Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantifies tourism transport capacity in protected areas under wildfire risk, highlighting necessary vehicle reductions.
Ecotourism is a major driver of rural development, particularly in natural protected areas. Existing approaches to estimating sustainable tourism capacity in these areas have focused primarily on physical, ecological, perceptual, and economic dimensions. However, these frameworks do not explicitly incorporate risks to people, vehicles, and infrastructure under wildfire scenarios. Given the global rise in large wildfires, this study develops a framework to quantify tourism transport capacity in a highly visited protected area. Tourism transport fire capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles permitted within a given sector to minimize wildfire exposure and potential impacts on infrastructure and assets. This capacity is determined by the interaction among structural infrastructure risk, tourism transport fire exposure, and the fire spread index. Under extreme fire spread conditions, results indicate that the number of vehicles during summer weekends should be reduced by 28–34% relative to current levels. Furthermore, when flame lengths exceed 4.3 m, 83.3% of the vegetation-free buffer strips tested in experimental burns fail to prevent impacts on infrastructure or vehicles. This study advances a risk-informed framework for integrating wildfire dynamics into tourism transport capacity assessments. The proposed approach should be incorporated into protected area management planning guidelines, in alignment with evolving fire regimes and regulatory requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ortega et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: