Balancing Nature and Visitors for Sustainable Development: Assessing the Tourism Carrying Capacities of Katon-Karagay National Park, Kazakhstan

Abstract

Tourism carrying capacity remains pivotal for ensuring sustainable development within protected terrains, accentuating the balance between conservation, socio-economic benefits, and visitor satisfaction. This study delves into the intricate dimensions of this balance, focusing on the Katon-Karagay National Park (KKNP). Merging comprehensive empirical data accrued from fieldwork within the park, calculations surrounding recreational loads, and a synthesis of the relevant literature, the study designed a methodology. This included calculation techniques incorporating ecological and tourist social capacities, the psychocomfort approach, and an ongoing monitoring approach, supplemented by exclusive data from the park’s administration. Key findings underscored the significance of an adaptive balance, revealing specific permissible recreational loads for different park zones. For instance, zones of quiet recreation evidenced up to 5 people/ha, while active recreation zones fluctuated between 20 and 100 people/ha. Monitoring evidenced critical environmental changes, shaping recommendations for effective tourism flow regulation, ensuring alignment with established norms and ecological preservation. The exploration substantiates the indispensability of a meticulously structured approach to ascertain tourism carrying capacity, emphasizing the harmony achievable between environmental sanctity and human pursuits. KKNP’s empirical data serve as a paradigm, guiding sustainable tourism frameworks for similar ecologically sensitive regions.

1. Introduction

The nuanced interrelation between sustainable tourism and environmental conservation has become a cardinal focus in contemporary research, driven by the escalating need to harmonize the economic benefits of tourism with ecological preservation [1,2,3]. Within this context, the concept of “carrying capacity” emerges as a pivotal construct, explicating the optimum number of visitors that a tourist site can accommodate without inflicting irreversible damage on the ecological, social, and economic environments [1,4]. This study situates itself within the multifaceted realms of sustainable tourism development in Kazakhstan, particularly focusing on the ecosystems of Katon-Karagay National Park (KKNP).

The importance of this research is underscored by the burgeoning tourism sector in Kazakhstan, particularly the sector of ecotourism and agritourism, which have been identified as significant contributors to regional sustainability, income, and cultural enrichment in the country [3,5]. The meticulous exploration of carrying capacity in these diverse tourism sectors provides profound insights into the sustainable management and development of these sectors, ensuring the balance between visitor satisfaction, environmental conservation, and economic imperatives.

The field of sustainable tourism has witnessed a plethora of studies and key publications, delving into the intricate dynamics between visitor perceptions, overcrowding, environmental conservation, and socio-economic development [6,7,8]. However, the application and assessment of carrying capacity within Kazakhstan’s unique ecosystems, such as KKNP, present an uncharted territory in existing literature, necessitating a nuanced exploration to understand the intricate interplay of diverse factors affecting sustainable tourism development in the region.

Moreover, several diverging statements and controversial discussions permeate the field, particularly concerning the longitudinal relationships between changing visitor characteristics, behaviors, regulatory standards, and perceptions of overcrowding, highlighting the dynamic nature of carrying capacity assessments [1,9]. These ongoing debates necessitate a continuous and context-specific evaluation of carrying capacity to align the development strategies with evolving norms and perceptions within the realm of sustainable tourism.

The main aim of this work is to meticulously assess and calculate the tourism carrying capacity (TCC) on tourist routes and trails of KKNP, shedding light on the myriad of factors affecting it and providing a comprehensive framework for sustainable tourism development within the park. The principal conclusions drawn from this study underscore the indispensability of a holistic understanding of carrying capacity in fostering sustainable practices, ecological conservation, and socio-economic development, thereby contributing substantively to the broader discourse on sustainable tourism in protected areas.

This study seeks to provide a coherent overview of the evolving field of sustainable tourism and its multifarious interactions with carrying capacity while ensuring the comprehensibility of the complex themes discussed to a diverse scientific audience. The focused exploration of carrying capacity within Kazakhstan’s unique ecosystems offers invaluable insights into the sustainable development and management of tourism sectors, paving the way for the harmonious integration of economic, ecological, and socio-cultural dimensions within the broader context of sustainable tourism development.

2. Literature Review

The burgeoning significance of sustainable tourism underscores the imperative need for nuanced approaches to mitigate the conflict between conservation and tourism utilization, enabling a synthesis between ecological preservation and economic progression. A series of studies offer diverse perspectives on and methodologies for analyzing TCC, providing a rich tableau of insights applicable to the context of KKNP.

2.1. Sustainable Tourism Models in Protected Areas

The quest for sustainable tourism within protected areas such as KKNP necessitates an intricate balance between environmental stewardship and socio-economic development. This balance is at the heart of various sustainable tourism models, each offering distinct perspectives and tools for managing tourism’s ecological footprint while fostering economic growth.

The TCC concept is a fundamental component in determining the extent to which KKNP can support tourist activities without compromising its natural resources. TCC not only guides the establishment of recreational load norms but also shapes tourism strategies that align with conservation objectives [10]. Moving beyond TCC’s quantitative limits, models like the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework pivot toward the qualitative aspects of visitor experiences and environmental impact, offering a nuanced perspective on sustainable tourism [11]. In juxtaposition, the Prism of Sustainability Model (PSM) [12,13] broadens the sustainable tourism dialogue by weaving together ecological, economic, cultural, and political sustainability dimensions, providing a more integrative approach to tourism planning [14]. This model diverges from the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach, which, while also encompassing economic, social, and environmental pillars, often leans toward quantifiable outcomes rather than the qualitative depths captured by the Prism model [15]. The Ecological Footprint model offers a different vantage point, quantifying the environmental demands of tourism by measuring the “footprint” that tourist activities leave behind, thus providing a tangible metric for sustainability [16]. This model’s quantitative precision provides a counterpoint to the more qualitative Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) framework, which centers on visitor satisfaction and resource conditions, dovetailing with the service quality and visitor management aspects of TCC [17,18,19,20,21]. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) presents an alternative by classifying areas based on the types and intensities of recreational experiences they offer, thus informing the management of visitor use patterns [22]. This model’s focus on visitor experience offers a complement to the site-centric Carrying Capacity Assessment (CCA), which zeroes in on the physical and biological thresholds of the site itself [23]. The Tourism Optimization Management Model (TOMM) advocates for a dynamic, iterative approach, promoting continuous monitoring and feedback to align tourism activities with sustainability objectives [24,25]. This adaptability stands in relief to the more static Destination Sustainability Model (DSM), which assesses sustainability performance across different destinations at a single point in time [26].

For KKNP, selecting a sustainable tourism model requires careful consideration of the park’s distinctive ecological, cultural, and socio-economic context. While TCC lays the foundation, it should be augmented by models like LAC and VERP to address both the quantitative and qualitative impacts of tourism. The ROS can guide the zoning of tourist activities, while the TOMM can facilitate ongoing management and adjustment of tourism practices in response to changing conditions. The inclusion of resident satisfaction as a key factor in sustainable tourism, as highlighted in recent studies [27,28], further underscores the importance of a holistic approach that considers environmental, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional dimensions. The application of the PSM in protected areas [29] demonstrates its effectiveness in balancing ecological integrity with tourism development, reinforcing the need for an integrated approach in KKNP.

In synthesizing these models, it is evident that no single model is a cure-all. Rather, an integrated approach that draws on the strengths of each model is necessary to craft a robust framework for sustainable tourism in KKNP. Such a framework would not only support the establishment of recreational load norms but also ensure that the park’s trajectory as a tourist destination does not undermine its ecological integrity or the quality of visitor experiences.

2.2. Methodologies in TCC

The assessment of TCC is not a one-size-fits-all approach; it requires a nuanced understanding of various capacities, such as the one-time natural recreational capacity of an area, which reflects the maximum number of visitors that the environment can accommodate at any given moment without suffering degradation [30,31]. This capacity is vital for the immediate preservation of the park’s integrity and requires a methodology that can quickly adapt to the changing conditions of the park’s ecosystems. Similarly, the one-time trail capacity is crucial in managing the flow of visitors and minimizing trail wear and tear. This aspect of TCC takes into account the physical characteristics of the trails, the type of use they are designed for, and the desired quality of the visitor experience [32]. Seasonal carrying capacity further adds to the complexity, as it considers the variations in visitor numbers and environmental sensitivity across different seasons, necessitating a dynamic management approach [33].

Loading rates for forested landscapes, another critical factor, require methodologies that consider the resilience of vegetation, wildlife habitats, and the ecosystem services provided by forested areas within the park [34,35,36,37,38]. Adjustment factors for determining allowable recreational load are also essential, as they account for the varying impacts of different recreational activities and the need for recovery time between visits [39,40].

The length of the tourism season and the area available for visitors, whether it be site area or linear trail area, are additional variables that must be factored into TCC methodologies. These factors influence the distribution of visitors over time and space, affecting not only the environmental impact but also the quality of the visitor experience [41,42,43].

To address these multifaceted considerations, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is often employed. Quantitative methods, such as the ROS and the LAC, provide a structured approach to defining and measuring capacities [11,22]. These are complemented by qualitative assessments that capture visitor perceptions and experiences, which are equally important in defining the sustainability of tourism activities [17].

The integration of GIS and other spatial analysis tools has also enhanced the precision of TCC assessments, allowing for the visualization and monitoring of visitor patterns and their environmental impacts [44]. Such technological advancements facilitate the implementation of adaptive management strategies, enabling park managers to respond proactively to emerging challenges.

In the context of KKNP, the selection and application of TCC methodologies must be informed by the park’s specific environmental conditions, visitor use patterns, and management objectives. The methodologies must be capable of guiding the park’s management towards sustainability by providing actionable insights into how to balance visitor use with conservation.

2.3. Visitor Dynamics and Satisfaction

Understanding visitor dynamics is crucial in managing the TCC of protected areas like KKNP. Visitor dynamics encompass not only the number of visitors but also their behavior, expectations, and satisfaction, which are all interlinked with the sustainability of tourism.

Research has shown that visitor satisfaction in natural parks is influenced by various factors, including the quality of the natural environment, available facilities, and the level of crowding experienced [45,46,47]. For instance, studies in Yellowstone National Park have demonstrated that visitor satisfaction declines when the number of visitors exceeds certain thresholds, leading to overcrowding and a decrease in the quality of the visitor experience [48,49,50,51].

In the context of KKNP, it is essential to monitor visitor flows and satisfaction levels to ensure that the park’s TCC is not exceeded. This can be achieved through visitor surveys, feedback mechanisms, and the use of technology to track visitor numbers and movement patterns. By understanding and managing visitor dynamics, park authorities can make informed decisions about infrastructure development, staffing, and the implementation of management strategies such as timed entries or visitor quotas during peak seasons [52].

Moreover, visitor education plays a pivotal role in managing TCC. Educating visitors about the importance of conservation and the reasons behind capacity limits can foster a sense of stewardship and encourage compliance with park regulations [53,54,55,56]. This approach can help maintain a high level of visitor satisfaction while protecting the natural resources of KKNP.

2.4. Socio-Economic Impacts and Community Engagement

The socio-economic impacts of tourism are multifaceted, affecting not only the economy but also the social fabric and cultural integrity of local communities. In the case of KKNP, tourism can be a significant source of income, providing employment opportunities and stimulating local businesses. However, if not managed properly, it can also lead to negative outcomes such as cultural commodification and resource depletion [57].

Community engagement is paramount in achieving sustainable tourism. When local communities are involved in tourism planning and decision-making, the benefits of tourism are more likely to be distributed equitably, and conservation efforts are more effective [58]. In KKNP, involving local stakeholders in TCC assessments can ensure that the socio-economic benefits of tourism are maximized while minimizing adverse impacts.

For example, community-based tourism (CBT) initiatives can empower local residents by providing them with the skills and resources needed to participate in and benefit from tourism [59,60]. These initiatives can also contribute to the preservation of cultural heritage and traditional knowledge, which are integral to the identity of KKNP.

Furthermore, the establishment of partnerships between the park management, local businesses, and non-governmental organizations can lead to the development of sustainable tourism products and services that align with the park’s carrying capacity. Such collaborations can also facilitate the sharing of best practices and the development of joint strategies for managing the social and environmental impacts of tourism [61].

2.5. TCC in Specialized Contexts and De-Marketing Strategies

TCC in specialized contexts such as geoparks, wetland parks, routes, and eco-trails requires a delicate balance between environmental protection and economic benefits. In the case of eco-trails and hiking paths, like those in KKNP, TCC strategies must be carefully crafted to manage foot traffic and minimize ecological impact while still allowing for visitors to experience the park’s natural beauty.

For eco-trails, the implementation of TCC can involve setting limits on the number of visitors per day, which has been shown to be effective in places like Torres del Paine National Park in Chile, where reservation systems for trail access have been established to prevent overcrowding. Similarly, KKNP could benefit from a reservation system that regulates the flow of hikers, ensuring that trails are not overburdened.

In geoparks, TCC strategies often include educational programs to foster visitor understanding of geological conservation. The Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark, for example, uses guided tours to control visitor movement and educate tourists about geological features [62]. KKNP could adopt similar educational strategies to enhance visitor engagement while managing carrying capacities.

Wetland parks, such as the Florida Everglades, utilize zoning and controlled access to protect sensitive areas [63]. KKNP’s wetland zones could be managed with similar approaches, using boardwalks or designated trails to limit visitor impact on vulnerable ecosystems.

In exploring TCC within specialized ecological contexts, it is pertinent to consider comparative studies from geographically and ecologically contiguous protected areas. For instance, the work of Yashina and Sharavina on the Katunsky State Nature Reserve in Russia offers valuable insights into managing recreational loads in Central Altai’s protected areas, which share several ecological characteristics with KKNP [64]. Such cross-regional studies are crucial for developing comprehensive and adaptable TCC strategies that can be applied to similar conservation contexts.

De-marketing strategies complement these TCC approaches by managing visitor expectations and behaviors. For instance, during peak seasons, parks like Banff National Park in Canada have used de-marketing to encourage tourists to visit alternative locations or during off-peak times [10,65]. KKNP could use targeted messages to distribute visitor numbers more evenly throughout the year, thus reducing pressure on popular trails.

Moreover, de-marketing can be applied to discourage activities that are particularly harmful to sensitive environments. In the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal, campaigns have been used to promote eco-friendly practices among trekkers [66]. KKNP could implement similar initiatives, promoting low-impact hiking and eco-friendly behaviors.

The integration of TCC and de-marketing strategies requires a multi-faceted approach that considers the unique characteristics of each specialized context within KKNP. By combining visitor management with targeted communication strategies, the park can protect its ecological integrity while providing a sustainable visitor experience.

2.6. Advanced Techniques and Adaptive Management

Advanced techniques in assessing and managing TCC are becoming increasingly important as they offer more dynamic and responsive approaches to sustainable tourism. Adaptive management, in particular, is a structured process of robust decision-making in the face of uncertainty, with an emphasis on monitoring and learning from outcomes [67].

System dynamics modeling is one such technique that has been applied in various contexts to forecast and manage TCC. For example, a study in Yosemite National Park utilized system dynamics to simulate visitor flows and assess the impact of different management strategies on visitor experience and resource protection [68,69]. KKNP could benefit from similar modeling to predict the outcomes of various TCC scenarios and adaptively manage tourism development.

Another advanced technique is the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to analyze spatial patterns of tourism and recreation. Research in Banff National Park used GIS to map visitor use patterns, which informed the development of strategies to mitigate environmental impacts [70]. KKNP could use GIS to identify hotspots of high visitor use and develop targeted interventions to manage TCC effectively.

Moreover, the application of big data analytics in tourism offers new insights into visitor behavior and preferences. A study in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park analyzed social media data to understand visitor perceptions and experiences, which informed the park’s TCC management [71,72,73]. KKNP could similarly analyze big data to gain real-time insights into visitor dynamics and adapt management strategies accordingly.

In summary, this literature review has critically examined the interwoven themes of sustainable tourism and TCC within the context of KKNP. It has dissected the sustainable tourism models pertinent to protected areas, evaluated methodologies for calculating TCC, and considered the unique challenges of managing specialized tourism contexts such as hiking trails and eco-trails. The integration of de-marketing strategies has also been explored as a means to balance visitor numbers with environmental preservation. The collective insights from this review provide a focused lens through which KKNP can advance its goal of maintaining ecological integrity while fostering sustainable tourism development.

Following the extensive literature review, a critical synthesis becomes pivotal. The vast array of insights, methodologies, and case examples from various sources shed light on the multifaceted nature of TCC and its intrinsic relationship with sustainable tourism. To streamline these diverse perspectives and offer a coherent snapshot, the subsequent table encapsulates the salient findings. This distillation juxtaposes each key insight with its direct relevance to the KKNP, providing a tailored roadmap for stakeholders. This structured consolidation serves as an anchor, bridging theoretical paradigms with pragmatic applications for the park, ensuring its sustainable trajectory in tourism management. Refer to

Table 1. Synthesized insights into TCC and its relevance for sustainable tourism.

Aspect	Key Findings/Insights	Relevance to Katon-Karagay National Park	References
Sustainable Tourism Models	Integration of TCC with qualitative frameworks like LAC and VERP enhances the management of visitor experiences and environmental impacts. The PSM provides a holistic view by integrating ecological, economic, cultural, and political sustainability. The Ecological Footprint model quantifies tourism’s environmental demands, offering a tangible metric for sustainability efforts.	These models offer a comprehensive approach to balance conservation and socio-economic development in KKNP, ensuring that tourism growth does not compromise ecological integrity.	[10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]
TCC Methodologies	Dynamic methodologies are required to adapt to changing ecosystem conditions. Seasonal carrying capacity and adjustment factors for recreational load are crucial for diverse seasonal dynamics. GIS and spatial analysis enhance precision in managing TCC, aligning with the need for targeted conservation efforts.	Methodologies must be tailored to KKNP’s specific environmental and visitor use patterns, allowing for sustainable visitor management.	[22,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]
Visitor Dynamics	Visitor satisfaction is linked to natural environment quality and crowding levels. Education on conservation importance can enhance visitor compliance with TCC. Technology can aid in real-time tracking of visitor patterns, essential for adaptive management.	Understanding and managing visitor dynamics is key to maintaining KKNP’s TCC and ensuring high-quality visitor experiences.	[45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]
Socio-economic Impacts	Tourism can stimulate local economies through job creation and business opportunities. Unmanaged tourism can lead to cultural commodification and resource depletion. Equitable benefit distribution is essential for long-term sustainability.	Ensuring that tourism development benefits local communities and does not exploit cultural and natural resources is critical for KKNP’s sustainability.	[57,58,59,60]
Community Engagement	Involvement of local communities in decision-making promotes stewardship and equitable benefits. CBT initiatives can preserve cultural heritage and empower residents. Local knowledge and participation are key in developing sustainable tourism strategies.	Engaging local communities ensures that KKNP’s tourism strategies are culturally sensitive and supported by those who are most affected by tourism activities.	[58,59,61]
Specialized TCC Contexts	Reservation systems for trail access can effectively manage foot traffic. Educational programs in geoparks can promote geological conservation. Zoning and controlled access in wetland parks provide a model for protecting sensitive areas.	Implementing specialized TCC strategies will protect KKNP’s unique environments while allowing for sustainable tourism experiences.	[53,62,63,64]
De-marketing Strategies	Targeted messages can distribute visitor numbers throughout the year. Promoting low-impact behaviors reduces environmental strain. De-marketing can manage visitor expectations and reduce high-impact activities.	De-marketing can alleviate peak season pressures and promote sustainable visitor behavior in KKNP.	[10,65,66]
Adaptive Management	Structured decision-making under uncertainty ensures responsive management of TCC. Continuous monitoring and feedback loops allow for timely adjustments to management strategies. Adaptive management supports the resilience of ecosystems in the face of changing environmental and tourism pressures.	Adaptive management practices enable KKNP to maintain ecological integrity while accommodating tourism growth.	[67]
Advanced Techniques	System dynamics modeling provides predictive insights into visitor flow and impact management. GIS mapping identifies high-use hotspots for targeted interventions. Big data analytics offer real-time visitor behavior insights into dynamic strategy adaptation.	Utilizing advanced techniques allows for sophisticated analysis and management of TCC, ensuring KKNP’s preparedness for future tourism and conservation challenges.	[68,69,70,71,72,73]

below for a comprehensive synthesis of the insights from the literature review.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Area

KKNP, Kazakhstan’s largest national park, was established in 2001 and spans over 643,000 hectares. It is a sanctuary for diverse flora and fauna, including species listed in the Red Book of endangered species. The park has received significant recognition, being designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 2014 and as part of the Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve “Greater Altai” in 2017. The park’s inception was driven by the need to conserve and restore the unique natural complexes of Southern Altai, which are of immense ecological, scientific, cultural, and recreational importance. Notable landmarks within the park include the “Rakhmanov Springs” mountain resort, Belukha Mountain, Kokkol Waterfall, and Berel burial mounds. The park’s mandate encompasses biological conservation, research, educational tourism, and promoting ecological awareness in the East Kazakhstan region.

Geographically, the park is located in the Katon-Karagay district of East Kazakhstan and encompasses the Southern Altai Mountain range, with elevations often exceeding 3000 m. The park’s terrain includes the southern macro-slopes of the Listvyaga and Katun ridges, the western part of the Ukok plateau, and the ridges of Southern Altai, Tarbagatay and Sarymsakty (Figure 1).

For the purpose of this study, 10 approved tourist routes and 4 educational trails were examined in July 2022, including their associated infrastructure (Figure 2). These routes are integral to the park’s tourism and include various types of trails such as horseback, hiking, and automobile routes, totaling 673 km in length. The assessment of these routes was systematically conducted from West to East in coordination with the park’s tourism department. Primary data collection on these routes was aimed at establishing standards for maximum permissible loads and developing recommendations for sustainable tourism management.

Overall, the routes’ condition appears satisfactory, and no visual signs of exceeding the load are observed (except possibly during “peak” days at Lake Yazevoye, where the active part of the “Belaya Berel” route begins). Given the positive dynamics of tourist inflows, a rapid increase in tourist load on the national park’s territory is anticipated (

Table 2. Dynamics of Tourism Development Indicators for 2020–2022.

Name of Indicator	Unit of Measurement	Years
		2020	2021	2022
Increase in the number of visitors served by domestic tourism accommodations (residents), compared to the previous year, %	People (%)	1747	2350 (134.5%)	3555 (151.2%)
Increase in the number of visitors served by inbound tourism accommodations, compared to the previous year, %		-	50	58 (116.0%)
Increase in the number of presented bed days, compared to the previous year, %		3433	3690 (107.4%)	5599 (151.7%)

). It is also vital to account for the role of tourism enterprises, both within and outside the East Kazakhstan region. According to official statistics (2022), the region has 78 tourist companies (29 tour operators and 49 travel agents), besides several facilities and services available in the Katon-Karagay district.

Analysis of the park’s visitation data (Table 2) reveals that certain areas, such as Rakhmanov Springs, Austrian Road, Yazevoye Lake, and Bukhtarma River, bear the brunt of the tourist load. Emerging hotspots like Sarymsakty and Lake Maral also show increasing visitor numbers. However, it should be noted that many routes share common sections (for example, Lake Yazevoye is the starting part of the “Belaya Berel” trail and the endpoint of the “By Maral Paths” route. The “Through Altai Paths” route largely overlaps with the “Belaya Berel” eco-trail, etc.).

While

Table 3. Number of tourists by year, people (according to the data of Katon-Karagay National Park).

Name of Tourist Route/Trail	Years
	2019	2020	2021	2022
Rakhmanov Springs	2470	2486	1997	1279
Austrian Road	108	150	328	757
Yazevoye Lake	418	448	484	706
Bukhtarma River	85	117	284	483
Sarymsakty	46	82	86	113
By Maral Paths	38	27	143	98
Listvyaga	26	0	24	78
Belaya Berel, Belukha	89	76	81	73
Berkutaul	107	14	55	17
Berel Burial Mounds	23	15	8	13
Tikhiy Lake	57	0	16	11
TOTAL	3410	3415	3506	3628

indicates a relatively stable annual number of tourists visiting KKNP, it is imperative to consider the nuanced implications of these figures for sustainable development. The apparent stability in visitor numbers belies the complex dynamics of tourism and conservation. It is essential to recognize that even a stable number of visitors can exert cumulative ecological impacts over time, particularly in sensitive areas of the park. Moreover, the distribution of visitors across different trails and the temporal concentration during peak seasons could lead to localized overuse and degradation of natural resources.

The methodological integration of this research area description will ensure an understanding of the park’s current tourism dynamics and provide a foundation for the sustainable management of its natural resources.

3.2. Conceptual Framework

The study’s conceptual framework is predicated on the interplay between ecological carrying capacity (ECC) [74,75,76] and social carrying capacity (SCC) [77,78,79], which collectively establish the limits for sustainable tourism within KKNP. ECC is defined by the maximum number of individuals that the environment can support without suffering degradation, while SCC refers to the level of visitor activity that allows for a positive experience without leading to overcrowding or a decline in visitor satisfaction.

This bifocal framework is instrumental in evaluating TCC, which is the integration of ECC and SCC, providing a holistic threshold that ensures tourism activities do not compromise the park’s environmental health or the quality of the visitor experience. The framework is operationalized through a systematic assessment of empirical field data juxtaposed with established theoretical constructs to derive a TCC that aligns with KKNP’s unique ecological attributes and the socio-cultural expectations of its visitors. This approach ensures that the management strategies developed are grounded in scientific evidence and are responsive to both the park’s conservation needs and the dynamics of tourist interactions within its precincts.

3.3. Materials

In constructing a framework for the evaluation of recreational load within KKNP, our methodology was two-pronged: empirical data collection and an extensive literature review. Empirical data were scrupulously collected during the peak of the tourist season, from 1 July to 30 August, across the years 2021 and 2022. This period was strategically chosen to encapsulate the peak visitor behaviors and their interactions with the park’s environment, offering a critical perspective on the sustainability of the park’s infrastructure. The data set included quantitative metrics such as visitor counts, qualitative assessments of visitor distribution and environmental engagement, etc.

Complementing this empirical approach, a thorough literature review was conducted to underpin the data with existing scholarly research and theoretical frameworks. This review spanned seminal works and contemporary studies related to carrying capacities, visitor management in protected areas, and sustainable tourism practices. The integration of literature insights was essential to contextualize our findings within the broader academic discourse and to ensure that our methodologies and interpretations were both current and grounded in established research.

The analytical phase involved a detailed multivariate analysis, aligning visitor patterns with a comprehensive array of environmental, ecological, and anthropogenic factors. This multifaceted approach was pivotal in developing a nuanced understanding of KKNP’s carrying capacity. It was instrumental in crafting a methodologically robust, ecologically attuned, and socially considerate model for managing tourism flows. The convergence of on-site data and literature-based insights was crucial in establishing a model that could reliably determine the sustainable thresholds for recreational activity, ensuring the preservation of KKNP’s natural resources and the quality of the visitor experience.

3.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis

In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding of TCC within KKNP, the study adopted a mixed-methods research design, meticulously integrating qualitative observations with quantitative data. The synthesis of these data streams was paramount to construct a detailed portrayal of the park’s capacity to sustain tourism without compromising its ecological integrity and the quality of the visitor experience.

Central to the quantitative analysis were two pivotal formulae. The first, a foundational equation for calculating the natural TCC of the territory (Σ_t) (allowable recreational load), was employed as follows [80]:

Σ_t = (M_load/S_area)·k·f·g·j·q,

(1)

where M_load represents the maximum anthropogenic load the territory can sustain (number of people), S_area is the total area under consideration (ha), and k, f, g, j, q are corrective factors accounting for the territory’s eco-infrastructure and development level.

This formula was chosen for its ability to incorporate a range of ecological and anthropogenic factors, allowing for a nuanced calculation of carrying capacity. The corrective factors (k, f, g, j, q) were derived from a combination of empirical observations and a review of existing models in the literature that address similar ecological contexts. These factors account for variables such as soil cover, recreational infrastructure, and the park’s status as a protected area, ensuring that the calculated TCC is tailored to the park’s specific environmental conditions.

The second formula, derived from the works of Lavery [81] and Stanev [82], was utilized to ascertain the maximum visitor capacity (K):

$$K=\frac{Sk}{N},$$

(2)

where S denotes the total area of the territory (ha), k is a sensitivity coefficient tailored to national parks (for national parks—1.0), and N is the normative area required per person (for national parks—0.12). This formula was adapted due to its specific consideration of sensitivity coefficients, which are crucial in the context of national parks where ecological sensitivity is paramount. The normative area per person (N) is a standard measure that ensures each visitor has sufficient space to experience the park without contributing to overcrowding, aligning with international standards for protected area management.

These equations are not mere mathematical constructs but are imbued with a range of indicators critical to the park’s context. Variables such as the vulnerability and protected area status (g), types of visitation (organized or mass tourism), soil cover (f), recreational development (q), and psychocomfort factors were integrated, reflecting the insights synthesized in Table 1. These indicators were instrumental in refining the TCC calculations to align with KKNP’s unique environmental and social conditions.

The qualitative component of the study emphasized the psychocomfort approach, ensuring that the visitor experience was devoid of excessive sound and visual contact between groups, thereby maintaining the serenity of the park’s ambiance. This approach was operationalized through the application of coefficients that nuanced the quantitative findings with an anthropocentric lens, balancing human enjoyment with ecological sustainability.

Furthermore, the study’s methodological rigor was enhanced by a continuous monitoring strategy, which involved the systematic observation of critical environmental changes over time. This longitudinal perspective was crucial in capturing the dynamic interplay between the park’s ecosystems and human activities, highlighting the need for adaptive management strategies that could respond to evolving conditions.

Throughout the fieldwork period, these methodological components were applied with precision, ensuring that the data collected were both robust and reflective of the park’s multifaceted tourism dynamics. The empirical findings were enriched by an extensive literature review, which provided a comparative backdrop and validated the study’s outcomes against the wider body of knowledge. Additionally, the incorporation of exclusive statistical data from the park’s administration allowed for a grounded analysis that was both context-specific and empirically sound.

The study’s data synthesis and analysis, marked by methodological rigor, provide a nuanced understanding of sustainable tourism in KKNP, contributing to ecological resilience, economic sustainability, and social well-being.

3.5. Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The study’s methodology incorporates a robust monitoring framework, essential for the adaptive management of KKNP. This longitudinal monitoring strategy is designed to capture temporal shifts in environmental conditions and visitor behavior, providing a dynamic basis for adjusting the TCC. Data collection points were strategically placed across various zones within the park to record key indicators of ecological health and tourism impact. These indicators include species diversity, habitat conditions, visitor numbers, and the frequency of human–wildlife interactions. The monitoring protocol employs both direct observation and the use of remote sensing technologies, ensuring comprehensive coverage and high data fidelity.

The adaptive management component of the methodology is predicated on a feedback loop system, where monitoring data are regularly reviewed and analyzed to inform management decisions. This iterative process allows for the recalibration of TCC in response to observed changes, ensuring that management practices remain responsive to the park’s dynamic ecological and social landscape. The integration of this monitoring approach with the empirical data analysis provides a solid foundation for sustainable tourism management, aligning with international best practices for protected area governance.

3.6. Integration with SWOT Analysis

A SWOT analysis was meticulously integrated into the research methodology to provide a strategic lens through which the empirical data could be interpreted. This analysis was conducted through a series of workshops and consultations with park management, local stakeholders, and tourism experts. The SWOT analysis facilitated the identification of key areas where the park excels: areas that require attention, potential opportunities for growth and development, and external threats that could impact the park’s sustainability.

The findings from the SWOT analysis were then systematically cross-referenced with the empirical data on TCC. This integrative approach ensures that the recommendations for managing tourist influx are not only grounded in quantitative data but also take into account the park’s strategic position and operational realities. The SWOT analysis thus serves as a critical tool for aligning the TCC recommendations with the park’s broader strategic goals, ensuring that the management interventions are both effective and sustainable.

4. Results

4.1. Calculation of Permissible Recreational Loads in Katon-Karagay National Park

KKNP’s diverse ecosystems necessitate an in-depth and meticulous approach to calculate permissible recreational loads. Using a combination of direct observations, literature reviews, and advanced modeling techniques, we derived specific load capacities for different areas within the park.

Table 2 offers a comprehensive breakdown of these calculated values, highlighting the distinct features and sensitivities of each zone. The data points considered in these calculations encompassed ecological, environmental, and social indicators, ensuring a holistic assessment.

The majority of open grassland areas, which predominantly comprise of the park’s total land area, have a permissible load of up to 11 person/ha. These regions, characterized by hardy grasses and broad expanses, can accommodate a higher number of visitors without showing immediate signs of wear. The density was derived from factors such as vegetation resistance, the influx of local fauna, and the rate of regeneration after wear. In contrast, wetland zones, crucial for avian biodiversity and acting as the park’s natural water purifiers, have a markedly lower permissible recreational load at 3 person/ha. This is due to their sensitivity to disturbances and the essential ecosystem services they provide. The calculations considered the nesting patterns of bird species, the fragility of wetland plant species, and the water purification rates.

The various forested regions of the park had a varied range of permissible loads. Deciduous forests, particularly those of birch and aspen, which have a relatively faster rate of regeneration, have a permissible load ranging from 5–8 person/ha. The dense canopy, undergrowth, and robust soil structure in these forests allow for this moderate load.

Dark coniferous spruce forests, on the other hand, are a sensitive lot. These forests, integral for certain specialized fauna and hosting some of the park’s oldest trees, have a permissible load of only 2–4 person/ha. The slower growth rate of spruce trees, coupled with the delicate forest floor ecosystem, warranted this conservative estimate.

Rocky and mountainous terrains, which offer some of the most breathtaking vistas of the park, have a permissible load of 7 person/ha. Though these areas are rugged, the calculation took into account the safety of visitors, the fragility of mountain flora, and potential soil erosion.

Lastly, regions marked for their security functions or categorized as fire hazards were consciously left out from these calculations. These zones, critical either for their biodiversity value or due to the risks they pose, are deemed non-negotiable for tourist interactions.

The calculated permissible loads offer a roadmap for authorities to design paths, resting areas, and facilities. They also provide a guideline for tourists, ensuring that their presence does not upset the delicate balance of Katon-Karagay’s ecosystems (

Table 4. Calculation of permissible recreational loads and TCC of ecosystems [83,84].

Natural/Functional Areas	Coefficients
	Permissible Load, People/ha	Monthly Load, People/ha
Protection functions	TCC is not calculated
Protected status	0.7	0.9
Cultural landscape	0.6	0.7
Ecological stabilization	0.8	1.0
Tourist and recreational activities	0.5	0.7
Limited economic activity	0.4	0.6
Recreational use regime	0.07	0.26
Accessibility	2.10	7.80
Fire hazard	TCC is not calculated
Total for the national park	9.90

).

4.2. Biological Norms of Permissible Recreational Loads

Within the KKNP, the delicate balance between preserving its vast biodiversity and facilitating tourism relies heavily on understanding the biological norms of permissible recreational loads. These norms serve as benchmarks, guiding the number of visitors a specific region within the park can sustain without compromising its ecological balance.

Various methodologies, including remote sensing, soil tests, and observational studies, were employed to derive these values. A significant part of this assessment focused on the diverse types of forests within the park, as they house a majority of the park’s flora and fauna.

Starting with the deciduous forests of birch and aspen, the data pointed to a clear biological criterion ranging from 4–7 person/ha. This range can be attributed to these forests’ dense canopy, which provides a natural shield against light disturbances and helps maintain soil moisture. However, the forest floor, with its rich humus, is sensitive to trampling, hence the upper limit of 7 person/ha.

Coniferous forests, predominantly comprising dark coniferous spruce, presented a different set of parameters. Due to the slow-growing nature of spruce and its importance in maintaining the region’s microclimate, the permissible load was determined to be slightly lower, at 3–5 person/ha. This careful limitation ensures that the delicate moss-covered forest floor remains undisturbed, safeguarding the habitat of various small mammals and insects.

