tourism resources of

The Journey Back to Recovery – Resources to Develop Tourism Sustainably

Photo: istock.com / narvikk

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• The travel and tourism sector faces an astounding loss of nearly 200 million jobs due to COVID-19.
• Nature-based tourism, the largest, global, market-based contributor to financing protected area systems, has been especially hard hit.
• For governments and tourism operators looking to rebuild the NBT sector, a new publication offers resources and tools to help grow back in a resilient and sustainable way.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic brought tourism to a halt, queues to see the world’s most beautiful, natural wonders have disappeared. Gone are the clicking sounds of photos being snapped of wildlife through big lens cameras. On many island destinations like Hawaii and Fiji, beaches have been devoid of tourists due to pandemic-related travel restrictions. 

This is beneficial for the recovery of the environment in the short term, but a catastrophe for national and local economies, communities, and the small and medium enterprises that depend upon nature-based tourism (NBT) for their survival. In fact, in the long term, if tourism does not recover, it will disincentivize communities from promoting natural resource management.  

Across Africa, wildlife is the single biggest driver for NBT and much of the tourism takes place in protected areas. A study found that Africa’s 8,400 protected areas generated $48 billion in direct in-country expenditures. These revenues are a key source of financing protected area systems, and as they dry up—taking income, jobs and safety nets for local communities with them— threats to nature such as poaching and logging increase, degrading the very asset on which NBT is built.

For example, Maasai Mara Community Conservancies in Kenya used to receive $7.5 million per year in lease fees from tourism partners, which benefited 14,500 landowners and 116,000 community members. Without these payments, local landowners have fewer incentives to support conservation. Uganda Wildlife Authority generated 88% of its revenues from tourism and South African National Parks (SANParks) depended on tourism for 84% of their revenues. In Indonesia, the loss of tourism revenues of up to $6 billion has reduced support for parks and has impacted small businesses that rely on tourists.

Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo closed to protect its endangered gorillas from the possible and unknown effects of COVID-19. This required cancelling 100% of their bookings and not taking new reservations, the financial effects of which have been devastating on cash flow for the park to protect the gorillas, provide support to rangers and the families of rangers who have been killed in the line of duty, and to help deliver essential disease prevention services.

Photo: Marian Galovic / Shutterstock

As tourism recovers, a new publication from the World Bank’s Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy (ENB) Global Practice and the Global Environment Facility-funded Global Wildlife Program is available to offer some suggestions. Tools and Resources for Nature-Based Tourism curates the wealth of knowledge and resources available on NBT topics and makes them easily accessible to practitioners as they work to restart tourism.

For example, as governments rebuild their tourism sectors or shift to new markets and models, destinations, businesses, and communities may need information on marketing, planning, visitor forecasts, crisis management, and other considerations, as well as opportunities to learn new skills and form new partnerships. They can refer to resources in the report and guidebook under the themes:

• Destination Management
• Concessions and Partnership Models
• Nature-Based Enterprise Development
• Visitor Management
• Risk Management and Climate Change
• Training Resources
• Networks and Institutions

In compiling the report, hundreds of resources were identified through a stakeholder consultation with over 100 tourism experts, prior to the onset of the pandemic. An interactive platform  also allows users to search for these resources by topics and keywords, and will be updated regularly with contributions from global practitioners as new tools are developed.

For example, the topic of concessions and partnerships models will become more important as countries look to diversify their revenue streams through tourism and beyond. The report identified 60 resources, such as “ An Introduction to Tourism Concessioning: 14 Characteristics of Successful Programs ” (IFC); “Guidelines for Tourism Partnerships and Concessions for Protected Areas” (Convention on Biological Diversity); and “ Tourism Concessions in Protected Natural Areas: Guidelines for Managers ”  (UNDP). Webinars , case studies , and relevant networks and institutions are all available to provide guidance, and more will be added as they emerge.

“The sections in the report address many of the key issues confronted during the preparation and implementation of an NBT project. I can see myself going back to it again and again for information on particular issues at hand,” said Tijen Arin, a senior environmental economist with the World Bank who co-leads an NBT project in Nepal .

The NBT model that existed prior to the pandemic did not take into consideration the preservation of the environment nor did it equitably deliver benefits to local communities. In this dark cloud of the economic downturn, a silver lining is the chance to start with a clean slate and build the tourism sector back  sustainably . Failure to do so, would only exacerbate the degradation of the natural assets that communities and tourism rely on and reduce economic and ecological benefits over the long term.

This  one-stop platform  can help provide the resources on recovery strategies and impacts that are needed to put conservation at the core of sustainable tourism.

*  Dr. Claudia Sobrevila, Senior Environmental Specialist and Global Wildlife Program Manager at the World Bank, provided insightful guidance and helped conceptualize Tools and Resources for Nature-Based Tourism. She sadly passed away during its production, but strongly believed in “finding creative solutions to protect wildlife and building economic opportunities for local communities.”

Website:  Global Wildlife Program

Feature Story:  Risking Lives to Protect Wildlife and Wildlands: Stories from Rangers in the Field

Blog:  A green economic recovery for South Asia

Feature Story:  Growing Wildlife-Based Tourism Sustainably: A New Report and Q&A

Feature Story:  Ramping up Nature-Based Tourism to Protect Biodiversity and Boost Livelihoods

By Bastian Herre, Veronika Samborska and Max Roser

Tourism has massively increased in recent decades. Aviation has opened up travel from domestic to international. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of international visits had more than doubled since 2000.

Tourism can be important for both the travelers and the people in the countries they visit.

For visitors, traveling can increase their understanding of and appreciation for people in other countries and their cultures.

And in many countries, many people rely on tourism for their income. In some, it is one of the largest industries.

But tourism also has externalities: it contributes to global carbon emissions and can encroach on local environments and cultures.

On this page, you can find data and visualizations on the history and current state of tourism across the world.

Interactive Charts on Tourism

Cite this work.

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this topic page, please also cite the underlying data sources. This topic page can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Ethics, Culture and Social Responsibility

• Global Code of Ethics for Tourism
• Accessible Tourism

Tourism and Culture

• Women’s Empowerment and Tourism

share this content

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

The convergence between tourism and culture, and the increasing interest of visitors in cultural experiences, bring unique opportunities but also complex challenges for the tourism sector.

“Tourism policies and activities should be conducted with respect for the artistic, archaeological and cultural heritage, which they should protect and pass on to future generations; particular care should be devoted to preserving monuments, worship sites, archaeological and historic sites as well as upgrading museums which must be widely open and accessible to tourism visits”

UN Tourism Framework Convention on Tourism Ethics

Article 7, paragraph 2

This webpage provides UN Tourism resources aimed at strengthening the dialogue between tourism and culture and an informed decision-making in the sphere of cultural tourism. It also promotes the exchange of good practices showcasing inclusive management systems and innovative cultural tourism experiences .  

About Cultural Tourism

According to the definition adopted by the UN Tourism General Assembly, at its 22nd session (2017), Cultural Tourism implies “A type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourism destination. These attractions/products relate to a set of distinctive material, intellectual, spiritual and emotional features of a society that encompasses arts and architecture, historical and cultural heritage, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative industries and the living cultures with their lifestyles, value systems, beliefs and traditions”. UN Tourism provides support to its members in strengthening cultural tourism policy frameworks, strategies and product development . It also provides guidelines for the tourism sector in adopting policies and governance models that benefit all stakeholders, while promoting and preserving cultural elements.

Recommendations for Cultural Tourism Key Players on Accessibility 

UN Tourism , Fundación ONCE and UNE issued in September 2023, a set of guidelines targeting key players of the cultural tourism ecosystem, who wish to make their offerings more accessible.

The key partners in the drafting and expert review process were the ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee and the European Network for Accessible Tourism (ENAT) . The ICOMOS experts’ input was key in covering crucial action areas where accessibility needs to be put in the spotlight, in order to make cultural experiences more inclusive for all people.

This guidance tool is also framed within the promotion of the ISO Standard ISO 21902 , in whose development UN Tourism had one of the leading roles.

Download here the English and Spanish version of the Recommendations.

Compendium of Good Practices in Indigenous Tourism

The report is primarily meant to showcase good practices championed by indigenous leaders and associations from the Region. However, it also includes a conceptual introduction to different aspects of planning, management and promotion of a responsible and sustainable indigenous tourism development.

The compendium also sets forward a series of recommendations targeting public administrations, as well as a list of tips promoting a responsible conduct of tourists who decide to visit indigenous communities.

For downloads, please visit the UN Tourism E-library page: Download in English - Download in Spanish .

Weaving the Recovery - Indigenous Women in Tourism

This initiative, which gathers UN Tourism , t he World Indigenous Tourism Alliance (WINTA) , Centro de las Artes Indígenas (CAI) and the NGO IMPACTO , was selected as one of the ten most promising projects amoung 850+ initiatives to address the most pressing global challenges. The project will test different methodologies in pilot communities, starting with Mexico , to enable indigenous women access markets and demonstrate their leadership in the post-COVID recovery.

This empowerment model , based on promoting a responsible tourism development, cultural transmission and fair-trade principles, will represent a novel community approach with a high global replication potential.

Visit the Weaving the Recovery - Indigenous Women in Tourism project webpage.

Inclusive Recovery of Cultural Tourism

The release of the guidelines comes within the context of the International Year of Creative Economy for Sustainable Development 2021 , a UN initiative designed to recognize how culture and creativity, including cultural tourism, can contribute to advancing the SDGs.  

UN Tourism Inclusive Recovery Guide, Issue 4: Indigenous Communities

Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism

The Recommendations on Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism provide guidance to tourism stakeholders to develop their operations in a responsible and sustainable manner within those indigenous communities that wish to:

• Open up to tourism development, or
• Improve the management of the existing tourism experiences within their communities.

They were prepared by the UN Tourism Ethics, Culture and Social Responsibility Department in close consultation with indigenous tourism associations, indigenous entrepreneurs and advocates. The Recommendations were endorsed by the World Committee on Tourism Ethics and finally adopted by the UN Tourism General Assembly in 2019, as a landmark document of the Organization in this sphere.

Who are these Recommendations targeting?

• Tour operators and travel agencies
• Tour guides
• Indigenous communities
• Other stakeholders such as governments, policy makers and destinations

The Recommendations address some of the key questions regarding indigenous tourism:

Download PDF:

• Recommendations on Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism
• Recomendaciones sobre el desarrollo sostenible del turismo indígena, ESP

UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conferences on Tourism and Culture

The UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conferences on Tourism and Culture bring together Ministers of Tourism and Ministers of Culture with the objective to identify key opportunities and challenges for a stronger cooperation between these highly interlinked fields. Gathering tourism and culture stakeholders from all world regions the conferences which have been hosted by Cambodia, Oman, Türkiye and Japan have addressed a wide range of topics, including governance models, the promotion, protection and safeguarding of culture, innovation, the role of creative industries and urban regeneration as a vehicle for sustainable development in destinations worldwide.

Fourth UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference on Tourism and Culture: Investing in future generations. Kyoto, Japan. 12-13 December 2019 Kyoto Declaration on Tourism and Culture: Investing in future generations ( English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Japanese )

Third UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference on Tourism and Culture : For the Benefit of All. Istanbul, Türkiye. 3 -5 December 2018 Istanbul Declaration on Tourism and Culture: For the Benefit of All ( English , French , Spanish , Arabic , Russian )

Second UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference’s on Tourism and Culture: Fostering Sustainable Development. Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. 11-12 December 2017 Muscat Declaration on Tourism and Culture: Fostering Sustainable Development ( English , French , Spanish , Arabic , Russian )

First UN Tourism/UNESCO World Conference’s on Tourism and Culture: Building a new partnership. Siem Reap, Cambodia. 4-6 February 2015 Siem Reap Declaration on Tourism and Culture – Building a New Partnership Model ( English )

UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage  

The first UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage provides comprehensive baseline research on the interlinkages between tourism and the expressions and skills that make up humanity’s intangible cultural heritage (ICH). 

Through a compendium of case studies drawn from across five continents, the report offers in-depth information on, and analysis of, government-led actions, public-private partnerships and community initiatives.

These practical examples feature tourism development projects related to six pivotal areas of ICH: handicrafts and the visual arts; gastronomy; social practices, rituals and festive events; music and the performing arts; oral traditions and expressions; and, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe.

Highlighting innovative forms of policy-making, the UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage recommends specific actions for stakeholders to foster the sustainable and responsible development of tourism by incorporating and safeguarding intangible cultural assets.

UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage

• UN Tourism Study
• Summary of the Study

Studies and research on tourism and culture commissioned by UN Tourism

• Tourism and Culture Synergies, 2018
• UN Tourism Study on Tourism and Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2012
• Big Data in Cultural Tourism – Building Sustainability and Enhancing Competitiveness (e-unwto.org)

Outcomes from the UN Tourism Affiliate Members World Expert Meeting on Cultural Tourism, Madrid, Spain, 1–2 December 2022

UN Tourism and the Region of Madrid – through the Regional Ministry of Culture, Tourism, and Sports – held the World Expert Meeting on Cultural Tourism in Madrid on 1 and 2 December 2022. The initiative reflects the alliance and common commitment of the two partners to further explore the bond between tourism and culture. This publication is the result of the collaboration and discussion between the experts at the meeting, and subsequent contributions.

Relevant Links

• 3RD UN Tourism/UNESCO WORLD CONFERENCE ON TOURISM AND CULTURE ‘FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL’

Photo credit of the Summary's cover page:  www.banglanatak.com

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The role of tourism in sustainable development.

• Robert B. Richardson Robert B. Richardson Community Sustainability, Michigan State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.387
• Published online: 25 March 2021

Sustainable development is the foundational principle for enhancing human and economic development while maintaining the functional integrity of ecological and social systems that support regional economies. Tourism has played a critical role in sustainable development in many countries and regions around the world. In developing countries, tourism development has been used as an important strategy for increasing economic growth, alleviating poverty, creating jobs, and improving food security. Many developing countries are in regions that are characterized by high levels of biological diversity, natural resources, and cultural heritage sites that attract international tourists whose local purchases generate income and support employment and economic development. Tourism has been associated with the principles of sustainable development because of its potential to support environmental protection and livelihoods. However, the relationship between tourism and the environment is multifaceted, as some types of tourism have been associated with negative environmental impacts, many of which are borne by host communities.

The concept of sustainable tourism development emerged in contrast to mass tourism, which involves the participation of large numbers of people, often in structured or packaged tours. Mass tourism has been associated with economic leakage and dependence, along with negative environmental and social impacts. Sustainable tourism development has been promoted in various ways as a framing concept in contrast to these economic, environmental, and social impacts. Some literature has acknowledged a vagueness of the concept of sustainable tourism, which has been used to advocate for fundamentally different strategies for tourism development that may exacerbate existing conflicts between conservation and development paradigms. Tourism has played an important role in sustainable development in some countries through the development of alternative tourism models, including ecotourism, community-based tourism, pro-poor tourism, slow tourism, green tourism, and heritage tourism, among others that aim to enhance livelihoods, increase local economic growth, and provide for environmental protection. Although these models have been given significant attention among researchers, the extent of their implementation in tourism planning initiatives has been limited, superficial, or incomplete in many contexts.

The sustainability of tourism as a global system is disputed among scholars. Tourism is dependent on travel, and nearly all forms of transportation require the use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels for energy. The burning of fossil fuels for transportation generates emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change, which is fundamentally unsustainable. Tourism is also vulnerable to both localized and global shocks. Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to localized shocks include the impacts of natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and civil unrest. Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to global shocks include the impacts of climate change, economic crisis, global public health pandemics, oil price shocks, and acts of terrorism. It is clear that tourism has contributed significantly to economic development globally, but its role in sustainable development is uncertain, debatable, and potentially contradictory.

• conservation
• economic development
• environmental impacts
• sustainable development
• sustainable tourism
• tourism development

Introduction

Sustainable development is the guiding principle for advancing human and economic development while maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and social systems on which the economy depends. It is also the foundation of the leading global framework for international cooperation—the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015 ). The concept of sustainable development is often associated with the publication of Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987 , p. 29), which defined it as “paths of human progress that meet the needs and aspirations of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Concerns about the environmental implications of economic development in lower income countries had been central to debates about development studies since the 1970s (Adams, 2009 ). The principles of sustainable development have come to dominate the development discourse, and the concept has become the primary development paradigm since the 1990s.

Tourism has played an increasingly important role in sustainable development since the 1990s, both globally and in particular countries and regions. For decades, tourism has been promoted as a low-impact, non-extractive option for economic development, particularly for developing countries (Gössling, 2000 ). Many developing countries have managed to increase their participation in the global economy through development of international tourism. Tourism development is increasingly viewed as an important tool in increasing economic growth, alleviating poverty, and improving food security. Tourism enables communities that are poor in material wealth, but rich in history and cultural heritage, to leverage their unique assets for economic development (Honey & Gilpin, 2009 ). More importantly, tourism offers an alternative to large-scale development projects, such as construction of dams, and to extractive industries such as mining and forestry, all of which contribute to emissions of pollutants and threaten biodiversity and the cultural values of Indigenous Peoples.

Environmental quality in destination areas is inextricably linked with tourism, as visiting natural areas and sightseeing are often the primary purpose of many leisure travels. Some forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and the protection of ecosystem functions in destination areas (Fennell, 2020 ; Gössling, 1999 ). Butler ( 1991 ) suggests that there is a kind of mutual dependence between tourism and the environment that should generate mutual benefits. Many developing countries are in regions that are characterized by high levels of species diversity, natural resources, and protected areas. Such ideas imply that tourism may be well aligned with the tenets of sustainable development.

However, the relationship between tourism and the environment is complex, as some forms of tourism have been associated with negative environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, land use, and food consumption (Butler, 1991 ; Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ; Hunter & Green, 1995 ; Vitousek et al., 1997 ). Assessments of the sustainability of tourism have highlighted several themes, including (a) parks, biodiversity, and conservation; (b) pollution and climate change; (c) prosperity, economic growth, and poverty alleviation; (d) peace, security, and safety; and (e) population stabilization and reduction (Buckley, 2012 ). From a global perspective, tourism contributes to (a) changes in land cover and land use; (b) energy use, (c) biotic exchange and extinction of wild species; (d) exchange and dispersion of diseases; and (e) changes in the perception and understanding of the environment (Gössling, 2002 ).

Research on tourism and the environment spans a wide range of social and natural science disciplines, and key contributions have been disseminated across many interdisciplinary fields, including biodiversity conservation, climate science, economics, and environmental science, among others (Buckley, 2011 ; Butler, 1991 ; Gössling, 2002 ; Lenzen et al., 2018 ). Given the global significance of the tourism sector and its environmental impacts, the role of tourism in sustainable development is an important topic of research in environmental science generally and in environmental economics and management specifically. Reviews of tourism research have highlighted future research priorities for sustainable development, including the role of tourism in the designation and expansion of protected areas; improvement in environmental accounting techniques that quantify environmental impacts; and the effects of individual perceptions of responsibility in addressing climate change (Buckley, 2012 ).

Tourism is one of the world’s largest industries, and it has linkages with many of the prime sectors of the global economy (Fennell, 2020 ). As a global economic sector, tourism represents one of the largest generators of wealth, and it is an important agent of economic growth and development (Garau-Vadell et al., 2018 ). Tourism is a critical industry in many local and national economies, and it represents a large and growing share of world trade (Hunter, 1995 ). Global tourism has had an average annual increase of 6.6% over the past half century, with international tourist arrivals rising sharply from 25.2 million in 1950 to more than 950 million in 2010 . In 2019 , the number of international tourists reached 1.5 billion, up 4% from 2018 (Fennell, 2020 ; United Nations World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2020 ). European countries are host to more than half of international tourists, but since 1990 , growth in international arrivals has risen faster than the global average, in both the Middle East and the Asia and Pacific region (UNWTO, 2020 ).

The growth in global tourism has been accompanied by an expansion of travel markets and a diversification of tourism destinations. In 1950 , the top five travel destinations were all countries in Europe and the Americas, and these destinations held 71% of the global travel market (Fennell, 2020 ). By 2002 , these countries represented only 35%, which underscores the emergence of newly accessible travel destinations in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim, including numerous developing countries. Over the past 70 years, global tourism has grown significantly as an economic sector, and it has contributed to the economic development of dozens of nations.

Given the growth of international tourism and its emergence as one of the world’s largest export sectors, the question of its impact on economic growth for the host countries has been a topic of great interest in the tourism literature. Two hypotheses have emerged regarding the role of tourism in the economic growth process (Apergis & Payne, 2012 ). First, tourism-led growth hypothesis relies on the assumption that tourism is an engine of growth that generates spillovers and positive externalities through economic linkages that will impact the overall economy. Second, the economic-driven tourism growth hypothesis emphasizes policies oriented toward well-defined and enforceable property rights, stable political institutions, and adequate investment in both physical and human capital to facilitate the development of the tourism sector. Studies have concluded with support for both the tourism-led growth hypothesis (e.g., Durbarry, 2004 ; Katircioglu, 2010 ) and the economic-led growth hypothesis (e.g., Katircioglu, 2009 ; Oh, 2005 ), whereas other studies have found support for a bidirectional causality for tourism and economic growth (e.g., Apergis & Payne, 2012 ; Lee & Chang, 2008 ).

The growth of tourism has been marked by an increase in the competition for tourist expenditures, making it difficult for destinations to maintain their share of the international tourism market (Butler, 1991 ). Tourism development is cyclical and subject to short-term cycles and overconsumption of resources. Butler ( 1980 ) developed a tourist-area cycle of evolution that depicts the number of tourists rising sharply over time through periods of exploration, involvement, and development, before eventual consolidation and stagnation. When tourism growth exceeds the carrying capacity of the area, resource degradation can lead to the decline of tourism unless specific steps are taken to promote rejuvenation (Butler, 1980 , 1991 ).

The potential of tourism development as a tool to contribute to environmental conservation, economic growth, and poverty reduction is derived from several unique characteristics of the tourism system (UNWTO, 2002 ). First, tourism represents an opportunity for economic diversification, particularly in marginal areas with few other export options. Tourists are attracted to remote areas with high values of cultural, wildlife, and landscape assets. The cultural and natural heritage of developing countries is frequently based on such assets, and tourism represents an opportunity for income generation through the preservation of heritage values. Tourism is the only export sector where the consumer travels to the exporting country, which provides opportunities for lower-income households to become exporters through the sale of goods and services to foreign tourists. Tourism is also labor intensive; it provides small-scale employment opportunities, which also helps to promote gender equity. Finally, there are numerous indirect benefits of tourism for people living in poverty, including increased market access for remote areas through the development of roads, infrastructure, and communication networks. Nevertheless, travel is highly income elastic and carbon intensive, which has significant implications for the sustainability of the tourism sector (Lenzen et al., 2018 ).

Concerns about environmental issues appeared in tourism research just as global awareness of the environmental impacts of human activities was expanding. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm in 1972 , the same year as the publication of The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972 ), which highlighted the concerns about the implications of exponential economic and population growth in a world of finite resources. This was the same year that the famous Blue Marble photograph of Earth was taken by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft (Höhler, 2015 , p. 10), and the image captured the planet cloaked in the darkness of space and became a symbol of Earth’s fragility and vulnerability. As noted by Buckley ( 2012 ), tourism researchers turned their attention to social and environmental issues around the same time (Cohen, 1978 ; Farrell & McLellan, 1987 ; Turner & Ash, 1975 ; Young, 1973 ).

The notion of sustainable development is often associated with the publication of Our Common Future , the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987 ). The report characterized sustainable development in terms of meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987 , p. 43). Four basic principles are fundamental to the concept of sustainability: (a) the idea of holistic planning and strategy making; (b) the importance of preserving essential ecological processes; (c) the need to protect both human heritage and biodiversity; and (d) the need to develop in such a way that productivity can be sustained over the long term for future generations (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ). In addition to achieving balance between economic growth and the conservation of natural resources, there should be a balance of fairness and opportunity between the nations of the world.

Although the modern concept of sustainable development emerged with the publication of Our Common Future , sustainable development has its roots in ideas about sustainable forest management that were developed in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries (Blewitt, 2015 ; Grober, 2007 ). Sustainable forest management is concerned with the stewardship and use of forests in a way that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, and regeneration capacity as well as their potential to fulfill society’s demands for forest products and benefits. Building on these ideas, Daly ( 1990 ) offered two operational principles of sustainable development. First, sustainable development implies that harvest rates should be no greater than rates of regeneration; this concept is known as maximum sustainable yield. Second, waste emission rates should not exceed the natural assimilative capacities of the ecosystems into which the wastes are emitted. Regenerative and assimilative capacities are characterized as natural capital, and a failure to maintain these capacities is not sustainable.

Shortly after the emergence of the concept of sustainable development in academic and policy discourse, tourism researchers began referring to the notion of sustainable tourism (May, 1991 ; Nash & Butler, 1990 ), which soon became the dominant paradigm of tourism development. The concept of sustainable tourism, as with the role of tourism in sustainable development, has been interpreted in different ways, and there is a lack of consensus concerning its meaning, objectives, and indicators (Sharpley, 2000 ). Growing interest in the subject inspired the creation of a new academic journal, Journal of Sustainable Tourism , which was launched in 1993 and has become a leading tourism journal. It is described as “an international journal that publishes research on tourism and sustainable development, including economic, social, cultural and political aspects.”

The notion of sustainable tourism development emerged in contrast to mass tourism, which is characterized by the participation of large numbers of people, often provided as structured or packaged tours. Mass tourism has risen sharply in the last half century. International arrivals alone have increased by an average annual rate of more than 25% since 1950 , and many of those trips involved mass tourism activities (Fennell, 2020 ; UNWTO, 2020 ). Some examples of mass tourism include beach resorts, cruise ship tourism, gaming casinos, golf resorts, group tours, ski resorts, theme parks, and wildlife safari tourism, among others. Little data exist regarding the volume of domestic mass tourism, but nevertheless mass tourism activities dominate the global tourism sector. Mass tourism has been shown to generate benefits to host countries, such as income and employment generation, although it has also been associated with economic leakage (where revenue generated by tourism is lost to other countries’ economies) and economic dependency (where developing countries are dependent on wealthier countries for tourists, imports, and foreign investment) (Cater, 1993 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Khan, 1997 ; Peeters, 2012 ). Mass tourism has been associated with numerous negative environmental impacts and social impacts (Cater, 1993 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Fennell, 2020 ; Ghimire, 2013 ; Gursoy et al., 2010 ; Liu, 2003 ; Peeters, 2012 ; Wheeller, 2007 ). Sustainable tourism development has been promoted in various ways as a framing concept in contrast to many of these economic, environmental, and social impacts.

Much of the early research on sustainable tourism focused on defining the concept, which has been the subject of vigorous debate (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ; Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Inskeep, 1991 ; Liu, 2003 ; Sharpley, 2000 ). Early definitions of sustainable tourism development seemed to fall in one of two categories (Sharpley, 2000 ). First, the “tourism-centric” paradigm of sustainable tourism development focuses on sustaining tourism as an economic activity (Hunter, 1995 ). Second, alternative paradigms have situated sustainable tourism in the context of wider sustainable development policies (Butler, 1991 ). One of the most comprehensive definitions of sustainable tourism echoes some of the language of the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development (WCED, 1987 ), emphasizing opportunities for the future while also integrating social and environmental concerns:

Sustainable tourism can be thought of as meeting the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. Sustainable tourism development is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that we can fulfill economic, social and aesthetic needs while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems. (Inskeep, 1991 , p. 461)

Hunter argued that over the short and long terms, sustainable tourism development should

“meet the needs and wants of the local host community in terms of improved living standards and quality of life;

satisfy the demands of tourists and the tourism industry, and continue to attract them in order to meet the first aim; and

safeguard the environmental resource base for tourism, encompassing natural, built and cultural components, in order to achieve both of the preceding aims.” (Hunter, 1995 , p. 156)

Numerous other definitions have been documented, and the term itself has been subject to widespread critique (Buckley, 2012 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Liu, 2003 ). Nevertheless, there have been numerous calls to move beyond debate about a definition and to consider how it may best be implemented in practice (Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Liu, 2003 ). Cater ( 1993 ) identified three key criteria for sustainable tourism: (a) meeting the needs of the host population in terms of improved living standards both in the short and long terms; (b) satisfying the demands of a growing number of tourists; and (c) safeguarding the natural environment in order to achieve both of the preceding aims.

Some literature has acknowledged a vagueness of the concept of sustainable tourism, which has been used to advocate for fundamentally different strategies for tourism development that may exacerbate existing conflicts between conservation and development paradigms (Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Liu, 2003 ; McKercher, 1993b ). Similar criticisms have been leveled at the concept of sustainable development, which has been described as an oxymoron with a wide range of meanings (Adams, 2009 ; Daly, 1990 ) and “defined in such a way as to be either morally repugnant or logically redundant” (Beckerman, 1994 , p. 192). Sharpley ( 2000 ) suggests that in the tourism literature, there has been “a consistent and fundamental failure to build a theoretical link between sustainable tourism and its parental paradigm,” sustainable development (p. 2). Hunter ( 1995 ) suggests that practical measures designed to operationalize sustainable tourism fail to address many of the critical issues that are central to the concept of sustainable development generally and may even actually counteract the fundamental requirements of sustainable development. He suggests that mainstream sustainable tourism development is concerned with protecting the immediate resource base that will sustain tourism development while ignoring concerns for the status of the wider tourism resource base, such as potential problems associated with air pollution, congestion, introduction of invasive species, and declining oil reserves. The dominant paradigm of sustainable tourism development has been described as introverted, tourism-centric, and in competition with other sectors for scarce resources (McKercher, 1993a ). Hunter ( 1995 , p. 156) proposes an alternative, “extraparochial” paradigm where sustainable tourism development is reconceptualized in terms of its contribution to overall sustainable development. Such a paradigm would reconsider the scope, scale, and sectoral context of tourism-related resource utilization issues.

“Sustainability,” “sustainable tourism,” and “sustainable development” are all well-established terms that have often been used loosely and interchangeably in the tourism literature (Liu, 2003 ). Nevertheless, the subject of sustainable tourism has been given considerable attention and has been the focus of numerous academic compilations and textbooks (Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995 ; Hall & Lew, 1998 ; Stabler, 1997 ; Swarbrooke, 1999 ), and it calls for new approaches to sustainable tourism development (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ; Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Sharpley, 2000 ). The notion of sustainable tourism has been reconceptualized in the literature by several authors who provided alternative frameworks for tourism development (Buckley, 2012 ; Gössling, 2002 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Liu, 2003 ; McKercher, 1993b ; Sharpley, 2000 ).

Early research in sustainable tourism focused on the local environmental impacts of tourism, including energy use, water use, food consumption, and change in land use (Buckley, 2012 ; Butler, 1991 ; Gössling, 2002 ; Hunter & Green, 1995 ). Subsequent research has emphasized the global environmental impacts of tourism, such as greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity losses (Gössling, 2002 ; Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ; Lenzen et al., 2018 ). Additional research has emphasized the impacts of environmental change on tourism itself, including the impacts of climate change on tourist behavior (Gössling et al., 2012 ; Richardson & Loomis, 2004 ; Scott et al., 2012 ; Viner, 2006 ). Countries that are dependent on tourism for economic growth may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Richardson & Witkoswki, 2010 ).

The early focus on environmental issues in sustainable tourism has been broadened to include economic, social, and cultural issues as well as questions of power and equity in society (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ; Sharpley, 2014 ), and some of these frameworks have integrated notions of social equity, prosperity, and cultural heritage values. Sustainable tourism is dependent on critical long-term considerations of the impacts; notions of equity; an appreciation of the importance of linkages (i.e., economic, social, and environmental); and the facilitation of cooperation and collaboration between different stakeholders (Elliott & Neirotti, 2008 ).

McKercher ( 1993b ) notes that tourism resources are typically part of the public domain or are intrinsically linked to the social fabric of the host community. As a result, many commonplace tourist activities such as sightseeing may be perceived as invasive by members of the host community. Many social impacts of tourism can be linked to the overuse of the resource base, increases in traffic congestion, rising land prices, urban sprawl, and changes in the social structure of host communities. Given the importance of tourist–resident interaction, sustainable tourism development depends in part on the support of the host community (Garau-Vadell et al., 2018 ).

Tourism planning involves the dual objectives of optimizing the well-being of local residents in host communities and minimizing the costs of tourism development (Sharpley, 2014 ). Tourism researchers have paid significant attention to examining the social impacts of tourism in general and to understanding host communities’ perceptions of tourism in particular. Studies of the social impacts of tourism development have examined the perceptions of local residents and the effects of tourism on social cohesion, traditional lifestyles, and the erosion of cultural heritage, particularly among Indigenous Peoples (Butler & Hinch, 2007 ; Deery et al., 2012 ; Mathieson & Wall, 1982 ; Sharpley, 2014 ; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016 ).

Alternative Tourism and Sustainable Development

A wide body of published research is related to the role of tourism in sustainable development, and much of the literature involves case studies of particular types of tourism. Many such studies contrast types of alternative tourism with those of mass tourism, which has received sustained criticism for decades and is widely considered to be unsustainable (Cater, 1993 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Fennell, 2020 ; Gursoy et al., 2010 ; Liu, 2003 ; Peeters, 2012 ; Zapata et al., 2011 ). Still, some tourism researchers have taken issue with the conclusion that mass tourism is inherently unsustainable (Sharpley, 2000 ; Weaver, 2007 ), and some have argued for developing pathways to “sustainable mass tourism” as “the desired and impending outcome for most destinations” (Weaver, 2012 , p. 1030). In integrating an ethical component to mass tourism development, Weaver ( 2014 , p. 131) suggests that the desirable outcome is “enlightened mass tourism.” Such suggestions have been contested in the literature and criticized for dubious assumptions about emergent norms of sustainability and support for growth, which are widely seen as contradictory (Peeters, 2012 ; Wheeller, 2007 ).

Models of responsible or alternative tourism development include ecotourism, community-based tourism, pro-poor tourism, slow tourism, green tourism, and heritage tourism, among others. Most models of alternative tourism development emphasize themes that aim to counteract the perceived negative impacts of conventional or mass tourism. As such, the objectives of these models of tourism development tend to focus on minimizing environmental impacts, supporting biodiversity conservation, empowering local communities, alleviating poverty, and engendering pleasant relationships between tourists and residents.

Approaches to alternative tourism development tend to overlap with themes of responsible tourism, and the two terms are frequently used interchangeably. Responsible tourism has been characterized in terms of numerous elements, including

ensuring that communities are involved in and benefit from tourism;

respecting local, natural, and cultural environments;

involving the local community in planning and decision-making;

using local resources sustainably;

behaving in ways that are sensitive to the host culture;

maintaining and encouraging natural, economic, and cultural diversity; and

assessing environmental, social, and economic impacts as a prerequisite to tourism development (Spenceley, 2012 ).

Hetzer ( 1965 ) identified four fundamental principles or perquisites for a more responsible form of tourism: (a) minimum environmental impact; (b) minimum impact on and maximum respect for host cultures; (c) maximum economic benefits to the host country; and (d) maximum leisure satisfaction to participating tourists.

The history of ecotourism is closely connected with the emergence of sustainable development, as it was born out of a concern for the conservation of biodiversity. Ecotourism is a form of tourism that aims to minimize local environmental impacts while bringing benefits to protected areas and the people living around those lands (Honey, 2008 ). Ecotourism represents a small segment of nature-based tourism, which is understood as tourism based on the natural attractions of an area, such as scenic areas and wildlife (Gössling, 1999 ). The ecotourism movement gained momentum in the 1990s, primarily in developing countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, and nearly all countries are now engaged in some form of ecotourism. In some communities, ecotourism is the primary economic activity and source of income and economic development.

The term “ecotourism” was coined by Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin and defined by him as “tourism that consists in travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific object of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals” (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1987 , p. 13). In discussing ecotourism resources, he also made reference to “any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas” (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1987 , p. 14). The basic precepts of ecotourism had been discussed long before the actual use of the term. Twenty years earlier, Hetzer ( 1965 ) referred to a form of tourism “based principally upon natural and archaeological resources such as caves, fossil sites (and) archaeological sites.” Thus, both natural resources and cultural resources were integrated into ecotourism frameworks from the earliest manifestations.

Costa Rica is well known for having successfully integrated ecotourism in its overall strategy for sustainable development, and numerous case studies of ecotourism in Costa Rica appear in the literature (Chase et al., 1998 ; Fennell & Eagles, 1990 ; Gray & Campbell, 2007 ; Hearne & Salinas, 2002 ). Ecotourism in Costa Rica has been seen as having supported the economic development of the country while promoting biodiversity conservation in its extensive network of protected areas. Chase et al. ( 1998 ) estimated the demand for ecotourism in a study of differential pricing of entrance fees at national parks in Costa Rica. The authors estimated elasticities associated with the own-price, cross-price, and income variables and found that the elasticities of demand were significantly different between three different national park sites. The results reveal the heterogeneity characterizing tourist behavior and park attractions and amenities. Hearne and Salinas ( 2002 ) used choice experiments to examine the preferences of domestic and foreign tourists in Costa Rica in an ecotourism site. Both sets of tourists demonstrated a preference for improved infrastructure, more information, and lower entrance fees. Foreign tourists demonstrated relatively stronger preferences for the inclusion of restrictions in the access to some trails.

Ecotourism has also been studied extensively in Kenya (Southgate, 2006 ), Malaysia (Lian Chan & Baum, 2007 ), Nepal (Baral et al., 2008 ), Peru (Stronza, 2007 ), and Taiwan (Lai & Nepal, 2006 ), among many other countries. Numerous case studies have demonstrated the potential for ecotourism to contribute to sustainable development by providing support for biodiversity conservation, local livelihoods, and regional development.

Community-Based Tourism

Community-based tourism (CBT) is a model of tourism development that emphasizes the development of local communities and allows for local residents to have substantial control over its development and management, and a major proportion of the benefits remain within the community. CBT emerged during the 1970s as a response to the negative impacts of the international mass tourism development model (Cater, 1993 ; Hall & Lew, 2009 ; Turner & Ash, 1975 ; Zapata et al., 2011 ).

Community-based tourism has been examined for its potential to contribute to poverty reduction. In a study of the viability of the CBT model to support socioeconomic development and poverty alleviation in Nicaragua, tourism was perceived by participants in the study to have an impact on employment creation in their communities (Zapata et al., 2011 ). Tourism was seen to have had positive impacts on strengthening local knowledge and skills, particularly on the integration of women to new roles in the labor market. One of the main perceived gains regarding the environment was the process of raising awareness regarding the conservation of natural resources. The small scale of CBT operations and low capacity to accommodate visitors was seen as a limitation of the model.

Spenceley ( 2012 ) compiled case studies of community-based tourism in countries in southern Africa, including Botswana, Madagascar, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In this volume, authors characterize community-based and nature-based tourism development projects in the region and demonstrate how community participation in planning and decision-making has generated benefits for local residents and supported conservation initiatives. They contend that responsible tourism practices are of particular importance in the region because of the rich biological diversity, abundant charismatic wildlife, and the critical need for local economic development and livelihood strategies.

In Kenya, CBT enterprises were not perceived to have made a significant impact on poverty reduction at an individual household level, in part because the model relied heavily on donor funding, reinforcing dependency and poverty (Manyara & Jones, 2007 ). The study identified several critical success factors for CBT enterprises, namely, awareness and sensitization, community empowerment, effective leadership, and community capacity building, which can inform appropriate tourism policy formulation in Kenya. The impacts of CBT on economic development and poverty reduction would be greatly enhanced if tourism initiatives were able to emphasize independence, address local community priorities, enhance community empowerment and transparency, discourage elitism, promote effective community leadership, and develop community capacity to operate their own enterprises more efficiently.

Pro-Poor Tourism

Pro-poor tourism is a model of tourism development that brings net benefits to people living in poverty (Ashley et al., 2001 ; Harrison, 2008 ). Although its theoretical foundations and development objectives overlap to some degree with those of community-based tourism and other models of AT, the key distinctive feature of pro-poor tourism is that it places poor people and poverty at the top of the agenda. By focusing on a very simple and incontrovertibly moral idea, namely, the net benefits of tourism to impoverished people, the concept has broad appeal to donors and international aid agencies. Harnessing the economic benefits of tourism for pro-poor growth means capitalizing on the advantages while reducing negative impacts to people living in poverty (Ashley et al., 2001 ). Pro-poor approaches to tourism development include increasing access of impoverished people to economic benefits; addressing negative social and environmental impacts associated with tourism; and focusing on policies, processes, and partnerships that seek to remove barriers to participation by people living in poverty. At the local level, pro-poor tourism can play a very significant role in livelihood security and poverty reduction (Ashley & Roe, 2002 ).

Rogerson ( 2011 ) argues that the growth of pro-poor tourism initiatives in South Africa suggests that the country has become a laboratory for the testing and evolution of new approaches toward sustainable development planning that potentially will have relevance for other countries in the developing world. A study of pro-poor tourism development initiatives in Laos identified a number of favorable conditions for pro-poor tourism development, including the fact that local people are open to tourism and motivated to participate (Suntikul et al., 2009 ). The authors also noted a lack of development in the linkages that could optimize the fulfilment of the pro-poor agenda, such as training or facilitation of local people’s participation in pro-poor tourism development at the grassroots level.

Critics of the model have argued that pro-poor tourism is based on an acceptance of the status quo of existing capitalism, that it is morally indiscriminate and theoretically imprecise, and that its practitioners are academically and commercially marginal (Harrison, 2008 ). As Chok et al. ( 2007 ) indicate, the focus “on poor people in the South reflects a strong anthropocentric view . . . and . . . environmental benefits are secondary to poor peoples’” benefits (p. 153).

Harrison ( 2008 ) argues that pro-poor tourism is not a distinctive approach to tourism as a development tool and that it may be easier to discuss what pro-poor tourism is not than what it is. He concludes that it is neither anticapitalist nor inconsistent with mainstream tourism on which it relies; it is neither a theory nor a model and is not a niche form of tourism. Further, he argues that it has no distinctive method and is not only about people living in poverty.

Slow Tourism

The concept of slow tourism has emerged as a model of sustainable tourism development, and as such, it lacks an exact definition. The concept of slow tourism traces its origin back to some institutionalized social movements such as “slow food” and “slow cities” that began in Italy in the 1990s and spread rapidly around the world (Fullagar et al., 2012 ; Oh et al., 2016 , p. 205). Advocates of slow tourism tend to emphasize slowness in terms of speed, mobility, and modes of transportation that generate less environmental pollution. They propose niche marketing for alternative forms of tourism that focus on quality upgrading rather than merely increasing the quantity of visitors via the established mass-tourism infrastructure (Conway & Timms, 2010 ).

In the context of the Caribbean region, slow tourism has been promoted as more culturally sensitive and authentic, as compared to the dominant mass tourism development model that is based on all-inclusive beach resorts dependent on foreign investment (Conway & Timms, 2010 ). Recognizing its value as an alternative marketing strategy, Conway and Timms ( 2010 ) make the case for rebranding alternative tourism in the Caribbean as a means of revitalizing the sector for the changing demands of tourists in the 21st century . They suggest that slow tourism is the antithesis of mass tourism, which “relies on increasing the quantity of tourists who move through the system with little regard to either the quality of the tourists’ experience or the benefits that accrue to the localities the tourist visits” (Conway & Timms, 2010 , p. 332). The authors draw on cases from Barbados, the Grenadines, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago to characterize models of slow tourism development in remote fishing villages and communities near nature preserves and sea turtle nesting sites.

Although there is a growing interest in the concept of slow tourism in the literature, there seems to be little agreement about the exact nature of slow tourism and whether it is a niche form of special interest tourism or whether it represents a more fundamental potential shift across the industry. Conway and Timms ( 2010 ) focus on the destination, advocating for slow tourism in terms of a promotional identity for an industry in need of rebranding. Caffyn ( 2012 , p. 77) discusses the implementation of slow tourism in terms of “encouraging visitors to make slower choices when planning and enjoying their holidays.” It is not clear whether slow tourism is a marketing strategy, a mindset, or a social movement, but the literature on slow tourism nearly always equates the term with sustainable tourism (Caffyn, 2012 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Oh et al., 2016 ). Caffyn ( 2012 , p. 80) suggests that slow tourism could offer a “win–win,” which she describes as “a more sustainable form of tourism; keeping more of the economic benefits within the local community and destination; and delivering a more meaningful and satisfying experience.” Research on slow tourism is nascent, and thus the contribution of slow tourism to sustainable development is not well understood.

Impacts of Tourism Development

The role of tourism in sustainable development can be examined through an understanding of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of tourism. Tourism is a global phenomenon that involves travel, recreation, the consumption of food, overnight accommodations, entertainment, sightseeing, and other activities that simultaneously intersect the lives of local residents, businesses, and communities. The impacts of tourism involve benefits and costs to all groups, and some of these impacts cannot easily be measured. Nevertheless, they have been studied extensively in the literature, which provides some context for how these benefits and costs are distributed.

Economic Impacts of Tourism

The travel and tourism sector is one of the largest components of the global economy, and global tourism has increased exponentially since the end of the Second World War (UNWTO, 2020 ). The direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of global travel accounted for 8.9 trillion U.S. dollars in contribution to the global gross domestic product (GDP), or 10.3% of global GDP. The global travel and tourism sector supports approximately 330 million jobs, or 1 in 10 jobs around the world. From an economic perspective, tourism plays a significant role in sustainable development. In many developing countries, tourism has the potential to play a unique role in income generation and distribution relative to many other industries, in part because of its high multiplier effect and consumption of local goods and services. However, research on the economic impacts of tourism has shown that this potential has rarely been fully realized (Liu, 2003 ).

Numerous studies have examined the impact of tourism expenditure on GDP, income, employment, and public sector revenue. Narayan ( 2004 ) used a computable general equilibrium model to estimate the economic impact of tourism growth on the economy of Fiji. Tourism is Fiji’s largest industry, with average annual growth of 10–12%; and as a middle-income country, tourism is critical to Fiji’s economic development. The findings indicate that an increase in tourism expenditures was associated with an increase in GDP, an improvement in the country’s balance of payments, and an increase in real consumption and national welfare. Evidence suggests that the benefits of tourism expansion outweigh any export effects caused by an appreciation of the exchange rate and an increase in domestic prices and wages.

Seetanah ( 2011 ) examined the potential contribution of tourism to economic growth and development using panel data of 19 island economies around the world from 1990 to 2007 and revealed that tourism development is an important factor in explaining economic performance in the selected island economies. The results have policy implications for improving economic growth by harnessing the contribution of the tourism sector. Pratt ( 2015 ) modeled the economic impact of tourism for seven small island developing states in the Pacific, the Caribbean, and the Indian Ocean. In most states, the transportation sector was found to have above-average linkages to other sectors of the economy. The results revealed some advantages of economies of scale for maximizing the economic contribution of tourism.

Apergis and Payne ( 2012 ) examined the causal relationship between tourism and economic growth for a panel of nine Caribbean countries. The panel of Caribbean countries includes Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. The authors use a panel error correction model to reveal bidirectional causality between tourism and economic growth in both the short run and the long run. The presence of bidirectional causality reiterates the importance of the tourism sector in the generation of foreign exchange income and in financing the production of goods and services within these countries. Likewise, stable political institutions and adequate government policies to ensure the appropriate investment in physical and human capital will enhance economic growth. In turn, stable economic growth will provide the resources needed to develop the tourism infrastructure for the success of the countries’ tourism sector. Thus, policy makers should be cognizant of the interdependent relationship between tourism and economic growth in the design and implementation of economic policy. The mixed nature of these results suggest that the relationship between tourism and economic growth depends largely on the social and economic context as well as the role of tourism in the economy.

The economic benefits and costs of tourism are frequently distributed unevenly. An analysis of the impact of wildlife conservation policies in Zambia on household welfare found that households located near national parks earn higher levels of income from wage employment and self-employment than other rural households in the country, but they were also more likely to suffer crop losses related to wildlife conflicts (Richardson et al., 2012 ). The findings suggest that tourism development and wildlife conservation can contribute to pro-poor development, but they may be sustainable only if human–wildlife conflicts are minimized or compensated.

Environmental Impacts of Tourism

The environmental impacts of tourism are significant, ranging from local effects to contributions to global environmental change (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). Tourism is both dependent on water resources and a factor in global and local freshwater use. Tourists consume water for drinking, when showering and using the toilet, when participating in activities such as winter ski tourism (i.e., snowmaking), and when using swimming pools and spas. Fresh water is also needed to maintain hotel gardens and golf courses, and water use is embedded in tourism infrastructure development (e.g., accommodations, laundry, dining) and in food and fuel production. Direct water consumption in tourism is estimated to be approximately 350 liters (L) per guest night for accommodation; when indirect water use from food, energy, and transport are considered, total water use in tourism is estimated to be approximately 6,575 L per guest night, or 27,800 L per person per trip (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). In addition, tourism contributes to the pollution of oceans as well as lakes, rivers, and other freshwater systems (Gössling, 2002 ; Gössling et al., 2011 ).

The clearing and conversion of land is central for tourism development, and in many cases, the land used for tourism includes roads, airports, railways, accommodations, trails, pedestrian walks, shopping areas, parking areas, campgrounds, vacation homes, golf courses, marinas, ski resorts, and indirect land use for food production, disposal of solid wastes, and the treatment of wastewater (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). Global land use for accommodation is estimated to be approximately 42 m 2 per bed. Total global land use for tourism is estimated to be nearly 62,000 km 2 , or 11.7 m 2 per tourist; more than half of this estimate is represented by land use for traffic infrastructure.

Tourism and hospitality have direct and indirect links to nearly all aspects of food production, preparation, and consumption because of the quantities of food consumed in tourism contexts (Gössling et al., 2011 ). Food production has significant implications for sustainable development, given the growing global demand for food. The implications include land conversion, losses to biodiversity, changes in nutrient cycling, and contributions to greenhouse emissions that are associated with global climate change (Vitousek et al., 1997 ). Global food use for tourism is estimated to be approximately 39.4 megatons 1 (Mt), about 38% than the amount of food consumed at home. This equates to approximately 1,800 grams (g) of food consumed per tourist per day.

Although tourism has been promoted as a low-impact, nonextractive option for economic development, (Gössling, 2000 ), assessments reveal that such pursuits have a significant carbon footprint, as tourism is significantly more carbon intensive than other potential areas of economic development (Lenzen et al., 2018 ). Tourism is dependent on energy, and virtually all energy use in the tourism sector is derived from fossil fuels, which contribute to global greenhouse emissions that are associated with global climate change. Energy use for tourism has been estimated to be approximately 3,575 megajoules 2 (MJ) per trip, including energy for travel and accommodations (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). A previous estimate of global carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from tourism provided values of 1.12 gigatons 3 (Gt) of CO 2 , amounting to about 3% of global CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). However, these analyses do not cover the supply chains underpinning tourism and do not therefore represent true carbon footprints. A more complete analysis of the emissions from energy consumption necessary to sustain the tourism sector would include food and beverages, infrastructure construction and maintenance, retail, and financial services. Between 2009 and 2013 , tourism’s global carbon footprint is estimated to have increased from 3.9 to 4.5 GtCO 2 e, four times more than previously estimated, accounting for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Lenzen et al., 2018 ). The majority of this footprint is exerted by and within high-income countries. The rising global demand for tourism is outstripping efforts at decarbonization of tourism operations and as a result is accelerating global carbon emissions.

Social Impacts of Tourism

The social impacts of tourism have been widely studied, with an emphasis on residents’ perceptions in the host community (Sharpley, 2014 ). Case studies include research conducted in Australia (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997 ; Gursoy et al., 2010 ; Tovar & Lockwood, 2008 ), Belize (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2008 ), China (Gu & Ryan, 2008 ), Fiji (King et al., 1993 ), Greece (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 ; Tsartas, 1992 ), Hungary (Rátz, 2000 ), Thailand (Huttasin, 2008 ), Turkey (Kuvan & Akan, 2005 ), the United Kingdom (Brunt & Courtney, 1999 ; Haley et al., 2005 ), and the United States (Andereck et al., 2005 ; Milman & Pizam, 1988 ), among others. The social impacts of tourism are difficult to measure, and most published studies are mainly concerned with the social impacts on the host communities rather than the impacts on the tourists themselves.

Studies of residents’ perceptions of tourism are typically conducted using household surveys. In most cases, residents recognize the economic dependence on tourism for income, and there is substantial evidence to suggest that working in or owning a business in tourism or a related industry is associated with more positive perceptions of tourism (Andereck et al., 2007 ). The perceived nature of negative effects is complex and often conveys a dislike of crowding, traffic congestion, and higher prices for basic needs (Deery et al., 2012 ). When the number of tourists far exceeds that of the resident population, negative attitudes toward tourism may manifest (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2008 ). However, residents who recognize negative impacts may not necessarily oppose tourism development (King et al., 1993 ).

In some regions, little is known about the social and cultural impacts of tourism despite its dominance as an economic sector. Tourism is a rapidly growing sector in Cuba, and it is projected to grow at rates that exceed the average projected growth rates for the Caribbean and the world overall (Salinas et al., 2018 ). Still, even though there has been rapid tourism development in Cuba, there has been little research related to the environmental and sociocultural impacts of this tourism growth (Rutty & Richardson, 2019 ).

In some international tourism contexts, studies have found that residents are generally resentful toward tourism because it fuels inequality and exacerbates racist attitudes and discrimination (Cabezas, 2004 ; Jamal & Camargo, 2014 ; Mbaiwa, 2005 ). Other studies revealed similar narratives and recorded statements of exclusion and socioeconomic stratification (Sanchez & Adams, 2008 ). Local residents often must navigate the gaps in the racialized, gendered, and sexualized structures imposed by the global tourism industry and host-country governments (Cabezas, 2004 ).

However, during times of economic crisis, residents may develop a more permissive view as their perceptions of the costs of tourism development decrease (Garau-Vadell et al., 2018 ). This increased positive attitude is not based on an increase in the perception of positive impacts of tourism, but rather on a decrease in the perception of the negative impacts.

There is a growing body of research on Indigenous and Aboriginal tourism that emphasizes justice issues such as human rights and self-empowerment, control, and participation of traditional owners in comanagement of destinations (Jamal & Camargo, 2014 ; Ryan & Huyton, 2000 ; Whyte, 2010 ).

Sustainability of Tourism

A process or system is said to be sustainable to the extent that it is robust, resilient, and adaptive (Anderies et al., 2013 ). By most measures, the global tourism system does not meet these criteria for sustainability. Tourism is not robust in that it cannot resist threats and perturbations, such as economic shocks, public health pandemics, war, and other disruptions. Tourism is not resilient in that it does not easily recover from failures, such as natural disasters or civil unrest. Furthermore, tourism is not adaptive in that it is often unable to change in response to external conditions. One example that underscores the failure to meet all three criteria is the dependence of tourism on fossil fuels for transportation and energy, which are key inputs for tourism development. This dependence itself is not sustainable (Wheeller, 2007 ), and thus the sustainability of tourism is questionable.

Liu ( 2003 ) notes that research related to the role of tourism in sustainable development has emphasized supply-side concepts such as sustaining tourism resources and ignored the demand side, which is particularly vulnerable to social and economic shocks. Tourism is vulnerable to both localized and global shocks. Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to localized shocks include disaster vulnerability in coastal Thailand (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008 ), bushfires in northeast Victoria in Australia (Cioccio & Michael, 2007 ), forest fires in British Columbia, Canada (Hystad & Keller, 2008 ); and outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom (Miller & Ritchie, 2003 ).

Like most other economic sectors, tourism is vulnerable to the impacts of earthquakes, particularly in areas where tourism infrastructure may not be resilient to such shocks. Numerous studies have examined the impacts of earthquake events on tourism, including studies of the aftermath of the 1997 earthquake in central Italy (Mazzocchi & Montini, 2001 ), the 1999 earthquake in Taiwan (Huan et al., 2004 ; Huang & Min, 2002 ), and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in western Sichuan, China (Yang et al., 2011 ), among others.

Tourism is vulnerable to extreme weather events. Regional economic strength has been found to be associated with lower vulnerability to natural disasters. Kim and Marcoullier ( 2015 ) examined the vulnerability and resilience of 10 tourism-based regional economies that included U.S. national parks or protected seashores situated on the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Ocean coastline that were affected by several hurricanes over a 26-year period. Regions with stronger economic characteristics prior to natural disasters were found to have lower disaster losses than regions with weaker economies.

Tourism is extremely sensitive to oil spills, whatever their origin, and the volume of oil released need not be large to generate significant economic losses (Cirer-Costa, 2015 ). Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to the localized shock of an oil spill include research on the impacts of oil spills in Alaska (Coddington, 2015 ), Brazil (Ribeiro et al., 2020 ), Spain (Castanedo et al., 2009 ), affected regions in the United States along the Gulf of Mexico (Pennington-Gray et al., 2011 ; Ritchie et al., 2013 ), and the Republic of Korea (Cheong, 2012 ), among others. Future research on the vulnerability of tourist destinations to oil spills should also incorporate freshwater environments, such as lakes, rivers, and streams, where the rupture of oil pipelines is more frequent.

Significant attention has been paid to assessing the vulnerability of tourist destinations to acts of terrorism and the impacts of terrorist attacks on regional tourist economies (Liu & Pratt, 2017 ). Such studies include analyses of the impacts of terrorist attacks on three European countries, Greece, Italy, and Austria (Enders et al., 1992 ); the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States (Goodrich, 2002 ); terrorism and tourism in Nepal (Bhattarai et al., 2005 ); vulnerability of tourism livelihoods in Bali (Baker & Coulter, 2007 ); the impact of terrorism on tourist preferences for destinations in the Mediterranean and the Canary Islands (Arana & León, 2008 ); the 2011 massacres in Olso and Utøya, Norway (Wolff & Larsen, 2014 ); terrorism and political violence in Tunisia (Lanouar & Goaied, 2019 ); and the impact of terrorism on European tourism (Corbet et al., 2019 ), among others. Pizam and Fleischer ( 2002 ) studied the impact of acts of terrorism on tourism demand in Israel between May 1991 and May 2001 , and they confirmed that the frequency of acts of terrorism had caused a larger decline in international tourist arrivals than the severity of these acts. Most of these are ex post studies, and future assessments of the underlying conditions of destinations could reveal a deeper understanding of the vulnerability of tourism to terrorism.

Tourism is vulnerable to economic crisis, both local economic shocks (Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005 ; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2014 ) and global economic crisis (Papatheodorou et al., 2010 ; Smeral, 2010 ). Okumus and Karamustafa ( 2005 ) evaluated the impact of the February 2001 economic crisis in Turkey on tourism, and they found that the tourism industry was poorly prepared for the economic crisis despite having suffered previous impacts related to the Gulf War in the early 1990s, terrorism in Turkey in the 1990s, the civil war in former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, an internal economic crisis in 1994 , and two earthquakes in the northwest region of Turkey in 1999 . In a study of the attitudes and perceptions of citizens of Greece, Stylidis and Terzidou ( 2014 ) found that economic crisis is associated with increased support for tourism development, particularly out of self-interest. Economic crisis diminishes residents’ concern for environmental issues. In a study of the behavior of European tourists amid an economic crisis, Eugenio-Martin and Campos-Soria ( 2014 ) found that the probability of households cutting back on travel expenditures depends largely on the climate and economic conditions of tourists’ home countries, and households that do reduce travel spending engage in tourism closer to home.

Becken and Lennox ( 2012 ) studied the implications of a long-term increase in oil prices for tourism in New Zealand, and they estimate that a doubling of oil prices is associated with a 1.7% decrease in real gross national disposable income and a 9% reduction in the real value of tourism exports. Chatziantoniou et al. ( 2013 ) investigated the relationship among oil price shocks, tourism variables, and economic indicators in four European Mediterranean countries and found that aggregate demand oil price shocks generated a lagged effect on tourism-generated income and economic growth. Kisswani et al. ( 2020 ) examined the asymmetric effect of oil prices on tourism receipts and the sensitive susceptibility of tourism to oil price changes using nonlinear analysis. The findings document a long-run asymmetrical effect for most countries, after incorporating the structural breaks, suggesting that governments and tourism businesses and organizations should interpret oil price fluctuations cautiously.

Finally, the sustainability of tourism has been shown to be vulnerable to the outbreak of infectious diseases, including the impact of the Ebola virus on tourism in sub-Saharan Africa (Maphanga & Henama, 2019 ; Novelli et al., 2018 ) and in the United States (Cahyanto et al., 2016 ). The literature also includes studies of the impact of swine flu on tourism demand in Brunei (Haque & Haque, 2018 ), Mexico (Monterrubio, 2010 ), and the United Kingdom (Page et al., 2012 ), among others. In addition, rapid assessments of the impacts of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 have documented severe disruptions and cessations of tourism because of unprecedented global travel restrictions and widespread restrictions on public gatherings (Gössling et al., 2020 ; Qiu et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Nicolau, 2020 ). Hotels, airlines, cruise lines, and car rentals have all experienced a significant decrease globally because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the shock to the industry is significant enough to warrant concerns about the long-term outlook (Sharma & Nicolau, 2020 ). Qiu et al. ( 2020 ) estimated the social costs of the pandemic to tourism in three cities in China (Hong Kong, Guangzhou, and Wuhan), and they found that most respondents were willing to pay for risk reduction and action in responding to the pandemic crisis; there was no significant difference between residents’ willingness to pay in the three cities. Some research has emphasized how lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic can prepare global tourism for an economic transformation that is needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change (Brouder, 2020 ; Prideaux et al., 2020 ).

It is clear that tourism has contributed significantly to economic development globally, but its role in sustainable development is uncertain, contested, and potentially paradoxical. This is due, in part, to the contested nature of sustainable development itself. Tourism has been promoted as a low-impact, nonextractive option for economic development, particularly for developing countries (Gössling, 2000 ), and many countries have managed to increase their participation in the global economy through development of international tourism. Tourism development has been viewed as an important sector for investment to enhance economic growth, poverty alleviation, and food security, and the sector provides an alternative opportunity to large-scale development projects and extractive industries that contribute to emissions of pollutants and threaten biodiversity and cultural values. However, global evidence from research on the economic impacts of tourism has shown that this potential has rarely been realized (Liu, 2003 ).

The role of tourism in sustainable development has been studied extensively and with a variety of perspectives, including the conceptualization of alternative or responsible forms of tourism and the examination of economic, environmental, and social impacts of tourism development. The research has generally concluded that tourism development has contributed to sustainable development in some cases where it is demonstrated to have provided support for biodiversity conservation initiatives and livelihood development strategies. As an economic sector, tourism is considered to be labor intensive, providing opportunities for poor households to enhance their livelihood through the sale of goods and services to foreign tourists.

Nature-based tourism approaches such as ecotourism and community-based tourism have been successful at attracting tourists to parks and protected areas, and their spending provides financial support for biodiversity conservation, livelihoods, and economic growth in developing countries. Nevertheless, studies of the impacts of tourism development have documented negative environmental impacts locally in terms of land use, food and water consumption, and congestion, and globally in terms of the contribution of tourism to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases related to transportation and other tourist activities. Studies of the social impacts of tourism have documented experiences of discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, race, sex, and national identity.

The sustainability of tourism as an economic sector has been examined in terms of its vulnerability to civil conflict, economic shocks, natural disasters, and public health pandemics. Most studies conclude that tourism may have positive impacts for regional development and environmental conservation, but there is evidence that tourism inherently generates negative environmental impacts, primarily through pollutions stemming from transportation. The regional benefits of tourism development must be considered alongside the global impacts of increased transportation and tourism participation. Global tourism has also been shown to be vulnerable to economic crises, oil price shocks, and global outbreaks of infectious diseases. Given that tourism is dependent on energy, the movement of people, and the consumption of resources, virtually all tourism activities have significant economic, environmental, and sustainable impacts. As such, the role of tourism in sustainable development is highly questionable. Future research on the role of tourism in sustainable development should focus on reducing the negative impacts of tourism development, both regionally and globally.

Further Reading

• Bramwell, B. , & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 1 (1), 1–5.
• Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research , 39 (2), 528–546.
• Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation , 18 (3), 201–209.
• Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Tourism Geographies , 1 (1), 7–25.
• Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 5 (3), 224–233.
• Fennell, D. A. (2020). Ecotourism (5th ed.). Routledge.
• Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change , 12 (4), 283–302.
• Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? (2nd ed.). Island Press.
• Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach . Routledge.
• Jamal, T. , & Camargo, B. A. (2014). Sustainable tourism, justice and an ethic of care: Toward the just destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 22 (1), 11–30.
• Liburd, J. J. , & Edwards, D. (Eds.). (2010). Understanding the sustainable development of tourism . Oxford.
• Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 11 (6), 459–475.
• Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 28 (11), 1932–1946.
• Adams, W. M. (2009). Green development: Environment and sustainability in a developing world (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Andereck, K. L. , Valentine, K. M. , Knopf, R. A. , & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (4), 1056–1076.
• Andereck, K. , Valentine, K. , Vogt, C. , & Knopf, R. (2007). A cross-cultural analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (5), 483–502.
• Anderies, J. M. , Folke, C. , Walker, B. , & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: Robustness, resilience, and sustainability . Ecology and Society , 18 (2), 8.
• Apergis, N. , & Payne, J. E. (2012). Tourism and growth in the Caribbean–evidence from a panel error correction model. Tourism Economics , 18 (2), 449–456.
• Arana, J. E. , & León, C. J. (2008). The impact of terrorism on tourism demand. Annals of Tourism Research , 35 (2), 299–315.
• Ashley, C. , & Roe, D. (2002). Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa , 19 (1), 61–82.
• Ashley, C. , Roe, D. , & Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor: A review of experience (No. 1). Overseas Development Institute.
• Baker, K. , & Coulter, A. (2007). Terrorism and tourism: The vulnerability of beach vendors’ livelihoods in Bali. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (3), 249–266.
• Baral, N. , Stern, M. J. , & Bhattarai, R. (2008). Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecological Economics , 66 (2–3), 218–227.
• Becken, S. , & Lennox, J. (2012). Implications of a long-term increase in oil prices for tourism. Tourism Management , 33 (1), 133–142.
• Beckerman, W. (1994). “Sustainable development”: Is it a useful concept? Environmental Values , 3 (3), 191–209.
• Bhattarai, K. , Conway, D. , & Shrestha, N. (2005). Tourism, terrorism and turmoil in Nepal. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (3), 669–688.
• Blewitt, J. (2015). Understanding sustainable development (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Brouder, P. (2020). Reset redux: Possible evolutionary pathways towards the transformation of tourism in a COVID-19 world. Tourism Geographies , 22 (3), 484–490.
• Brunt, P. , & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research , 26 (3), 493–515.
• Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 36 , 397–416.
• Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien , 24 (1), 5–12.
• Butler, R. , & Hinch, T. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications . Routledge.
• Cabezas, A. L. (2004). Between love and money: Sex, tourism, and citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 29 (4), 987–1015.
• Caffyn, A. (2012). Advocating and implementing slow tourism. Tourism Recreation Research , 37 (1), 77–80.
• Cahyanto, I. , Wiblishauser, M. , Pennington-Gray, L. , & Schroeder, A. (2016). The dynamics of travel avoidance: The case of Ebola in the US. Tourism Management Perspectives , 20 , 195–203.
• Calgaro, E. , & Lloyd, K. (2008). Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: Examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography , 29 (3), 288–306.
• Castanedo, S. , Juanes, J. A. , Medina, R. , Puente, A. , Fernandez, F. , Olabarrieta, M. , & Pombo, C. (2009). Oil spill vulnerability assessment integrating physical, biological and socio-economical aspects: Application to the Cantabrian coast (Bay of Biscay, Spain). Journal of Environmental Management , 91 (1), 149–159.
• Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management , 14 (2), 85–90.
• Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1987, January). The future of “ecotourism.” Mexico Journal , 17 , 13–14.
• Chase, L. C. , Lee, D. R. , Schulze, W. D. , & Anderson, D. J. (1998). Ecotourism demand and differential pricing of national park access in Costa Rica. Land Economics , 74 (4), 466–482.
• Chatziantoniou, I. , Filis, G. , Eeckels, B. , & Apostolakis, A. (2013). Oil prices, tourism income and economic growth: A structural VAR approach for European Mediterranean countries. Tourism Management , 36 (C), 331–341.
• Cheong, S. M. (2012). Fishing and tourism impacts in the aftermath of the Hebei-Spirit oil spill. Journal of Coastal Research , 28 (6), 1648–1653.
• Chok, S. , Macbeth, J. , & Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of “pro-poor tourism” and implications for sustainability. Current Issues in Tourism , 10 (2–3), 144–165.
• Cioccio, L. , & Michael, E. J. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tourism management for the inevitable in Northeast Victoria. Tourism Management , 28 (1), 1–11.
• Cirer-Costa, J. C. (2015). Tourism and its hypersensitivity to oil spills. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 91 (1), 65–72.
• Coccossis, H. , & Nijkamp, P. (1995). Sustainable tourism development . Ashgate.
• Coddington, K. (2015). The “entrepreneurial spirit”: Exxon Valdez and nature tourism development in Seward, Alaska. Tourism Geographies , 17 (3), 482–497.
• Cohen, E. (1978). The impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals of Tourism Research , 5 (2), 215–237.
• Conway, D. , & Timms, B. F. (2010). Re-branding alternative tourism in the Caribbean: The case for “slow tourism.” Tourism and Hospitality Research , 10 (4), 329–344.
• Corbet, S. , O’Connell, J. F. , Efthymiou, M. , Guiomard, C. , & Lucey, B. (2019). The impact of terrorism on European tourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 75 , 1–17.
• Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics , 2 (1), 1–6.
• Deery, M. , Jago, L. , & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management , 33 (1), 64–73.
• Diedrich, A. , & Garcia-Buades, E. (2008). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management , 41 , 623–632.
• Durbarry, R. (2004). Tourism and economic growth: The case of Mauritius. Tourism Economics , 10 , 389–401.
• Elliott, S. M. , & Neirotti, L. D. (2008). Challenges of tourism in a dynamic island destination: The case of Cuba. Tourism Geographies , 10 (4), 375–402.
• Enders, W. , Sandler, T. , & Parise, G. F. (1992). An econometric analysis of the impact of terrorism on tourism. Kyklos , 45 (4), 531–554.
• Eugenio-Martin, J. L. , & Campos-Soria, J. A. (2014). Economic crisis and tourism expenditure cutback decision. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 53–73.
• Farrell, B. , & McLellan, R. (1987). Tourism and physical environment research. Annals of Tourism Research , 14 (1), 1–16.
• Faulkner, B. , & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 5 (1), 3–28.
• Fennell, D. A. , & Eagles, P. F. (1990). Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration , 8 (1), 23–34.
• Fullagar, S. , Markwell, K. , & Wilson, E. (Eds.). (2012). Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities . Channel View.
• Garau-Vadell, J. B. , Gutierrez-Taño, D. , & Diaz-Armas, R. (2018). Economic crisis and residents’ perception of the impacts of tourism in mass tourism destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management , 7 , 68–75.
• Garrod, B. , & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management , 19 (3), 199–212.
• Ghimire, K. B. (Ed.). (2013). The native tourist: Mass tourism within developing countries . Routledge.
• Goodrich, J. N. (2002). September 11, 2001 attack on America: A record of the immediate impacts and reactions in the USA travel and tourism industry. Tourism Management , 23 (6), 573–580.
• Gössling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: A means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics , 29 , 303–320.
• Gössling, S. (2000). Tourism–sustainable development option? Environmental Conservation , 27 (3), 223–224.
• Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change , 12 , 283–302.
• Gössling, S. , & Peeters, P. (2015). Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900–2050. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 23 (5), 639–659.
• Gössling, S. , Peeters, P. , Hall, C. M. , Ceron, J.‑P. , Dubois, G. , Lehman, L. V. , & Scott, D. (2011). Tourism and water use: Supply, demand and security, and international review. Tourism Management , 33 (1), 16–28.
• Gössling, S. , Scott, D. , & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 29 (1), 1–20.
• Gössling, S. , Scott, D. , Hall, C. M. , Ceron, J. P. , & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research , 39 (1), 36–58.
• Gray, N. J. , & Campbell, L. M. (2007). A decommodified experience? Exploring aesthetic, economic and ethical values for volunteer ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (5), 463–482.
• Grober, U. (2007). Deep roots—a conceptual history of “sustainable development” (Nachhaltigkeit) . Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
• Gu, H. , & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management , 29 (4), 637–647.
• Gursoy, D. , Chi, C. G. , & Dyer, P. (2010). Locals’ attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research , 49 (3), 381–394.
• Haley, A. J. , Snaith, T. , & Miller, G. (2005). The social impacts of tourism a case study of Bath, UK. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (3), 647–668.
• Hall, C. M. , & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach . Routledge.
• Hall, C. M. , & Lew, A. A. (Eds.). (1998). Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective . Longman.
• Haque, T. H. , & Haque, M. O. (2018). The swine flu and its impacts on tourism in Brunei. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 36 , 92–101.
• Haralambopoulos, N. , & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research , 23 (3), 503–526.
• Harrison, D. (2008). Pro-poor tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly , 29 (5), 851–868.
• Hearne, R. R. , & Salinas, Z. M. (2002). The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management , 65 (2), 153–163.
• Hetzer, N. D. (1965). Environment, tourism, culture. Links , 1 (2), 1–3.
• Höhler, S. (2015). Spaceship earth in the environmental age, 1960–1990 . Routledge.
• Honey, M. , & Gilpin, R. (2009). Tourism in the developing world: Promoting peace and reducing poverty . United States Institute for Peace.
• Huan, T. C. , Beaman, J. , & Shelby, L. (2004). No-escape natural disaster: Mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 31 (2), 255–273.
• Huang, J. H. , & Min, J. C. (2002). Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: The Taiwan case. Tourism Management , 23 (2), 145–154.
• Hunter, C. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 3 (3), 155–165.
• Hunter, C. , & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment. A sustainable relationship? Routledge.
• Huttasin, N. (2008). Perceived social impacts of tourism by residents in the OTOP tourism village, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research , 13 (2), 175–191.
• Hystad, P. W. , & Keller, P. C. (2008). Towards a destination tourism disaster management framework: Long-term lessons from a forest fire disaster. Tourism Management , 29 (1), 151–162.
• Katircioglu, S. (2009). Tourism, trade and growth: The case of Cyprus. Applied Economics , 41 (21), 2741–2750.
• Katircioglu, S. (2010). Testing the tourism-led growth hypothesis for Singapore: An empirical investigation from bounds test to cointegration and Granger causality tests. Tourism Economics , 16 (4), 1095–1101.
• Khan, M. M. (1997). Tourism development and dependency theory: Mass tourism vs. ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 24 (4), 988–991.
• Kim, H. , & Marcouiller, D. W. (2015). Considering disaster vulnerability and resiliency: The case of hurricane effects on tourism-based economies. The Annals of Regional Science , 54 (3), 945–971.
• King, B. , Pizam, A. , & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research , 20 (4), 650–665.
• Kisswani, K. M. , Zaitouni, M. , & Moufakkir, O. (2020). An examination of the asymmetric effect of oil prices on tourism receipts. Current Issues in Tourism , 23 (4), 500–522.
• Kuvan, Y. , & Akan, P. (2005). Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management , 26 (5), 691–706.
• Lai, P. H. , & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management , 27 (6), 1117–1129.
• Lanouar, C. , & Goaied, M. (2019). Tourism, terrorism and political violence in Tunisia: Evidence from Markov-switching models. Tourism Management , 70 , 404–418.
• Lee, C. C. , & Chang, C. P. (2008). Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at panels. Tourism Management , 29 , 180–192.
• Lenzen, M. , Sun, Y. Y. , Faturay, F. , Ting, Y. P. , Geschke, A. , & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature Climate Change , 8 (6), 522–528.
• Lian Chan, J. K. , & Baum, T. (2007). Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (5), 574–590.
• Liu, A. , & Pratt, S. (2017). Tourism’s vulnerability and resilience to terrorism. Tourism Management , 60 , 404–417.
• Manyara, G. , & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (6), 628–644.
• Maphanga, P. M. , & Henama, U. S. (2019). The tourism impact of Ebola in Africa: Lessons on crisis management. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure , 8 (3), 1–13.
• Mathieson, A. , & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts . Longman.
• May, V. (1991). Tourism, environment and development—values, sustainability and stewardship. Tourism Management , 12 (2), 112–124.
• Mazzocchi, M. , & Montini, A. (2001). Earthquake effects on tourism in central Italy. Annals of Tourism Research , 28 (4), 1031–1046.
• Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). The socio-cultural impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change , 2 (3), 163–185.
• McKercher, B. (1993a). Some fundamental truths about tourism: Understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts, Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 1 (1), 6–16.
• McKercher, B. (1993b). The unrecognized threat to tourism: Can tourism survive “sustainability”? Tourism Management , 14 (2), 131–136.
• Meadows, D. H. , Meadows, D. L. , Randers, J. , & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth . Universe Books.
• Miller, G. A. , & Ritchie, B. W. (2003). A farming crisis or a tourism disaster? An analysis of the foot and mouth disease in the UK. Current Issues in Tourism , 6 (2), 150–171.
• Milman, A. , & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research , 15 (2), 191–204.
• Monterrubio, J. C. (2010). Short-term economic impacts of influenza A (H1N1) and government reaction on the Mexican tourism industry: An analysis of the media. International Journal of Tourism Policy , 3 (1), 1–15.
• Narayan, P. K. (2004). Economic impact of tourism on Fiji’s economy: Empirical evidence from the computable general equilibrium model. Tourism Economics , 10 (4), 419–433.
• Nash, D. , & Butler, R. (1990). Towards sustainable tourism. Tourism Management , 11 (3), 263–264.
• Novelli, M. , Burgess, L. G. , Jones, A. , & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). “No Ebola . . . still doomed”—the Ebola-induced tourism crisis. Annals of Tourism Research , 70 , 76–87.
• Oh, C. (2005). The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tourism Management , 26 , 39–44.
• Oh, H. , Assaf, A. G. , & Baloglu, S. (2016). Motivations and goals of slow tourism. Journal of Travel Research , 55 (2), 205–219.
• Okumus, F. , & Karamustafa, K. (2005). Impact of an economic crisis evidence from Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (4), 942–961.
• Page, S. , Song, H. , & Wu, D. C. (2012). Assessing the impacts of the global economic crisis and swine flu on inbound tourism demand in the United Kingdom. Journal of Travel Research , 51 (2), 142–153.
• Papatheodorou, A. , Rosselló, J. , & Xiao, H. (2010). Global economic crisis and tourism: Consequences and perspectives. Journal of Travel Research , 49 (1), 39–45.
• Peeters, P. (2012). A clear path towards sustainable mass tourism? Rejoinder to the paper “Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence” by David B. Weaver. Tourism Management , 33 (5), 1038–1041.
• Pennington-Gray, L. , London, B. , Cahyanto, I. , & Klages, W. (2011). Expanding the tourism crisis management planning framework to include social media: Lessons from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 2010. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology , 1 (3–4), 239–253.
• Pizam, A. , & Fleischer, A. (2002). Severity versus frequency of acts of terrorism: Which has a larger impact on tourism demand? Journal of Travel Research , 40 (3), 337–339.
• Pratt, S. (2015). The economic impact of tourism in SIDS. Annals of Tourism Research , 52 , 148–160.
• Prideaux, B. , Thompson, M. , & Pabel, A. (2020). Lessons from COVID-19 can prepare global tourism for the economic transformation needed to combat climate change. Tourism Geographies , 22 (3), 667–678.
• Qiu, R. T. , Park, J. , Li, S. , & Song, H. (2020). Social costs of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic . Annals of Tourism Research , 84 , 102994.
• Rátz, T. (2000). Residents’ perceptions of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary. Tourism and Sustainable Community Development , 7 , 36.
• Ribeiro, L. C. D. S. , Souza, K. B. D. , Domingues, E. P. , & Magalhães, A. S. (2020). Blue water turns black: Economic impact of oil spill on tourism and fishing in Brazilian Northeast . Current Issues in Tourism , 1–6.
• Richardson, R. B. , Fernandez, A. , Tschirley, D. , & Tembo, G. (2012). Wildlife conservation in Zambia: Impacts on rural household welfare. World Development , 40 (5), 1068–1081.
• Richardson, R. B. , & Loomis, J. B. (2004). Adaptive recreation planning and climate change: A contingent visitation approach. Ecological Economics , 50 (1), 83–99.
• Richardson, R. B. , & Witkowski, K. (2010). Economic vulnerability to climate change for tourism-dependent nations. Tourism Analysis , 15 (3), 315–330.
• Ritchie, B. W. , Crotts, J. C. , Zehrer, A. , & Volsky, G. T. (2013). Understanding the effects of a tourism crisis: The impact of the BP oil spill on regional lodging demand. Journal of Travel Research , 53 (1), 12–25.
• Rogerson, C. M. (2011). Urban tourism and regional tourists: Shopping in Johannesburg, South Africa. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie , 102 (3), 316–330.
• Rutty, M. , & Richardson, R. (2019). Tourism research in Cuba: Gaps in knowledge and challenges for sustainable tourism. Sustainability , 11 (12), 3340–3346.
• Ryan, C. , & Huyton, J. (2000). Who is interested in Aboriginal tourism in the Northern Territory, Australia? A cluster analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 8 (1), 53–88.
• Salinas, E. , Mundet, L. , & Salinas, E. (2018). Historical evolution and spatial development of tourism in Cuba, 1919–2017: What is next? Tourism Planning & Development , 15 (3), 216–238.
• Sanchez, P. M. , & Adams, K. M. (2008). The Janus-faced character of tourism in Cuba. Annals of Tourism Research , 35 , 27–46.
• Scott, D. , Hall, C. M. , & Gössling, S. (2012). Tourism and climate change: Impacts, adaptation and mitigation . Routledge.
• Seetanah, B. (2011). Assessing the dynamic economic impact of tourism for island economies. Annals of Tourism Research , 38 (1), 291–308.
• Sharma, A. , & Nicolau, J. L. (2020). An open market valuation of the effects of COVID-19 on the travel and tourism industry . Annals of Tourism Research , 83 , 102990.
• Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 8 (1), 1–19.
• Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management , 42 , 37–49.
• Smeral, E. (2010). Impacts of the world recession and economic crisis on tourism: Forecasts and potential risks. Journal of Travel Research , 49 (1), 31–38.
• Southgate, C. R. (2006). Ecotourism in Kenya: The vulnerability of communities. Journal of Ecotourism , 5 (1–2), 80–96.
• Spenceley, A. (Ed.). (2012). Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development . Routledge.
• Stabler, M. (Ed.). (1997). Tourism and sustainability: Principles to practice . Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International.
• Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism , 6 (3), 210–230.
• Stylidis, D. , & Terzidou, M. (2014). Tourism and the economic crisis in Kavala, Greece. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 210–226.
• Suntikul, W. , Bauer, T. , & Song, H. (2009). Pro-poor tourism development in Viengxay, Laos: Current state and future prospects. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research , 14 (2), 153–168.
• Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management . CABI.
• Tovar, C. , & Lockwood, M. (2008). Social impacts of tourism: An Australian regional case study. International Journal of Tourism Research , 10 (4), 365–378.
• Tsartas, P. (1992). Socioeconomic impacts of tourism on two Greek isles. Annals of Tourism Research , 19 (3), 516–533.
• Turner, L. , & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery . Constable.
• United Nations . (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . Division for Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations World Tourism Organization . (2002). Tourism and poverty alleviation . United Nations World Tourism Organization.
• United Nations World Tourism Organization . (2020). UNWTO world tourism barometer . United Nations World Tourism Organization.
• Viner, D. (2006). Tourism and its interactions with climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 14 (4), 317–322.
• Vitousek, P. M. , Mooney, H. A. , Lubchenco, J. , & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science , 277 (5325), 494–499.
• World Commission on Environment and Development . (1987). Our common future . Oxford University Press.
• Weaver, D. (2007). Towards sustainable mass tourism: Paradigm shift or paradigm nudge? Tourism Recreation Research , 32 (3), 65–69.
• Weaver, D. B. (2012). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management , 33 (5), 1030–1037.
• Weaver, D. B. (2014). Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: Toward enlightened mass tourism. Journal of Travel Research , 53 (2), 131–140.
• Wheeller, B. (2007). Sustainable mass tourism: More smudge than nudge the canard continues. Tourism Recreation Research , 32 (3), 73–75.
• Whitford, M. , & Ruhanen, L. (2016). Indigenous tourism research, past and present: Where to from here? Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 24 (8–9), 1080–1099.
• Whyte, K. P. (2010). An environmental justice framework for indigenous tourism. Environmental Philosophy , 7 (2), 75–92.
• Wolff, K. , & Larsen, S. (2014). Can terrorism make us feel safer? Risk perceptions and worries before and after the July 22nd attacks. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 200–209.
• Yang, W. , Wang, D. , & Chen, G. (2011). Reconstruction strategies after the Wenchuan earthquake in Sichuan, China. Tourism Management , 32 (4), 949–956.
• Young, G. (1973). Tourism—blessing or blight? Penguin.
• Zapata, M. J. , Hall, C. M. , Lindo, P. , & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2011). Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism , 14 (8), 725–749.

1. One megatonne (Mt) is equal to 1 million (10 6 ) metric tons.

2. One megajoule (MJ) is equal to 1 million (10 6 ) joules, or approximately the kinetic energy of a 1-megagram (tonne) vehicle moving at 161 km/h.

3. One gigatonne (Gt) is equal to 1 billion (10 9 ) metric tons.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 17 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Let us take a walk to the sustainable tourism practices: a qualitative study through the lens of tourism experts

• Research Article
• Published: 04 January 2024
• Volume 31 , pages 12892–12915, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Vikas Arya 1 ,
• Vilte Auruskeviciene   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1563-4052 2 ,
• Srishti Agarwal 3 ,
• Priyanka Kokatnur 3 ,
• Harish Kumar 4 &
• Rajeev Verma 5  

360 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The rising opportunities of sustainable tourism have brought many policies to control the exploitation of the environment and increase the reach of luxurious, safe, and authentic experiences to the different segments of tourists. This study seeks to prioritize the variables influencing the development of sustainable tourism and pinpoint key success factors that align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It adopts a tri-dimensional framework encompassing economic, social, and environmental aspects, further delineated into eleven sub-dimensions, to provide a quantitative evaluation of sustainable tourism. We conducted interviews with 26 tourism industry experts hailing from eight countries, analyzing their responses using interval type-2 fuzzy sets. The results underscore the critical role of specific components in advancing sustainable tourism. In the economic dimension, “financial resources and tourism costs” emerge as vital factors. In the social dimension, “health and safety” takes center stage, while “green infrastructure” plays a pivotal role in the environmental dimension. These findings underscore the significance of these aspects in promoting sustainable tourism. Furthermore, this study explores the strategic importance of sustainable tourism equity in shaping tourism planning and development for emerging markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Authors

Similar content being viewed by others

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

Ben Purvis, Yong Mao & Darren Robinson

Impact of tourism development upon environmental sustainability: a suggested framework for sustainable ecotourism

Qadar Bakhsh Baloch, Syed Naseeb Shah, … Asia Umar Khan

Ecotourism and sustainable development: a scientometric review of global research trends

Lishan Xu, Changlin Ao, … Zhenyu Cai

Data availability

Data will be available on request.

Agarwal SA, Kasliwal N (2019) Indian consumer’s environmental consciousness and decision towards green services of hospitality industry. J Hosp Appl Res 14(2):22–40

Google Scholar  

Ahmad N, Youjin L, Hdia M (2022) The role of innovation and tourism in sustainability: why is environment-friendly tourism necessary for entrepreneurship? J Clean Prod 379:134799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134799

Article   Google Scholar  

Alfaro Navarro JL, Andrés Martínez ME, Mondéjar Jiménez JA (2020) An approach to measuring sustainable tourism at the local level in Europe. Curr Issue Tour 23(4):423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1579174

Andereck KL, Valentine KM, Knopf RC, Vogt CA, Knollenberg W (2021) Tourists’ willingness to conserve resources and reduce their carbon footprint in national parks. J Sustain Tour 29(4):499–516

Andria J, di Tollo G, Pesenti R (2019) A fuzzy evaluation of tourism sustainability. In Business and consumer analytics: New ideas pp 911–932. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06222-4_24

Apak ÖC, Gürbüz A (2023) The effect of local food consumption of domestic tourists on sustainable tourism. J Retail Consum Serv 71:103192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103192

Arya V, Sethi D, Paul J (2019) Does digital footprint act as a digital asset? — enhancing brand experience through remarketing. Int J Inf Manage 49:142–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.013

Arya V, Sharma S, Sethi D, Verma H, Shiva A (2018) Ties that bind tourists: embedding destination motivators to destination attachment: a study in the context of Kumbh Fair India. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 23(12):1160–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1528992

Arya V, Sambyal R, Sharma A, Dwivedi YK (2023) Brands are calling your AVATAR in Metaverse—a study to explore XR‐based gamification marketing activities and consumer‐based brand equity in virtual world. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2214

Athari SA, Alola UV, Ghasemi M, Alola AA (2021) The (Un) sticky role of exchange and inflation rate in tourism development: insight from the low and high political risk destinations. Curr Issue Tour 24(12):1670–1685. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1798893

Balsalobre-Lorente D, Abbas J, He C, Pilař L, Shah SAR (2023a) Tourism, urbanization and natural resources rents matter for environmental sustainability: the leading role of AI and ICT on sustainable development goals in the digital era. Resour Policy 82:103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103445

Balsalobre-Lorente D, Luzon LI, Usman M, Jahanger A (2023) The relevance of international tourism and natural resource rents in economic growth: fresh evidence from MINT countries in the digital era. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-25022-0

Barbieri C, Sotomayor S, Gil Arroyo C (2020) Sustainable tourism practices in indigenous communities: the case of the Peruvian Andes. Tour Plann Dev 17(2):207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1597760

Beames S, Mackenzie SH, Raymond E (2022) How can we adventure sustainably? A systematized review of sustainability guidance for adventure tourism operators. J Hosp Tour Manag 50:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.01.002

Becken S, Loehr J (2022) Tourism governance and enabling drivers for intensifying climate action. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2032099

Becken S, Stantic B, Chen JS (2020) Climate change and tourism: impacts and challenges. Tourism Review 75(1):46–60

Berno T, Rajalingam G, Miranda AI, Ximenes J (2022) Promoting sustainable tourism futures in Timor-Leste by creating synergies between food, place and people. J Sustain Tour 30(2–3):500–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1895819

Bodhanwala S, Bodhanwala R (2022) Exploring relationship between sustainability and firm performance in travel and tourism industry: a global evidence. Social Respons J 18(7):1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2020-0360

Bramwell B, Lane B (2019) Critical research on the governance and management of tourism in protected areas. Curr Issue Tour 22(5):547–579

Briassoulis H (2002) Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Ann Tour Res 29(4):1065–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00021-X

Bricker KS, Schultz J (2011) Sustainable tourism in the USA: a comparative look at the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. Tour Recreat Res 36(3):215–229

Bramwell B, Lane B (2011) Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. J Sustain Tour 19(4–5):411–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2011.11081668

Budeanu A, Miller G, Moscardo G, Ooi CS (2016) Sustainable tourism, progress, challenges and opportunities: an introduction. J Clean Prod 111:285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.027

Buckley R (2012) Sustainable tourism: research and reality. Ann Tour Res 39(2):528–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Carlson J, Rahman MM, Rosenberger PJ III, Holzmüller HH (2016) Understanding communal and individual customer experiences in group-oriented event tourism: an activity theory perspective. J Mark Manag 32(9–10):900–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.1181099

Chandra P, Kumar J (2021) Strategies for developing sustainable tourism business in the Indian Himalayan Region: insights from Uttarakhand, the Northern Himalayan State of India. J Destin Mark Manag 19:100546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100546

Choe J, O’Regan M, Kimbu A, Lund NF, Ladkin A (2021) Quality of life perspectives for different social groups in a World Centre of Tourism and Leisure. Tour Stud 21(4):615–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687976211038758

Choi HSC, Sirakaya E (2005) Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. J Travel Res 43(4):380–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274651

Chong K, Balasingam AS (2019) Tourism sustainability: economic benefits and strategies for preservation and conservation of heritage sites in Southeast Asia. Tourism Review 74(2):268–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2017-0182

Darcy S, Cameron B, Pegg S (2010) Accessible tourism and sustainability: a discussion and case study. J Sustain Tour 18(4):515–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669581003690668

Da Silva J, Fernandes V, Limont M, Rauen WB (2020) Sustainable development assessment from a capitals perspective: analytical structure and indicator selection criteria. J Environ Manage 260:110147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110147

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sausmarez De (2007) Crisis management, tourism and sustainability: the role of indicators. J Sustain Tour 15(6):700–714

Dolnicar S, Crouch GI, Long P (2008) Environment-friendly tourists: what do we really know about them? J Sustain Tour 16(2):197–210. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost653.0

Dong XD, Nguyen TQT (2022) Power, community involvement, and sustainability of tourism destinations. Tour Stud 23(1):62–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687976221144335

Dredge D, Scott N, Lechner AM, Dominey-Howes D (2020) Spatial and coastal tourism. In Tourism and Water (pp. 109–126). Channel View Publications

Durband R (2021) Establishing sustainability standards in tourism. Handbook for sustainable tourism practitioners: the essential toolbox, 233

El Atiek S, Goutte S (2023) Impacts, sustainability, and resilience on the Egyptian tourism and hospitality industry after the Russian airplane crash in 2015. Res Int Bus Financ 64:101866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101866

El-Masry EA, El-Sayed MK, Awad MA, El-Sammak AA, Sabarouti MAE (2022) Vulnerability of tourism to climate change on the Mediterranean coastal area of El Hammam–EL Alamein Egypt. Environ Dev Sustain 24(1):1145–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01488-9

Eslami S, Khalifa Z, Mardani A, Streimikiene D, Han H (2019) Community attachment, tourism impacts, quality of life and residents’ support for sustainable tourism development. J Travel Tour Mark 36(9):1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1689224

Falatoonitoosi E, Schaffer V, Kerr D (2022) Does sustainable tourism development enhance destination prosperity? J Hosp Tourism Res 46(5):1056–1082. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020988328

Farrell B, Twining-Ward L (2005) Seven steps towards sustainability: tourism in the context of new knowledge. J Sustain Tour 13(2):109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580508668481

Firman A, Moslehpour M, Qiu R, Lin PK, Ismail T, Rahman FF (2023) The impact of eco-innovation, ecotourism policy and social media on sustainable tourism development: evidence from the tourism sector of Indonesia. Econ Res - Ekonomska Istraživanja 36(2):2143847. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2143847

Fong SF, Lo MC, Songan P et al (2017) Self-efficacy and sustainable rural tourism development: Local communities’ perspectives from Kuching, Sarawak. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 22(2):147–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1208668

Font X, Torres-Delgado A, Crabolu G, Palomo Martinez J, Kantenbacher J, Miller G (2023) The impact of sustainable tourism indicators on destination competitiveness: The European Tourism Indicator System. J Sustain Tour 31(7):1608–1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1910281

Garau G, Carboni D, Karim El Meligi A (2022) Economic and environmental impact of the tourism carrying capacity: a local-based approach. J Hosp Tour Res 46(7):1257–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480211031426

Geoffrey Deladem T, Xiao Z, Siueia TT, Doku S, Tettey I (2021) Developing sustainable tourism through public-private partnership to alleviate poverty in Ghana. Tour Stud 21(2):317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797620955250

Ghoochani O, Ghanian M, Khosravipour B, Crotts JC (2020) Sustainable tourism development performance in the wetland areas: a proposed composite index. Tourism Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2019-0061

Garrig’os-Sim’on FJ, Gald’on-Salvador JL and Gil-Pechu’an I (2015) The economic sustainability of tourism growth through leakage calculation. Tourism Econ 21(4):721–739. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2014.0372

Ghahramani L, Khalilzadeh J, Kc B (2018) Tour guides’ communication ecosystems: an inferential social network analysis approach. Inform Technol Tour 20(1):103–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-018-0114-y

Go H, Kang M (2023) Metaverse tourism for sustainable tourism development: Tourism agenda 2030. Tourism Review 78(2):381–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2022-0102

Gössling S (2021) Tourism, technology and ICT: a critical review of affordances and concessions. J Sustain Tour 29(5):733–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1873353

Gössling S, Scott D, Hall CM (2020) Tourism and water: interactions, impacts, and challenges. Annu Rev Environ Resour 45:269–294

Gossling S, Scott D, Hall CM (2018) Tourism and Water (Vol. 13). Channel View Publications

Graci S, Maher PT, Peterson B, Hardy A, Vaugeois N (2021) Thoughts from the think tank: lessons learned from the sustainable Indigenous tourism symposium. J Ecotour 20(2):189–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2019.1583754

Grilli G, Tyllianakis E, Luisetti T, Ferrini S, Turner RK (2021) Prospective tourist preferences for sustainable tourism development in Small Island Developing States. Tour Manage 82:104178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104178

GSTC (2021) Who We Are. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. Accessed during October 2023, https://www.gstcouncil.org/who-we-are/

GSTC (2022) The GSTC criteria: the global baseline standards for sustainability in travel and tourism. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. Accessed during October 2023, https://www.gstcouncil.org/the-gstc-criteria/

GSTC (2023) Certification. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. Accessed during October 2023, https://www.gstcouncil.org/certification/

Hall CM (2019) Constructing sustainable tourism development: the 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. J Sustain Tour 27(7):1044–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560456

Hall CM, Gossling S, Scott D (Eds.) (2015) The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. Routledge

Hardy A, Beeton RJ, Pearson L (2002) Sustainable tourism: an overview of the concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. J Sustain Tour 10(6):475–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667183

Hamid MA, Isa SM, Kiumarsi S (2021) Sustainable tourism practices and business performance from the tour operators’ perspectives. Anatolia 32(1):23–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1830135

Han H (2021) Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: a review of theories, concepts, and latest research. J Sustain Tour 29(7):1021–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1903019

He LY, Li H, Bi JW, Yang JJ, Zhou Q (2022) The impact of public health emergencies on hotel demand—estimation from a new foresight perspective on the COVID-19. Annals of Tourism Research, 94, May 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103402

Hamid MA, Isa SM, Kiumarsi S (2020) Sustainable tourism practices and business performance from the tour operators’ perspectives. Anatolia 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1830135

Higgins-Desbiolles F, Carnicelli S, Krolikowski C, Wijesinghe G, Boluk K (2019) Degrowing tourism: rethinking tourism. J Sustain Tour 27(12):1926–1944. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601732

Higgins-Desbiolles F (2018) Sustainable tourism: sustaining tourism or something more? Tour Manage Perspect 25:157–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.017

Higuchi Y, Yamanaka Y (2019) The potential value of research-based evidence in destination management: the case of Kamikawa. Japan Tour Rev 74(2):166–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-11-2017-0188

Iorio M, Corsale A (2013) Diaspora and tourism: Transylvanian Saxons visiting the homeland. Tour Geogr 15(2):198–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.647327

Iqbal A, Ramachandran S, Siow ML, Subramaniam T, Afandi SHM (2022) Meaningful community participation for effective development of sustainable tourism: bibliometric analysis towards a quintuple helix model. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 39:100523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2022.100523

Ivanov S, Gavrilina M, Webster C, Ralko V (2017) Impacts of political instability on the tourism industry in Ukraine. J Policy Res Tourism Leisure Events 9(1):100–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2016.1209677

Ivars-Baidal JA, Vera-Rebollo JF, Perles-Ribes J, Femenia-Serra F, Celdrán-Bernabeu MA (2023) Sustainable tourism indicators: what’s new within the smart city/destination approach? J Sustain Tour 31(7):1556–1582

Iversen R (2022). Cultural exchange in sustainable tourism: a literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–16

Jabbour CJC, Fiorini PDC, Wong CW, Jugend D, Jabbour ABLDS, Seles BMRP, ... et al (2020) First-mover firms in the transition towards the sharing economy in metallic natural resource-intensive industries: implications for the circular economy and emerging industry 4.0 technologies. Resources Policy 66:101596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101596

Kahraman C (Ed.) (2008) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: theory and applications with recent developments (Vol. 16). Springer Science and Business Media

Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Sarı İU, Turanoğlu E (2014) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. knowledge-Based Systems 59:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.001

Karnik NN, Mendel JM, Liang Q (1999) Type-2 fuzzy logic systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 7(6):643–658. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.811231

Kaefer F (2022) Linda Veråsdal on ethical travel and responsible tourism in the Gambia. In Sustainability leadership in tourism: interviews, insights, and knowledge from practice pp 405–409. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05314-6_64

Kamata H (2022) Tourist destination residents’ attitudes towards tourism during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Issue Tour 25(1):134–149

Katemliadis I, Kolongou ES, Drousiotis P (2021) Rising sustainability standards: the Cyprus sustainable tourism initiative. Worldwide Hosp Tour Themes 13(6):754–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1881452

Kerdpitak C (2022) The effects of innovative management, digital marketing, service quality and supply chain management on performance in cultural tourism business. Uncertain Supply Chain Manage 10(3):771–778. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2022.4.005

Ketter E (2020) Millennial travel: tourism micro-trends of European Generation Y. J Tour Futures 7(2):192–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-10-2019-0106

Komppula R (2014) The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination—a case study. Tour Manage 40:361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.007

Kim YJ, Palakurthi R, Hancer M (2012) The environmentally friendly programs in hotels and customers’ intention to stay: an online survey approach. Int J Hosp Tour Adm 13(3):195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2012.698169

Kilic M, Kaya I (2015) Investment project evaluation by a decision making methodology based on type-2 fuzzy sets. Appl Soft Comput 27:399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.028

Klintman M (2012) Issues of scale in the global accreditation of sustainable tourism schemes: toward harmonized re-embeddedness?. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 8(1):59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908085

Kularatne T, Wilson C, Månsson J, Hoang V, Lee (2019) Do environmentally sustainable practices make hotels more efficient? A study of major hotels in Sri Lanka. Tourism Management 71:213-225 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.009

Kumar A, Misra SC, Chan FT (2022) Leveraging AI for advanced analytics to forecast altered tourism industry parameters: a COVID-19 motivated study. Expert Syst Appl 210:118628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118628

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kuo FI, Fang WT, LePage BA (2022) Proactive environmental strategies in the hotel industry: eco-innovation, green competitive advantage, and green core competence. J Sustain Tour 30(6):1240–1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1931254

Lasso A, Dahles H (2018) Are tourism livelihoods sustainable? Tourism development and economic transformation on Komodo Island, Indonesia. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 23(5):473–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1467939

Lee CK, Olya H, Ahmad MS, Kim KH, Oh MJ (2021) Sustainable intelligence, destination social responsibility, and pro-environmental behaviour of visitors: evidence from an eco-tourism site. J Hosp Tour Manag 47:365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.04.010

Lee SW, Xue K (2020) A model of destination loyalty: Integrating destination image and sustainable tourism. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 25(4):393–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1713185

Liburd JJ, Edwards D (eds) (2010) Understanding the sustainable development of tourism. Goodfellow, Oxford, pp 19–44

Liu CH, Jiang JF, Gan B (2021) The antecedent and consequence behaviour of sustainable tourism: integrating the concepts of marketing strategy and destination image. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 26(8):829–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2021.1908384

Liu CR, Lin WR, Wang YC, Chen SP (2019) Sustainability indicators for festival tourism: a multi-stakeholder perspective. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour 20(3):296–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2018.1530165

Liu-Lastres B, Wen H, Huang WJ (2023) A reflection on the Great Resignation in the hospitality and tourism industry. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 35(1):235–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2022-0551

Liu T, Juvan E, Qiu H, Dolnicar S (2022) Context-and culture-dependent behaviors for the greater good: a comparative analysis of plate waste generation. J Sustain Tour 30(6):1200–1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1918132

Liu Z (2003) Sustainable tourism development: a critique. J Sustain Tour 11(6):459–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580308667216

Lopes HS, Remoaldo PC, Ribeiro V, Martin-Vide J (2022) Pathways for adapting tourism to climate change in an urban destination—evidences based on thermal conditions for the Porto Metropolitan Area (Portugal). J Environ Manage 315:115161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115161

Lu J, Nepal SK (2009) Sustainable tourism research: an analysis of papers published in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. J Sustain Tour 17(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802582480

Mamirkulova G, Mi J, Abbas J, Mahmood S, Mubeen R, Ziapour A (2020) New Silk Road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Global Ecol Conserv 24:e01194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01194

Mathew PV (2022) Sustainable tourism development: discerning the impact of responsible tourism on community well-being. J Hosp Tour Insights 5(5):987–1001. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-02-2021-0052

Millar M, Baloglu S (2009) A green room experience: a comparison of business and leisure travelers’ preferences. Hospitality Management 1–12

MacKenzie N, Gannon MJ (2019) Exploring the antecedents of sustainable tourism development. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31(6):2411–2427. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0384

Moayerian N, McGehee NG, Stephenson MO Jr (2022) Community cultural development: exploring the connections between collective art making, capacity building and sustainable community-based tourism. Ann Tour Res 93:103355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103355

Molden O, Abrams J, Davis EJ, Moseley C (2017) Beyond localism: the micropolitics of local legitimacy in a community-based organization. J Rural Stud 50:60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.001

Monaco S (2018) Tourism and the new generations: emerging trends and social implications in Italy. J Tour Futures 4(1):7–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0053

Mowforth M, Munt I (2019) Tourism and sustainability: development, globalisation, and new tourism in the third world. Routledge

Moyle BD, Weaver DB, Gössling S, McLennan CL, Hadinejad A (2022) Are water-centric themes in sustainable tourism research congruent with the UN Sustainable Development Goals? J Sustain Tour 30(8):1821–1836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2083903

Nash D, Butler R (1990) Towards sustainable tourism. Tour Manage 11(3):263–264

Nguyen TQT, Young T, Johnson P, Wearing S (2019) Conceptualising networks in sustainable tourism development. Tour Manage Perspect 32:100575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100575

Nok LC, Suntikul W, Agyeiwaah E, Tolkach D (2017) Backpackers in Hong Kong–motivations, preferences and contribution to sustainable tourism. J Travel Tour Mark 34(8):1058–1070. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1276008

Nunkoo R, Sharma A, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK, Sunnassee VA (2021) Advancing sustainable development goals through interdisciplinarity in sustainable tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.2004416

O’Hare D, Pegoraro A, Scarles C (2020) “Instagrammability”: an exploration of social media engagement and destination image in organic contexts. Curr Issue Tour 23(1):1–18

Pan SY, Gao M, Kim H, Shah KJ, Pei SL, Chiang PC (2018) Advances and challenges in sustainable tourism toward a green economy. Sci Total Environ 635:452–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.134

Article   CAS   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Partanen M, Sarkki S (2021) Social innovations and sustainability of tourism: Insights from public sector in Kemi Finland. Tourist Studies 21(4):550–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687976211040246

Poudel S, Nyaupane GP, Budruk M (2016) Stakeholders’ perspectives of sustainable tourism development: a new approach to measuring outcomes. J Travel Res 55(4):465–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514563166

Rahmadian E, Feitosa D, Zwitter A (2022) A systematic literature review on the use of big data for sustainable tourism. Curr Issue Tour 25(11):1711–1730. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1974358

Rasoolimanesh SM, Ramakrishna S, Hall CM, Esfandiar K, Seyfi S (2023) A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J Sustain Tour 31(7):1497–1517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621

Rastegar R, Ruhanen L (2021) A safe space for local knowledge sharing in sustainable tourism: an organisational justice perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1929261

Rodríguez-Díaz B, Pulido-Fernández JI (2020) Sustainability as a key factor in tourism competitiveness: a global analysis. Sustainability 12(1):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010051

Roxas FMY, Rivera JPR, Gutierrez ELM (2020-a) Framework for creating sustainable tourism using systems thinking. Current Issues in Tourism 23(3):280–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1534805

Roxas FMY, Rivera JPR, Gutierrez ELM (2020b) Mapping stakeholders’ roles in governing sustainable tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 45:387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.09.005

Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw-Hill, London

Šagovnović I, Stamenković I (2022) Investigating values of green marketing tools in predicting tourists’ eco-friendly attitudes and behavior. Journal of Ecotourism 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2022.2075003

Sahoo BK, Nayak R, Mahalik MK (2022) Factors affecting domestic tourism spending in India. Ann Tour Res Empirical Insights 3(2):100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2022.100050

Santos M, Veiga C, Santos JAC, Águas P (2022) Sustainability as a success factor for tourism destinations: a systematic literature review. Worldwide Hosp Tour Themes 14(1):20–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-10-2021-0139

Sarı IU, Öztayşi B, Kahraman C (2013) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process using type-2 fuzzy sets: an application to warehouse location selection. In Multicriteria decision aid and artificial intelligence pp285–308. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118522516.ch12

Schmude J, Zavareh S, Schwaiger KM, Karl M (2020) Micro-level assessment of regional and local disaster impacts in tourist destinations. In Tourism in changing natural environments pp. 98–116. Routledge

Scott D, Gössling S (2022) A review of research into tourism and climate change—launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on tourism and climate change. Ann Tour Res 95:103409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103409

Shafiee S, Ghatari AR, Hasanzadeh A, Jahanyan S (2019) Developing a model for sustainable smart tourism destinations: a systematic review. Tour Manage Perspect 31:287–300

Shafiee S, Jahanyan S, Ghatari AR, Hasanzadeh A (2023) Developing sustainable tourism destinations through smart technologies: a system dynamics approach. J Simul 17(4):477–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477778.2022.2030656

Shang Y, Lian Y, Chen H, Qian F (2023) The impacts of energy resource and tourism on green growth: evidence from Asian economies. Resour Policy 81:103359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103359

Sharif A, Afshan S, Nisha N (2017) Impact of tourism on CO 2 emission: evidence from Pakistan. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 22(4):408–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1273960

Sharma K, Arya V, Mathur HP (2023) New higher education policy and strategic plan: commensurate India’s higher education in global perspective. FIIB Business Review 23197145221125351

Sharpley R (2023) Sustainable tourism governance: local or global? Tour Recreat Res 48(5):809–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2022.2040295

Sharpley R (2021) On the need for sustainable tourism consumption. Tour Stud 21(1):96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797620986087

Sharpley R (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. J Sustain Tour 8(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667346

Shu H, Yu Q, Liu K, Wang A, Zha J (2022) Understanding wage differences across tourism-characteristic sectors: insights from an extended input-output analysis. J Hosp Tour Manag 51:88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.02.030

Sisneros-Kidd AM, Monz C, Hausner V, Schmidt J, Clark D (2019) Nature-based tourism, resource dependence, and resilience of Arctic communities: framing complex issues in a changing environment. J Sustain Tour 27(8):1259–1276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1612905

Sobaih AEE, Elshaer I, Hasanein AM, Abdelaziz AS (2021) Responses to COVID-19: The role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development. Int J Hosp Manag 94:102824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102824

Sørensen EB, Hjalager AM (2020) Conspicuous non-consumption in tourism: non-innovation or the innovation of nothing? Tour Stud 20(2):222–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797619894463

Streimikiene D, Svagzdiene B, Jasinskas E, Simanavicius A (2021) Sustainable tourism development and competitiveness: the systematic literature review. Sustain Dev 29(1):259–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2133

Strzelecka M, Dąbrowski JM, Uramowska M (2021) A review of environmental sustainability in tourism. J Clean Prod 279:123748

Sullivan K, Thomas S, Rosano M (2018) Using industrial ecology and strategic management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. J Clean Prod 174:237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201

Sun L, Wang Y (2021) Global economic performance and natural resources commodity prices volatility: evidence from pre and post COVID-19 era. Resour Policy 74:102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102393

Sun YY, Li M, Lenzen M, Malik A, Pomponi F (2022) Tourism, job vulnerability and income inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic: a global perspective. Ann Tour Res Empirical Insights 3(1):100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2022.100046

Terry Mok Connie Lam (1998) Hotel and tourism development in Vietnam. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 7(1):85-91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v07n01_06

Thapa K, King D, Banhalmi-Zakar Z, Diedrich A (2022) Nature-based tourism in protected areas: a systematic review of socio-economic benefits and costs to local people. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 29(7):625–640 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2073616

Tolkach D, King B, Pearlman M (2013) An attribute-based approach to classifying community-based tourism networks. Tour Plann Dev 10(3):319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2012.747985

Torres-Delgado A, Saarinen J (2017) Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: a review. New research paradigms in tourism geography, 31–47

Tuan VK, Rajagopal P (2019) Analyzing factors affecting tourism sustainable development towards Vietnam in the new era. Eur J Business Innov Res 7(1):30–42

Tzschentke N, Kirk D, Lynch PA (2004) Reasons for going green in serviced accommodation establishments. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 16(2):116–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110410520007

UNWTO (2020) Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations World Tourism Organization. Accessed during October 2023, https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development-goals

UNWTO (2018) Tourism and the SDGs: Journey to 2030. World Tourism Organization

Valenti WC, Kimpara JM, Preto BDL, Moraes-Valenti P (2018) Indicators of sustainability to assess aquaculture systems. Ecol Ind 88:402–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.068

Verma R, Arya V, Thomas A, Bolognesi E, Mueller J (2023) Does startup culture in the emerging country grow around societal sustainability? An empirical study through the lens of co-creational capital and green intellect. J Intellect Cap 24(4):1047–1074

Vespestad MK, Lindberg F, Mossberg L (2019) Value in tourist experiences: How nature-based experiential styles influence value in climbing. Tour Stud 19(4):453–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797619837966

Weaver DB, Moyle B, McLennan CLJ (2022) The citizen within: positioning local residents for sustainable tourism. J Sustain Tour 30(4):897–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1903017

Westoby R, Gardiner S, Carter RW, Scott N (2021) Sustainable livelihoods from tourism in the “10 New Balis” in Indonesia. Asia Pacific J Tour Res 26(6):702–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2021.1908386

World Tourism Organization (WTO) (2019), International tourism results 2018 and outlook 2019. http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_barometer_jan19_presentation_en.pdf (accessed 24 August 2019)

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) represents the Travel and Tourism Sector globally (2020), Accessed at https://wttc.org/ retrieved on 15 January 2020

Wu JS, Barbrook-Johnson P, Font X (2021) Participatory complexity in tourism policy: understanding sustainability programmes with participatory systems mapping. Ann Tour Res 90:103269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103269

Zadeh L (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Prt I. Inform Sci 8(3):199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255%2875%2990036-5

Zhang J (2016) Weighing and realizing the environmental, economic and social goals of tourism development using an analytic network process-goal programming approach. J Clean Prod 127:262–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.131

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rabat Business School, International University of Rabat, Rabat, Morocco

ISM University of Management and Economics: ISM Vadybos Ir Ekonomikos Universitetas, Gedimino St. 7, 01103, Vilnius, Lithuania

Vilte Auruskeviciene

School of Management, MIT World Peace University, Pune, India

Srishti Agarwal & Priyanka Kokatnur

Great Lakes Institute of Management, Gurgaon Campus, Gurgaon, India

Harish Kumar

Indian Institute of Management, Ranchi, India

Rajeev Verma

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Vikas Arya conducted the analysis of data and provided an interpretation of the findings. Vilte Auruskeviciene wrote the manuscript draft and ensured consistency in referencing and citation formatting. Srishti Agarwal collected data, collaborated with Vikas Arya to analyze the data, and contributed to the discussion of the findings. Priyanka Kokatnur contributed to the research methodology development and data collection. Harish Kumar provided insights to the theoretical and managerial aspects of the study and contributed to the discussion section. Rajeev Verma conducted a literature review and collaborated with Vilte Auruskeviciene to integrate the literature review into the manuscript. All authors provided comments on previous versions of the manuscript, and they all read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vilte Auruskeviciene .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Arya, V., Auruskeviciene, V., Agarwal, S. et al. Let us take a walk to the sustainable tourism practices: a qualitative study through the lens of tourism experts. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31 , 12892–12915 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31503-7

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2023

Accepted : 08 December 2023

Published : 04 January 2024

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31503-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable tourism
• Eco-tourism
• AHP-type 2 fuzzy test
• Responsible consumers
• Tourism sustainable equity
• Tourism industry
• Green services
• SDGs in tourism
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Washington Tourism Resource Center

The Tourism Resource Center (TRC) serves as an online hub for grants, partnership information, and educational materials for tourism stakeholders in the State of Washington.

With financial assistance from the Washington State Department of Commerce, the Tourism Resource Center provides users with free and easy access to a variety of resources such as webinar recordings, toolkits, and research documents. This includes content for rural and underserved communities pertaining to outdoor recreation, scenic byways, and cultural heritage. Through the Tourism Resource Center, industry stakeholders can hone their skills and expand their knowledge while supporting innovation and resilience in destination communities across the state.

Explore the resources below for more information.

Grant Opportunities

SWT administers a robust grant program for destination planning and development projects. Local governments, tribes, chambers of commerce, destination organizations, and other nonprofit organizations that support travel and tourism are eligible to apply.

SWT also curates a list of other grant opportunities from private foundations and corporations, as well as from state and federal entities. Grants provide a vital source of funding for a wide range of tourism activities and support for small businesses.

View Grant Opportunities

Research & Data

Research and data help guide tourism strategy and equip decision makers with tools and insights to better understand and convey destination promotion and management. SWT invests in these resources as a way to support destinations and advocate for industry initiatives.

Tourism stakeholders may access a wide range of research materials from the Resource Center, including economic impact reports, lodging tax information, visitor profiles, case studies, and toolkits.

View Reports & Resources

Tourism Skillshop

The Tourism Skillshop is an educational webinar series for those in the tourism sector to broaden their industry knowledge, skills, and network.

Each webinar highlights a specific issue or skill for tourism professionals to learn and discuss with industry experts. SWT hosts these live webinars once a month, and they are free and open to all tourism stakeholders. All past webinars are available to view online on SWT’s YouTube channel.

Explore the Tourism Skillshop

Partnership Opportunities

SWT has partnership opportunities and co-ops available for a wide range of tourism stakeholders. Learn about the latest marketing co-ops as well as a research co-op through Datafy, which tracks visitors based on points of interest, mobile geolocation, and credit card data.

View Co-Ops

Rural Tourism Support Program

The Rural Tourism Support (RTS) program focuses on long-term, sustainable destination development for underserved communities.

The program implements a community-based approach to destination development that includes stakeholder surveys, community workshops, priority projects, and strategic planning from a steering committee. RTS is awarded annually to one regional destination following an application and review process.

Explore the RTS Program

State Tourism Conference

The State of Washington Tourism Conference and Responsible Outdoor Travel Summit will take place in Vancouver, WA on Oct. 7-9, 2024. The event brings together tourism stakeholders from across the state for industry education, networking, and awards.

Breakout sessions cover a range of relevant topics, from marketing and destination development to diversity, and more. Hear from keynote speakers, gain insights into trends, and learn from industry experts.

Explore the Tourism Conference

Responsible Travel Handbook

The Port of Seattle partnered with SWT, The Travel Foundation, and Tourism Cares to produce a Responsible Travel Handbook. Its contents provide practical guidance on how your organization, region, or community can help usher in a better version of the tourism industry that works for all Washingtonians.

View the Handbook

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Performance of Environmental Resources of a Tourist Destination

Tanja mihalič.

1 Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Despite the apparent importance of destinations’ environmental resources, there appears to be little theoretical and applied research explicitly focusing on destination environmental supply. This research attempts to address this gap in the literature. First, it reviews and evaluates the body of research in tourism environmental resources and proposes a conceptual model to test their performance. The model combines tourism supply–demand view with importance–performance gaps and was used to survey tourism in Slovenia. The results show that the studied destination uses its environmental resources too extensively and that Slovenian environmental tourism experience does not meet visitors’ expectations. This finding challenges Slovenian policy makers, who position Slovenia as a green destination. The proposed model can form the basis for further conceptual and empirical research into the tourism contributions of environmental resources. In its present form, it can be used to examine environmental performance and to suggest policy implications for any destination.

Introduction

The tourism sustainability debate has drawn increased attention to the environmental factors of destinations. However, the role and importance of environmental resources had been embedded in tourism research long before this environmental debate began ( Mariotti 1938 ; Planina 1966 ). Many tourism researchers have studied environmental resources’ tourism potential and how they trigger tourism demand and bring value to a destination. Initially, the researchers’ interests in the issue was merely academic; however, given the increasing environmental awareness in society and the fact that tourism may cause the deterioration of environmental resources and force mass tourism destinations into economic decline, researchers have become interested in this issue for policy relevance reasons. For destinations, environmental issues are now more important than ever before and are now an integral part of their sustainable development strategies. The “new tourists,” defined by Poon (1989) more than a decade ago, are ecologically aware; they demand more environmental resource–based experiences and are becoming sensitive to the actual environmental quality of destinations, which increasingly influences their price–quality ratio judgments. For example, research on the Balearic Islands ( Aguiló, Alegre, and Sard 2005 ) has shown that tourists have become increasingly demanding in regard to the natural surroundings and their quality. Indeed, in the late twentieth century, it became evident that environmental tourist attractions must be maintained and offered to visitors in the quantity and quality that they demand together with the price they are willing to pay.

Environmental resources have become an integral part of modern destination development and competitiveness models. In one destination competitiveness study, Crouch (2011) suggests that experts judge the destination’s physiography and climate, both of which are naturally endowed, as the most important competitiveness determinant. In another tourism competitiveness meta-study, Tsai, Song, and Wong (2009) listed 16 models that have substantially contributed to the tourism destination competitiveness debate. Of the 16, six considered environment as one of the major determinants of tourism destination competitiveness ( Gooroochurn and Sugiyarto 2005 ; Heath 2003 ; Kozak and Rimmington 1999 ; Ritchie and Crouch 1993 , 2000 ; Enright and Newton 2005 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 ).

However, in these models, environmental resources represent only one factor, subfactor, or group of factors. There is a need for knowledge of how and to what degree environmental resources as a group contribute to destination competitiveness and performance. According to some tourism competitiveness researchers, there is a need to intensify research on the competitiveness potential of a single group of resources, and the “environmental dimension of destination, performance, and competitiveness is slowly but surely growing in importance” ( Ritchie and Crouch 2003 , p. 6).

Therefore, this article focuses on environmental resources and their role in a destination from the aspect of their performance. In addition, this article also focuses on tourism-created resources, such as accommodations and other tourism infrastructures, as environmental resources require them in order to enter the tourism process and market. However, our research and discussion orientation is on the role of environmental resources alone.

The article explains how destination environmental resources are seen in tourism literature. Because of the interdependency of environmental and tourism-created resources, the latter are also presented. A conceptual model for studying the tourism economic potential of environmental resources and importance–performance gaps between the expected and received environmental resource–based tourism experience is being proposed. Derived from the proposed model, three sets of research questions were approached: (1) Do tourists distinguish between environmental and tourism-created resources? (2) If they do, does a destination’s environmental resource–based experience meet the visitors’ demand? (3) Do environmental and tourism-created resources have different impacts on destination performance? These research questions have been explored for the case of Slovenia, a small tourism destination in Europe.

Destination and Environmental Resources

Tourism destination supply encompasses a multidimensional concept that includes not only tourism economic goods, such as overnight stays and entertainment, but also environmental attractors that serve as a resource base for tourism development and, in many cases, are a primary attraction for potential tourism demand. These primary destination environmental supply features include climate, nature, culture, and traditional architecture. When researching the role of environmental resources, Tisdell observed the following:

A good deal of tourism relies upon resources or assets that cannot be reproduced or cannot be easily reproduced. . . . This is true of much tourism dependent on the natural environment as well as tourism dependent on historical-cultural objects. ( Tisdell 1991 , p. 181)

Termed man-made or tourism-created elements, secondary destination supply features comprise developments specifically introduced for tourists, for example, accommodation, food, transport, and entertainment. Indeed, the two main elements (environmental and tourism-created) of tourism supply “make an extensive contribution to the attractiveness of destinations” ( Bahar and Kozak 2007 , p. 61). Recognizing the existence of the two main elements, as well as their possible connections, this paper focuses on the role of environmental resources in tourism destination.

Environmental Resources in Tourism Literature

Long before the world become aware of environmental resources and their exploitation and use, and before the general environmental debate became a debate about sustainability, Mariotti (1938) detailed the importance of natural resources for tourism demand and supply. He divided tourism supply into spontaneous attractors, that is, natural resources that attract tourist visitation, and derived attractors that a destination develops to enable visitation and economic tourism activity. Later, other tourism researchers attempted to understand tourism environmental resources in order to provide a well-rounded model of tourism supply–demand economic interactions and to study the supply and competitiveness potential of tourism destinations ( Tisdell 1991 ; Planina 1966 ; Kaspar 1991 ; De Keyser and Vanhove 1994 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2000 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 ). Different theoretical foundations have been used—from simple tourism economic supply–demand market models to complex destination competitiveness models. A great deal of the tourism environmental debate has been conducted in a framework of sustainable development. However, different tourism researchers have used different nominations and theories to explain the elements, kinds, and concepts of environmental resources. The evolution of these different nominations and classifications is presented in Table 1 .

Tourism Environmental Resources and Their Nominations in Tourism Literature and Research.

Note: Please note that the references point to the last publications by the referred authors and do not necessarily correspond to the time period when the debate/concept started to evolve.

Sources: Mariotti 1938 ; Planina 1966 ; Kaspar 1991 ; Vanhove 2005 ; Stabler, Papatheodorou, and Sinclair 2010 ; De Keyser and Vanhove 1994 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2000 , 1993 ; Omerzel Gomezelj and Mihalič 2008 ; Enright and Newton 2004 ; Kozak and Rimmington 1999 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ; UNWTO 2004 ; Enright and Newton 2005 ; Mihalič, Milutinovič, and Prašnikar 2011 ; Kaspar 1973 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 ; Dwyer, Livaic, and Mellor 2003 ; Armenski et al. 2012 .

Planina (1966) studied the effect of environmental resources on tourism and observed them as primary tourism supply. He expanded Mariotti’s understanding of natural tourism attractors by adding cultural attractions ( Figure 1 ). According to him, primary tourism attractions consist of natural goods (not man-made) and cultural goods from the past (man-made, yet nonreproducible).

Primary and secondary tourism supply: criteria and elements.

Thus, the debate started with only the role of natural attractions ( Marriotti 1938 ), and soon cultural goods were added to describe the attractiveness of destinations ( Planina 1966 ). At the time, authors conceptualized “primary tourism supply” that we now understand as environmental resources (e.g., natural and cultural) ( Planina 1966 ; Kaspar 1991 ; Tisdell 1991 ). Kaspar (1991) extended the concept of primary tourism supply of a destination to include its general infrastructure. It is a fair argument that (existing) general infrastructure can be a potential factor in tourism development and, thus, a potential tourism supply. However, there are many destinations that lack general infrastructure and must develop it to enable tourism development and competitiveness ( Khadaroo and Seetanah 2008 ; Prideaux 2000 ). There are several such cases: from the Albanian coastline, with the most beautiful beaches in the area but little tourism and poor general infrastructure ( Pavesi 2011 ), to new destinations in remote locations of Ethiopia’s Omo tribe ( Hambisa 2012 ). The question of who should pay for general infrastructure (e.g., roads, airports, electricity) to support tourism remains one of the most problematic issues in tourism development ( Sakai 2006 ).

Another variation of primary tourism supply refers to man-made attractions. Some authors include purpose-built attractions, such as theme parks, events, or spas, in the category of primary attractions that play the same role as environmental resources in attracting tourists ( Vanhove 2005 ). In this case, purpose-built attractions partly fail to meet the criteria of nonreproducibility. The problem in operationalizing such an understanding is that we cannot draw a line between purposely created enablers of tourism supply (e.g., accommodation) and purposely created tourist attractions. For example, a spa hotel or a hotel in Disney World may count as an attractor and an enabler of tourism demand. This argument can be further extended to real cases where some tourism-built resources (of strong architectural quality) become attractors of tourism demand themselves, such as Hundertwasser’s spa resort Rogner Bad Blumau in Austria or the impressive Wright’s “Tower of the Arabs” Hotel (Burj Al Arab) in Dubai.

The Calgary model ( Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ) considers cultural, historical, and certain social resources (i.e., hospitality) as factors that can attract tourism demand if properly managed. Although the model recognizes the role of environmental resources, such as physiography and climate, culture and history, and hospitality, these do not constitute a homogenous and independent group. The majority of environmental resources are grouped under the “core resources” pillar, along with market ties and super-structure. Notably, hospitality belongs to another pillar. This type of grouping has been criticized by Dwyer and Kim (2003) , who proposed a model that contains many of the determinants of the Calgary model but with different groupings. Dwyer and Kim’s Integrated Destination Competitiveness Model distinguishes between inherited/endowed and created resources and links them to the destination’s supply side. The understanding of inherited and created resources is similar to the original understanding of primary and secondary tourism supply.

Table 1 (see column 3) also presents some understandings of environmental resources in tourism applied research. For example, Enright and Newton (2004) found that environmental resources ranked relatively low in the case of urban tourist destinations. In contrast, two studies in a more rural destination Serbia showed that destination’s position is strong in inherited resources ( Mihalič, Milutinović, and Prašnikar 2011 ; Armenski et al. 2012 ). Such contrasting findings in different destinations raise the question of differing levels of importance of environmental resources in different types of destinations.

In addition, the extracted importance of environmental resources might be sensitive to the type of data collected. This can be supported by Kozak and Rimmington’s research ( 1999 ) on the importance of environmental resources as perceived by a destination’s stakeholders and visitors, which found significant differences in the opinions of the two groups regarding the importance of environmental resources. Such differences are similarly observed in the cross-comparison of different tourism studies in Slovenia, as presented in one of the subsequent sections.

In summary, destination environmental resources remain an evolving concept, and a full understanding of their various types and their meaning has not been reached yet:

• Some researchers only identify environmental resources with natural resources, which was particularly true in the early tourism environmental debate during which environmental resources were often limited to natural environments or occasionally to natural and built physical (man-made) environments ( Mariotti 1938 ; Kaspar 1973 ).
• Later, as this concept became too narrow, social and cultural attractions entered the tourism environmental debate. Thus, in many works, the term “environmental resources” refers to natural and cultural or sociocultural resources ( UNWTO 2004 ; Planina 1997 ; Kaspar 1991 ; Mihalič and Kaspar 1996 ; Tisdell 1991 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2000 ).
• However, the term “environmental” is still occasionally used as a synonym for natural ( Ritchie and Crouch 2000 ). In this context, one of the three UNWTO pillars of sustainability is known as environmental (meaning natural only) and is separate from the sociocultural and economic pillar ( UNWTO 2004 ).
• Further, the term “environmental” is occasionally replaced by the term “ecological” ( Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ; Mihalič and Kaspar 1996 ) or “tourism ecology” ( Kaspar 1973 ). Again, the terms “tourism ecology” or “ecological resources” can be used in their narrower or broader meanings, referring only to natural, or to natural and sociocultural aspects of tourism ( Mihalič and Kaspar 1996 ).
• Further, the term “environment” can be even more broadly used, as other environments, apart from natural and sociocultural, may be relevant. For example, the economic, political, or technological environment may also help shape the development and competitiveness of tourism destinations ( Ritchie and Crouch 2000 ).
• In addition to the aforementioned variations in the understanding of environmental resources, different authors have used different terms in an attempt to capture their existence and tourism relevance. For example, they have used terms such as “primary tourism supply and attractions” ( Mihalič and Kaspar 1996 ; Planina 1966 ), “original or pristine tourism supply” ( Kaspar 1991 ; Tschurtschenthaler 1986 ), “Ricardian-type attractions” ( Tisdell 1991 ), “inherited or endowed resources” ( Dwyer and Kim 2003 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ), “inherited assets, core resources, and attractors” ( Ritchie and Crouch 2000 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 ), “given resources” ( Dwyer and Kim 2003 ), and “comparative advantage resources” ( Heath 2003 ). Unfortunately, different authors use the above terms differently. For example, primary resources may refer to only natural resources ( Mariotti 1938 ), to natural and cultural environmental resources ( Planina 1966 ), or to all kinds of primary attractions that also include purposely built tourist attractions ( Vanhove 2005 ). For some authors, inherited resources may only refer to a given natural and inherited cultural resource ( Dwyer and Kim 2003 ). Others may also see general infrastructure as an inherited or given element on which the destination builds its tourism supply ( Kaspar 1991 ).

