tourism impact on local communities

• Diversity Inclusion
• Advisory Panel
• Our Audience
• Private Tourism Academies
• Tourism Ambassador Training
• Destination Training
• Tourism Keynote Speakers
• Sponsorship
• Business Class Podcast
• Skill & Knowledge
• Product Training
• Our Technology
• Become An Instructor
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Product Training & Promotion
• Hire Us To Speak

How Does Tourism Benefit Local Communities?

Tourism is a thriving industry that not only brings in visitors from around the world but also has significant positive impacts on local communities. While the economic benefits of tourism are well-known, its contributions to social, cultural, and environmental aspects are often overlooked. This article will explore how tourism can catalyze sustainable development and create a range of advantages for local communities.

Economic Growth and Job Creation: One of the most apparent benefits of tourism is its role in generating economic growth and employment opportunities. Tourists visit a destination and spend money on accommodation, transportation, food, shopping, and various services. This expenditure stimulates the local economy, increasing business activities and new jobs. Hotels, restaurants, tour operators, and local artisans are among the many businesses that directly benefit from the influx of tourists.

Preservation of Cultural Heritage: Tourism plays a significant role in preserving and promoting the cultural heritage of local communities. Visitors are often eager to explore a destination's unique traditions, customs, and historical sites. This creates a demand for cultural experiences, encouraging locals to preserve their traditions and showcase their heritage. By valuing their cultural assets, communities are motivated to protect historical landmarks, monuments, festivals, and traditional craftsmanship, which might have been neglected or forgotten.

Community Development and Infrastructure Improvement: Tourism can lead to the development of community infrastructure and public services. The revenue generated from tourism can be reinvested in improving transportation networks, healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and public spaces. This benefits tourists and enhances the quality of life for local residents. Additionally, the need to provide a positive visitor experience can encourage communities to invest in better facilities, amenities, and attractions, which ultimately benefit both tourists and locals alike.

Encouragement of Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship: The tourism industry allows small businesses and local entrepreneurs to thrive. Locals can establish their guesthouses, homestays, restaurants, tour companies, souvenir shops, and other tourism-related enterprises. This fosters entrepreneurship and empowers individuals within the community, promoting self-sufficiency and economic diversification. The growth of small businesses contributes to a more balanced and sustainable local economy, reducing dependency on a single industry.

Cultural Exchanges and Social Understanding: Tourism acts as a bridge for cultural exchange, fostering greater understanding and appreciation between visitors and locals. When tourists engage with the community, they gain insights into the local way of life, traditions, and customs. Similarly, locals can learn about different cultures, perspectives, and values. These interactions promote mutual respect and tolerance, breaking down stereotypes and fostering a sense of global citizenship.

Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Practices: Tourism can also drive environmental conservation and sustainable practices. Destinations with natural attractions often rely on preserving their environment to attract tourists. This incentivizes local communities to protect and conserve their natural resources, such as forests, wildlife, and marine ecosystems. Sustainable tourism practices, including responsible waste management, energy conservation, and eco-friendly initiatives, can benefit the environment and the community's long-term well-being.

RELATED: Train Your Tourism Ambassadors

Conclusion: Tourism brings many benefits to local communities beyond economic gains. It contributes to cultural preservation, infrastructure development, entrepreneurship, social understanding, and environmental conservation. By embracing sustainable tourism practices and involving local communities in decision-making processes, we can ensure that the positive impacts of tourism are maximized while minimizing its potential negative consequences. As travelers, we have the power to support and promote tourism that benefits local communities, ultimately creating a more inclusive and sustainable world.

Leave a comment

Related articles, the best time to launch your tourism ambassador training, the tourism academy's role in preserving local culture and natural habitats: empowering dmos, leveraging online learning to build a sustainable tourism economy: a case study of rwenzori tourism academy in uganda, bordering a unesco site.

National Geographic content straight to your inbox—sign up for our popular newsletters here

Community-based tourism: how your trip can make a positive impact on local people

Community-based tourism can reap great rewards. Done well, it enables local organisations to protect precious habitats, preserve unique culture and empower grassroots employees.

In the mid-1990s, the remote community of Klemtu in Canada’s British Columbia had to make a choice. Hit hard by the collapse of the fishing and forestry industries, unemployment was rocketing, and options were running out. But they knew there were two things in the Great Bear Rainforest that you couldn’t get anywhere else: their own Indigenous culture and the rare, ghostly-white Kermode bear, also known as the Spirit Bear. And that’s how Spirit Bear Lodge was born: a showcase of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation, and an entry point for exploring the extraordinary wilderness of the largest temperate rainforest on Earth, with the added benefit of spotting those elusive bears, along with wolves, whales and brown bears. Today, the lodge is a blueprint for conservation-based, community-based tourism, with a string of successes under its belt: the surrounding rainforest is now protected from logging, bear hunting has been banned and the community has a steady income. It has also, they say, fuelled a cultural renaissance. “The lodge has created opportunities for young and old to thrive in their homelands, while educating people from around the world with our rich culture,” explains Roxanne Robinson, guest services manager at the lodge. Guests learn about Kitasoo/Xai’xais culture from the lodge staff and their guides on wildlife expeditions, kayaking tours and cultural visits, while younger community members drop by as part of the Súa Educational Foundation programme. “Súa means ‘thunder’ in our language, and they come to share stories, songs and dances with guests in our traditional big house,” says Robinson. Guests not only have an incredible experience, but they can also sleep easy knowing that their tourist dollars are doing good. Doing good, if reports are anything to go by, is something we all want to do more of. According to an American Express poll last year, 72% of travellers want to help boost tourism revenue in local economies. And the latest sustainability report by Booking.com showed that 73% of travellers would like to have authentic experiences that are representative of the local culture; 84% believe that preservation of cultural heritage is crucial; and 76% want to be sure that their economic impact is spread equally throughout society. So, being a responsible traveller is no longer just about protecting the environment or reducing our carbon footprints. It’s about how our tourist dollars can do good in the places we visit. It’s about communities. It’s taking the ‘buy local’ mantra — supporting your neighbourhood bookshop instead of buying on Amazon, say, or eating in a local restaurant instead of McDonald’s — and using it on your travels. When travelling, though, buying locally can be more nuanced. It could mean eating out in a local restaurant — but who owns the restaurant? Are the staff local but the profits going abroad? Does the restaurant support local producers and farmers, or are the ingredients imported? Is the attached gift shop a showcase of Indigenous craftsmanship, or are the souvenirs all made in China?  

It is, in other words, complicated. “Is it tourism that takes place in a community?” asks Dr Albert Kimbu, head of tourism and transport at the University of Surrey. “Or is it tourism that’s actively engaging and benefitting communities?” That’s the key. That’s the question we, as travellers, need to be asking. “My take on community-based tourism, or CBT,” explains Dr Kimbu, “is that it has to be by the community, for the community.” In other words, if a hotel or lodge takes guests to visit a local school, or to see a cultural dance in a local village, which might be taking place in the community — is the community genuinely benefitting? They might be getting paid, but it could also be straight-up cultural exploitation. Jamie Sweeting, CEO of Planeterra, the non-profit partner of G Adventures, which specialises in community tourism, agrees: “It needs to be owned, led and run by the communities themselves.” Why? “Because,” explains Dr Kimbu, “When communities become aware that what they have is a product that can be sold, then they have a stake in protecting it.” Take the Sabyinyo Silverback Lodge in Rwanda. The saleable product here is the mountain gorilla that inhabits Volcanoes National Park next door. Visitors will pay a high price to see them in the wild. Working with Sacola, a local non-profit, the idea of a lodge that’s 100%-owned and -run by the community was born, with all profits going back into social and economic projects, as well as conservation within the park. It’s worked a treat. Since opening in 2006, US$4m (£3m) has gone into community and conservation projects, while the gorilla population in the park now includes 10 different gorilla groups. So, the community recognised the financial benefits of their neighbouring gorillas and now benefit by protecting their environment. But CBT at its best goes way beyond employing locally. It means the community gets to decide how to protect the culture and environment on which it depends. So, the community benefits, the environment and local culture is safeguarded, and the resulting economic benefits stay within the community. Win-win-win. There are ripple effects, too. Spier, a wine estate in South Africa’s Stellenbosch region, has a Growing for Good programme, which includes mentoring and assisting local entrepreneurs to create businesses that can then be used by Spier. This has worked with a local laundry service, for example, as well as a taxi service used by its guests. And Fogo Island Inn in Newfoundland, Canada is all about the ripple effects, having been created entirely for the benefit of the local community. This 29-room luxury inn was built by local philanthropist Zita Cobb through her Shorefast Foundation, and 100% of operating surpluses are reinvested in the community — a community that was in dire straits just a decade ago, thanks to the collapse of the global cod market.  

Power in partnership

Sabyinyo, Spier and Fogo are examples of when it works. When it doesn’t work, community involvement is nothing short of exploitation. As Amanda Ho, the co-founder of Regenerative Travel, puts it: “In many cases, what we’ve seen is communities around the world angry that their health, wellbeing, and priorities are not being recognised or respected by tourism.” Jamie Sweeting tells me about a particular lodge in Botswana — he won’t name names — which was ‘talking the talk’ about working with the Indigenous San. “The website was shouting about empowering the local community,” he says. But when Planeterra did some digging, it found that while the San were used to put on cultural shows at the lodge, they were earning below the living wage and staying in poor accommodation with barely enough food. Planeterra worked with the local San people to promote and upskill the community-owned Dqae Qare San Lodge nearby, helping them gain direct access to the same markets the other lodge was benefitting from.  

“Community-based tourism can be especially beneficial in empowering women, who are often responsible for the homestay or dining components of a trip” Francisca Kellett

That lack of access to market — and the lack of the knowledge, skills and infrastructure needed to run a successful travel business — is key. As Justin Francis of Responsible Travel puts it: “Being able to access the distribution chains of the tourism industry — to get guests through the doors — is difficult without the partnership of an established tour operator.” When CBT first appeared around 20-25 years ago, he says, NGOs and donors would pitch up at communities, build beautiful ecolodges, but allow the communities very little say — and then fail to provide the training, infrastructure and business know-how to lead to any kind of success.  

Having a voice, Francis says, is key where elected community representatives participate in the decision making: “The driving force behind successful CBT projects is local people setting the terms. It’s about them making informed decisions around how tourism develops.” In the case of the Ccaccaccollo Women’s Weaving Cooperative in Peru’s Sacred Valley, it was three women that had that voice. “When they first came to us, only a handful could do traditional Inca weaving,” Sweeting says. Led by those women, Planeterra assisted with training, infrastructure and marketing, and the co-op has boomed, now owned and run by more than 65 individuals, with an attached homestay attracting overnight visitors. CBT can be especially beneficial in empowering women, who are often responsible for the homestay or dining components of a trip. Dreamcatchers, a tour operator in South Africa, recognised this over 30 years ago, and helped launch a range of CBT enterprises including ‘Kammama’, a selection of nationwide, women-run homestays and experiences, from cooking courses in Soweto to an overnight stay with a family in the Cape Winelands. In the case of Ccaccaccollo, the ripple effect has been a huge uptick in education in the community: all the women involved are now fully literate in Spanish, the first generation to achieve this locally, and most have children in tertiary education — another first. “And there has been an uplift in the pride in their culture. They’re embracing it. They can see that people from dozens of countries travel to visit them because they have something special to offer,” says Sweeting. That special offering is what’s in it for us. “For travellers, CBT offers a genuinely authentic experience and insight into local life,” says Zina Bencheikh, at Intrepid Travel. “Travellers are welcomed into a community and have the chance to immerse themselves.” Intrepid now aims to bring a degree of CBT into many of its sustainable, small-group adventure tours. “Our clients often talk about our CBT experiences as one of the unexpected highlights of their trip,” says Bencheikh. So how do we spot the good guys? How do we know whether a lodge or restaurant or experience that claims to benefit a community genuinely is?   “Ask questions,” says Dr Kimbu. “Have a discussion with those organising your trip.” Bencheikh agrees. “Do your research. Before you visit, ask questions about how the project is run and where the money goes from your visit.” Travelling with a trusted tour operator is also sensible, as is looking out for any certification programmes such as B Corp. Covid-19, of course, has had a dreadful impact on CBT. Planeterra recently launched the Global Community Tourism Network, providing online training, promotion and marketing, to help organisations prepare for when tourists come back. “Many communities don’t have internet or phone access,” explains Sweeting. “So, we also have 16 strategic partnerships, mostly local non-profits with their own network. Our reach is now more than 800 community tourism enterprises in 75 countries.” On the flipside, Covid-19 has also changed how we want to travel. “There’s been a definite shift, with more travellers wanting to find purpose in their trips,” says Sweeting. “We need to take advantage of that. When you’re able to experience something owned and run by a community, it’s much more rewarding, and a more equitable experience for the host and the guest.” As Dr Kimbu puts it, “CBT has a sense of fairness and justice.” It’s that sense of fairness and justice that’s been behind the success of Spirit Bear Lodge for more than 20 years and one that the community hopes will last for generations. “I do hope that my children and future children continue with Spirit Bear Lodge,” Robinson tells me. “Seeing the growth in this company has been amazing. It’s a great way to learn and grow and thrive in our homelands.” You can’t say fairer than that.  

Published in the   May 2022   issue of   National Geographic Traveller (UK)

Follow us on social media

Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Related Topics

• CULTURAL TOURISM
• EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL
• SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
• VOLUNTOURISM

You May Also Like

From renewable energy to backing communities: how hotels can make a difference

They inspire us and teach us about the world: Meet our 2024 Travelers of the Year

Fuel their curiosity with your gift.

An insider's guide to Denver, Colorado's wildly creative capital

A long weekend in Orkney

A local’s guide to Zurich’s progressive plant-based food scene

10 reasons to visit the East Coast in 2024

10 best things to do in Switzerland

• Environment
• History & Culture

History & Culture

• Gory Details
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Adventures Everywhere
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 31 March 2023

The benefits of tourism for rural community development

• Yung-Lun Liu 1 ,
• Jui-Te Chiang 2 &
• Pen-Fa Ko 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  137 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

11 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Development studies

While the main benefits of rural tourism have been studied extensively, most of these studies have focused on the development of sustainable rural tourism. The role of tourism contributions to rural community development remains unexplored. Little is known about what tourism contribution dimensions are available for policy-makers and how these dimensions affect rural tourism contributions. Without a clear picture and indication of what benefits rural tourism can provide for rural communities, policy-makers might not invest limited resources in such projects. The objectives of this study are threefold. First, we outline a rural tourism contribution model that policy-makers can use to support tourism-based rural community development. Second, we address several methodological limitations that undermine current sustainability model development and recommend feasible methodological solutions. Third, we propose a six-step theoretical procedure as a guideline for constructing a valid contribution model. We find four primary attributes of rural tourism contributions to rural community development; economic, sociocultural, environmental, and leisure and educational, and 32 subattributes. Ultimately, we confirm that economic benefits are the most significant contribution. Our findings have several practical and methodological implications and could be used as policy-making guidelines for rural community development.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Participatory action research

Gaps and opportunities in modelling human influence on species distributions in the Anthropocene

Introduction.

In many countries, rural areas are less developed than urban areas. They are often perceived as having many problems, such as low productivity, low education, and low income. Other issues include population shifts from rural to urban areas, low economic growth, declining employment opportunities, the loss of farms, impacts on historical and cultural heritage, sharp demographic changes, and low quality of life. These issues indicate that maintaining agricultural activities without change might create deeper social problems in rural regions. Li et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed why some rural areas decline while others do not. They emphasized that it is necessary to improve rural communities’ resilience by developing new tourism activities in response to potential urban demands. In addition, to overcome the inevitability of rural decline, Markey et al. ( 2008 ) pointed out that reversing rural recession requires investment orientation and policy support reform, for example, regarding tourism. Therefore, adopting rural tourism as an alternative development approach has become a preferred strategy in efforts to balance economic, social, cultural, and environmental regeneration.

Why should rural regions devote themselves to tourism-based development? What benefits can rural tourism bring to a rural community, particularly during and after the COVID pandemic? Without a clear picture and answers to these questions, policy-makers might not invest limited resources in such projects. Understanding the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development is critical for helping government and community planners realize whether rural tourism development is beneficial. Policy-makers are aware that reducing rural vulnerability and enhancing rural resilience is a necessary but challenging task; therefore, it is important to consider the equilibrium between rural development and potential negative impacts. For example, economic growth may improve the quality of life and enhance the well-being index. However, it may worsen income inequality, increase the demand for green landscapes, and intensify environmental pollution, and these changes may impede natural preservation in rural regions and make local residents’ lives more stressful. This might lead policy-makers to question whether they should support tourism-based rural development. Thus, the provision of specific information on the contributions of rural tourism is crucial for policy-makers.

Recently, most research has focused on rural sustainable tourism development (Asmelash and Kumar, 2019 ; Polukhina et al., 2021 ), and few studies have considered the contributions of rural tourism. Sustainability refers to the ability of a destination to maintain production over time in the face of long-term constraints and pressures (Altieri et al., 2018 ). In this study, we focus on rural tourism contributions, meaning what rural tourism contributes or does to help produce something or make it better or more successful. More specifically, we focus on rural tourism’s contributions, not its sustainability, as these goals and directions differ. Today, rural tourism has responded to the new demand trends of short-term tourists, directly providing visitors with unique services and opportunities to contact other business channels. The impact on the countryside is multifaceted, but many potential factors have not been explored (Arroyo et al., 2013 ; Tew and Barbieri, 2012 ). For example, the demand for remote nature-based destinations has increased due to the fear of COVID-19 infection, the perceived risk of crowding, and a desire for low tourist density. Juschten and Hössinger ( 2020 ) showed that the impact of COVID-19 led to a surge in demand for natural parks, forests, and rural areas. Vaishar and Šťastná ( 2022 ) demonstrated that the countryside is gaining more domestic tourists due to natural, gastronomic, and local attractions. Thus, they contended that the COVID-19 pandemic created rural tourism opportunities.

Following this change in tourism demand, rural regions are no longer associated merely with agricultural commodity production. Instead, they are seen as fruitful locations for stimulating new socioeconomic activities and mitigating public mental health issues (Kabadayi et al., 2020 ). Despite such new opportunities in rural areas, there is still a lack of research that provides policy-makers with information about tourism development in rural communities (Petrovi’c et al., 2018 ; Vaishar and Šťastná, 2022 ). Although there are many novel benefits that tourism can bring to rural communities, these have not been considered in the rural community development literature. For example, Ram et al. ( 2022 ) showed that the presence of people with mental health issues, such as nonclinical depression, is negatively correlated with domestic tourism, such as rural tourism. Yang et al. ( 2021 ) found that the contribution of rural tourism to employment is significant; they indicated that the proportion of nonagricultural jobs had increased by 99.57%, and tourism in rural communities had become the leading industry at their research site in China, with a value ten times higher than that of agricultural output. Therefore, rural tourism is vital in counteracting public mental health issues and can potentially advance regional resilience, identity, and well-being (López-Sanz et al., 2021 ).

Since the government plays a critical role in rural tourism development, providing valuable insights, perspectives, and recommendations to policy-makers to foster sustainable policies and practices in rural destinations is essential (Liu et al., 2020 ). Despite the variables developed over time to address particular aspects of rural tourism development, there is still a lack of specific variables and an overall measurement framework for understanding the contributions of rural tourism. Therefore, more evidence is needed to understand how rural tourism influences rural communities from various structural perspectives and to prompt policy-makers to accept rural tourism as an effective development policy or strategy for rural community development. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the section “Literature review” presents the literature review. Our methodology is described in the section “Methodology”, and our results are presented in the section “Results”. Our discussion in the section “Discussion/implications” places our findings in perspective by describing their theoretical and practical implications, and we provide concluding remarks in the section “Conclusion”.

Literature review

The role of rural tourism.

The UNWTO ( 2021 ) defined rural tourism as a type of tourism in which a visitor’s experience is related to a wide range of products generally linked to nature-based activity, agriculture, rural lifestyle/culture, angling, and sightseeing. Rural tourism has been used as a valid developmental strategy in rural areas in many developed and developing countries. This developmental strategy aims to enable a rural community to grow while preserving its traditional culture (Kaptan et al., 2020 ). In rural areas, ongoing encounters and interactions between humans and nature occur, as well as mutual transformations. These phenomena take place across a wide range of practices that are spatially and temporally bound, including agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, farm tourism, cultural heritage preservation, and country life (Hegarty and Przezbórska, 2005 ). To date, rural tourism in many places has become an important new element of the regional rural economy; it is increasing in importance as both a strategic sector and a way to boost the development of rural regions (Polukhina et al., 2021 ). Urban visitors’ demand for short-term leisure activities has increased because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Slater, 2020 ). Furthermore, as tourists shifted their preferences from exotic to local rural tourism amid COVID-19, Marques et al. ( 2022 ) suggested that this trend is a new opportunity that should be seized, as rural development no longer relies on agriculture alone. Instead, other practices, such as rural tourism, have become opportunities for rural areas. Ironically, urbanization has both caused severe problems in rural areas and stimulated rural tourism development as an alternative means of economic revitalization (Lewis and Delisle, 2004 ). Rural tourism provides many unique events and activities that people who live in urban areas are interested in, such as agricultural festivals, crafts, historical buildings, natural preservation, nostalgia, cuisine, and opportunities for family togetherness and relaxation (Christou, 2020 ; Getz, 2008 ). As rural tourism provides visitors from urban areas with various kinds of psychological, educational, social, esthetic, and physical satisfaction, it has brought unprecedented numbers of tourists to rural communities, stimulated economic growth, improved the viability of these communities, and enhanced their living standards (Nicholson and Pearce, 2001 ). For example, rural tourism practitioners have obtained significant economic effects, including more income, more direct sales, better profit margins, and more opportunities to sell agricultural products or craft items (Everett and Slocum, 2013 ). Local residents can participate in the development of rural tourism, and it does not necessarily depend on external resources. Hence, it provides entrepreneurial opportunities (Lee et al., 2006 ). From an environmental perspective, rural tourism is rooted in a contemporary theoretical shift from cherishing local agricultural resources to restoring the balance between people and ecosystems. Thus, rural land is preserved, natural landscapes are maintained, and green consumerism drives farmers to focus on organic products, green chemistry, and value-added products, such as land ethics (Higham and Ritchie, 2001 ). Therefore, the potential contributions of rural tourism are significant and profound (Marques, 2006 ; Phillip et al., 2010 ). Understanding its contributions to rural community development could encourage greater policy-maker investment and resident support (Yang et al., 2010 ).

Contributions of rural tourism to rural community development

Maintaining active local communities while preventing the depopulation and degradation of rural areas requires a holistic approach and processes that support sustainability. What can rural tourism contribute to rural development? In the literature, rural tourism has been shown to bring benefits such as stimulating economic growth (Oh, 2005 ), strengthening rural and regional economies (Lankford, 1994 ), alleviating poverty (Zhao et al., 2007 ), and improving living standards in local communities (Uysal et al., 2016 ). In addition to these economic contributions, what other elements have not been identified and discussed (Su et al., 2020 )? To answer these questions, additional evidence is a prerequisite. Thus, this study examines the following four aspects. (1) The economic perspective: The clustering of activities offered by rural tourism stimulates cooperation and partnerships between local communities and serves as a vehicle for creating various economic benefits. For example, rural tourism improves employment opportunities and stability, local residents’ income, investment, entrepreneurial opportunities, agricultural production value-added, capital formation, economic resilience, business viability, and local tax revenue (Atun et al., 2019 ; Cheng and Zhang, 2020 ; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006 ; Chong and Balasingam, 2019 ; Cunha et al., 2020 ). (2) The sociocultural perspective: Rural tourism no longer refers solely to the benefits of agricultural production; through economic improvement, it represents a greater diversity of activities. It is important to take advantage of the novel social and cultural alternatives offered by rural tourism, which contribute to the countryside. For example, rural tourism can be a vehicle for introducing farmers to potential new markets through more interactions with consumers and other value chain members. Under such circumstances, the sociocultural benefits of rural tourism are multifaceted. These include improved rural area depopulation prevention (López-Sanz et al., 2021 ), cultural and heritage preservation, and enhanced social stability compared to farms that do not engage in the tourism business (Ma et al., 2021 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). Additional benefits are improved quality of life; revitalization of local crafts, customs, and cultures; restoration of historical buildings and community identities; and increased opportunities for social contact and exchange, which enhance community visibility, pride, and cultural integrity (Kelliher et al., 2018 ; López-Sanz et al., 2021 ; Ryu et al., 2020 ; Silva and Leal, 2015 ). (3) The environmental perspective: Many farms in rural areas have been rendered noncompetitive due to a shortage of labor, poor managerial skills, and a lack of financial support (Coria and Calfucura, 2012 ). Although there can be immense pressure to maintain a farm in a family and to continue using land for agriculture, these problems could cause families to sell or abandon their farms or lands (Tew and Barbieri, 2012 ). In addition, unless new income pours into rural areas, farm owners cannot preserve their land and its natural aspects; thus, they tend to allow their land to become derelict or sell it. In the improved economic conditions after farms diversify into rural tourism, rural communities have more money to provide environmental care for their natural scenic areas, pastoral resources, forests, wetlands, biodiversity, pesticide mitigation, and unique landscapes (Theodori, 2001 ; Vail and Hultkrantz, 2000 ). Ultimately, the entire image of a rural community is affected; the community is imbued with vitality, and farms that participate in rural tourism instill more togetherness among families and rural communities. In this study, the environmental benefits induced by rural tourism led to improved natural environmental conservation, biodiversity, environmental awareness, infrastructure, green chemistry, unspoiled land, and family land (Di and Laura, 2021 ; Lane, 1994 ; Ryu et al., 2020 ; Yang et al., 2021 ). (4) The leisure and educational perspective: Rural tourism is a diverse strategy associated with an ongoing flow of development models that commercialize a wide range of farming practices for residents and visitors. Rural territories often present a rich set of unique resources that, if well managed, allow multiple appealing, authentic, and memorable tourist experiences. Tourists frequently comment that the rural tourism experience positively contrasts with the stress and other negatively perceived conditions of daily urban life. This is reflected in opposing, compelling images of home and a visited rural destination (Kastenholz et al., 2012 ). In other words, tourists’ positive experiences result from the attractions and activities of rural tourism destinations that may be deemed sensorially, symbolically, or socially opposed to urban life (Kastenholz et al. 2018 ). These experiences are associated with the “search for authenticity” in the context of the tension between the nostalgic images of an idealized past and the demands of stressful modern times. Although visitors search for the psychological fulfillment of hedonic, self-actualization, challenge, accomplishment, exploration, and discovery goals, some authors have uncovered the effects of rural tourism in a different context. For example, Otto and Ritchie ( 1996 ) revealed that the quality of a rural tourism service provides a tourist experience in four dimensions—hedonic, peace of mind, involvement, and recognition. Quadri-Felitti and Fiore ( 2013 ) identified the relevant impact of education, particularly esthetics, versus memory on satisfaction in wine tourism. At present, an increasing number of people and families are seeking esthetic places for relaxation and family reunions, particularly amid COVID-19. Rural tourism possesses such functions; it remains a novel phenomenon for visitors who live in urban areas and provides leisure and educational benefits when visitors to a rural site contemplate the landscape or participate in an agricultural process for leisure purposes (WTO, 2020 ). Tourists can obtain leisure and educational benefits, including ecological knowledge, information about green consumerism, leisure and recreational opportunities, health and food security, reduced mental health issues, and nostalgia nurturing (Alford and Jones, 2020 ; Ambelu et al., 2018 ; Christou, 2020 ; Lane, 1994 ; Li et al., 2021 ). These four perspectives possess a potential synergy, and their effects could strengthen the relationship between rural families and rural areas and stimulate new regional resilience. Therefore, rural tourism should be understood as an enabler of rural community development that will eventually attract policy-makers and stakeholders to invest more money in developing or advancing it.

Methodology

The literature on rural tourism provides no generally accepted method for measuring its contributions or sustainability intensity. Although many statistical methods are available, several limitations remain, particularly in terms of the item generation stage and common method bias (CMB). For example, Marzo-Navar et al. ( 2015 ) used the mean and SD values to obtain their items. However, the use of the mean has been criticized because it is susceptible to extreme values or outliers. In addition, they did not examine omitted variables and CMB. Asmelash and Kumar ( 2019 ) used the Delphi method with a mean value for deleting items. Although they asked experts to suggest the inclusion of any missed variables, they did not discuss these results. Moreover, they did not assess CMB. Islam et al. ( 2021 ) used a sixteen-step process to formulate sustainability indicators but did not consider omitted variables, a source of endogeneity bias. They also did not designate a priority for each indicator. Although a methodologically sound systematic review is commonly used, little attention has been given to reporting interexpert reliability when multiple experts are used to making decisions at various points in the screening and data extraction stages (Belur et al., 2021 ). Due to the limitations of the current methods for assessing sustainable tourism development, we aim to provide new methodological insights. Specifically, we suggest a six-stage procedure, as shown in Fig. 1 .

Steps required in developing the model for analysis after obtaining the data.

Many sources of data collection can be used, including literature reviews, inferences about the theoretical definition of the construct, previous theoretical and empirical research on the focal construct, advice from experts in the field, interviews, and focus groups. In this study, the first step was to retrieve data from a critical literature review. The second step was the assessment of omitted variables to produce items that fully captured all essential aspects of the focal construct domain. In this case, researchers must not omit a necessary measure or fail to include all of the critical dimensions of the construct. In addition, the stimuli of CMB, for example, double-barreled items, items containing ambiguous or unfamiliar terms, and items with a complicated syntax, should be simplified and made specific and concise. That is, researchers should delete items contaminated by CMB. The third step was the examination of construct-irrelevant variance to retain the variances relevant to the construct of interest and minimize the extent to which the items tapped concepts outside the focal construct domain. Variances irrelevant to the targeted construct should be deleted. The fourth step was to examine intergroup consistency to ensure that there was no outlier impact underlying the ratings. The fifth step was to examine interexpert reliability to ensure rating conformity. Finally, we prioritized the importance of each variable with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which is a multicriteria decision-making approach. All methods used in this study are expert-based approaches.

Selection of experts

Because this study explores the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development, it involves phenomena in the postdevelopment stage; therefore, a few characteristics are essential for determining the choice of experts. The elements used to identify the experts in this study were (1) the number of experts, (2) expertise, (3) knowledge, (4) diversity, (5) years working in this field, and 5) commitment to participation. Regarding the number of experts, Murphy-Black et al. ( 1998 ) suggested that the more participants there are, the better, as a higher number reduces the effects of expert attrition and rater bias. Taylor-Powell ( 2002 ) pointed out that the number of participants in an expert-based study depends not only on the purpose of the research but also on the diversity of the target population. Okoli and Pawlowski ( 2004 ) recommended a target number of 10–18 experts for such a purpose. Therefore, we recruited a group of 18 experts based on their stated interest in the topic and asked them to comment on our rationale concerning the rating priorities among the items. We asked them to express a degree of agreement or disagreement with each item we provided. We adopted a heterogeneous and anonymous arrangement to ensure that rater bias did not affect this study. The 18 experts had different backgrounds, which might have made it easier for them to reach a consensus objectively. We divided the eighteen experts into three subgroups: (1) at least six top managers from rural tourism businesses, all of whom had been in the rural tourism business for over 10 years; (2) at least six academics who taught subjects related to tourism at three different universities in Taiwan; and (3) at least six government officials involved in rural development issues in Taiwan.

Generating items to represent the construct

Step 1: data collection.

Data collection provides evidence for investigation and reflects the construct of interest. While there is a need to know what rural tourism contributes, previous studies have provided no evidence for policy-makers to establish a rural community strategy; thus, it is essential to use a second source to achieve this aim. We used a literature review for specific topics; the data we used were based on the findings being presented in papers on rural tourism indexed in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded). In this study, we intended to explore the role of rural tourism and its contributions to rural development. Therefore, we explored the secondary literature on the state of the questions of rural development, sustainable development, sustainability indicators, regional resilience, farm tourism, rural tourism, COVID-19, tourist preferences, and ecotourism using terms such as land ethics, ecology, biodiversity, green consumerism, environmentalism, green chemistry, community identity, community integration, community visibility, and development goals in an ad hoc review of previous studies via Google Scholar. Based on the outcomes of this first data collection step, we generated thirty-three subattributes and classified them into four domains.

Step 2: Examine the face validity of omitted variables and CMB

Face validity is defined as assessing whether a measurement scale or questionnaire includes all the necessary items (Dempsey and Dempsey, 1992 ). Based on the first step, we generated data subattributes from our literature review. However, there might have been other valuable attributes or subattributes that were not considered or excluded. Therefore, our purposes for examining face validity were twofold. First, we assessed the omitted variables, defined as the occurrence of crucial aspects or facets that were omitted (Messick, 1995 ). These comprise a threat to construct validity that, if ignored by researchers, might result in unreliable findings. In other words, face validity is used to distinguish whether the researchers have adequately captured the full dimensions of the construct of interest. If not, the evaluation instrument or model is deficient. However, the authors found that most rural tourism studies have not assessed the issue of omitted variables (An and Alarcon, 2020 ; Lin, 2022 ). Second, we mitigated the CMB effect. In a self-report survey, it is necessary to provide a questionnaire without CMB to the targeted respondents, as CMB affects respondent comprehension. Therefore, we assessed item characteristic effects, item context effects, and question response process effects. These three effects are related to the respondents’ understanding, retrieval, mood, affectivity, motivation, judgment, response selection, and response reporting (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Specifically, items containing flaws from these three groups in a questionnaire can seriously influence an empirical investigation and potentially result in misleading conclusions. We assessed face validity by asking all the experts to scrutinize the content items that we collected from the literature review and the questionnaire that we drafted. The experts could then add any attribute or subattribute they thought was essential that had been omitted. They could also revise the questionnaire if CMB were embedded. We added the new attributes or subattributes identified by the experts to those collected from the literature review.

Step 3: Examine interexpert consensus for construct-irrelevant variances

After examining face validity, we needed to rule out items irrelevant to the construct of interest; otherwise, the findings would be invalid. We examined the interexpert consensus to achieve this aim. The purpose was to estimate the experts’ ratings of each item. In other words, interexpert consensus assesses the extent to which experts make the same ratings (Kozlowski and Hattrup, 1992 ; Northcote et al., 2008 ). In prior studies, descriptive statistics have often been used to capture the variability among individual characteristics, responses, or contributions to the subject group (Landeta, 2006 ; Roberson et al., 2007 ). Many expert-based studies have applied descriptive statistics to determine consensus and quantify its degree (Paraskevas and Saunders, 2012 ; Stewart et al., 2016 ). Two main groups of descriptive statistics, central tendencies (mode, mean, and median) and level of dispersion (standard deviation, interquartile, and coefficient of variation), are commonly used when determining consensus (Mukherjee et al., 2015 ). Choosing the cutoff point of interexpert consensus was critical because we used it as a yardstick for item retention and its value can also be altered by a number on the Likert scale (Förster and von der Gracht, 2014 ). In the case of a 5-point Likert scale, the coefficient of variation (CV) is used to measure interexpert consensus. Hence, CV ≤ 0.3 indicated high consensus (Zinn et al., 2001 ). In addition, based on the feedback obtained from the expert panel, we used standard deviation (SD) as another measurement to assess the variation in our population. Henning and Jordaan ( 2016 ) indicate that SD ≤ 1 represents a high level of consensus, meaning that it can act as a guideline for cutoff points. In addition, following Vergani et al. ( 2022 ), we used the percentage agreement (% AGR) to examine interexpert consensus. If the responses reached ≧ 70% 4 and 5 in the case of a 5-point Likert scale, it indicated that the item had interexpert consensus; thus, we could retain it. Moreover, to avoid the impact of outliers, we used the median instead of the mean as another measurement. Items had a high consensus if their median value was ≥4.00 (Rice, 2009 ). Considering these points, we adopted % AGR, median, SD, and CV to examine interexpert consensus.

Step 4: Examine intergroup consistency

In this expert-based study, the sample size was small. Any rater bias could have caused inconsistency among the subgroups of experts; therefore, we needed to examine the effect of rater bias on intergroup consistency. When the intergroup ratings showed substantially different distributions, the aggregated data were groundless. Dajani et al. ( 1979 ) remarked that interexpert consensus is meaningless if the consistency of responses in a study is not reached, as it means that any rater bias could distort the median, SD, or CV. Most studies have used one-way ANOVA to determine whether there is a significant difference between the expected and observed frequency in three or more categories. However, this method is based on large sample size and normal distribution. In the case of expert-based studies, the expert sample size is small, and the assessment distribution tends to be skewed. Thus, we used the nonparametric test instead of one-way ANOVA for consistency measurement (Potvin and Roff, 1993 ). We used the Kruskal‒Wallis test (K–W) to test the intergroup consistency among the three subgroups of experts. The purpose of the K–W test is to determine whether there are significant differences among three or more subgroups regarding the ratings of the domains (Huck, 2004 ). The judgment criteria in the K-W test depended on the level of significance, and we set the significance level at p  < 0.05 (Love and Irani, 2004 ), with no significant differences among groups set at p  > 0.05 (Loftus et al., 2000 ; Rice, 2009 ). We used SPSS to conduct the K–W test to assess intergroup consistency in this study.

Step 5: Examine interexpert reliability

Interexpert reliability, on the one hand, is usually defined as the proportion of systematic variance to the total variance in ratings (James et al., 1984 ). On the other hand, interexpert reliability estimation is not concerned with the exact or absolute value of ratings. Rather, it measures the relative ordering or ranking of rated objects. Thus, interexpert reliability estimation concerns the consistency of ratings (Tinsley and Weiss, 1975 ). If an expert-based study did not achieve interexpert reliability, we could not trust its analysis (Singletary, 1994 ). Thus, we examined interexpert reliability in this expert-based study. Many methods are available in the literature for measuring interexpert reliability, but there seems to be little consensus on a standard method. We used Kendall’s W to assess the reliability among the experts for each sample group (Goetz et al., 1994 ) because it was available for any sample size or ordinal number. If W was 1, all the experts were unanimous, and each had assigned the same order to the list of objects or concerns. As Spector et al. ( 2002 ) and Schilling ( 2002 ) suggested, reliabilities well above the recommended value of .70 indicate sufficient internal reliability. In this study, there was a strong consensus when W  > 0.7. W  > 0.5 represented a moderate consensus; and W  < 0.3 indicated weak interexpert agreement (Schmidt et al., 2001 ). To measure Kendall’s W , we used SPSS 23 to assess interexpert reliability.

Step 6: Examine the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

After examining face validity, interexpert consensus, intergroup consistency, and interexpert reliability, we found that the aggregated items were relevant, authentic, and reliable in relation to the construct of interest. To provide policy-makers with a clear direction regarding which contributions are more or less important, we scored each attribute and subattribute using a multicriteria decision-making technique. Fuzzy AHP is a well-known decision-making tool for modeling unstructured problems. It enables decision-makers to model a complex issue in a hierarchical structure that indicates the relationships between the goal, criteria, and subcriteria on the basis of scores (Park and Yoon, 2011 ). The fuzzy AHP method tolerates vagueness and ambiguity (Mikhailov and Tsvetinov, 2004 ). In other words, fuzzy AHP can capture a human’s appraisal of ambiguity when considering complex, multicriteria decision-making problems (Erensal et al., 2006 ). In this study, we used Power Choice 2.5 software to run fuzzy AHP, determine weights, and develop the impact structure of rural tourism on sustainable rural development.

Face validity

To determine whether we had omitted variables, we asked all 18 experts to scrutinize our list of four attributes and 33 subattributes for omitted variables and determine whether the questionnaire contained any underlying CMB. We explained the meaning of omitted variables, the stimuli of CMB, and the two purposes of examining face validity to all the experts. In their feedback, the eighteen experts added one item as an omitted variable: business viability. The experts suggested no revisions to the questionnaire we had drafted. These results indicated that one omitted variable was revealed and that our prepared questionnaire was clear, straightforward, and understandable. The initially pooled 34 subattributes represented the construct of interest, and all questionnaires used for measurement were defendable in terms of CMB. The biasing effects of method variance did not exist, indicating that the threat of CMB was minor.

Interexpert consensus

In this step, we rejected any items irrelevant to the construct of interest. Consensus measurement played an essential role in aggregating the experts’ judgments. This study measured the AGR, median, SD, and CV. Two items, strategic alliance (AGR = 50%) and carbon neutrality (AGR = 56%) were rated < 70%, and we rejected them accordingly. These results are shown in Table 1 . The AGR, median, SD, and CV values were all greater than the cutoff points, thus indicating that the majority of experts in this study consistently recognized high values and reached a consensus for the rest of the 32 subattributes. Consequently, the four attributes and 32 subattributes remained and were initially identified as determinants for further analysis.

Intergroup consistency and interexpert reliability

In this study, with scores based on a 5-point Likert scale, we conducted the K–W test to assess intergroup differences for each subattribute. Based on the outcomes, the K–W test yielded significant results for all 32 subattributes; all three groups of experts reached consistency at p  > 0.05. This result indicated that no outlier or extreme value underlay the ratings, and therefore, intergroup consistency was reached. Finally, we measured interexpert reliability with Kendall’s W . The economic perspective was W  = 0.73, the sociocultural perspective was W  = 0.71, the environmental perspective was W  = 0.71, and the leisure and educational perspective was W  = 0.72. These four groups of W were all ≧ 0.7, indicating high reliability for the ranking order and convergence judged by all subgroup experts. These results are shown in Table 2 .

The hierarchical framework

The results of this study indicate that rural tourism contributions to rural community development comprise four attributes and thirty-two subattributes. The economic perspective encompasses nine subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.387. In addition, rural tourism has long been considered a possible means of sociocultural development and regeneration of rural areas, particularly those affected by the decline in traditional rural

activities, agricultural festivals, and historical buildings. According to the desired benefits, the sociocultural perspective encompasses nine subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.183. Moreover, as rural tourism can develop on farms and locally, its contribution to maintaining and enhancing environmental regeneration and protection is significant. Therefore, an environmental perspective can determine rural tourism’s impact on pursuing environmental objectives. Our results indicate that the environmental perspective encompasses seven subattributes and that its weight is w  = 0.237. Furthermore, the leisure and educational perspective indicates the attractiveness of rural tourism from visitors’ viewpoint and their perception of a destination’s value and contributions. These results show that this perspective encompasses seven subattributes and is weighted at w  = 0.193. This specific contribution model demonstrates a 3-level hierarchical structure, as shown in Fig. 2 . The scores for each criterion could indicate each attribute’s importance and explain the priority order of the groups. Briefly, the critical sequence of each measure in the model at Level 2 is as follows: economic perspective > environmental perspective > leisure and educational perspective > sociocultural perspective. Since scoring and ranking were provided by 18 experts from three different backgrounds and calculated using fuzzy AHP, our rural tourism contribution model is established. It can provide policy-makers with information on the long-term benefits and advantages following the completion of excellent community development in rural areas.

The priority index of each attribute and sub-attribute.

Discussion/Implications

In the era of sustainable rural development, it is vital to consider the role of rural tourism and how research in this area shapes access to knowledge on rural community development. This study provides four findings based on the increasing tendency of policy-makers to use such information to shape their policy-making priorities. It first shows that the demand for rural tourism has soared, particularly during COVID-19. Second, it lists four significant perspectives regarding the specific contributions of rural tourism to rural community development and delineates how these four perspectives affect rural tourism development. Our findings are consistent with those of prior studies. For example, geography has been particularly important in the rural or peripheral tourism literature (Carson, 2018 ). In terms of the local geographical context, two contributions could be made by rural tourism. The first stems from the environmental perspective. When a rural community develops rural tourism, environmental protection awareness is increased, and the responsible utilization of natural resources is promoted. This finding aligns with Lee and Jan ( 2019 ). The second stems from the leisure and educational perspective. The geographical context of a rural community, which provides tourists with geographical uniqueness, advances naturally calming, sensory-rich, and emotion-generating experiences for tourists. These results suggest that rural tourism will likely positively impact tourists’ experience. This finding is consistent with Kastenhoz et al. ( 2020 ). Third, although expert-based approaches have considerable benefits in developing and testing underlying phenomena, evidence derived from interexpert consensus, intergroup consistency, and interexpert reliability has been sparse. This study provides such evidence. Fourth, this research shows that rural tourism makes four main contributions, economic, sociocultural, environmental, leisure, and educational, to rural community development. Our results show four key indicators at Level 2. The economic perspective is strongly regarded as the most important indicator, followed by the environmental perspective, leisure and educational perspective, and sociocultural perspective, which is weighted as the least important. The secondary determinants of contributions have 32 subindicators at Level 3: each was identified and assigned a different weight. These results imply that the attributes or subattributes with high weights have more essential roles in understanding the contributions of rural tourism to rural community development. Policy-makers can use these 32 subindicators to formulate rural tourism development policies or strategies.

This study offers the following five practical implications for policymakers and rural communities:

First, we argue that developing rural tourism within a rural community is an excellent strategy for revitalization and countering the effects of urbanization, depopulation, deforestation, and unemployment.

Second, our analytical results indicate that rural tourism’s postdevelopment contribution is significant from the economic, sociocultural, environmental, leisure, and educational perspectives, which is consistent with Lee and Jan ( 2019 ).

Third, there is an excellent opportunity to build or invest more in rural tourism during COVID-19, not only because of the functions of rural tourism but also because of its timing. Many prior studies have echoed this recommendation. For example, Yang et al. ( 2021 ) defined rural tourism as the leading industry in rural areas, offering an output value ten times higher than that of agriculture in China. In addition, rural tourism has become more attractive to urban tourists amid COVID-19. Vaishar and Šťastná ( 2022 ) suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic created a strong demand for rural tourism, which can mitigate threats to public mental health, such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, isolation, and insomnia. Marques et al. ( 2022 ) showed that tourists’ preference for tourism in rural areas increased substantially during COVID-19.

Fourth, the contributions of this study to policy development are substantial. The more focused rural tourism in rural areas is, the more effective revitalization becomes. This finding highlights the importance of such features in developing rural tourism to enhance rural community development from multiple perspectives. This finding echoes Zawadka et al. ( 2022 ); i.e., policy-makers should develop rural tourism to provide tourists with a safe and relaxed environment and should not ignore the value of this model for rural tourism.

Fifth, our developed model could drive emerging policy issues from a supporting perspective and provide policy-makers with a more comprehensive overview of the development of the rural tourism sector, thus enabling them to create better policies and programs as needed. For example, amid COVID-19, rural tourism created a safe environment for tourists, mainly by reducing their fears of contamination (Dennis et al., 2021 ). This novel contribution that rural tourism destinations can provide to residents and visitors from other places should be considered and built into any rural community development policy.

This study also has the following four methodological implications for researchers:

First, it addresses methodological limitations that still impede tourism sustainability model development. Specifically, we suggest a six-stage procedure as the guideline; it is imperative that rural tourism researchers or model developers follow this procedure. If they do not, their findings tend to be flawed.

Second, to ensure that collected data are without extraneous interference or differences via subgroups of experts, the assessment of intergroup consistency with the K–W test instead of one-way ANOVA is proposed, especially in small samples and distribution-free studies.

Third, providing interexpert reliability evidence within expert-based research is critical; we used Kendall’s W to assess the reliability among experts for each sample group because it applies to any sample size and ordinal number.

Finally, we recommend using fuzzy AHP to establish a model with appropriate indicators for decision-making or selection. This study offers novel methodological insights by estimating a theoretically grounded and empirically validated rural tourism contribution model.

There are two limitations to this study. First, we examine all subattributes by interexpert consensus to delete construct-irrelevant variances that might receive criticism for their lack of statistical rigor. Future studies can use other rigorous methods, such as AD M( j ) or rWG ( j ) , interexpert agreement indices to assess and eliminate construct-irrelevant variances. Second, we recommend maximizing rural tourism contributions to rural community development by using the general population as a sample to identify any differences. More specifically, we recommend using Cronbach’s alpha, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the overall reliability and validity of the data and results. It is also necessary to provide results for goodness-of-fit measures—e.g., the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), or root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Numerous empirical studies have illustrated how rural tourism can positively and negatively affect the contexts in rural areas where it is present. This study reveals the positive contributions of rural tourism to rural community development. The findings show that using rural tourism as a revitalization strategy is beneficial to nonurban communities in terms of their economic, sociocultural, environmental, and leisure and educational development. The contribution from the economic perspective is particularly important. These findings suggest that national, regional, and local governments or community developers should make tourism a strategic pillar in their policies for rural development and implement tourism-related development projects to gain 32 benefits, as indicated in Fig. 2 . More importantly, rural tourism was advocated and proved effective for tourists and residents to reduce anxiety, depression, or insomnia during the COVID-19 pandemic. With this emerging contribution, rural tourism is becoming more critical to tourists from urban areas and residents involved in rural community development. With this model, policy-makers should not hesitate to develop or invest more in rural communities to create additional tourism-based activities and facilities. As they could simultaneously advance rural community development and public mental health, policy-makers should include these activities among their regional resilience considerations and treat them as enablers of sustainable rural development. We conclude that amid COVID-19, developing rural tourism is an excellent strategy for promoting rural community development and an excellent alternative that could counteract the negative impacts of urbanization and provide stakeholders with more positive interests. The proposed rural tourism contribution model also suggests an unfolding research plan.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Alford P, Jones R (2020) The lone digital tourism entrepreneur: Knowledge acquisition and collaborative transfer. Tour Manag 81:104–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104139

Article   Google Scholar  

Altieri MA, Farrell JG, Hecht SB, Liebman M, Magdoff F et al (2018) The agroecosystem: determinants, resources, processes, and sustainability. Agroecology 41–68. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429495465-3

Ambelu G, Lovelock B, Tucker H (2018) Empty bowls: conceptualising the role of tourism in contributing to sustainable rural food security. J Sustain Tour 26(10):1749–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1511719

An W, Alarcon S (2020) How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. Sustainability 12(18):7758. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187758

Arroyo C, Barbieri C, Rich SR (2013) Defining agritourism: a comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour Manag 37:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.12.007

Asmelash AG, Kumar S (2019) Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sustainability indicators. Tour Manag 71:67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.020

Atun RA, Nafa H, Türker ÖO (2019) Envisaging sustainable rural development through ‘context-dependent tourism’: case of Northern Cyprus. Environ Dev Sustain 21:1715–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0100-8

Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M (2021) Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 50(2):837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Carson DA (2018) Challenges and opportunities for rural tourism geographies: a view from the ‘boring’ peripheries. Tour Geogr 20(4):737–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/4616688.2018.1477173

Cheng L, Zhang J (2020) Is tourism development a catalyst of economic recovery following natural disaster? An analysis of economic resilience and spatial variability. Curr Issues Tour 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1711029

Choi H-SC, Sirakaya E (2006) Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tour Manag 27(6):1274–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018

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

Christou PA (2020) Tourism experiences as the remedy to nostalgia: conceptualizing the nostalgia and tourism nexus. Curr Issues Tour 23(5):612–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1548582

Coria J, Calfucura E (2012) Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: the good, the bad and the ugly. Ecol Econ 73(15):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024

Cunha C, Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ (2020) Entrepreneurs in rural tourism: do lifestyle motivations contribute to management practices that enhance sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems? J Hosp Tour Manag 44:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.007

Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK (1979) Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 13(1):83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(79)90007-6

Dempsey PA, Dempsey AD (1992) Nursing research with basic statistical applications, 3rd edn. Jones and Bartlett, Boston

Google Scholar  

Dennis D, Radnitz C, Wheaton MG (2021) A perfect storm? Health anxiety, contamination fears, and COVID-19: lessons learned from past pandemics and current challenges. Int J Cogn Ther 14:497–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41811-021-00109-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Di TF, Laura M (2021) How green possibilities can help in a future sustainable conservation of cultural heritage in Europe. Sustainability 13(7):3609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073609

Erensal YC, ncan TÖ, Demircan ML (2006) Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey. Inf Sci 176(18):2755–2770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2005.11.004

Everett S, Slocum SL (2013) Food and tourism: an effective partnership? A UK-based review. J Sustain Tour 21(6):789–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.741601

Förster B, von der Gracht H (2014) Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight—a comparison of panels based on company-Internal and external participants. Technol Forecast Soc Change 84:215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/.techfore.2013.07.012

Getz D (2008) Event tourism: definition, evolution and research. Tour Manag 29(3):403–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017

Goetz CG, Stebbins GT, Shale HM, Lang AE, Chernik DA, Chmura TA, Ahlskog JE, Dorflinger EE (1994) Utility of an objective dyskinesia rating scale for Parkinson’s disease: inter- and intrarater reliability assessment. Mov Disord 9(4):390–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.870090403

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hegarty C, Przezborska L (2005) Rural and agri-tourism as a tool for reorganizing rural areas in old and new member states—a comparison study of Ireland and Poland. Int J Tour Res 7(2):63–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.513

Henning JIF, Jordaan H (2016) Determinants of financial sustainability for farm credit applications—a Delphi study. Sustainability 8(1):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010077

Higham JES, Ritchie B (2001) The evolution of festivals and other events in rural Southern New Zealand. Event Manag 7(1):39–49. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599501108751461

Huck SW (2004) Reading statistics and research, 4th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

Islam MS, Lovelock B, Coetzee WJL (2021) Liberating sustainability indicators: developing and implementing a community-operated tourism sustainability indicator system in Boga Lake, Bangladesh. J Sustain Tour. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1928147

James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69(1):322–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Juschten M, Hössinger R (2020) Out of the city - But how and where? A mode-destination choice model for urban–rural tourism trips in Austria. Curr Issues Tour 24(10):1465–1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1783645

Kabadayi S, O’Connor G, Tuzovic S (2020) Viewpoint: the impact of coronavirus on service ecosystems as service mega-disruptions. J Serv Mark 34(6):809–817. reurl.cc/oen0lM

Kaptan AÇ, Cengı̇z TT, Özkök F, Tatlı H (2020) Land use suitability analysis of rural tourism activities: Yenice, Turkey. Tour Manag 76:103949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.07.003

Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ, Marques CP, Lima J (2012) Understanding and managing the rural tourism experience—the case of a historical village in Portugal. Tour Manag Perspect 4:207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.009

Kastenholz E, Carneiro M, Marques CP, Loureiro SMC (2018) The dimensions of rural tourism experience: impacts on arousal, memory and satisfaction. J Travel Tour Mark 35(2):189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1350617

Kastenhoz E, Marques CP, Carneiro MJ (2020) Place attachment through sensory-rich, emotion-generating place experiences in rural tourism. J Destin Mark Manage 17:100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100455

Kelliher F, Rein L, Johnson TG, Joppe M (2018) The role of trust in building rural tourism micro firm network engagement: a multi-case study. Tour Manag 68:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.014

Kozlowski SW, Hattrup K (1992) A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. J Appl Psychol 77(2):161–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161

Landeta J (2006) Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(5):467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002

Lankford SV (1994) Attitudes and perceptions toward tourism and rural regional development. J Travel Res 32(3):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759403200306

Lane B (1994) What is rural tourism? J Sustain Tour 2(1&2):7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510680

Lee TH, Jan FH (2019) Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents perceptions of the sustainability. Tour Manag 70:368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.003

Lee J, Árnason A, Nightingale A, Shucksmith M (2006) Networking: Social capital and identities in European rural development. Sociol Rural 45(4):269–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00305.x

Lewis JB, Delisle L (2004) Tourism as economic self-development in rural Nebraska: a case study. Tour Anal 9(3):153–166. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354204278122

Li Y, Westlund H, Liu Y (2019) Why some rural areas decline while some others not: an overview of rural evolution in the world. J Rural Stud 68:135–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003

Li Z, Zhang X, Yang K, Singer R, Cui R (2021) Urban and rural tourism under COVID-19 in China: research on the recovery measures and tourism development. Tour Rev 76(4):718–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-06-2020-0357

Lin CL (2022) Evaluating the urban sustainable development strategies and common suited paths considering various stakeholders. Environ Dev Sustain 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02021-8

Liu CY, Doub XT, Lia JF, Caib LA (2020) Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: an empirical investigation from China. J Rural Stud 79:177–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.046

Loftus IM, Naylor AR, Goodall SM, Crowther LJ, Bell PRF, Thompson MM (2000) Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 activity in unstable carotid plaques: a potential role in acute plaque disruption. Stroke 31(1):40–47. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.31.1.40

López-Sanz JM, Penelas-Leguía A, Gutiérrez-Rodríguez P, Cuesta-Valiño P (2021) Sustainable development and rural tourism in depopulated areas. Land 10(9):985. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090985

Love PED, Irani Z (2004) An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Inf Manag 42(1):227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.011

Ma X, Wang R, Dai M, Ou Y (2021) The influence of culture on the sustainable livelihoods of households in rural tourism destinations. J Sustain Tour 29:1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1826497

Markey S, Halseth G, Manson D (2008) Challenging the inevitability of rural decline: advancing the policy of place in northern British Columbia. J Rural Stud 24:409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.03.012

Marques H (2006) Searching for complementarities between agriculture and tourism—the demarcated wine-producing regions of Northern Portugal. Tour Econ 12(1):147–155. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006776387141

Marques CP, Guedes A, Bento R (2022) Rural tourism recovery between two COVID-19 waves: the case of Portugal. Curr Issues Tour 25(6):857–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1910216

Marzo-Navar M, Pedraja-Iglesia M, Vinzon L (2015) Sustainability indicators of rural tourism from the perspective of the residents. Tour Geogr 17(4):586–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1062909

Messick S (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50(9):741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Mikhailov L, Tsvetinov P (2004) Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl Soft Comput 5(1):23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2004.04.001

Mukherjee N, Huge J, Sutherland WJ, McNeill J, Van Opstal M, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2015) The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods. Ecol Evol 6(9):1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12387

Murphy-Black T, Lamping D, McKee M, Sanderson C, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) CEM and their use in clinical guideline development—factors which influence the process and outcome of CDMs. Health Technol Assess 2(3):1–88

Nicholson RE, Pearce DG (2001) Why do people attend events: a comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. J Travel Res 39:449–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750103900412

Northcote J, Lee D, Chok S, Wegner A (2008) An email-based Delphi approach to tourism program evaluation: involving stakeholders in research design. Curr Issues Tour 11(3):269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802140315

Oh CO (2005) The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tour Manag 26(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.014

Okoli C, Pawlowski SD (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

Otto JE, Ritchie JRB (1996) The service experience in tourism. Tour Manag 17(3):165–174

Paraskevas A, Saunders MNK (2012) Beyond consensus: an alternative use of Delphi enquiry in hospitality research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 24(6):907–924. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211247236

Park DB, Yoon YS (2011) Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indicators. Int J Tour Res 13(5):401–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.804

Petrovi´c MD, Vujko A, Gaji´c T, Vukovi´c DB, Radovanovi´c M, Jovanovi´c JM, Vukovi´c N (2018) Tourism as an approach to sustainable rural development in post-socialist countries: a comparative study of Serbia and Slovenia. Sustainability 10(1):54. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010054

Phillip S, Hunter C, Blackstock K (2010) A typology for defining agritourism. Tour Manag 31(6):754–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.001

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Polukhina A, Sheresheva M, Efremova M, Suranova O, Agalakova O, Antonov-Ovseenko A (2021) The concept of sustainable rural tourism development in the face of COVID-19 crisis: evidence from Russia. J Risk Financ Manag 14:38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14010038

Potvin C, Roff DA (1993) Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: viable alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74(6):1617–1628. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939920

Quadri-Felitti DL, Fiore AM (2013) Destination loyalty: effects of wine tourists’ experiences, memories, and satisfaction on intentions. Tour Hosp Res 13(1):47–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358413510017

Ram Y, Collins-Kreiner N, Gozansky E, Moscona G, Okon-Singer H (2022) Is there a COVID-19 vaccination effect? A three-wave cross-sectional study. Curr Issues Tour 25(3):379–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1960285

Rice K (2009) Priorities in K-12 distance education: a Delphi study examining multiple perspectives on policy, practice, and research. Educ Technol Soc 12(3):163–177

Roberson QM, Sturman MC, Simons TL (2007) Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? Organ Res Methods 10(4):564–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294746

Ryu K, Roy PA, Kim H, Ryu H (2020) The resident participation in endogenous rural tourism projects: a case study of Kumbalangi in Kerala, India. J Travel Tour Mark 37(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1687389

Schilling MA (2002) Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad Manag J 45(2):387–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069353

Schmidt R, Lyytinen K, Keil M, Cule P (2001) Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. J Manag Inf Syst 17(4):5–36. https://reurl.cc/RrE1qG

Silva L, Leal J (2015) Rural tourism and national identity building in contemporary Europe: evidence from Portugal. J Rural Stud 38:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.02.005

Singletary M (1994) Mass communication research: contemporary methods and applications. Longman, New York

Slater SJ (2020) Recommendations for keeping parks and green space accessible for mental and physical health during COVID-19 and other pandemics. Prev Chronic Dis https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200204

Spector PE, Cooper CL, Sanchez JI, O’Driscoll M, Sparks K, Bernin P et al. (2002) Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? Acad Manag J 45(2):453–470. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069359

Stewart BT, Gyedu A, Quansah R, Addo WL, Afoko A, Agbenorku P et al. (2016) District-level hospital trauma care audit filters: Delphi technique for defining context-appropriate indicators for quality improvement initiative evaluation in developing countries. Injury 47(1):211–219. https://reurl.cc/WrMLOk

Su MM, Dong Y, Geoffrey W, Sun Y (2020) A value-based analysis of the tourism use of agricultural heritage systems: Duotian Agrosystem, Jiangsu Province, China. J Sustain Tour 28(12):2136–2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1795184

Taylor-Powell E (2002) Quick tips collecting group data: Delphi technique. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Tew C, Barbieri C (2012) The perceived benefits of agritourism: the provider’s perspective. Tour Manag 33(1):215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005

Theodori GL (2001) Examining the effects of community satisfaction and attachment on individual well-being. Rural Sociol 66(4):618–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2001.tb00087.x

Tinsley HEA, Weiss DJ (1975) Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. J Couns Psychol 22(4):358–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076640

UNWTO (2021) Rural tourism. https://www.unwto.org/rural-tourism . Accessed 3 Nov 2021

Uysal M, Sirgy MJ, Woo E, Kim H (2016) Quality of Life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tour Manag 53:244–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013

Vail D, Hultkrantz L (2000) Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecol Econ 35(2):223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00190-7

Vaishar A, Šťastná M (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia preliminary considerations. Curr Issues Tour 25(2):187–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1839027

Vergani L, Cuniberti M, Zanovello M et al. (2022) Return to play in long-standing adductor-related groin pain: a Delphi study among experts. Sports Med—Open 8:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00400-z

World Tourism Organization (2020) UNWTO recommendations on tourism and rural development—a guide to making tourism an effective tool for rural development. UNWTO, Madrid

Book   Google Scholar  

Yang Z, Cai J, Sliuzas R (2010) Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int 34(4):374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.002

Yang J, Yang RX, Chen MH, Su CH, Zhi Y, Xi JC (2021) Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. J Hosp Tour Manag 47:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008

Zawadka J, Jęczmyk A, Wojcieszak-Zbierska MM, Niedbała G, Uglis J, Pietrzak-Zawadka J (2022) Socio-economic factors influencing agritourism farm stays and their safety during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Poland. Sustainability 14:3526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063526

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zhao W, Brent Ritchie JR (2007) Tourism and poverty alleviation: an integrative research framework. Curr Issues Tour 10(2&3):119–143. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit296.0

Zinn J, Zalokowski A, Hunter L (2001) Identifying indicators of laboratory management performance: a multiple constituency approach. Health Care Manag Rev 26(1):40–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44951308

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan

Yung-Lun Liu

Dayeh University, Changhua, Taiwan

Jui-Te Chiang & Pen-Fa Ko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

We declare all authors involved in the work. The division of labor is stated as follows; Conceptualization: J-TC; Supervision: J-TC; Methodology: Y-LL; Investigation: Y-LL; Data collection, analysis, and curation: J-TC, Y-LL, P-FK; Original draft preparation: J-TC, Y-LL; Review: P-FK; Interpretation and editing: P-FK; Validation: J-TC, Y-LL, P-FK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jui-Te Chiang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Obtaining ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution for such tourism management in Taiwan is unnecessary. This study was granted an exemption from requiring ethical approval.