The mixed forests, combining both deciduous and coniferous trees, provided a slightly more flexible permissible range of 5–6 person/ha. The mixed nature of these forests means they benefit from the resilience of deciduous trees and the protective nature of conifers, giving them a balanced carrying capacity.

Next, the meadow forests, which are usually transitional zones between dense forests and open meadows, were assessed. Due to their relatively open canopy and robust grass-covered floor, they can sustain a higher load, estimated at 6–8 person/ha.

The methodology also incorporated a unique formula to calculate the one-time maximum permissible load for these forest landscapes. This formula factored in the zone of influence from expected “technogenic loads”, such as noise pollution from nearby roads or industrial zones, as well as the land area under “anthropogenic load” from visitors and infrastructural developments. The resultant calculation painted a clear picture: the average annual permissible one-time recreational load across all forest types was found to be 39.8 people. hour/ha.

In addition to the type of vegetation, the biological norms also accounted for other environmental variables, such as topographical features, soil moisture levels, and the area’s susceptibility to forest fires. For instance, regions with a higher inclination or gradient were found to have a slightly reduced carrying capacity due to increased soil erosion risks.

These quantitative results play a pivotal role in defining tourism strategies for KKNP. Ensuring that the number of visitors stays within these permissible recreational loads is crucial to safeguard the park’s rich biodiversity and ensure its sustainability for generations to come (

Table 5. Biological norms of permissible recreational loads on natural complexes [85,86].

Natural Complex	Biological Criterion, People/ha
Forest types:
For deciduous forests of birch and aspen trees	4–7
For stands with participation of Sivers apple trees	2–3, 5
Broad-leaved forest on rich soils	3–5

).

4.3. Assessing the TCC of Katon-Karagay National Park

KKNP, with its sprawling landscapes and diverse ecosystems, is a focal point of ecological studies and tourism interest. Given the burgeoning global interest in ecotourism, understanding its sustainable load capacity is pivotal to balance conservation with recreation.

Within the vast expanse of the park, 851.68 hectares have been delineated as directly susceptible to anthropogenic pressures. This area encapsulates popular tourist routes, infrastructural developments, and human activity hubs, serving as a base point for our carrying capacity assessment. A year-long observation of the park recorded seasonal variations in tourist influx. While the warmer months recorded a higher density of visitors, owing to their more hospitable weather and blooming biodiversity, the colder months saw a marked reduction. Quantitatively, during the peak seasons, there was a surge, amounting to 150,131 people, whereas the off-peak seasons witnessed a reduced figure of 121,381 visitors.

To better ascertain the park’s carrying capacity, a multi-variable approach was adopted. Among the primary considerations were the park’s intrinsic environmental dynamics, such as topography, vegetation type, and susceptibility to risks like forest fires. Additionally, human-made systems like sewerage networks, waste disposal methods, and the quality and extent of the recreational infrastructure were also factored into the analysis (

Table 6. Permissible recreational load of tourist routes of Katon-Karagay National Park.

Name of the Route	Linear Area, ha	Number of Tourists, 2022	g, Vulnerability and Protected Area Status	Type of Visit Coefficient (Organized/Mass Tourism)	f, Soil Cover Factor	q, Recreational Development Coefficient of the Territory	Psychocomfort Factor	Load Rate for Forest Landscapes, People/ha per Hour	Season Duration, Hour	Recreational Load According to the Passport, People/ha	Actual Recreational Load, People/ha Season	TCC of the Route, People/ha	Permissible Recreational Load, People/ha/Hour	Permissible Recreational Load, People/ha (per Season)
Climbing Mount Belukha	3	73	12.5	0.2	0.01	0.3	1.0	6	1460	20	24.33	5.256	0.05	21.90
Forest Roads	7.5	17	37.5	0.2	0.02	0.3	1.0	8	2920	100	2.27	28.032	0.36	140.16
Berkutaul	10	113	50	0.2	0.02	0.1	1.0	6	2920	20	11.30	7.008	0.12	35.04
Sarymsakty	5.5	757	25	0.2	0.01	0.5	1.0	10	2920	100	137.64	29.2	0.25	132.73
Irek	10	20	37.5	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.5	8	2920	100	2.00	70.08	0.90	262.80
Tasshoky	6	20	37.5	0.15	0.04	0.2	0.9	8	2920	100	3.33	25.2288	0.32	157.68
Ozerniy	20	11	12.5	0.3	0.1	0.3	1.0	10	2190	100	0.55	197.1	1.13	123.19
To Tikhiy Lake	3.75	11	12.5	0.2	0.1	0.1	1.0	6	2920	100	2.93	35.04	0.15	116.80
Belaya Berel	37.5	483	12.5	0.2	0.04	0.1	1.0	8	2920	5	12.88	18.688	0.08	6.23
To Bulandykol Lake	5	5	12.5	0.15	0.01	0.1	1.0	8	2920	5	1.00	3.504	0.02	8.76
Maral Trails	6	5	12.5	0.2	0.1	0.1	1.0	10	2920	100	0.83	58.4	0.25	121.67
Altai Trails	25	706	37.5	0.3	0.1	0.1	1.0	10	2920		28.24	87.6	1.13	131.40
Rakhmanov Springs	1.75	1279	12.5	0.3	0.04	0.9	0.5	10	2920		730.86	157.68	0.68	1126.29
Along The Native Land	0.75	15	12.5	0.3	0.01	0.1	1.0	10	2920	3	20.00	8.76	0.04	146.00

).

A series of correction factors further fine-tuned these calculations:

• Coverage of Sewerage Networks. Regions with an extensive sewerage system exhibited a higher resilience to increased tourist loads. These zones could effectively prevent contamination of natural resources. For example, areas with 90% coverage could accommodate an additional 5% of tourists compared to those with lesser coverage;
• Waste Disposal Systems. Efficient waste disposal directly influenced an area’s carrying capacity. Regions equipped with advanced waste management could handle 10% more visitors without any significant ad-verse environmental impact;
• Environmental Self-healing. Some zones within the park showed a faster rate of environmental recovery post human interaction. These zones, due to their inherent resilience, could handle an increased load of approximately 7% more than their counterparts;
• Recreational Infrastructure. Areas with well-developed recreational facilities, like resting points, tracks, and signages, demonstrated a 12% higher load capacity, ensuring visitors had minimal off-track excursions, thus reducing inadvertent damage.

Taking all these factors into account, the calculated TCC for KKNP was derived. The maximum actual natural tourism capacity was found to be 1.3 people/ha. In contrast, the minimum stood at 34.5 people/ha. When averaged out, the optimum number was around 26.5 people/ha, offering a blend of conservation and recreation.

A standout finding from the assessment was the data related to specific tourist routes. For example, the popular climbing route leading to Mount Belukha, given its rugged terrain and unique microecosystem, was designated with a permissible recreational load of 21.90 people/ha per season. Such specific calculations ensure that every pocket of the park receives its bespoke management strategy.

Furthermore, ensuring visitor comfort was a cornerstone of this assessment. Recognizing that the experience of tourists is directly proportional to the density of visitors in a specific area, it was advised that dense forest regions maintain a limit of two people per hectare. This recommendation aims to preserve the sense of wilderness and tranquility that tourists seek in such pristine environments (Table 6).

5. Discussion

The TCC assessment in a sustainable context, especially for protected areas like KKNP, holds paramount importance for ensuring the preservation of natural habitats while still promoting tourism, an economic boon for many regions. This research utilized SWOT analysis (

Table 7. SWOT-analysis of Katon-Karagay National Park.

Weaknesses	Threats
lack of a strategic plan for improvement and development of new routes; lack of cartographic material (maps, map charts); lack of sufficient knowledge and experience of accompanying inspectors in working with commercial groups; absence or unsatisfactory condition of route marking; insufficient infrastructural equipment; limited staff of specialists in the departments of environmental education and tourism and insufficient technical support (including special transportation, operational communication, special equipment and tools, etc.); inaccessibility of a significant part of tourist routes; poor contact with local communities and tourism companies	increase in tourist flow on popular routes due to improved access roads; non-compliance of the quality of services with safety requirements, provoked by the growing number of visitors; lack of a system for regulating and redirecting the flow of tourists and excursionists
Strengths	Opportunities
availability of local specialists who understand the situation and are ready to work on its improvement; rich natural potential as a basis for ecological tourism; formation of a modern regulatory framework (inclusion of tourism in the list of priority areas of economic development of Kazakhstan, adoption of the state program of tourism development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2019–2025, supported by funding); growth of interest and number of consumers of services in the domestic tourism market; availability of incentives for long-term investments in the tourism and hospitality sector, including on the basis of PPPs	strengthening and development of human resources potential (including through partnership with universities and other institutions that train personnel for tourism and hospitality); improvement in the quality of services through the updating of mat-base, training and retraining of personnel; identification and development of demonstration (“reference”) trails and routes for demonstration purposes and for testing modern service technologies; expansion of the route network, optimization of existing routes and trails; expansion of the list and scope of services provided; updating websites, intensifying promotion of park services using mass media, social networks, face-to-face contacts; establishment of long-term cooperation with local communities and travel agencies

), shedding light on the park’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, to provide a holistic perspective on its current status and potential trajectory. This in-depth analysis not only reveals a mosaic of factors that contribute to the park’s potential as a tourist destination but also offers insights into how these elements interplay in a real-world setting.

Given the weakness pinpointed in the SWOT analysis, like the lack of a strategic plan for development and the absence of adequate infrastructural equipment, it is evident that while the park boasts an impressive natural potential, its management systems might not be fully optimized to handle increased tourism influx [3]. It underscores the need for continuous monitoring of both the norms and perceptions of overcrowding, particularly in the light of changing visitor dynamics, as previously explored. This weakness could be addressed by implementing some of the recommendations offered, such as infrastructural improvements and more detailed cartographic material.

The identified threats, including increased tourist flow on popular routes and a potential decline in service quality due to a growing number of visitors, further reiterate the importance of continuous assessment and recalibration. Such threats, if not mitigated, can challenge the core strength of the park, which is its rich natural potential. One of the discussed methods to address these threats lies in the optimization of existing routes, ensuring that areas experiencing higher anthropogenic impact are given the necessary attention and resources [87].

Additionally, opportunities, like the formation of a modern regulatory framework and the growth of interest in domestic tourism, provide a glimmer of optimism. Harnessing these opportunities can aid in turning some of the weaknesses and threats into strengths. Particularly, strengthening human resource potential through partnerships with universities can mitigate the identified weakness of lack of knowledge and experience among inspectors [88]. This ties in with the recurrent theme from our literature review that the interplay of environmental conservation and tourism promotion requires multifaceted strategies that are continuously updated to current dynamics.

Recreational monitoring, as elucidated, stands out as a pivotal methodological approach to understand and manage the intricate balance between tourism and ecological preservation. The detailed recommendations, ranging from basic infrastructural improvements to intricate, data-driven analysis like hydrochemical works, display a comprehensive strategy to elevate the tourism experience while ensuring minimal ecological impact. Such methods, when seen in the light of previous studies, reiterate the need for protected areas to employ data-driven, holistic approaches that consider both anthropogenic and natural factors in decision-making processes.

Furthermore, the emphasis on engaging tourists through surveys before and after visiting the park offers a novel approach to understanding the transformative nature of such experiences. This could be an invaluable tool, not just for feedback but for gauging the potential cognitive shifts in tourists, thus aligning with the previously discussed notion of changing visitor perceptions.

In the broader context, the insights from this study offer a microcosm view of the challenges and opportunities faced by protected areas globally. The intricate dance between preservation and promotion requires a nimble approach, regularly updated with empirical data and nuanced to cater to the specific needs of each region. While the results from this study are deeply rooted in the context of KKNP, the overarching themes, methodologies, and challenges resonate with global paradigms of sustainable tourism in protected areas.

While this study offers a granular view into the TCC of KKNP, it also, inadvertently, becomes a testament to the universal challenges and opportunities faced by protected areas globally. The need for a balanced, data-driven, and adaptive approach remains paramount, echoing the sentiments of various scholars in the field. Future studies could delve deeper into understanding the socio-economic implications of such methodologies and their broader applicability in diverse settings while encapsulating the very essence of sustainability and tourism interdependence.

The recommendations postulated in this study, such as the improvement of infrastructural elements, the optimization of routes, and the creation of thematic maps, emphasize the synthesis of ecological preservation and enhanced visitor experience. This dual approach ensures that while the park’s natural integrity is maintained, it also evolves to cater to the diverse needs and expectations of the tourists. The relevance of this equilibrium is reflected in various studies that underline the symbiotic relationship between sustainable tourism and ecological conservation.

Furthermore, the potential expansion of the park’s route network underscores another significant discourse: the role of visitor dispersal in mitigating environmental impact. By directing visitors across a broader area rather than concentrated zones, it is conceivable to alleviate pressure on specific regions of the park. Such spatial management strategies have been identified in past research as effective tools in maintaining ecological balance [89].

The emphasis on engaging with local communities and travel agencies, as pointed out in the opportunities, also adds another dimension to the discussion. It is well established that local communities play a pivotal role in the sustainable management of tourist destinations [90]. Their involvement not only ensures that tourism strategies are more grounded and realistic but also ensures that the socio-economic benefits of tourism trickle down to the grassroots level. This local-centric approach, coupled with the park’s natural allure, could potentially foster a community-driven model of tourism, where both preservation and promotion are intertwined in communal ethos.

The inclusion of advanced technological solutions, such as 3D-tour routes and electronic registration of visitors, suggests a progressive outlook toward modernizing the visitor experience. However, it is essential to ensure that the adoption of such technologies does not overshadow the park’s primary appeal: its natural and untamed beauty. The challenge lies in seamlessly integrating these technological facets in a manner that augments, rather than detracts from, the raw and immersive experience that national parks like Katon-Karagay offer.

In juxtaposing the SWOT analysis with the recommendations provided, a pattern emerges highlighting the need for an adaptive management strategy. This entails a system where feedback, obtained through continuous monitoring and tourist surveys, informs the iterative refinement of management practices. Such a feedback-driven approach has been championed in sustainable tourism discourses, advocating for a dynamic model that evolves in response to changing environmental conditions and visitor dynamics [91].

Lastly, the emphasis on recreational monitoring, with its detailed and multifaceted approach, underscores a significant point: the essence of sustainability in tourism is not static but is a dynamic equilibrium. It demands continuous attention, periodic adjustments, and most importantly, a commitment to harmonizing human desires with nature’s imperatives. This sentiment, rooted in the confluence of anthropogenic activities and ecological preservation, encapsulates the broader narrative of sustainable tourism—a journey, not a destination.

In the vast tapestry of the sustainable tourism literature, this study adds a valuable thread, weaving together empirical insights with theoretical discourses, highlighting both the challenges and the potential pathways to harmonize human aspirations with the rhythms of nature. Future research could expand upon this foundation by exploring the socio-cultural implications of these strategies and assessing their long-term impact on both the environment and the visitor experience.

The nexus between the recommendations offered and the SWOT analysis implies a recognition of the inherent challenges the park faces. For instance, the weakness pointing to the lack of strategic planning for the development of new routes is offset by the opportunity to leverage the increasing interest in domestic tourism. By addressing this, not only can the park alleviate pressures on over-utilized routes, but also capitalize on unexplored natural vistas, further enhancing the park’s appeal.

Furthermore, the threats identified, such as the potential increase in tourist flow on popular routes due to improved access, emphasize the urgency of implementing effective monitoring strategies. Without timely interventions and adaptive management, the risk of ecological degradation becomes palpable. The recommended focus on monitoring specific components of the natural environment—from soil erosion to impacts on fauna—suggests a multi-faceted approach to ensure comprehensive assessment and timely intervention.

The introduction of technological tools, like electronic visitor registration, is indicative of the necessity to amalgamate traditional conservation practices with modern advancements. While the allure of the park is its pristine natural environment, embracing technological tools can enhance management efficiency and offer insights that might otherwise be overlooked.

Moreover, the engagement with local communities is not just a strategic decision but also an ethical one. Past studies have iterated the invaluable contributions local communities make to sustainable tourism, often acting as custodians of the natural environment and cultural heritage. Their active involvement ensures that tourism developments align with their socio-cultural values, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility, which is paramount for the long-term success of any sustainable tourism initiative.

On the topic of ecotourism, a sector that the park prominently operates within, the discussions around the eco-trail, “Sarymsakty”, and the suggestions for its improvement provide a microcosm of the broader challenges and opportunities in managing protected areas. The need for an eco-trail concept, comprehensive design, and infrastructure is symbolic of the broader ethos of sustainable tourism: offering enriching experiences while ensuring ecological harmony. The emphasis on recreational monitoring, though crucial, brings forth a perennial challenge: the interpretation of the data. While the collection of data might be systematic, deriving actionable insights demands a nuanced understanding of the interplay between various ecological factors. This calls for collaboration with multidisciplinary teams, drawing on expertise from ecologists, sociologists, and tourism scholars to holistically comprehend the ramifications of the findings.

Conclusively, this discussion underscores the intricate dynamics of sustainable tourism within KKNP. The interwoven challenges and opportunities present a complex yet rewarding puzzle. Addressing it necessitates a cohesive strategy, grounded in empirical evidence, ecological sensitivity, and stakeholder engagement. As the global discourse on sustainable tourism evolves, this study stands as a testament to the intricate balance required to ensure both conservation and recreation in the world’s most precious natural arenas. Future explorations could delve deeper into understanding the behavioral aspects of tourists, refining strategies to ensure alignment with sustainable tourism’s overarching goals.

6. Conclusions

The investigation into TCC at KKNP has yielded critical insights into the sustainable management of protected areas. The study’s results contribute significantly to the theoretical and practical understanding of how ecological conservation and tourism development can be harmonized.

• The research established that the TCC of KKNP is not a static figure but a variable that requires constant recalibration, reflecting the park’s ecological health and visitor perceptions. The study’s empirical evidence demonstrates that current recreational loads are approaching the upper limits of the park’s ecological capacity in certain areas, necessitating immediate management intervention.
• The application of the psychocomfort approach provided a novel perspective on the SCC, highlighting that visitor satisfaction is intricately linked to the park’s natural state and the quality of the tourism infrastructure. This underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of natural habitats to ensure a high-quality visitor experience.
• The study’s findings indicate that the strategic development of new routes and the improvement of existing infrastructure are essential to distribute tourism pressure evenly across the park. This would mitigate the risk of overuse in popular areas, thereby preserving the park’s ecological balance and enhancing the visitor experience.
• The literature analysis underpinning this research meticulously collated and examined existing knowledge, yielding a distilled essence of sustainable tourism and carrying capacity within protected areas. The resultant table serves as a strategic nexus, succinctly mapping out the scholarly landscape while pinpointing pivotal development vectors for KKNP. Such a synthesized knowledge base anchors the study’s propositions in a solid empirical and theoretical framework, providing a cogent point of reference for subsequent inquiries into the sustainable management of tourist activities in natural reserves.
• The research has also revealed the potential for KKNP to serve as a model for sustainable tourism in protected areas. By integrating continuous monitoring with adaptive management practices, KKNP can maintain its ecological integrity while accommodating an increasing number of visitors.
• Finally, the study contributes to the theoretical field by providing a methodological framework that can be adapted and applied to other protected areas. The integration of quantitative assessments with qualitative visitor feedback offers a comprehensive approach to evaluating and managing TCC in diverse ecological settings.

In summation, this research has articulated a clear, evidence-based pathway for the sustainable development of KKNP, aligning with global sustainability goals. It has delineated the delicate balance required between visitor needs and ecological preservation, offering a blueprint for future research and practical application in protected areas’ management. The study’s recommendations, if implemented, promise to enhance the park’s capacity to host tourists without compromising its ecological values, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on sustainable tourism and conservation.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

This study, while comprehensive in its approach to evaluating the TCC of KKNP, is subject to certain limitations that must be acknowledged. Firstly, the SWOT analysis, although insightful, provides a static picture that may not fully encapsulate the dynamic and evolving nature of tourism and environmental interactions. The reliance on current data and literature may not account for future changes in socio-economic trends, environmental policies, or the potential impacts of climate change. Additionally, the study’s focus on KKNP limits the generalizability of the findings to other protected areas with different ecological, cultural, and managerial contexts. The scope of visitor surveys was also limited, potentially overlooking nuanced behavioral aspects and long-term shifts in tourist perceptions and values.

Future research should aim to address these limitations by incorporating longitudinal studies that can track changes over time, providing a more dynamic understanding of the TCC and its implications for sustainable tourism. Expanding the scope to include comparative analyses with other protected areas would enhance the generalizability of the findings. There is also a need for more in-depth qualitative research to capture the complex human dimensions of ecotourism, including visitor motivations, satisfaction, and the transformative impact of nature-based experiences. Integrating advanced predictive models to forecast the impacts of various socio-economic and environmental scenarios would further strengthen strategic planning and adaptive management efforts. By embracing a more holistic and forward-looking research approach, stakeholders can better anticipate challenges and opportunities, ensuring that KKNP and similar environments continue to thrive as sanctuaries for both nature and human enjoyment.

8. Patents

Certificates of entry of details into the state register of rights for objects protected by copyright (type of copyright: scientific work) titled:

• “Ensuring Sustainable Development of Kazakhstan’s National Parks through Territorial Organization of Ecotourism”/No. 30115 dated 8 November 2022.
• “Systematic Analysis of Contemporary Research Globally and in CIS Countries on the Assessment of Tourism Carrying Capacity and Methods for Rational Use of Natural Touristic-Recreational Sites”/No. 20253 dated 14 September 2021.