http://revistas.utm.edu.ec/index.php/Recus

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and

its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Monitoreo de los sitios de visita de la Reserva de Producción de Fauna Chimborazo - Ecuador y su

contribución al cumplimiento de los objetivos de conservación

“Pedro Vicente Vaca-Cárdenas”

* “Mónica Elva Vaca-Cárdenas”

“Maritza Lucía Vaca-Cárdenas”

“Diego Francisco Cushquicullma Colcha”

Abstract

The income from tourism in Ecuador contributes with 10% to the national budget, and it is the economic support of 1.5 million people.

Specifically, the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve (RPFCH) presented a 47% annual tourist growth from 2010 to 2017. Due to this

growth, the tourism activity took a strategic regulatory role, being necessary to apply planning and governance tools that contribute to the

management of the destination, having as a priority, the biodiversity conservation. Consequently, the main objectives of this research were

to monitor the RPFCH visit sites to determine in what proportion, its tourist activity contribute to the fulfillment of the conservation

objectives of the protected area and to establish improvement actions. For this purpose, the development of the tourism activity was

monitored through visitor management scenarios. To fulfill the objectives of this research, the following main activities were developed:

1. Monitoring the development of the tourism activity through the visitor management scenarios and 2) Establishment of improvement

actions for the RPFCH visitor management scenarios. The monitoring was carried out in three phases: 1. Validation of the RPFCH visitor

management scenarios. 2. Determination of Acceptable Change Limit (ACL) indicators applying the methodology of Opportunity Range

for Visitors in Protected Areas (ORVPA), and 3. Visitor management scenarios Monitoring. Ten visit sites were monitored:1 pristine, 6

primitives, and 3 natural rustics. Results showed that the tourist activity in the visit sites of the RPFCH contributed in an 80.8% to the

fulfillment of the objectives of conservation of the protected area; so that, improvement actions were established.

Resumen

Los ingresos del turismo en el Ecuador contribuyen con el 10% del presupuesto nacional, y es el sustento económico de 1.5 millones de

personas. Específicamente, la Reserva de Producción de Fauna Chimborazo (RPFCH) desde el 2010 hasta el 2017 presentó un 47% de

crecimiento turístico anual. Desde este escenario de crecimiento, la actividad turística tomó un rol estratégico de regulación, siendo

necesario aplicar herramientas de planificación y gobernanza que contribuyan a la gestión del destino, a un manejo adecuado de los

visitantes en función de sus expectativas, y a la mitigación de sus potenciales impactos negativos; teniendo como eje la conservación de

la biodiversidad. Por lo tanto, los principales objetivos de esta investigación fueron monitorear los sitios de visita de la RPFCH para

determinar en qué proporción, su actividad turística contribuye al cumplimiento de los objetivos de conservación del área protegida y

establecer acciones de mejora. Para esto, se monitoreo el desenvolvimiento de la actividad turística por medio de escenarios de manejo

de visitantes. El monitoreo se desarrolló en tres fases: 1. Determinación de indicadores de Límites de Cambio Aceptable (LCA) aplicando

la metodología de Rango de Oportunidad para Visitantes en Áreas Protegidas (ROVAP), 2. Monitoreo de escenarios de manejo de

visitantes, y 3. Establecimiento de acciones de mejoramiento. Se monitorearon 10 sitios de visita: 1 prístino, 6 primitivos, y 3 rústicos

naturales. Los resultados mostraron que la actividad turística en los sitios de visita de la (RPFCH) contribuyen en un 80.8% al

cumplimiento de los objetivos de conservación del área protegida; para lo cual se establecieron acciones de mejora.

Keywords/Palabras clave

Monitoring; management; fauna; reserve; tourism/Monitoreo; administración;fauna; reserva; turismo

*Dirección para correspondencia: monivcec@yahoo.com

Artículo recibido el 01 - 11 - 2019 Artículo aceptado el 20 - 05 - 2020 Artículo publicado el 29 - 07 - 2020

Conflicto de intereses no declarado.

Fundada 2016 Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria de la Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Ecuador.

Guardaparque de la Dirección Provincial del Ambiente de Chimborazo, Coordinador del Programa de Control y Vigilancia de la Reserva Producción de Fauna Chimborazo,

investigador principal, Riobamba, Ecuador, pedrocefasfree@yahoo.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5420-1014

Docente de la Universidad Técnica de Manabí, docente investigadora, Portoviejo, Ecuador, monivcec@yahoo.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6436-3538

Docente de la Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, docente investigadora, Riobamba, Ecuador, maryvcec@yahoo.es, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6265-8164

Investigador Externo de la Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Ecuador, dagoeco@hotmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4474-4354

REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

1. Introduction

The concept of Protected Areas (APs) is old in the world. In the 60s,

many of the developed countries already had complex systems, including

most of the elements that are considered mandatory since the validity of

the Convention on Biodiversity (1992). Protected areas appear in the

United States with the creation of Yellowstone National Park, as a

mechanism to protect representative natural and cultural elements

(Dourojeanni, 2010).

The key component of Yellowstone National Park was that no

permanent inhabitants were allowed within it, with the exception of park

staff. This North American pattern of a pristine national park arose slowly

at the beginning, but, in the early 1960s, many countries established

national parks where they excluded people (Cifuentes et al., 2000). In

1969, the definition of "national park" of IUCN established that these

areas should be relatively large and without material alteration by

exploitation or by human being occupation (McNeely et al., 1994). More

than 25,000 protected areas have been established until the early 1990s,

covering more than 5 % of the globe. However, only 1470 of these

protected areas are equal to the Yellowstone park model, while the rest of

them have received different denominations (McNeely et al., 1994).

In Central America, protected areas have multiplied from only 30 in

1970 to more than 300 in 1987. The protection area reached

approximately 8% of the territory of the region (Morales & Cifuentes,

1989). Until 1994, Central America has increased its protected areas,

exceeding 16% of the Central American land territory (IUCN & IDB,

1993).

Today, almost all Latin American countries have formally established

systems of protected areas that include policies, specific legislation,

system plan, and even financial mechanism; being, Argentina the pioneer

country in issues of protected areas systems in the region. In this context,

the National Park Administration (APN) of Argentina started to manage

the PAs as a system since 1934, which was renovated in 1972

(Dourojeanni, 2010). Ecuador is considered a mega biodiverse country

because of the variety and variability of its landscapes, ecosystems and

flora and fauna species (Yánez, 2016). For this reason, efforts have been

made to protect local biodiversity through a national system of protected

areas (ECOLAP & MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador), 2007).

The overall objective of Protected Areas (PA) around the world is to

manage biological resources to protect biodiversity and the environmental

services they provide. The national system of Protected Areas (SNAP (by

the Spanish acronym)) of Ecuador is the set of protected natural areas that

guarantee the coverage and connectivity of important ecosystems at the

terrestrial, marine and coastal marine levels, their cultural resources and

main water sources (MAE, 2017). The SNAP covers the four regions of

the country with 59 protected natural areas, that extend in approximately

20% of the surface of Ecuador (MAE, 2020).

The general conservation objectives defined for the National System

of Protected Areas are: 1. To conserve the biological diversity and genetic

resources contained in the SNAP. 2. To provide alternatives for

sustainable use of natural resources and the provision of environmental

goods and services. 3. To contribute to the improvement of the

population's quality of life (MAE, 2015a). One of these protected areas of

Ecuador is the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve (RPFCH).

The Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve (RPFCH) was created

with Ministerial Agreement No. 437 of October 26, 1987 and published

in Official Registry No. 806 of November 9 of the same year (MAE,

2014). The reserve is shared by the provinces of Chimborazo, Bolívar, and

Tungurahua with a total area of 58560 hectares. The Chimborazo volcano

is located in this area. This volcano, has a height, from sea level, of 6268

meters constituting the highest point on the planet, according to a study

conducted by the Military Geographical Institute of Ecuador (IGM) with

the help of the French Institute of Research for the Development (IRD)

(Izurieta, 2016). Additionally, this area has exclusive biodiversity of flora

and fauna, which is endemic, this is, it is unique on the planet.

Visitor management in PA (Abman, 2018; Blanco- Cerradelo et al.,

2018; Watson & Hewson, 2018 y Graefe, Kuss, & Vaske, 1990) is a

mechanism of planning, controlling, and regulating the tourism activity

where spaces are generated to provide opportunities for public use, based

on quality criteria of the visitor's experience, always respecting the

conservation objectives (MAE, 2015a y Rainforest Alliance et al., 2010).

Additionally, it allows us to conduct the visitor's behavior in order to

achieve the maintenance of the naturalness and conservation scenarios in

the visit sites (MAE, 2018).

In this context, MAE, through the Ministerial Agreement 100 and a

policy of natural heritage governance, establishes the application of the

Destination Management Methodology of Protected Areas, as the tool that

contributes to the balance between the program planning of public use and

tourism and the visitors’ expectations (MAE, 2015b).

Since its conception, the Protected Areas (PA) have been linked to

tourism (Blanco-Cerradelo et al., 2018). At the same time, tourism is a

key component that contributes to the conservation and sustainability

objectives of these natural areas (Abman, 2018; Blanco-Cerradelo et al.,

2018; Watson & Hewson, 2018 y Reck & Martínez, 2010). This link is

even recognized by the nations. For example, the Constitution of Ecuador

of 2008, in its article 405, guarantees the preservation of biodiversity and

the maintenance of ecological functions (Constitution of the Republic of

Ecuador, 2008). In 2012, the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador

(Ministerial Agreement 006) declared free admission to PA (MAE, 2012).

The decision of free admission had a positive impact for PA visitation.

A 58% growth trend in the visitation to PAs of Ecuador was recorded

between 2012 and 2017 (MAE, 2017). Specifically, the Chimborazo

Wildlife Production Reserve (RPFCH) presented a 47% annual tourist

growth from 2010 to 2017 (MAE, 2017).

Due to the increase of visitations to PAs, the tourism activity required

regulatory strategies; being necessary to apply and / or create planning

and governance tools that contribute to the management of the destination;

to a territory planning and to an adequate management of visitors

according to their expectations; and mainly, to the mitigation of potential

negative impacts; having as a goal the biodiversity conservation (Centro

para el Manejo de Áreas Protegidas, 2007).

Therefore, the main objectives of this research were to monitor the

RPFCH visit sites to determine in what proportion, its tourist activity

contribute to the fulfillment of the conservation objectives of the protected

area and to establish improvement actions.

2. Methods and Materials

This is a field research, at an exploratory, descriptive, analytical, and

prospective level. It is also a quantitative research because it used

quantitative methods for data collection and analysis. For the theoretical

57 REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

part of this research, a literature review was carried out. This research was

conducted in the public use and tourism zone of the RPFCH, in the

provinces of Bolívar, Tungurahua and Chimborazo of Ecuador.

To fulfill the objectives of this research, the following main activities

were developed: 1. Monitoring the development of the tourism activity

through the visitor management scenarios and 2) Establishment of

improvement actions for the RPFCH visitor management scenarios.

2.1. Scenario Monitoring

The monitoring was carried out in three phases: 1. Validation of the

RPFCH visitor management scenarios. 2. Determination of Acceptable

Change Limit (ACL) indicators applying the methodology of Opportunity

Range for Visitors in Protected Areas (ORVPA), and 3. Visitor

management scenario Monitoring.

2.1.1. Validation of the RPFCH visitor management scenarios

Visit sites were evaluated and described in scenarios through 3

environments: 1) Biophysics, 2) Social, and 3) Management; based on the

Opportunity Range for Visitors in Protected Areas (ORVPA)

methodology (Centro para el Manejo de Áreas Protegidas, 2007), in:

Pristine Scenario (PS), Primitive Scenario (PMS), and Natural Rustic

Scenario (NRS). Subsequently, one PS, six PMS and three NRS were

prioritized through a filter of external assumptions.

2.1.2. Determination of Acceptable Change Limit (ACL)

Next, ACL indicators (Stankey & McCool, 1992) were determined by

selecting key elements of the visit sites, by environment, factor, and

attribute of the biophysical, social, and management fields. Then,

standards were established by adapting the proposals of the Destination

Management Methodology of Protected Areas (MAE, 2015b).

2.1.3. Visitor management scenario Monitoring

Finally, ten visit sites were monitored:1 pristine, 6 primitives, and 3

natural rustics. The monitoring period was executed in 2015 and 2016, in

two moments: 1) baseline through direct observation and 2) subsequent

records about the baseline and new problem points. Data was calculated

in relation to changes from the baseline.

2.2. Actions

The establishment of improvement actions was carried out through an

analysis of cause, problem, effect, and solution; from the scenario/site of

visit to the environment. Later the Problem-Solution-Action compatibility

was analyzed.

3. Results

3.1. Scenario Monitoring

3.1.1. Validation of visitor management scenarios

Taking into account biophysical, social and management

environment; the evaluation, description and prioritization of scenarios

for visiting sites determined: (see table 1).

Table 1

Assessment of attractions, visit sites, and ORVPA scenarios

Source: (Vaca, 2016).

Due to the obtained categorization of ROVAP scenarios, key factors

and their attributes were determined by adapting the tools proposed in the

Destination Management Methodology of Protected Areas (MAE, 2015b)

(see table 2).

Attraction Category Hierarchy Visit Site

ORVPA

Scenarios

Prioritized

for

monitoring

Laguna

Cóndor

Cocha

Primitive SI

Sendero Primitive SI

Refugio

Carrel

Natural

Rustic

Carihuayrazo 50 II Carihuayrazo Pristine SI

Templo

Machay

50 II

Templo

Machay

Primitive SI

Árbol

Solitario

28 II

Árbol

Solitario

Primitive SI

Hieleros del

Chimborazo

61 III Hieleros Primitive SI

Bosque de

Polylepis

49 II

Bosque de

Polylepis

Primitive SI

Cañon de la

Chorrera

46 II Chorrrera Primitive NO

Cullqui

Surcuna

25 I

Cullqui

Surcuna

Primitive SI

Cuartel de

Los Incas

25 I

Cuartel de los

Incas

Natural

Rustic

Yana Rumi 25 I Yana Rumi Primitive NO

Cóndor

Samana

34 II

Cóndor

Samana

Pristine NO

Yura Uksha 25 I Yura Uksha

Natural

Rustic

Cunuc Yacu 39 II Cunuc Yacu

Natural

Rustic

Nevado

Chimborazo

REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

Table 2

Key Factors adapted from the Destination Management Methodology

of Protected Areas (MAE, 2015b)

Source: (Vaca, 2016).

3.1.2. Determination of Acceptable Change Limit (LCA) indicators

Standards of maximum change limit were determined by adapting the

tools proposed in the aforementioned Methodology (see table 3).

Table 3

ACL Standards adapted from the Destination Management

Methodology of Protected Areas (MAE, 2015b)

Source: (MAE, 2015b).

3.1.3. Visitor management scenario Monitoring

The monitoring of Indicators is presented by visitor management

scenarios, showing average data of the distinct points of sampling in the

different environments and their respective indicators (see figure 1).

The following colors have been assigned: 1) red for the indicators that

exceed the ACL, 2) yellow for the indicators that coincide with the ACL

and 3) green for the indicators that are below the ACL, at different scales

for each scenario. In addition, each of the indicators has received a

detailed abbreviation at the end of the graph (see figure 1, annexed 1).

Furthermore, the monitoring of PS, PMS, and NRS indicators can be

summarized in the following table: (see table 4).

Environment Factor Attribute

Erosion, channels and cracks % Land depth/ amplitude

Vegetation Alteration % Vegetable cover

Trail Amplitude Distance of land visibly altered

Use of unauthorized spaces

Number of complaints or

evidences

Number of encounters among

groups at the same time

Number of encounters and

records

Visitor Satisfaction

Optimum % of visitor

satisfaction.

Group size per person Number of people

Quantity of inorganic waste Amount of inorganic waste

Vandalism Number of affectations

Alternate trails Number of occurrences

Infrastructure condition

Number of maintenance

requirements

Transport violations

Number of committed

offenses

Biophysical

Social

Management

PS PMS NRS Rural Urban

Erosion 10% 10% 15% 15% 15%

Vegetation Alteration 10% 10% 15% 15% 15%

Channels and cracks 0 0 0 0 0

Trail Amplitude 0

50 cm (in 5

sites of

frequent use)

75 cm (in 8

sites of

frequent use)

120 cm (in 5

sites)

300 cm (in 5

sites of frequent

use)

Use of unauthorized

spaces

0 evidences

and

complaints

0 0 evidences

and

complaints

0 0 evidences

and

complaints

0 0 evidences

and

complaints

0 0 evidences

and complaints

Number of encounters

among groups at the

same time

0 5 5 10 20

Visitor Satisfaction 90% 90% 85% 80% 80%

Group size per person 5 6 6 10 (+) 10

Quantity of inorganic

waste (Kg)

0 records 0 records 1 Kg 3 Kg 5 Kg

Vandalism (Number of

affectations)

0 records 0 records 0 records 0 records 0 records

Alternative trails 0 0 1 2 3

Transport violations 0 0 1 3 5

Infrastructure

condition/maintenance

It does not

apply

It does not

apply

4 times a year 4 times a year 4-6 times a year

Indicators

ACL

Biophysics environment

Social environment

Management environment

59 REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

Table 4

Summary of Indicator monitoring

Source: (Vaca, 2016).

The RPFCH has a potential focus on adventure and nature (Vaca,

2016); within the degree of naturalness of the visiting sites, one PS, six

PMS and three NRS have been established. The monitoring of scenario

indicators determined that the PS: Carihuayrazo met 75% of the ACL, the

six PMS: 1) Laguna met 70% of the ACL, 2) Templo Machay met 78%

of the ACL, 3) Árbol Solitario met 100% of the ACL, 4) Bosque de

Polylepis fulfilled with 90% of the ACL, 5) Hieleros met 88% of the ACL,

and 6) Cullqui Surcuna met 89% of the ACL; The three NRS: 1) Sendero

del R. Carrel al Whymper fulfilled 67% of the LCA, 2) Cuartel de los

Incas fulfilled 88% of the ACL, and 3) Refugio Carrel fulfilled 71% of

the ACL.

3.2. Actions

A summary table of the analysis Cause, Problem, Effect, Solution

(CPES) is presented, based on Tierra (2010) that was carried out in each

of the scenarios where the indicators that did not fulfill the ACL were

considered (see table 5).

The analysis, presented in (figure 2), denotes the relationship of the

problem with the identified solution and the corrective action that is

required.

Figure 2. Compatibility analysis of Problem - Solution – Action

Source: (Vaca, 2016).

Table 5

CPES Analysis

Source: (Vaca, 2016).

Three actions to improve the reserve management were established,

which included 1) Scheduled Visits, 2) Volunteering, and 3) Promotion

and Dissemination of the Tourist Offer. With these actions, it is expected

to reduce by 80, 50 and 75% respectively, the amount of inorganic waste,

the incidence of vandalism, the use of unauthorized spaces, the loss of

vegetable cover, the entry of organized groups without a guide, alternate

trails, channels and cracks, and transport violations.

Scenario Visit Place

Indicator

Total

Indicators

that fulfill

the ACL

% of

fulfillment

EP Carihuayrazo 8 6 75

Laguna Cóndor Cocha 10 7 70

Templo Machay 9 7 78

Árbol Solitario 10 10 100

Bosque de Polylepis 10 9 90

Hieleros 8 7 88

Cullqui Surcuna 9 8 89

Sendero 9 6 67

Cuartel de los Incas 8 7 88

Refugio Carrel 8 5 63

Average 80.8

EPM

ERN

Cause Problem Efect Solution

Lack of

information on

tourism

regulations

Use of

unauthorized

spaces

Scenario

degradation

Control and

surveillance in

visiting sites.

Lack of control

staff

Vandalism

Scenario

degradation

Promotion of

the

environmental

regulations and

education to

visitors

Information

about the tourist

offer is missing.

Channels and

cracks

Scenario

degradation

Implementation

of connection

campaigns with

the different

actors.

Lack of control

staff

Loss of

vegetable

cover

Scenario

degradation

Implementation

of the signage,

regulations and

awareness.

Lack of

information on

tourism

regulations

Inorganic

waste

Environmental

pollution

Environmental

education aimed

at visitors.

Information

about the tourist

offer is missing.

High level of

encounters

among groups

at the same

time

Scenario

degradation

Tourism

promotion of

the area.

Limited

resources for

management

Limited

human talent

for control

Poor

management

Implementation

of connection

campaigns with

the different

actors.

Lack of

information on

tourism

regulations

High entry of

vehicles

versus

visitors

Environmental

pollution

Establishment of

an organized and

grouped

mobility system

for visitors

Lack of tourist

signage

Transport

violations

Mobility

insecurity in the

PA.

Establishment of

an organized and

grouped

mobility system

for visitors

REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

4. Discussion

Similar works that monitor the visit sites and the analysis of the level

of contribution to the conservation objectives are scarce. However, some

research papers propose the application of Acceptable Change Limit

indicators (Torres, 2017; Gómez, Sánchez, & Gutiérrez-Fernández, 2016;

Martínez, 2014 y Caicedo, 2014). For instance, Torres' work (2017) titled

“Indicadores para un sistema de monitoreo de impactos del turismo

mediante Límites de Cambio Aceptable en la laguna de Quilotoa, Reserva

Ecológica Ilinizas”; establishes that the impacts of the tourist activity on

the site according to the LCA methodology were: presence of garbage on

the trail and the beach area, graffiti, landslides on the trail, vegetation

destruction by unauthorized people, fires caused by tourists and visitor

dissatisfaction; causing natural scenario deterioration.

The establishment of the thirteen indicators helped in the initial

recognition of impacts on the ecosystem, the quality of the visit and, above

all, appreciating tourism management. It also allowed to set quick and

simple actions to be carried out provisionally, such as closures with

physical means, implementation of momentary signs and environmental

remediation cleanups. Likewise, the determination of standards allowed

to execute the measurement under real conditions with basic techniques;

allowing that together, with the key actors, conditions that are under their

control and intervention be detected, without modifying the quality of the

visit.

From the results, it was proved that in the PS, the CC and IW

indicators exceed the ACL; while EGST, Va, VA, UUS, VSR, and GSPP

satisfactorily meet the ACL, this is, their results are lower than the ACL.

In the PMS, it is usually observed that VA, UUS, IW and Va indicators

are above the ACL; while CC, TA, EGST, AT, VSR, and GSPP record

results equal to or less than the ACL. In the ERN, the CC, UUS, and TV

indicators are frequently over the ACL, while TA and AT, Erosion, EGST,

VSR, GSPP, IW, and IC, record results equal to or less than the ACLs

conveniently.

Recapitulating, the EPM-Solitary Tree meets 100% of the ACL

established, being the scenario with the ideal range; this due to its visit is

specialized and because signage was implemented with the support of the

municipal government. While, in the ERN, Carrel Shelter achieved 63%

of the ACLs, being the scenario with the lowest results; this due to the

high disorderly influx of visitors, since it exists an easy access to this site.

Different results were observed in the work of Gómez, Sánchez, &

Gutiérrez-Fernández (2016). The implementation of the ACL

methodology on the Lagunas de Siecha trail in the Chingaza National

Natural Park showed damage to the site that exceed the acceptable change

limits, mainly affecting its vegetation (Espeletia grandiflora and E.

argéntea) due to its susceptibility to trampling. Only one path complied

with LCA, thanks to the formulation and implementation of management

measures (Gómez, Sánchez, & Gutiérrez-Fernández, 2016).

It was also observed that the indicators varied their resulting measure

by seasonal changes, this is, when there is less influx of visitors, when

staff is assigned for control patrols, when provisional signage is

implemented and when the staff complies with information protocols

about behavioral norms. It is important to consider compliance with the

frequency and season of monitoring, understanding that during holidays

and weekends the visit increases by 500 % and 250 % correspondingly.

The exaggerated increase in tourists increases the degree of degradation

of the site. Martínez (2014), in his study “Propuesta de validación para

la aplicación de la Metodología LAC (Límites de Cambio Aceptable) en

los senderos del Parque Recreacional y Bosque Protector Jerusalem”

determined that there are areas with special biodiversity in good condition

due to they are remote places with little relative public access. Therefore,

in places with a greater influx of people, there is a greater degree of

degradation of the landscape.

Subsequently, based on the results and the factor that can affect the

variation of results, improvement actions were proposed for each of the

scenarios where the indicators did not comply with the ACL. In this

context, in phase 3: Action 1 aims to manage visitors and generate tourist

services through organized tours. Action 2 plans to involve society

through volunteer spaces where knowledge and experiences are generated

in the handling and management of visitor management scenarios,

achieving strategic allies. Finally, Action 3 seeks to develop and

disseminate material with information on tourist offer and regulations,

that permit to have a planned, ordered and instructed visit in the protected

area.

It is therefore, essential to apply the improvement actions stated here,

which are aligned with the conservation objectives of the protected area,

that indicate that ecosystem resources must be maintained, by taking care

of them and developing them under ecological parameters. Likewise, it is

important to establish infrastructure and necessary services for tourism

and research, to contribute to the improvement of the living standard of

people in the area.

4.1. Conclusions

It was found that the scenarios met the ACLs in percentages ranging

from 63% to 100% during the studied period; concluding that the tourist

activities in the visiting sites of the RPFCH contributed 80.8% to the

fulfillment of the conservation objectives of the protected area.

Consequently, it was necessary to propose improvement actions.

It is recommended to carry out the improvement actions proposed here

to meet the conservation objectives of the protected area, to decentralize

and energize the tourist activities in the different visit sites; and to change

management modality, from a reconstructive modality to a preventive

one. Also, given the tourism potential in the area, the RPFCH should

reconsider the management category of the protected area in the

prioritization of resources and activities. In addition, due to the

considerable tourist influx, a system of visitor compensation should exist

for the opportunities, facilities and services available.

Additionally, as a future work, it is recommended to replicate the

monitoring to the visitor management scenarios, after the application of

the proposed improvement actions and perform the analysis of the

postoperative results.

Bibliographical References

Abman, R. (2018). Rule of Law and Avoided Deforestation from

Protected Areas. Ecological Economics, 146, 282–289. Recuperado

de http://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2017.11.004.

Blanco-Cerradelo, L., Gueimonde-Canto, A., Fraiz-Brea, J. A., &,

Diéguez-Castrillón, M. I. (2018). Dimensions of destination

competitiveness: Analyses of protected areas in Spain. Journal of

61 REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

Cleaner Production, 177, 782–794. Recuperado de

http://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO. 2017.12.242.

Caicedo, C. L. A. (2014). Estudio de capacidad de carga y límites de

cambio aceptable en la estación biológica Pindo Mirador,

parroquia y cantón Mera, provincia de Pastaza. Bachelor's thesis,

Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial. Quito. Ecuador.

Centro para el Manejo de Áreas Protegidas. (2007). ROVAP, el Rango de

Oportunidades para Visitantes en Áreas Protegidas. Fort Co- llins:

Universidad Estatal de Colorado.

Cifuentes, M., Izurieta, A., & de Faria, H. H. (2000). Medición de la

efectividad del manejo de áreas protegidas. WWF-Constitución de

la República del Ecuador 2008. Decreto Legislativo 0. Registro

Oficial 449, 20 de octubre del 2008. Montecristi-Ecuador.

Dourojeanni, M. J. (2010). Sistemas de áreas protegidas en América

Latina: Teoría y práctica. Un Mundo Desigual: Problemas

económicos para países subdesarrollados. 10.

ECOLAP, & MAE. (2007). Guía del Patrimonio de Áreas Naturales

Protegidas del Ecuador. ECOFUND, FAN, DarwinNet, IGM.

Quito, Ecuador.

Gómez, J., Sánchez, A., & Gutiérrez-Fernández, F. (2016). Cálculo de los

límites de cambio aceptable (lac) en el sendero lagunas de siecha,

parque nacional natural Chingaza–Colombia. Revista de

Tecnología, 15(2), 75-88.

IUCN, & IDB. (1993). Parques y progreso. IV Congreso Mundial de

Parques y Áreas protegidas. Caracas, Venezuela

Izurieta, D. (2016). El volcán Chimborazo “El Coloso de los Andes”. The

Chimborazo volcano" The Colossus of the Andes.

Graefe, A. R., Kuss, F. R., & Vaske, J. J. (1990). Visitor impact

management: The planning framework, Vol II. National Parks and

Conservation Association, Washington, DC.

MAE. (2012). Acuerdo Ministerial No. 006. Quito, 16 de enero del 2012.

MAE (2014). MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador). Actualización

del plan de manejo de la reserva de producción de Fauna

Chimborazo. Riobamba. Ecuador.

MAE (2015a). MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador). Sistema

Nacional de Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador. Quito Ecuador.

Recuperado de http://areasprotegidas.ambiente.gob.ec/info-snap.

MAE (2015b). MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador). Metodología

de Gestión del Destino de Áreas naturales Protegidas. Quito

Ecuador.

MAE (2017). MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador). Sistema único

de información ambiental. Registro en Áreas Naturales Protegidas.

Recuperado en http://sib.ambiente.gob.ec/inicio/index.

MAE (2018). MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador). Sistema único

de información ambiental. Recuperado de

http://sib.ambiente.gob.ec/inicio/index. Consultado el 25 de

diciembre de 2017.

MAE (2020). MAE (Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador). Sistema

Nacional de Áreas Protegidas y su ubicación. Quito, Ecuador.

Martínez, C. (2014) Propuesta de validación para la aplicación de la

Metodología LAC (Límites de Cambio Aceptable) en los senderos

del Parque Recreacional y Bosque Protector Jerusalem. Pontificia

Universidad Católica del Ecuador. Facultad de Ciencias Humanas.

Escuela e Hotelería y Turismo. Quito- Ecuador.

McNeely, J. A. et al. (1994). Protected areas for the 21st century: working

to provide benefits to society. Biodiversity & Conservation, 3(5),

390-405.

Morales, R., & Cifuentes, M. (1989). Sistema regional de áreas silvestres

protegidas en América Central: plan de acción, 1989-2000. Bib.

Orton IICA/CATIE.

Rainforest Alliance, SNV, Counterpart International/USAID. (2010).

Guía de Buenas Prácticas de Turismo Sostenible, 2010. Para

Comunidades de Latinoamérica. Una guía para iniciativas

turísticas comunitarias.

Reck, G., & Martínez, P. (2010). Áreas protegidas: ¿turismo para la

conservación o conservación para el turismo? Instituto de Ecología

Aplicada ECOLAP.

Stankey, G., & McCool, S. (1992). Administración del Uso Recreativo de

los Recursos Marinos y Límites de los Cambios Aceptables en la

Planificación. Primer Congreso Mundial de Turismo y Medio

Ambiente, Belice.

Tierra, P. (2010). Texto básico de planificación territorial. Riobamba,

Chimborazo, Ecuador: Escuela Superior Politécnica de

Chimborazo.

Torres, P. (2017). Indicadores para un sistema de monitoreo de impactos

del turismo mediante Límites de Cambio Aceptable en la laguna de

Quilotoa, Reserva Ecológica Ilinizas. Revista Amazónica Ciencia y

Tecnología, 6(2), 85-98.

Vaca, C. P. (2016). Monitoreo de Escenarios de Manejo de Visitantes de

la Reserva de Producción de Fauna Chimborazo (RPFCH).

Riobamba, Chimborazo, Ecuador.

Watson, M. S., & Hewson, S. M. (2018). Securing protection standards

for Canada's marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 95, 117-122.

Yánez, P. (2016). Las áreas naturales protegidas del Ecuador:

características y problemática general. Qualitas, 11, 41-55.

REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM - ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Unidad de Cooperación Universitaria. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. Portoviejo. Ecuador

Abbreviation

RPFCH

(Acronym in Spanish)

Chimborazo Fauna Production

ACL Acceptable Change Limit

PS Pristine Scenario

PMS Primitive Scenario

NRS Natural Rustic Scenario

RS Rural Scenario

UBS Urban Scenario

ORVPA

Opportunity Range for Visitors

in Protected Areas

VMP Visitor Management Plan

VA Vegetation Alteration

CC Channels and Cracks

TA Trail Amplitude

UUS Use of Unauthorized Spaces

EGST

Encounters of Groups at the

Same Time

AT Alternate trails

VSR Visitor Satisfaction Rate

GSPP Group size per person

IC Infrastructure Condition

IW Inorganic waste

Va Vandalism

TV Transport Violations

BE Biophysics Environment

SE Social Environment

ME Management Environment

BL: Baseline

M1: Monitoring 1

M2: Monitoring 2

M3: Monitoring 3

M4: Monitoring 4

M5: Monitoring 5

REVISTA RECUS. PUBLICACIÓN ARBITRADA CUATRIMESTRAL. EDICIÓN CONTINUA.UTM – ECUADOR

e-ISSN 2528-8075/ VOL 5/No. 1/ENERO – ABRIL/2020/pp. 55-63

Anexo 1

Visit Sites Monitoring at the Chimborazo Fauna Production Reserve - Ecuador and its contribution to the fulfillment of conservation objectives

Vaca-Cárdenas P, Vaca-Cárdenas M, Vaca-Cárdenas L, Cushquicullma Colcha

Figure 1. Survey of visitor management scenarios.

Source: (Vaca, P., 2016).