For pragmatic reasons, and because of the problematic use of the terms “environment” and “environmental,” unless otherwise specified, this paper uses the term “tourism environmental resources” to mean natural and sociocultural tourism attractions ( Table 2 , Figure 1 ). This is because terms like “environmental tourism competitiveness” or “environmental quality” have already been established in tourism literature ( Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ; Mihalič 2000 ) and because such a meaning is in line with the concept of tourism sustainability, which also distinguishes between natural and sociocultural resources ( UNWTO 2004 ).

Destination Environmental and Tourism-Created Resources.

Sources: Mihalič and Kaspar 1996 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2000 , 2003 ; UNWTO 2004 ; Inskeep 1991 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 .

Although our primary focus in this paper is on environmental resources, tourism-created resources also need closer attention, as they are seen as enablers of tourism valorization of environmental resources ( Planina 1997 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2000 ). Some authors expand the understanding of this relationship and speak about the complementarity of environmental and created resources ( Krippendorf 1971 ; Mihalič and Kaspar 1996 ; Fisher 1985 ), which implies that one group of resources does not exist without the other and that they are interdependent. More specifically, “destinations cannot rely on their natural beauty alone” ( Croes 2011 ).

The secondary or tourism-created resources encompass reproducible man-made goods, relying on labor and capital for their provision, and consist of tourism infrastructure and super-structure (see Figure 1 ). Transformation of tourism attractions into primary tourism supply is only possible through tourism processes that involve secondary tourism supply (e.g., accommodation, tourism services).

Again, tourism literature offers a wide range of terms to describe these resources, such as “secondary supply,” “derived attractions or resources,” “created, built, and economic resources,” and “tourism infrastructure and super-structure” ( Mariotti 1938 ; Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ; Bahar and Kozak 2007 ; Planina 1997 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 ). As in the case of environmental resources, the exact meaning of the terms listed above is not agreed upon in the academic tourism community. For example, the category of built resources may also refer to resources built in the past, which also fall under the category of cultural environmental resources (see Figure 1 ). By inherited resources, some authors refer to only inherited cultural and natural resources (thus, environmental), while others refer to inherited general infrastructure. For these reasons, we grouped different elements that constitute tourism destination supply and are not seen as environmental tourism attractors under “tourism-created resources.” The elements of this group are divided into two subgroups. The first is tourism infrastructure, which encompasses the different tourism buildings and structures that enable the production of tourism services, such as hotels, casinos, marinas, sport facilities, and national parks. The second is tourism super-structure, which encompasses tourism services, such as half board, casino entertainment, marina mooring, golfing, and visiting national parks, all of which are enabled by the tourism infrastructure ( Planina and Mihalič 2002 ). These different groups of resources are presented in Table 2 .

In addition, it should be noted that components of general infrastructure, such as roads, airports, electricity generation and transmission systems, and plumbing, have been studied by many authors as important elements of a destination’s supply and competitiveness ( Ritchie and Crouch 2003 ). However, in our model, the corresponding services are not considered to be direct tourism supply, as they have not been purposely built for tourism use alone and, thus, are not tourism-built resources ( Planina 1997 ).

Environmental Resources in Tourism Supply–Demand Model

The extent to which environmental resources can be effective attractors depends on tourism-created resources, which enable visits to and stays in a destination. Thus, environmental tourism resources do not exist without tourism-created resources; there exist only potential tourist attractions that may or may not become real tourist resources.

The contribution of environmental resources to tourism performance is growing in importance; however, thus far, research on the degree to which they alone contribute to tourism economic value is almost nonexistent. It is not simple to capture their contribution because of their dependency on tourism-created resources and their indirect involvement in economic processes; Figure 2 illustrates a supply–demand tourism model that attempts to capture these connections. In Figure 2 , environmental resources trigger tourism demand (see direction a , Figure 2 ), while created resources play a dual role, as they enable environmental resources for visitation (see direction b , Figure 2 ) and also attract and enable tourism demand (see direction c , Figure 2 ). Direct tourism market exchange occurs along direction c when overnight stays, transportation, and events are sold and paid for by tourists. However, added value or producer surplus on account of tourism environmental resources is enabled and created along directions b and a , which are also the lines of indirect market valuation of environmental resources.

Tourism environmental resources in tourism supply–demand model.

The Hypothesized Model

Different concepts have been used to capture the difference between the ideal and real tourism supply of environmental and tourism-created resources that simultaneously incorporates visitors’ expectations and real experiences. On the one hand, for an ideal tourist destination, the importance placed by visitors on environmental destination elements is of relevance. On the other hand, for a real destination, performance is important and is related to the quality of the delivered/received elements as perceived by the real visitors. The model studies both environmental and tourism-created resources and shows gaps between the ideal and real performance of resources ( Figure 3 ).

The Hypothesized model.

The understanding of created and environmental resources in the proposed model ( Figure 3 ) follows the meaning and the suggested theoretical structure of tourism-created and environmental resources as already presented in Table 2 . In this regard, the term environmental resources is used in its broader meaning and encompasses natural and sociocultural attractions. Tourism-created resources correspond to the group of tourism-relevant infrastructure (tourism buildings and structures) and super-structure (tourism services). The presented a, b , and c relationships are derived from the analysis of tourism supply as presented in Figure 2 , and demonstrate the dependency of environmental resources that can only enter the tourism market with the help of tourism-created resources. The arrows in Figure 2 point from independent to dependent variables. Environmental resources are thus both a dependent and an independent variable; their access to the market depends on the quality and quantity of tourism-created resources; on the other hand, they also act as an independent variable in the environmental resources–tourism demand relationship as tourism demand depends on the quality and quantity of a destination’s environmental resources.

Ideal Destination: Importance of Environmental Resources

The model is based on the assumption that potential tourism demand distinguishes between environmental and tourism-created resources and their subgroups ( Table 2 ), and that this division is meaningful and important for a potential destination’s visitors and consequently for suppliers. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

• Hypothesis 1a : Tourism demand (visitors) classifies environmental and tourism-created resources into two separate groups.
• Hypothesis 1b : Tourism demand (visitors) classifies environmental resources into two subgroups: natural and sociocultural resources.
• Hypothesis 1c : Tourism demand (visitors) classifies tourism-created resources into two subgroups: infrastructure and super structure.

Real Destination: Performance of Environmental Resources

Customer satisfaction in our proposed model ( Figure 3 ) is directly linked to tourism demand and is a key indicator of a destination’s real performance and competitiveness. Compared to tangible financial performance indicators, the intangible indicators of customer satisfaction are becoming a popular tourism performance measure, perhaps, because they are more in line with the intangible character of the service-oriented tourism sector ( Sigala et al. 2004 ; Huang, Chu, and Wang 2007 ; Kozak 2001a ). In this regard, customer satisfaction reflects the destination’s performance, and improvement in customer satisfaction leads to higher competitiveness ( Huang and Sarigöllü 2008 ; Oh and Parks 1997 ; Alegre and Garau 2011 ).

Our model suggests that environmental and tourism-created resources are two different groups of resources that play a role in customer satisfaction. The model connections ( Figure 3 ) labeled a, b, and c, which have been theoretically grounded in this paper, have been tested with the hypothesis. In addition, a hypothesis on the relative higher impact of environmental resources, based on theoretical assumptions of their primary role and necessary condition, as well as on the orientation of the “new tourist” toward the environment, has also been proposed. Therefore, we posit the following:

• Hypothesis 2a : Tourism environmental resources are positively related to visitors’ satisfaction (destination’s performance).
• Hypothesis 2b : Tourism environmental resources are positively related to tourism-created resources.
• Hypothesis 2c : Tourism-created resources are positively related to visitors’ satisfaction (destination’s performance).
• Hypothesis 2d : The positive relationship between tourism environmental resources and visitor satisfaction is stronger than that between tourism-created resources and visitor satisfaction.

Importance–performance Gaps in Environmental Resources

Previous empirical research has demonstrated that customer satisfaction is a function of both expectations related to certain resources and judgments of performance of those resources’ ( Tribe and Snaith 1998 ; Martilla and James 1977 ). The corresponding gap is often measured by an importance–performance analysis (IPA), a widely used analysis tool in tourism research ( Enright and Newton 2004 ; Tribe and Snaith 1998 ; Scott, Schewl, and Frederick 1978 ; Tourism Canada 1988 ; Ryan and Huimin 2007 ; Crompton and Love 1995 ; Coghlan 2012 ; Deng 2007 ). A standard IPA is based on a two-dimensional matrix with importance on the x -axis and performance on the y -axis. The mean of performance and importance divides the matrix into four quadrants that represent different improvement opportunities (i.e., “possible overkill,” “keep up the good work,” “low priority,” “concentrate here”). Such a mean value matrix is applied often but many tourism studies have also applied a modified IPA ( Deng 2007 ; Coghlan 2012 ; Mikulić and Prebežac 2012 ). This article is interested only in exploring the importance category for understanding the ideal destination supply of environmental resources and exploring the performance category for understanding the real performance of destination. It is also interested in calculating importance and performance gaps in environmental resources.

Here, we again refer to our previous discussion on the growing importance of environmental resources and argue that for many potential visitors, environmental resources are more important than their enablers, that is, tourism-created resources. However, a real tourism destination may not fulfill visitors’ perception of the importance of the resources in question. Thus, a significant gap may exist between the expected and real performance of a destination’s environmental resources. Therefore, we test the following:

• Hypothesis 3a : The importance of environmental resources is statistically different from the importance of created resources.
• Hypothesis 3b : The importance of environmental resources is statistically different from the performance of environmental resources.

Destination: Slovenia

This article uses the traditional economic- geography-based destination approach, which allows us to define a destination as a geographical area of one country ( Saraniemi and Kylanen 2011 ). Being a relatively new country in Central Europe, Slovenia was established in 1991 with its proclamation of independence from the former socialist Yugoslavia. This member state of the European Union shares a border with Italy, Austria, Hungary, Croatia, and the Adriatic coast ( Figure 4 ). Slovenia spans Alpine, continental, and Mediterranean climate zones, and its tourism includes mountain, sea, city, spa, gambling, and farm destinations. According to SURS (2010) data, the majority of tourism nights is spent in Slovenian spa destinations (34%), followed by mountain (23%) and seaside destinations (22%). The share of Slovenian’s capital city Ljubljana is 8%.

Location map of Slovenia.

Source . ETC, 2012 .

Slovenian tourism has a long history. The Rogaška spa and Postojna cave are approximately 200 years old. Tourism on the Adriatic coast in Portorož has existed for more than 100 years, and the first gambling license was granted to the Portorož Casino in 1913 by the Austrian crown.

In previous decades, Slovenia was a transit country for European tourists moving to and from the Adriatic coast. Presently, the country includes approximately 118,000 tourist beds, 40,000 of which are in the hotel sector ( SURS 2010 ). In 2010, tourists (62% of whom are foreign) stayed for a total of 8.9 million nights ( SURS 2010 ). Inbound visitor numbers totaled three million in 2010 ( SURS 2010 ). Foreign tourism earnings were 1.9 billion euros, representing 42% of the total export of services ( BS 2012 ). Despite its small size in absolute terms, tourism is an important economic activity for this country of 2 million that is half the size of Switzerland. It is estimated that in 2010, Slovenian tourism contributed approximately 12% to the Slovenian GDP and approximately 13% to total employment ( WTTC 2011 ).

Notably, the country is marked by its forests. Approximately 60% of its land mass is covered by wooded areas, and the country is marketed as a green area of Europe through such slogans as “Slovenia is green,” “Slovenia goes green,” and “Slovenia promotes green” ( ITEF 2011 ). Indeed, inherited natural and sociocultural bases are observed as important competitive advantages for Slovenian tourism, and the country is currently focusing on sustainable development issues ( Dwyer et al. 2012 ).

In 1999, Sirše and Mihalič (1999) and Vanhove (1999) conducted a competitiveness study using the De Keyser-Vanhove model. The research was supply-side based and concluded that Slovenian tourism was stronger in its environmental attractiveness than in its tourism-created infrastructure and super-structure and management’s capability to add value.

Then, in 2004, researchers applied the methodology from the Integrated Competitiveness Destination Model to Slovenia ( Omerzel Gomezelj and Mihalič 2008 ). The results were similar to the results of the above-mentioned study based on the De Keyser-Vanhove model. Tourism managers once again graded the competitiveness potential of natural and cultural attractions higher than created resources and management.

Thus far, no studies have captured Slovenian environmental tourism performance and competitiveness from the perspective of visitors. The next section discussesthe approach we took in addressing this limitation in the literature.

Data Collection

Data were collected from 1,054 tourists in Slovenia by means of personal interviews in four Slovenian destinations. Data were collected by a professional market research agency during the period May to July. The agency’s interviewers have conducted a computer-assisted personal interviewing of a destination’s visitors on the basis of a structured questionnaire. Only those visitors who had been at the destination for more than one day were included in the survey in order to ensure more relevant and reliable data on perceptions of that destination ( Kozak 2001b ).

The first draft of the questionnaire was tested with personal interviews of 25 randomly selected visitors. With minor changes based on the results of the pretest, the final version of the questionnaire was developed and used in four Slovenian tourism destinations: a city, a seaside resort, a recreational resort and a spa resort. The questionnaire was designed in the Slovenian language and then translated into the English, German, and Italian languages.

There were 52% female and 58% male interviewees. In terms of age, the sample distribution is as follows: 15-29 years (25%), 30-39 years (24%), 40-50 years (31%), and 60 years and up (20%). The sample framework follows a representative visitation structure by country of origin. The sample representation is shown in Table 3 .

Sample Structure.

Correspondents evaluated tourism supply elements on two different aspects. First, they evaluated the importance of a given item for a destination (How important is this element? 1 = completely unimportant to 5 = very important ). Second, they evaluated the destination’s performance for a given element (At this destination, this element is exceptional. 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree ). A list of these statements is included in the appendix ( Table A1 ).

Further, data on visitor’s satisfaction was also gathered by asking the respondents on whether they agree with the statement “I am pleased that I decided to visit this tourist destination” (1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree ).

Research Findings: Slovenian Destinations

Grouping tourism environmental resources as a part of ideal destination supply.

To study the first set of hypothesis—if potential tourists distinguish between environmental and tourism-created resources and their elements—a factor analysis using the principal component method with Varimax rotation was implemented. Based on the data on the importance of a single destination’s resources to the potential visitor, the factor analysis reveals four important factors, representing 67.68% of the total variance ( Table 4 , columns 2-5). The first factor, tourism infrastructure, includes tourism-created supplies directly linked to accommodation, including spa and wellness facilities. The second factor, tourism super-structure, includes a variety of vacation entertainment, including sports and shopping activities. The third factor, natural resources, includes two variables: unspoiled nature and overall cleanliness of the destination. The fourth factor, sociocultural attractions, includes the diversity of cultural and historical attractions and the friendliness of the local population.

Rotated Component Matrix for a Factor Model of Destination Resources (Ideal Destination).

Note: TCRE = tourism-created resources; TENV = tourism environmental resources; Infrastr = tourism infrastructure; Superstr = tourism super-structure; Nature = natural resources; SocCult = social and cultural resources.

The first two factors in columns 2 and 3 represent tourism-created resources, and the second two in columns 4 and 5 represent tourism environmental resources. A grouped two-factor model has also been tested and explains 47% of the total variance ( Table 2 , columns 6 and 7). The coefficient of reliability is higher for created resources (0.74) and is poor (0.59), yet acceptable, for environmental resources. Thus, our first set of hypotheses—that visitors (tourism demand) distinguish between environmental and tourism-created resources, between tourism infrastructures and super-structures, and between the nature and sociocultural resources—is supported, suggesting that it is meaningful to group destination resources into these groups to perform the analysis.

Testing Real Destination Performance of Environmental Resources

For the second set of hypotheses on customer satisfaction (destination’s performance) and environmental resources, the data are analyzed using a structural equation model (SEM). The model shows a good fit of the data: the measure of fit, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), is less than 0.05, and the comparative fit index (CFI) is close to 1 (0.988). The percentage of explanatory variance for environmental resources’ impact on satisfaction is 26%. The sample size, other descriptive statistics, and covariance matrix are presented in the appendix ( Tables A2 and ​ andA3 A3 ).

The first three hypotheses (2a, 2b, and 2c) on connections as predicted by our conceptual model and hypothesis can be supported by our SEM. As presented in Figure 5 , the arrows also correspond to theoretically predicted connection directions: tourism-created resources have a positive impact on visitor satisfaction (0.33) and environmental resources (0.37), and environmental resources have a positive impact on visitor satisfaction (0.29). Environmental resources are determined by the quality and quantity of tourism-created resources and influence satisfaction in a scope determined by tourism-created resources.

Tourism structural equation model for Slovenia (standardized effects).

Then, in regard to our next hypothesis (2d), we expected a higher potential for environmental resources, but the model shows quite the contrary. Tourism-created resources have a stronger impact on satisfaction than environmental resources (standardized coefficient beta 0.33 for tourism-created and 0.29 for environmental). Thus, hypothesis 3d cannot be supported.

Another interesting finding of the model, according to the subfactor-level loadings, is that sociocultural subfactors (loadings = 0.85) are represented more in the model structure than are natural subfactors (loadings = 0.57). This finding is not in line with the expectation that Slovenia has a competitive advantage in its green and unspoiled nature. In reality, sociocultural attractiveness potential is better utilized and, thus, has a stronger impact on competitiveness than natural attractiveness. Yet, this result could be due to the lack of use or poor access to the natural environment, with or without the support of created tourism supply, or the strong focus of the tourism sector on offering tourism infrastructure instead of more nature-based tourism services.

Testing the Importance–Performance Gaps in Environmental Resources

In line with hypothesis 3a that potential visitors rate the importance of environmental resources higher than that of created resources, our analysis shows the gap in the importance of the two categories (0.69, calculated from the importance mean values in Table 5 ). As this importance gap is statistically significant (see Table A4 in the appendix ), our hypothesis is supported.

Importance–Performance Gaps for Slovenia (Differences between Ideal and Real Destinations).

Note: TCRE = tourism-created resources; TENV = tourism environmental resources; Infrastr = tourism infrastructure; Superstr = tourism super-structure; Nature = natural resources; SocCult = social and cultural resources; IPA GAP = importance–performance gap (gap between customer perception of importance and performance in resources).

The results based on the visitors’ opinion also show that Slovenia as a real destination is performing well in terms of tourism-created resources and underperforming in terms of environmental resources. This finding is demonstrated by the negative importance–performance gaps for environmental resources and its subgroups ( Table 5 , and Table A4 in the appendix ), suggesting that visitors do not experience nature and sociocultural environments in the quality and, likely, quantity that they expected. Therefore, hypothesis 3b on the gap between the importance and performance of environmental resources is supported.

In regard to our model ( Figure 3 ), this result may be due to the high urbanization of space or low (lower) quality of environmental resources, which did not satisfy visitors. Further, it may be due to improperly designed tourism-created resources that do not utilize the full potential of the environmental attractiveness. The latter may occur because of the inaccessibility of these resources or the lack of tourism services that allow visitors to access and enjoy them.

Discussions and Implications

This article focuses on the effect of environmental resources on destination performance, the support they receive from tourism-created resources, and the expectations and experiences of the destinations’ visitors. Based on the review of environmental resources in the tourism economic literature, a conceptual model has been proposed. The importance–performance instrument has been used to construct the model. On the basis of the importance of environmental resources, factor grouping into environmental and tourism-created has been proposed. Furthermore, based on the performance view, the mutual connections between environmental and created resources and their connections to tourism demand, for example, to the satisfaction of visitors, have been conceptualized.

On the basis of our results, we argue that destinations can measure their capacity to enable access to environmental resources to visitors. Furthermore, recognizing that environmental resources require tourism-created resources to become a part of tourist supply, destinations can measure how efficiently their created resources support value creation on the account of environmental visitor experience. It is important for a destination to understand if created resources enable tourism products to sufficiently employ environmental resources, such as natural or sociocultural resources. Many destinations today claim to build their competitiveness on the potential of their natural or cultural endowments and may believe that they are successfully doing so. However, our data show that although Slovenia works to create an image of itself as a green destination, the destination itself does not utilize nature much and as well as its visitors expect. Moreover, we found that the sociocultural element is strongly represented in the studied impact on customer satisfaction. Improvements in tourism product could be made, thereby helping the country meet visitors’ “greener” expectations. Proper investment in more supporting tourism-created resources, such as nature-based accommodation and tourism products, would help “sell” more natural resources to potential customers, increasing their overall satisfaction and destination performance.

Although one may argue that our model only represents a two-factor view that neglects many important factors, we claim that the selected model has a strong theoretical basis in tourism economics literature and, thus, is worthy of being tested empirically. This article represents an attempt to empirically test this type of model. Dividing tourism supply into the categories of environmental and tourism-created resources helps to understand the relationship between the two factor groups of tourism supply and their impact on tourism demand and on value creation. Furthermore, the model enables researchers to study the role of environmental resources and their impact on destination performance.

Furthermore, it can be argued that our model does not consider the efficiency of tourism management, which is an important element in transforming inherited environmental resources into tourism products. Yet, we argue that the model sufficiently analyzes the position of environmental resources in a destination’s supply and thus is an efficient diagnostic tool that can be used to inform and adapt managerial activities and tourism policies. The results have shown that all other things being equal in tourism management efficiency, there is a negative gap between the importance and performance of Slovenian environmental resources. The gap is larger for natural resources and somewhat smaller for cultural resources. Obviously, immediate private and public managerial efforts to improve the destination’s performance and to synchronize it with the country’s green tourism vision and mission are needed. Tourism policy and more specifically tourism product development needs to incorporate more environmental resource–based experience and the visitor’s access and actual enjoyment of environmental attractions, and more specifically natural attractions, needs to be improved.

These demand-side opinion-based results contradict previous research findings on Slovenian tourism, which are based on the opinion of supply-side tourism stakeholders, who believe that Slovenia is performing better in its environmental resources than in its created resources. This paper, then, shows a serious discrepancy that requires immediate attention and has strong policy implications. Such a view, as held by tourism stakeholders, demand more investment in tourism infrastructure only and is likely to increase the gap in expected and experienced environmental performance of the destination. Consequently, the decreased satisfaction in environmental resources will lead to a decreased environmental competitiveness of the destination.

The presented demand-side view on performance of environmental resources in Slovenia is also a wider contribution of this research. Thus far, many applied economics–based studies measured competitiveness as perceived by tourism stakeholders on the supply side ( Bahar and Kozak 2007 ; De Keyser and Vanhove 1994 ; Dwyer and Kim 2003 ; Omerzel Gomezelj and Mihalič 2008 ). However, the question of whether the evaluation of environmental attractions by supply-side stakeholders would be consistent with an evaluation gathered from visitors themselves can be raised ( Bahar and Kozak 2007 ; Enright and Newton 2004 ). The advantage of the supply-side approach lies in lower costs and its ability to measure a wide range of competitiveness factors, such as supporting factors, destination management, or policy. It is assumed that demand-side respondents are more experienced and knowledgeable to evaluate the range of different factors. Further, it is also assumed that experts are “able to speak for the tourists” ( Enright and Newton 2004 , p. 781) and that their opinions represent a large group of tourists and are even more accurate, as there may be a gap between tourists’ expressed opinions and actual behavior. In terms of our debate on tourism environmental resources, this phenomenon can be illustrated by assigning a high declarative value to the environmental quality of the destination (environmental resources), while actually being more interested in the quality of accommodations and related services (tourism-created resources). One single study that was conducted on both sides suggested that both tourism practitioners and tourists felt that natural and cultural resources were the most promising attributes for destination competitiveness, yet suppliers viewed this aspect as significantly more important than did visitors ( Bahar and Kozak 2007 ). Again, we refer to already mentioned two earlier supply-based studies on the competitiveness potential of Slovenian environmental resources that noted that Slovenia has an advantage in environmental tourism attractors ( Mihalič and Sirše 1999 ; Omerzel Gomezelj and Mihalič 2008 ). However, the supply-based research is not directly connected to consumers and might bring conclusions that contradict the opinions of visitors. Our model has successfully tested and confirmed that from the standpoint of a potential visitor, dividing resources into environmental and created resources is meaningful and that in the case of Slovenia, visitors clearly wanted more environmental resource–based experiences. This research offers an informed argument for Slovene tourism policy makers and practitioners to improve the accessibility and delivery of environmental resource–based tourism products and experience for the visitors.

Based on the fact that environmental resources may not have the same attractiveness potential for all types of destinations, the view of different destination types needs attention. For example, Enright and Newton (2004) studied the competitiveness of the urban tourism destination of Hong Kong as perceived by Hong Kong tourism practitioners and found that some environmental attributes received low rankings. For example, climate ranked only 12th, probably because climates of city destinations may be considered less important than in resort destinations. This study implies that environmental resources may have varying importance in different types of destinations. Some destinations, such as cities or theme parks, may focus more on created tourism supply resources, while others, such as mountain or sea resorts, might build their customer experience more on environmental attributes. Specifically, many see that destinations, facing the stage of decline, as already illustrated in this paper, must improve its performance with regard to natural resources. In the past, these destinations have developed tourism infrastructures and super-structures to capitalize on the natural resources they possess; however, these created resources have failed to meet the visitors’ satisfaction in regard to insufficient or poor experience in environmental resources, environmental quality included. It is true that destination development has strongly focused on the development of accommodation and other tourism infrastructure and has somewhat neglected the environmental dimension of destinations’ tourism supply ( Aguiló, Alegre, and Sard 2005 ). This observation can be illustrated by a strong investment in the quantity and quality of hotel rooms, restaurants and convention facilities, casinos and hotel indoor swimming pools, and larger indoor water-based parks, hotel spa centers, hotel coffee shops and souvenir shops or shopping centers, and so on, on the account of development of products that would take visitors outside hotel premises, offering them a more environmental experience in the destination. Furthermore, some investment in the beach facilities and urbanization have been done, yet the money and thus effective policy support for investing into the environmental quality of the destination has been scarce. The development plans have not built on the proper created-environmental resources relationship, as emphasized in the proposed model in this article.

Limitations and Further Research

The model developed in this article combines the supply–demand tourism view with the concept of importance–performance analysis and attempts to contribute to a better understanding of the ideal and actual role of environmental resources in destination performance. A test of the model has been conducted only in the case of the destination, Slovenia, and the results are thus limited to this test and this country only. However, given the general nature of our conceptualized model, we expect that the model can be used in different settings. To test its generalizability, it should be applied and tested in other destinations.

Furthermore, the importance statements that we used to create the groups of environmental and created resources might vary significantly among different types of destinations. In other words, not all potential destinations possess the same elements of environmental resources. Specifically, some may build their tourism development model on flora and fauna, while others on water or climate. In this regard, we argue that the conceptual model has a general nature, yet the measurement instrument needs to be further developed and expanded.

For a market-based study of tourism performance, the use of visitors as key informants is justifiable. At the same time, for measuring the importance of environmental resources, the researcher should ask potential visitors, not actual visitors in the destination. It is potential tourism supply that is a market category and that should be measured ( Planina 1997 ). From the standpoint of destination focus on different market segments, the possible (potential) segments, not the existing ones, are relevant. If a destination focuses on offering green tourism products, green tourism market segments would be of relevance. However, the costs of such a potential demand research often prevent data to be collected from potential visitors, and such a method would also prevent the collection of data on both the importance and the performance of environmental resources from the same person at the same time. Nevertheless, with the help of web-based customer research, we assume that this theoretically correct approach toward potential demand might more often find its way in future tourism research. So far, measuring potential demand by asking the real visitors remains a research limitation (including our research). However, in our case, it has eliminated the need to differentiate the question on the importance of resources according to different destination types. We assume this for the importance data corresponding to the kind of visited destination, as well as for the performance data.

The results on the valorization of environmental resources through tourism might also vary on the account of a destination’s development stage, expressed as the level of development of tourism infrastructure and super-structure. Yet, we expect that the model can prove a useful instrument even in such settings, emphasizing the lower than ideal customer experience based on the tourism-created, instead of the environmental resources. In this context, further research might analyze the rate at which environmental resources are valorized by created resources according to a different tourism destination development stage.

Furthermore, the purpose of this paper has been to develop a theoretically supported model to study the role of environmental resources in destination supply and demand and to offer a useful instrument to inform policy makers and tourism destination managers on the possible shortcomings in integrating the environmental resource–based experience into destination services. A strong focus only on measuring the performance in environmental resources has culminated in a two-factor model, as it became evident that environmental resources need tourism-created resources to enable them to participate in the tourism market. Future research can expand the model to include other factors. For example, the role of general infrastructure that some authors see as “inherited” resource might be added to the model. The same can be argued for the (given) accessibility of the destination, for example.

Next, our conceptual model also suggests a relationship between the environmental and created resources, as has been seen by many tourism researchers. In this view, environmental resources are enabled by and depend on created resources. In our opinion, such a model enables the measurement of the full contribution of environmental resources, which was the only primary focus of our research. Thus, the arrows in our model point from created resources (seen as enablers) toward environmental resources (seen as attractors), and from environmental and created resources toward visitor satisfaction. In addition, some researchers have also discussed the complementarities between the two groups of resources ( Krippendorf 1971 ; Kaspar 1991 ), which suggests a different type of complementary connection. In other words, such a theoretical ground would demand two-sided arrows between created and environmental resources in our model. It might be worth testing this kind of a model and analyzing its implications.

Another relevant issue for future consideration is environmental quality. The proposed model has combined environmental resources into two subgroups, nature being one of them. A well-structured importance–performance instrument that would include statements in relation to the environmental quality of the destination might help expand the model with a single subfactor, environmental quality. We assume that some destinations might face a low impact of environmental resources on customer satisfaction on the account of given conditions (e.g., environmental degradation, pollution levels, water and air quality) and not on the account of poor tourism policy and management that fails to integrate more nature-based experiences into the tourism service.

In conclusion, the model presented in this paper can be developed further but, in its current form, may help understand the importance of tourism environmental resources and their natural and sociocultural subgroups for destination performance. As our model also includes created resources, seen as tourism enablers of environmental resources, the model also has the potential to study the role of created resources for destination performance. Nevertheless, from the aspect of environmental resources, it is relevant for many modern destinations that claim to have advantages in natural or cultural resources. For these destinations, the model offers an instrument that may help their tourism policy makers test the connection between environmental and tourism-created resources and the environmental experiences they actually deliver to their visitors in order to make informed decisions on their investments and policies.

Acknowledgments

The author also gratefully acknowledges the methodological support from Hana Vodeb.

Author Biography

Tanja Mihalič , PhD, is a professor of tourism at the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests include tourism economics, environmental economics, policy and sustainable tourism development. She is a member of the Tourism Sustainability Group of the European Commission.

Importance and Performance Measurement Instrument.

Descriptive Statistics for the Measurement Model.

Note: The SATISF Kurtosis is rather high, yet acceptable. The variable was selected (from a list of possible variables) for the model as it enabled a good fit of the model (high root mean square error of approximation). Infrastr = tourism infrastructure; Superstr = tourism super-structure; Nature = natural resources: SocCult = social and cultural resources; SATISF = visitor satisfaction.

Covariance Matrix for the Measurement Model.

Note: Infrastr = tourism infrastructure; Superstr = tourism super-structure; Nature = natural resources: SocCult = social and cultural resources; SATISF = visitor satisfaction.

Paired Sample Tests for Tourism-Created and Environmental Resources for the Destination, Slovenia.

Note: TCRE = tourism-created resources: TENV = tourism environmental resources; Infrastr = tourism infrastructure; Superstr = tourism super-structure; Nature = natural resources; SocCult = social and cultural resources.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Slovenian Research Agency and the Ministry of the Economy of the Republic of Slovenia for the project “Methodology for Measuring Visitor Satisfaction,” which provided data used in the present paper.

Tourism Week 2024 Toolkit and Resources

Tourism Week 2024 is here! All this week, April 15-19, tourism partners from across Canada will come together to champion and promote Canada’s destinations, tourism businesses, and employees – from coast to coast to coast.

Here at Destination BC, we’ve partnered with the  Tourism Industry Association of BC  (TIABC) to provide industry with  several resources , including a  comprehensive toolkit  with key messaging,  downloadable graphics , videos and more, to assist you in celebrating tourism across the province.

We encourage you to follow us on  LinkedIn  throughout the week of April 15-19, and help us spread the message that #BCTourismCounts.

The 2024 BC Tourism Week Toolkit includes:

• Key messaging
• Tourism Week fact sheet
• Suggested social media posts
• Graphic tiles
• Ways to celebrate Tourism Week
• TIABC’s Value of Tourism videos
• Government resources
• Tourism Industry Association of Canada (TIAC) resources
• go2HR resources
• Sustainable Tourism Pledge 2030

Download the toolkit and resources: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1N5KY5bK4YNw61_yhc4LldVKo5_xxoKL4

Destination BC

Official websites.

HelloBC.com

Be inspired to start planning your BC Vacation.

Travel Media

Information for journalists, editors and broadcasters.

Tourism Business Portal

Online, self-service business listings system for tourism industry.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Travel Oregon

• Programs & Initiatives
• Marketing Co-Ops & Toolkits
• Industry News
• Virtual Training, Engagement and Assistance
• Tourism in Oregon
• Central Oregon
• Eastern Oregon
• Mt. Hood & Gorge
• Oregon Coast
• Portland Region
• Southern Oregon
• Willamette Valley
• Message from the CEO
• Oregon Tourism Commission
• Equity Statement
• Vision, Mission & Values
• Conferences

You Might Be Looking For...

• Strategic Plan

Oregon Outback International Dark Sky Sanctuary: A Case Study in Dark Sky Tourism

Dark Sky Tourism is an in-demand, sustainable and, in some cases, regenerative tourism experience that serves the dual purposes of providing awe-inspiring opportunities for visitors and reducing the negative impacts of light pollution on people and wildlife. As travelers increasingly seek out stars, awareness of the many benefits of spending time under a dark sky has grown. And not a moment too soon—it’s estimated that 80% of Americans and nearly 33% of all humanity can no longer see the Milky Way from home. This is more than just a visual loss—light pollution is detrimental to human health, alters the behaviors of nocturnal animals and confuses migratory birds.

Unlike our neighbors to the north and south—and most other states in the U.S.—Oregon is fortunate to have an abundance of dark skies. In fact, much of Eastern Oregon comprises of the largest and most pristine dark sky zone in the contiguous United States. Efforts led by the tourism industry and dark sky advocate partners are ensuring we can protect Oregon’s starry sky heritage for generations to come while sharing it with a growing number of dark-sky-loving visitors.

Designating the World’s Largest International Dark Sky Sanctuary

Thanks to a collaboration led by the team at Travel Southern Oregon, a 2.5-million-acre area of southeastern Oregon was certified in March 2024 as the world’s largest International Dark Sky Sanctuary by Dark Sky International . To qualify as a Dark Sky Sanctuary, the area had to meet strict criteria for sky quality, commit to protecting the night sky through responsible lighting practices and provide public outreach.

The Oregon Outback Dark Sky Network (ODSN), a voluntary grassroots organization dedicated to dark sky conservation on a landscape scale, worked hand-in-hand for four years with partners such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Tribes, businesses, ranchers, landowners and other stakeholders to develop a shared Lighting Management Plan (LMP) to achieve certification. With funding support from Travel Oregon and Travel Southern Oregon , a contractor, Dark Sky delegate Dawn Nilsson, was hired by ODSN to manage the application with Dark Sky International and the many elements required to see it to fruition.

“This four-year collaboration brings together so many of the elements we try to achieve in regenerative tourism,” said Bob Hackett, Executive Director of Travel Southern Oregon. “It not only elevates the destination experience for visitors to Lake County and opens up opportunities for local businesses, but it also helps agencies and residents steward their lands in ways that celebrate a legacy of starry night skies for generations to come.”

A Collaborative Process

Extensive industry and community engagement was critical to the success of the collaboration, which began with a Travel Oregon-led Outdoor Recreation Tourism Studio in Lakeview and included numerous conversations with residents and businesses in the region to gauge concerns and public support. This led to Travel Southern Oregon convening public land agencies, Tribes and other stakeholders in an ongoing, multi-year conversation. As ODSN convener, Travel Southern Oregon purchased three Sky Quality Meters to collect the necessary data to document darkness levels on partner-owned land including Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge, South Warner Mountains and PLAYA at Summer Lake. Throughout the nomination and subsequent adoption of the sanctuary’s Lighting Management Plan, stakeholders participated in night sky monitoring, lighting inventories and improvements, and retrofits as well as educational outreach efforts that included toolkits, video screenings, presentations, workshops, library programs and other community events and gatherings.

Economic Benefit of Dark Sky Tourism

The economic benefit of creating a destination asset in the remote South Central Oregon Outback is significant. By its very nature, tourism that takes place at night involves overnight stays.

Because dark sky tourism isn’t linked to any kind of seasonality, the experience is available any time of year, including during the historically less-traveled winter season. In fact, the quieter months are associated with longer nights, meaning dark sky tourism has the potential to increase visitor spend year-round, leading to a more efficient use of local community and tourism-related resources. Oregon Outback gateway communities energize these efforts by loaning Night Sky Adventure Kits in public libraries, renting stargazing equipment at outdoor gear shops, selling cosmic cocktails/coffee beverages, leading tours and hosting public star parties, events and film screenings.

As dark sky tourism grows, the model forged by the Oregon Outback Dark Sky Network and the unique public-private partnerships cultivated by ODSN can serve as a model for partnership-based destination stewardship efforts in the future.

Dark Sky Sanctuary to Grow

Designation of 2.5 million acres in Lake County as the Oregon Outback International Dark Sky Sanctuary is only the first phase of this effort. Phase 2 includes portions of Harney and Malheur counties as well. The area currently certified is about one-half the size of New Jersey, but when complete, the full Oregon Outback International Dark Sky Sanctuary will encompass more than 11.4 million acres of protected night skies. Only a few lighting inventories, retrofits and local approvals are still outstanding to expand the Dark Sky Sanctuary.

ADDITIONAL CASE STUDIES

Of course, a formal dark sky designation isn’t necessary to attract dark sky enthusiasts. Many businesses, towns and outfitters are getting creative when it comes to dark sky tourism products and offerings. Promoting dark sky tourism opportunities can support or complement other outdoor recreation offerings while enhancing property values, a community’s sense of pride and even reducing energy waste. A few examples:

Oregon Dark Sky Business Ventures

In the Bend area, dark sky enthusiasts are treated to two public observatories, community ordinances addressing dark sky friendly outdoor lighting, dark sky festivals, programs, guided nighttime cross-country skiing, hiking and boating tours and Worthy Brewing’s ”Hopservatory.” Some businesses offer adventures to experience other nighttime marvels. eNRG Kayaking of Oregon City leads full moon paddle tours near Willamette Falls just south of Portland. They also host evening concerts at Willamette Falls accessible to paddlers . In a win-win partnership with OMSI and volunteers from Rose City Astronomers (RCA) , Willamette Valley wineries and Oregon breweries host star parties to attract potential new clients and make profitable use of their properties, while OMSI and Oregon’s largest astronomy club (the second largest in the nation) attend to their public outreach goals.

Dark Sky Promotion at Oregon Resorts

Large resorts, such as Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch and the soon-to-reopen Kahneeta Resort in Central Oregon, as well as in Eastern Oregon and Summer Lake Hot Springs in Southern Oregon, provide tourists comfortable accommodations that also provide an onsite nature experience. Keeping things as natural as possible, some degree of dark sky lighting practices are followed at these resorts to provide guests onsite stargazing opportunities as one of many site amenities. Smaller resorts, like Lake Simtustus Resort near Madras, are also incorporating dark sky friendly lighting into their business model to capture the added value of dark sky tourism.

Cities Highlighting Dark Sky Tourism

In eastern Oregon, the town of Antelope is currently working toward earning a Dark Sky Community designation. And on the Oregon Coast, towns such as Cannon Beach, Manzanita, Yachats and Bandon have long attracted tourists lured by the charms of a quaint community focused on protecting its natural amenities. Consistent with city codes that maintain an aesthetic and progressive community character, these cities also have outdoor lighting codes that address light pollution. Seaside , a developed coastal town, provides a fine example of adopting an outdoor lighting code that diminishes the effect of skyglow encroachment into surrounding areas of the coast. Dark sky ordinances are a proactive way for communities and counties to protect the night sky in and near their locales, while also providing opportunities to promote dark sky tourism.

Dark Sky Tourism at Parks and Monuments

Astronomical and wildlife nighttime programming at places such as L.L. Stubb Stewart; Silver Falls State Parks; Oregon Caves National Monument; Newberry Crater; and John Day Fossil Beds National Monuments benefit not only the parks and monuments themselves, but also the gateway communities near these public lands. Education regarding night sky amenities contributes to dark sky stewardship and promotes economic opportunities from dark sky tourism.

For additional details, information or to schedule a free Dark Sky Tourism consultation with an expert, visit Travel Oregon’s Dark Sky Tourism resource page .

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• Travel Southern Oregon
• Dark Sky International
• Dark Sky Oregon

Read the Plan

Sign Up Now

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

The Impact of Tourism

Subject: Geography

Age range: 11-14

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

10 April 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

The worksheet consists of an information text. Based on this text, there are various exercises such as matching tasks, multiple-choice questions, open questions and true-false questions. You receive the material and solutions in PDF format for easy printing and in docx format for individual customization.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• You are here:
• Member homepage
• Content library search

Proflight Announces 2024 Flight Schedule To Kafue National Park

In anticipation of the upcoming peak tourism season, Proflight Zambia has announced its annual scheduled flights to the Kafue National Park beginning June 1, 2024.

The flights offer ease of access and connectivity to one of Africa’s largest parks for both local and international travellers.

Through Procharter, the airline will connect Lusaka, and Chunga in the Kafue National Park, with a three-times-weekly service to run from June 1 to October 31, 2024.

“Holiday makers and adventure seekers can look forward to enjoying the park’s natural beauty at its peak, providing a unique experience of the diverse wonders of the vast wildlife,” said Proflight Zambia Director of Flight Operations, Captain Josias Walubita.

Positioned near the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNPW) and African Parks Headquarters, Chunga is considered to be the central hub of the Kafue National Park and is centrally positioned to service both the North and the Southern parts of the park.

“Chunga serves as a gateway to the rest of Kafue National Park. From here, travellers can easily transfer via vehicle or opt for charters in smaller aircrafts to explore either side of the park,” he added.

Source: ProFlight

Related topics

You may also be interested in.

Cape Town International hits 10 million passengers per year mark

South Africa: Airports Company South Africa has announced that Cape Town International Airport (CTIA) processed over 10 million passengers in the 2023/2024 financial year

KQ to Change Airbus Lease From Wet to Damp, With Training of Crew

Kenya: Kenya Airways (KQ) has commenced training sessions for its cabin crew aiming to replace the current staff provided under the Airbus wet lease agreement.

Ethiopian Airlines Inaugurates the New Jinka Airport Terminal in Southern Ethiopia

Ethiopia: Ethiopian Airlines Group inaugurated a new terminal and support facilities at Jinka Airport in southern Ethiopia.

Virgin Atlantic and Kenya Airways Launch Codeshare Deal

Kenya: Virgin Atlantic and Kenya Airways have unveiled a new codeshare partnership, offering greater connectivity between the UK and East Africa

Kenya Airways (KQ) To Increase New York Flights To Nine Per Week During Summer

Kenya: Kenya Airways (KQ) has increased its weekly flights to New York City in the United States from seven to nine

Mozambique: LAM to Start Flights to Dubai and China by July

Mozambique: Mozambique's state airline LAM plans to launch regular flights to Dubai and Guangzhou, China by July