The Unexplained Calculation of Load Capacity and Acceptable Change Limit

That is, it is risky to use this diagnostic methodology if the objective and correct selection of the informants is not guaranteed, because a partial and subjective vision created from the interests themselves, profiles of the group, ignorance or knowledge of the subject, or the manipulation (intentional or not) of the facilitators will be obtained, as happened in the SWOT of PROTUR.

The SWOT of PROTUR is a hodgepodge where it is difficult to understand the criteria that was followed to present it. Figure 31 of the PROTUR document shows the result of the SWOT by mixing the categories: Internal and external strengths - which should be Opportunities - placing them against (internal) weaknesses, but the threats do not appear. This shows how the facilitation of consulting either ignored the use and limitations of the tool or took the diagnosis and presented it as he wanted. Needless to say, the opportunity factor and threat counterpart were presented in a separate table. It is striking that the categories themselves were modified, only strengths were delimited (they were supposed to be internal) but the list included internal and external factors, to which weaknesses were then applied. A confusing SWOT, which gave a Picasso-style image. It seems like a lack of experience in this type of construction or a blatant simulation of tokenist participation. But the result is brief, unfounded, and completely disjointed from the objective, bordering on the confusing. When local actors confronted consultants with the shortcomings of their "participatory methodology", consultants worsened the situation by trying to compensate for those shortcomings. They held group calls in the midst of the health contingency due to COVID19, the entity being at a red light, without caring to put the summoned participants at risk, which unleashed even more severe criticism against it. This demonstrated not only the lack of social awareness and empathy of the consultant towards local communities, but its total ignorance or total lack of qualifications to perform the committed work.

The World Tourism Organization defines carrying capacity as "the level of visitors using an area can be accommodated" (Buckley, 1999). However, there is still much confusion about this concept. We will talk at length about the reasons why the scientific community at the international level and the local inhabitants, the social actors, question the use of the numbers arising from the Tourist Load Capacity (CCT) and acceptable Exchange Limit (LCA) (See the Myth of the Tourist Load Capacity, below); for the moment we will limit ourselves to analyzing the concepts and data contained in PROTUR. When reviewed in Annex 1 of the PROTUR document, which supposedly explains the way in which the data and calculations of the Load Capacity were obtained, the data that were used to determine it are inexplicable; more than inexplicable, they lack explanation. As an example, the calculation of Physical Load Capacity, was exemplified with a single site as a reference base that was The Pirate Channel (Type of opportunity II, according to PROTUR): Result: Physical Load Capacity: 21,345.04 people per day. It was estimated between 5 to 14 people per boat up to 27 feet, which gave 1,778.75 people. Used the physical load capacity formula: CCF = S*NV Sp

Where:

S= Available surface sp= Surface used by people NV= Number of times the site can be visited by the same person in a day (parameters Tv/Hv) But when reviewing the data we found that: Hv/Tv = 13/Varies according to site. This does not allow to corroborate the reference data so that one can perform the calculation that the consultant made. However, below the calculation is made as follows (page 118 of PROTUR): Physical carrying capacity= 46571*3.666666667 = 21,345.04 peolpe a day. One assumes that 46571 (m2?) is the area of the Pirate Channel (S) that is mentioned as an example (Opportunity Type II), but the calculation presented does not follow the formula and is in fact wrong. If we take the data directly as it is in the document:

46571*3.666666667= 21,345.04 people per day, if the calculation is done in this way, 46571*3.666666667= 170,760.33 people per day. Unless the area used per person had been 8 (m2), which is what gives 170,760.33 between 21,345.04 = 8. But the document leaves us guessing where all those numbers came from? And it goes further, presenting a box of Data and results of the CCF, with another inexplicable number:

Oportunity Class Physical carrying capacity (persons per day) Persons per group/ eUp to 27 feet vessels

II 21,345.04 5-14 Carrying capacity vessels per day

1,778.75

Source: tkn from page 118 PROTUR document. En: http://www.geoalternativa.com/acervo/PROTUR_2020.pdf

It does not explain how they averaged 5 to 14 people per boat, so that they turned out to be 21,345.04 (which we already saw is an inexplicable number), determined 1,778.75 boats per day, before the correction factors. The number of people to give us that result is 12. How was the criterion set for 12 to be the magic number in the range of 5 to 14? If we used practical reasoning, we would take 9.5, which is the average between 5 and 14. But that would have given a greater number of vessels: 21,354.04 / 9.5 = 2,246.8 vessels. 460 boats more than the result obtained by the consultant. We do not say that this number is correct or not, from the outset it is difficult to understand the initial reasoning for this calculation of physical load capacity, let alone the criteria to determine its values and the way in which the results were communicated, and so with the rest of Annex 1. Correction factors are also not explained, and since they do not refer to bibliographic citations or calculation memories, all the numbers obtained seem to have magically appeared.

As a comment, there is currently a marked conflict between the boatmen and serious questions from public opinion about the number of boats in the lagoon, with only 500 or 600 boats operating. The Load Capacity of PROTUR established practically triple that number: 1,779 vessels; if we corrected the calculation as I did, dividing between the average of 9.5 and not 12, as they

inexplicably determined, the number of vessels would rise to 2,247. PROTUR would have determined almost 4 times the number of boats. However, Load Capacity is not a recommended method, as can be seen in the corresponding section of myths in this regard. With respect to the Acceptable Exchange Limit, in the presentation of the methods (page 41 of the document) PROTUR determined: "... The acceptable change limit method is based on determining the desired conditions in a place to plan the actions necessary to achieve these conditions (García Rivas, et al 2005) The acceptable change limit includes elements on the visitor's experience, compatible with nature tourism and considers above all social empowerment so that society is the one who exercises compliance with its planning decisions, then precursors of sustainability in their territory through monitoring. A seven-step process... tends to the strategic planning of activities in the lagoon..." But it falls short. In the text, the way in which they constructed all the elements becomes confusing and fails to adequately communicate the basis of their procedures. For more details on Acceptable Change Limit, see later in the myths section. About the ACL methodology used in the PROTUR, very strong assertions are made (for marketing), but they are hardly fulfilled in the development of the document. The consultant pledges: "...The acceptable change limit includes elements on the visitor's experience, compatible with nature tourism and considers above all the Social empowerment so that it is society that exercises the fulfillment of its decisions in planning, being then precursors of sustainability in its territory through monitoring. Through a seven-step process (Figure 25) the strategic planning of activities in the lagoon is tended..."

If we stop to reason this statement, it follows that for PROTUR the LCA sought to satisfy the experience of tourists, not the knowledge of the system, nor its focus was environmental protection. Which is understandable since it is an evaluation of tourist activity for the benefit only of the tourist experience, not the protection of the ecosystem. But the community was sold in an environmental protection speech. It also said that the acceptable change limit criterion was for tourists whose experience preferences were compatible with nature tourism. But, that is a marketological and simplistic assertion without basis, if one takes into

consideration that the way in which a tourist could interpret an experience and determine a preference depends on very complex individual valuations, if we only took into consideration how human beings individually prioritize what is important to us. It is not possible to make a simplistic statement of the emotions of tourism customers, nor to have a simplistic idea of what they are looking for, given that other aspects such as their human condition, their bagagge, advertising, attraction from the tourist offer, and various factors that stimulate the decisions of the tourist would have to be incorporated. Another part of the LCA's goal was that society itself, based on tourist preferences, was going to have to build a stage with rules and abide by them. But it was built from a flimsy and uninformed place, without knowledge of the target, with a disjointed process and with a level of tokenist participation, simulated.

Finally, he asserted that social empowerment was going to be limited to following the rules to meet the expectations of the tourist and learning to monitor the system to guarantee the tourist that he will have those experiences. What is understood is that the social empowerment promoted by PROTUR, would consist of letting the group of close actors to whom they were invited, convened and granted the power to decide on behalf of the whole society (to simulate that it was done "in a participatory way"), was going to establish and decide on the criteria that the rest of the population was going to have to follow and monitor obligatorily; while they (with access to administer funds or direct benefits) and the rest of the community (bound by the triad's decision) guaranteed that the Lagoon would be a place where visitors would have a satisfactory experience of a cared for natural resource, regardless of what it was. That, for the promoters of the instrument, was social empowerment and the key to the conservation of the Lagoon: Engage society, with what was decided by a group selected by themselves, with unilateral criteria, with a simulated "participatory" planning, to ensure that tourists could have a "reserved" and "protected" site that would guarantee them an experience of enjoyment of the Lagoon. Where had been the initial justification of PROTUR? to be a solution to socioenvironmental problems and for the protection of biocultural heritage. The promoters of PROTUR, as part of the triad, believed that the passive

participation of the community was the ultimate goal of empowerment, to be there, validating what was provided to them, and not as part of a real construction. Also believing that the paradigm of sustainable tourism was going to work as if by magic, without the local inhabitants being really empowered.

The strengthening and empowerment of residents, i.e. local inhabitants, may not mean the same for local actors as for the government, for environmental non-governmental organizations or for academics, what is recognized is that "if the government does not empower residents, the success of tourism development and sustainability cannot be guaranteed" (Choi & Murray, 2010).

By focusing on the tastes, preferences and needs of tourists as the basis for planning a regulatory instrument from which to "empower" locals, that is, if the objective of the instrument is to regulate the site to keep the lagoon "pretty" for visitors, and then pretend that this decision and vision was "built" through a participatory methodology, Built with locals, such as PROTUR and its promoters, it openly violates the Berlin Declaration on Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism that was issued in 1997.

“…Tourism must be developed in a way that benefits local communities, strengthens the local economy, employs the local workforce and, where ecologically sustainable, uses local materials, local agricultural products and traditional skills. Mechanisms, including policies and legislation, should be introduced to ensure the flow of benefits to local communities. Tourism activities must respect the ecological characteristics and capacity of the local environment in which they are carried out. Every effort must be made to respect traditional lifestyles and cultures..." (Biodiversity and Tourism, 1997)…” The reference literature for building PROTUR came from CONANP. Although it is insisted that PROTUR did not try to be a management program for a NAP, it was enough to be aware that the Tourist Load Capacity and Acceptable Change Limit are concepts that were developed for Protected Natural Areas... Bacalar is not a protected natural area. The methodology used by PROTUR was adapted from the manuals for the Development of Public Use Programs based on the Acceptable Change Limit methodology in the protected natural areas of Mexico (CONANP 2016) and the Manual of method of elaboration of programs for public use in the region