriate for
managing a National Park. This fits with
earlier work which highlighted the absence of
measurable conditions for defining carrying
capacity (Hayden, 1975). Qualitative evalu-
ation, along with quantitative techniques to
describe carrying capacity allow the im-
plementation of the concept only through a
flexible framework of action; mechanisms may
be modified according to emerging needs or
alternate sources of data. It has become ap-
parent in this research that identification of
quality indicators are practically a useful ap-
proach in helping to define a Parks re-
creational capacity. Quality indicators have
been proven to be the key elements in planning
models for National Parks and other related
natural areas (Manning et al., 1996; Rog-
genbuck, 1993). In addition, this study rep-
resents an attempt to incorporate economic
variables in the proposed planning framework
for Vikos-Aoos Park. A wide agreement in the
indicators of the recreational experience was
recorded across all groups. Preserving the tra-
ditional architectural norms, natural features
and improving facilities and services were
A management planning framework 283
deemed essential components of a strategy for
Vikos-Aoos Park. Setting up an appropriate
monitoring mechanism for those indicators
that this study has found to best represent
visitor and nature quality is an imperative
function to effectively apply the planning
framework. In this respect, the methodology
could be refined with the availability of further
information especially in the ecological and
economic context.
Major difficulties in implementing the
planning framework currently include the
lack of thoroughful knowledge of visitors im-
pact on the biological systems, population
abundances of target mammal species and
bird fauna, and the level of concern Park
visitors have for various aspects of the re-
source and social setting. In spite of the in-
adequacy of the background information, the
methodology remains a useful com-
munication devise for reviewing development
strategies and setting new management pri-
orities. Additionally, social concerns become
an integral part of management plans leading
to a strengthening of the relationship be-
tween society and the resource base. Man-
agement strategy should also emphasize the
communities in the vicinity to the park, for
which tourism does not represent the cor-
nerstone of their economy.
Finally, the maximum sustainable use
level, set by economic criteria, may be lower
than what local businesses desire, but must
be respected if nature viewed in a long-term
perspective is to be protected and if the re-
source base is to remain profitable.
References
Brotherton, I. (1973). The concept of carrying cap-
acity of countryside recreation areas. Recreation
New Supplement 6, 6–11.
Canestrelli, E. and Costa, P. (1991). Tourism
carrying capacity: a fuzzy approach. Tourism
Research 18, 295–311.
Clark, R. J. (1991). Carrying capacity and tourism
in coastal and marine areas. Parks 2, 13–17.
Dixon, A. J., Scura, F. L. and Vant Hof, T. (1993).
Meeting ecological and economic goals: marine
parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22, 117–125.
Duffey, E. (1982). National Parks and Reserves in
Europe. Macdonald, London.
Glasson, J., Godfrend, K. and Goodan, B. (1994).
Visitor management in heritage cities. Tourism
Management 15, 388–389.
284 K. Papageorgiou and I. Brotherton
Goulandri Natural History Museum (1992). Eco-
logical and Physical Planning Study of Eco-
systems in Pindos Massif. Athens.
Government Gazette. (1971). Law Decree 996/
1971, National Parks, Aesthetic Forests and Pro-
tected Natural Monuments, No 192. Athens (in
Greek).
Greek National Tourism Organisation (1995). List
of Hotels and Private Flats in the Ioannina
Province, GNTO, Ioannina, (in Greek).
Hayden, B. (1975). The carrying capacity dilemma.
American Antiquity 40, 11–21.
Hutman, J. (1978). Development and application
of the carrying capacity concept. Paper presented
at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Western
Regional Science Association. Sacramento, Cali-
fornia.
Inter-Ministerial committee for the Prespa Man-
agement Plan. (1989). A Management Plan for
the Prespa National Park Area. WWF Inter-
national, project 3535.
Kassioumis, K. (1987). Vikos-Aoos National Park.
Dasika Chronika 3, 17–26 (in Greek).
Kassioumis, K. (1990). Greece. In International
Handbook of National Parks and Nature Re-
serves. London. Greenwood Press.
Kassioumis, K. (1994). Nature Protection in
Greece, Legislation, protected Areas and Ad-
ministration. Geotechnic Scientific Issues 5,
58–74 (in Greek).
Katsadorakis, G. (1985). Preliminary Study of the
Invertebrate Fauna in Vikos-Aoos National Park.
Athens.
Lime, D. W. and Stankey, G. H. (1979). Carrying
capacity: maintaining outdoor recreation qual-
ity. In Land and Leisure (C. S. Van Doren, G.
B. Priddle and J. E. Lewis, eds), pp. 105–118.
2nd edition. London: Methuen.
Manning, E. R., Lime, W. D. and Hof, M. (1996).
Social carrying capacity of natural areas: theory
and application in the US national parks. Nat-
ural Areas Journal 16, 118–127.
McNeely, J. A. (1994). Protected areas for the 21st
century: working to provide benefits to society.
Biodiversity and Conservation 3, 390–405.
Packard, F. (1972). The problem of definitions. In
World National Parks: Progress and Op-
portunities (R. Van Osten, ed.), pp. 63–66. Brus-
sels: Hauez.
Papageorgiou, K. (1996). An evaluation of the
national park system of Greece with particular
reference to recreational management in the
Vikos-Aoos national park. PhD thesis. De-
partment of Landscape, University of Shef-
field.
Patmore, J. A. (1983). Recreation and Resources:
Leisure Patterns and Leisure Places, pp. 222–
233. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Phillips, A. (1992). The Caracas recommendations.
Parks 3, 9–12.
Pigram, J. (1983). Outdoor recreation and resource
management, pp. 68–74. Kent: Crook Helm.
Roggenbuck, J. W., Williams, D. R. and Watson,
A. E. (1993). Defining Acceptable Conditions
in Wilderness. Environmental Management 17,
187–197.
Seabrooke, W. and Miles, C. W. N. (1993). Re-
creational Land Management, pp. 1–10, second
edition. London: E&FN Spon.
Sowman, M. R. (1987). A procedure for assessing
recreational carrying capacity of coastal resort
areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 14, 331–
344.
Stankey, G. H. (1982). Carrying capacity, impact
management and the recreation opportunity
spectrum. Australian Parks and Recreation
May, 24–30.
Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen,
M. E. and Frissell, S. S. (1985). The Limits of
Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness
Planning. pp. 36. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-176.
Wang, H. L. (1996). A systematic approach to
natural recreational resource management. So-
cio-Economic and Planning Sciences 30, 39–49.