Informed consent

To obtain the necessary permissions, prior to the questionnaire survey, we contacted all 18 content experts by telephone and explained the purpose of this study. This research was limited to an anonymous survey with no additional personal information recorded or analyzed beyond that shown to the survey experts. Subsequently, we sent the questionnaire with detailed information to those who confirmed that they wanted to cooperate. We have included all three authors’ contact information and the letter of withdrawal of cooperation for all eighteen experts.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liu, YL., Chiang, JT. & Ko, PF. The benefits of tourism for rural community development. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01610-4

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2022

Accepted : 06 March 2023

Published : 31 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01610-4

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Rethinking tourism so the locals actually benefit from hosting visitors

Senior Lecturer in Tourism Management, University of South Australia

Disclosure statement

Freya Higgins-Desbiolles has received grant funding in the past from a number of organisations, including the Cooperative Research Council for Sustainable Tourism, Le Cordon Bleu Australia, the Toda Peace Institute and the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. She has declared no conflict of interest arising from such funding affecting the content or the views expressed in this article. Freya is affiliated with a number of scholarly and advocacy bodies concerned with tourism, including the Tourism Alert and Action Forum. She acknowledges her co-authors of the "Degrowing tourism: Rethinking tourism research paper, Dr Sandro Carnicelli of the University of Western Scotland, Dr Chris Krolikowski of the University of South Australia, Dr Gayathri Wijesinghe of the University of South Australia and Dr Karla Boluk of the University of Waterloo.

University of South Australia provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Tourism today has a problem and needs an entire rethink. Pundits are debating overtourism , peak tourism and tourismphobia . Cities such as Barcelona , Venice and Dubrovnik are witnessing a backlash against imposed forms of tourism.

In response, new tactics have been tried, ranging from tourist “police” and tourist taxes to entry fees and crowd control . Cities are having to rethink their engagement with tourism if they want to keep the locals from rioting .

Read more: Tourists behaving badly are a threat to global tourism, and the industry is partly to blame

Fundamental concerns are being raised. If tourism is to have a sustainable future, we need to reorient our focus and put the well-being and interests of local residents at the forefront.

Understanding tourism

Tourism is typically understood from two angles. On the one hand, the focus is on the tourists and the nature of their motivations and demand, in the hope of enticing more. On the other is the business side, focused on developing products and services to provide to tourists.

The industry seeks to grow tourism for profits. Governments support the industry for the jobs and revenues it provides. The result has been a relentless growth in tourism in forms that locals have often not appreciated.

Developments like Airbnb are placing tourists in the heart of local neighbourhoods , disrupting the rhythms of daily life. Events are imposed on communities , driving out locals or blighting their quality of life. A case in point is the Newcastle 500 Supercars event, which some locals claim has harmed local businesses and disrupted residents’ lives.

Public assets like the Adelaide Parklands and Australian national parks and World Heritage areas are being commercialised and privatised for tourism developments.

Read more: From Kangaroo Island to the Great Barrier Reef, the paradox that is luxury ecotourism

Shifting the focus to the local community

We could create a different future for tourism if it was reoriented to be centred on the local community. Our recently published research paper redefined tourism as:

The process of local communities inviting, receiving and hosting visitors in their local community, for a limited time duration, with the intention of receiving benefits from such actions.

Such forms of tourism may be offered by commercial businesses or made possible by non-profit organisations. But in this restructure of tourism, tourism operators would be allowed access to the local community’s assets only under their authorisation and stewardship.

The seeds of such a transition to more sustainable forms of tourism are already growing.

Respect and fairness go a long way

Venice provides a good example. In 2017, the authorities launched a #EnjoyRespectVenezia campaign to overcome problems of poor tourist behaviour.

In 2019, Venetian authorities have gone even further by introducing an entry fee this year and, later, a booking system . Mayor Luigi Brugnaro said:

We intend to guarantee a better liveability for citizens and, above all, for the residents.

Read more: Cruise lines promise big payouts, but the tourist money stays at sea

But local communities and organisations are not waiting for authorities to act. Community activists are organising to take control of tourism for themselves.

A grassroots initiative from Amsterdam and Venice has resulted in Fairbnb . It’s a social cooperative designed to challenge the damaging and disruptive model of Airbnb. The new platform “provides a community-centred alternative to current vacation rental platforms that prioritises people over profit and offers the potential for authentic, sustainable and intimate travel experiences”.

Like Airbnb, Fairbnb offers a platform to book vacation rentals. The difference is that 50% of revenues will be directed to local community projects. It also has a “one host, one home” policy – only one property on the market for each host – to limit negative impacts on local residential housing markets.

Meanwhile in Australia …

Australia does not have the same level of overtourism that places in Europe are suffering. But pressures are building right around the country from Byron Bay and the Great Ocean Road to our bigger cities like Sydney and Melbourne. Locals are complaining about housing affordability, congested roads and badly behaved tourists.

Read more: Why Australia might be at risk of 'overtourism'

Australia would benefit from strategies to reorient tourism to local well-being and control. Some promising examples already exist.

Lirrwi Tourism in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, stands out. The Yolngu Aboriginal operators have embraced tourism access but only under a visionary set of guiding principles . These declare “Yolngu have a responsibility to care for country” and “Tourism should never control what happens on country”. It’s an example of tourism on the local community’s terms.

Melbourne’s laneways strategy has demonstrated one way CBD revitalisation, resident well-being and visitor experiences can be brought together for great outcomes.

Tourists can play their part by meeting local communities halfway. In a resource-constrained world the pleasures of tourism must be balanced with some basic responsibilities.

Tourists must gain some basic understanding of local living conditions and shape their travel plans accordingly. The focus must be to give locals the maximum benefits from the visit with the minimum negative impacts. The recent campaign “Helpful or harmful: what sort of traveller are you?” provides a place to start.

The long-term sustainability of tourism depends on ensuring visitors do not wear out their welcome. Reorienting tourism to enhance local well-being is the way forward.

• Arnhem Land
• Cities & Policy
• local communities
• Overtourism

PhD Scholarship

Senior Lecturer, HRM or People Analytics

Senior Research Fellow - Neuromuscular Disorders and Gait Analysis

Centre Director, Transformative Media Technologies

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Overtourism and the Local Community Well-Being

• First Online: 20 April 2021

Cite this chapter

• Ivana Damnjanović 3  

864 Accesses

2 Citations

This chapter aims to provide a general overview of overtourism related-impacts on local communities’ well-being in nature-based tourism destinations. It emphasises the interdependencies of multiple stakeholder groups and the need for their collaboration to address the contemporary challenges. To deliver our conclusions, we analyse the Mediterranean area and survey relevant literature addressing overtourism with particular attention paid to the nature-based tourism destinations and local communities’ well-being. The recent literature relates the concept of overtourism with detrimental effects on the destination level. While the tourism-induced environmental and economic impacts have been extensively addressed in the relevant literature, the sociocultural impact, especially in the context of European protected areas, remained unattended. Thus, this chapter focuses on the impacts of overtourism on local communities and their quality of life and well-being. Protected areas in vibrant tourism regions, especially those near the coast, need management approaches that will enable usage-protection equilibrium and local communities’ well-being. They often represent a setting for communities’ rites, rituals, customs, and traditions associated with their spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental health. The overuse by the tourism industry can disrupt the essence of the locale. In these fragile but complex ecosystems, local communities often take on the indispensable responsibility of nature protection stewardship. Therefore, nature-based tourism development should be based on its capacity to annul and prevent the negative impacts of overtourism, especially in the context of local communities. This chapter builds upon scholarly and managerial perspectives to foster the understanding of overtourism-related challenges and discuss potential responses in the Mediterranean protected areas.

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

Access this chapter

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Tourism versus nature conservation: reconciliation of common interests and objectives — an analysis through Picos de Europa National Park

Tourism Development in Italian Natural Protected Areas: Traditional and Innovative Tools to Face Overtourism and Other Possible Negative Effects

Nature-based solutions for sustainable tourism development in protected natural areas: a review

Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA), The George Washington University International Institute of Tourism Studies (GW) (2020) Adventure Tourism Development Index (ATDI) 2020. https://www.adventuretravel.biz/research/2020-adventure-tourism-development-index

Alexander K, Ramotadima M, Sanderson CE (2018) The power of consensus: Developing a community voice in land use planning and tourism development in biodiversity hotspots. Ecosyst Serv 30:350–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.008

Ali R (2016) Foreword: the coming perils of overtourism. In: Ali R, Clampet J (eds) Iceland and the trials of 21-century tourism, Skift . New York

Google Scholar  

Allgood B, Hofberg M, Musikanski L et al (2019) Assessing Community-Based Wildlife Conservation Programs with the Gross National Happiness Framework. Int J Com WB 2:301–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00045-7

Article   Google Scholar  

Azara I, Michopoulou E, Niccolini F, Taff BD, Clarke A (2018) Tourism, health, well-being and protected areas. CABI

Benur AM, Bramwell B (2015) Tourism product development and product diversification in destinations. Tourism Manag 50:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.005

Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Boluk KA, Cavaliere CT, Higgins-Desbiolles F (2019) A critical framework for interrogating the United Nations sustainable development goals 2030 agenda in tourism. J Sustain Tourism 27(7), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1619748

Calderwood LU, Soshkin M (2019) The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TTCR_2019.pdf

Capocchi A, Vallone C, Pierotti M, Amaduzzi A (2019) Overtourism: A literature review to assess implications and future perspectives. Sustainability 11(12):3303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123303

Center for Responsible Travel—CREST (2018) The case for responsible travel: Trends & Statistics 2018. Retrieved from https://www.responsibletravel.org

Center for Responsible Travel (2019) The Case for Responsible Travel: Trends & Statistics 2019 (7). https://www.responsibletravel.org/docs/CaseforResponsibleTravel_2019_Web.pdf

Cheer JM, Milano C, Novelli M (2019) Tourism and community resilience in the Anthropocene: Accentuating temporal overtourism. J Sustain Tourism 27:554–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1578363

Cheer JM, Milano C, Novelli M (2020) Tourism and community resilience in the Anthropocene: Accentuating temporal overtourism. Anthropocene Ecologies 27(4):133–151. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003000099-10

Cheung KS, Li L (2019) Understanding visitor–resident relations in overtourism: Developing resilience for sustainable tourism. J Sustain Tourism 27(8):1197–1216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1606815

Choi N, Kim J, Lee SJ (2020) The Usefulness of Intersubjective Community Wellbeing as a Community Development Indicator: Evidence from Comparing Three Approaches to Measuring Community Wellbeing. Int J Com WB 3:173–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-020-00059-6

Chung MG, Dietz T, Liu J (2018) Global relationships between biodiversity and nature-based tourism in protected areas. Ecosyst Serv 34:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.004

Claudet J, Loiseau C, Sostres M, Zupan M (2020) Underprotected marine protected areas in a global biodiversity hotspot. One Earth 2(4):380–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.03.008

Cloutier S, Ehlenz MM, Afinowich R (2019) Cultivating Community Wellbeing: Guiding Principles for Research and Practice. Int J Com WB 2:277–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00033-x

Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecology Soc 24(1):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102

Croes R, Manuel A, Rivera KJ, Semrad KJ, Khalilzadeh J (2017) Happiness and Tourism: Evidence from Aruba. Retrieved from The Dick Pope Sr. Institute for Tourism Studies website: http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29257.85602

Damnjanović I (2020) Overtourism Effects: Positive and Negative Impacts for Sustainable Development. In: Leal Filho W, Azul AM, Brandli L, Lange Salvia A, Wall T (eds) Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_112-1

Dudley N (ed) (2008/2013) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 86 pp. WITH Stolton S, Shadie P Dudley N (2013) IUCN WCPA Best Practice Guidance on Recognising Protected Areas and Assigning Management Categories and Governance Types, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 21, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xxpp. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf

Dudley N, Stolton S, Belokurov A, Krueger L, Lopoukhine N, MacKinnon K, Sandwith T, Sekhran N (eds) (2010) Natural solutions: protected areas helping people cope with climate change. IUCN-WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank, WWF, Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC, and New York, NY

Dwyer L (2020) Tourism development and sustainable well-being: A beyond GDP perspective. J Sustain Tourism:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1825457

Epler Wood, M., Milstein, M., Ahamed-Broadhurst, K., 2019. Destinations at Risk: The Invisible Burden of Tourism . The Travel Foundation

EUROPARC Federation (2018, March 29) European day of parks. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www.europarc.org/nature/european-day-of-parks/

Fiorello A, Bo D (2012) Community-based ecotourism to meet the new tourist’s expectations: An exploratory study. J Hospitality Mark Manag 21(7):758–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2012.624293

Fletcher R, Mas IM, Blanco-Romero A, Blázquez-Salom M (2020) Tourism and degrowth: An emerging agenda for research and praxis. Tourism Degrowth 27(12):1–19. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003017257-1

Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) (2017, February 8). Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://www.gstcouncil.org/

Global Wellness Institute (2018) Global Wellness Tourism Economy: Europe (November 2018). https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/

Global Wellness Summit (2019) 2019 Global Wellness Trends Report. https://www.globalwellnesssummit.com/2019-global-wellness-trends/download-report/

Goodwin H (2017) The challenge of overtourism (Working Paper). Responsible Tourism Partnership. Available at https://haroldgoodwin.info/pubs/RTP’WP4Overtourism01’2017.pdf

Gowreesunkar VG, Vo Thanh T (2020) Between Overtourism and Under-Tourism: Impacts, Implications, and Probable Solutions. In: Séraphin H, Gladkikh T, Vo Thanh T (eds) Overtourism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42458-9_4

Green Destinations (2020) Sustainable destination awards 2020, April 27. Retrieved Oct 4, 2020, from https://greendestinations.org/2020-top-100-awards-itb-berlin/

Guthey GT, Whiteman G, Elmes M (2014) Place and sense of place. J Manag Inq 23(3):254–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492613517511

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

Hockings M, Dudley N, Elliott W, Napolitano Ferreira M, MacKinnon K, Pasha MK, Phillips A, Stolton S, Woodley S, Appleton M, Chassot O, Fitzsimons J, Galliers C, Kroner RG, Goodrich J, Hopkins J, Jackson W, Jonas H, Long B, et al (2020) Editorial essay: COVID‐19 and protected and conserved areas. Parks 26(1):7–24. https://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hockings-et-al-10.2305-IUCN.CH_.2020.PARKS-26-1MH.en_-1.pdf

Interreg CENTRAL EUROPE Programme—CEETO (2018) Handbook of successful and innovative practices for a sustainable tourism inside protected areas, November. https://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/Handook-Sustainable-Tourism-EN-CEETO-Interreg.pdf

Iriarte L, Musikanski L (2019) Bridging the Gap between the Sustainable Development Goals and Happiness Metrics. Int J Com WB 1:115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-018-0012-2

IUCN (2015) Protected areas left short-changed by governments, March 11. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www.iucn.org/content/protected-areas-left-short-changed-governments

IUCN (2019) Protected area categories, August 15. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories

Junot A, Paquet Y, Fenouillet F (2018) Place attachment influence on human well-being and general pro-environmental behaviors. J Theor Soc Psychol 2(2):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.18

Kianicka S, Buchecker M, Hunziker M, Müller-Böker U (2006) Locals’ and tourists’ sense of place. Mt Res Dev 26(1):55–63. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2006)026%5b0055:latsop%5d2.0.co;2

Koens K, Postma A, Papp B (2018) Is Overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in a city context. Sustainability 10(12):4384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124384

Koščak M, Lapos P, Primožič T (2020) Handbook of successful and innovative practices for a sustainable tourism inside Protected Areas. Regional Development Centre Koper & CEETO Interreg CE Project partners

Lalicic L (2020) Solastalgia: An application in the overtourism context. AnnTourism Res 82:102766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102766

Lange G (2015) Tourism in Zanzibar: Incentives for sustainable management of the coastal environment. Ecosyst Serv 11:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.009

Leung Y, Spenceley A, Hvenegaard G, Buckley R (eds) (2018) Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 27, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xii + 120 pp

Lopes P, Pacheco S, Clauzet M, Silvano R, Begossi A (2015) Fisheries, tourism, and marine protected areas: conflicting or synergistic interactions? Ecosyst Serv 16:333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.003

Mandić A (2019) Nature-based solutions for sustainable tourism development in protected natural areas: a review. Environ Syst Decis 39:249–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09718-2

Mihalic T (2020) Conceptualising overtourism: A sustainability approach. Ann Tourism Res 84:103025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103025

Milano C (2017) Overtourism and tourismphobia: Global trends and local contexts. Retrieved from Barcelona: Ostelea School of Tourism and Hospitality website: https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.13463.88481

Milano C, Novelli M, Cheer JM (2019a) Overtourism and degrowth: a social movements perspective. J Sustain Tourism 27(12):1857–1875. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1650054

Milano C, Novelli M, Cheer JM (2019b) Overtourism and tourismphobia: A journey through four decades of tourism development, planning and local concerns. Tourism Plann Dev 16(4):353–357. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1599604

Muler Gonzalez V, Coromina L, Galí N (2018) Overtourism: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity—case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tourism Rev 73(3):277–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/tr-08-2017-0138

Musikanski L, Rogers P, Smith S et al (2019) Planet Happiness: a Proposition to Address Overtourism and Guide Responsible Tourism, Happiness, Well-being and Sustainability in World Heritage Sites and Beyond. Int J Com WB 2:359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00038-6

Naidoo R, Gerkey D, Hole D, Pfaff A, Ellis AM, Golden CD, Herrera D, Johnson K, Mulligan M, Ricketts TH, Fisher B (2019) Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci Adv 5(4):eaav3006. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006

Negev M, Sagie H, Orenstein DE, Zemah Shamir S, Hassan Y, Amasha H, Raviv O, Fares N, Lotan A, Peled Y, Wittenberg L, Izhaki I (2019) Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve. Ecosyst Serv 39:100989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100989

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2019) Measuring well-being and progress. OECD Better Life Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sdd/OECD-Better-Life-Initiative.pdf

Pappas I (2020) 2019 GSTC Destination Assessment—Dubrovnik. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. https://www.gstcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/GSTC-Destination-Assessment-Dubrovnik-2019-Final-Report.pdf

Peeters P, Gössling S, Klijs J, Milano C, Novelli M, Dijkmans C, Eijgelaar E, Hartman S, Heslinga J, Isaac R, Mitas O, Moretti S, Nawijn J, Papp B, Postma A (2018) Research for TRAN Committee—Overtourism: impact and possible policy responses. European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels

Perkumienė D, Pranskūnienė R (2019) Overtourism: Between the right to travel and residents’ rights. Sustainability 11(7):21–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072138

Rasoolimanesh SM, Ramakrishna S, Hall CM, Esfandiar K, Seyfi S (2020) A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J Sustain Tourism: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621

Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007

Sari FO, Nazli M (2020) Exploring the effects of “excessive tourism growth” on public health and ecosystem. J Hospitality Tourism Insights, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jhti-04-2020-0060

Sarkki S (2017) Governance services: Co-producing human well-being with ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 27:82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.003

Sharpley R (2020) Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. J Sustain Tourism 28(11):1932–1946. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1779732

Sirgy MJ (2018) What Types of Indicators Should Be Used to Capture Community Well-Being Comprehensively? Int J Com WB 1:3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-018-0002-4

Skift (2019) Megatrends defining travel in 2019. Skift Magazine (12), January 16. https://skift.com/wp-content/themes/skift/img/megatrends-2019/Skift-Megatrends-2019.pdf

Skift (2020) Megatrends defining travel in 2020. Skift Magazine (15), February 3. https://skift.com/wp-content/themes/skift/img/megatrends-2020//Skift-Megatrends-2020.pdf

Slovenian Tourist Board (2020) I feel Slovenia. Retrieved Oct 4, 2020, from https://www.slovenia.info

Spenceley A, Snyman S, Rylance A (2017) Revenue sharing from tourism in terrestrial African protected areas. J Sustain Tourism 27(6):720–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1401632

Sung H, Phillips RG (2018) Indicators and Community Well-Being: Exploring a Relational Framework. Int J Com WB 1:63–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-018-0006-0

The International Ecotourism Society (2015) Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://ecotourism.org/

The International Ecotourism Society (2019) Ecotourism is the solution to Overtourism, July 31. Retrieved Sept 10, 2019, from https://ecotourism.org/news/ecotourism-is-the-solution-to-overtourism/

UN World Tourism Organization; Centre of Expertise Leisure, Tourism & Hospitality; NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences; and NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences (2018) ‘Overtourism’?—Understanding and Managing Urban Tourism Growth beyond Perceptions, Executive Summary. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284420070

UNWTO and UNEP (2005) Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy-Makers. UNWTO and UNEP, Madrid and Paris

UNWTO (2020a) “Sustainability as the new normal” a vision for the future of tourism. Retrieved June 9, 2020, from https://www.unwto.org/covid-19-oneplanet-responsible-recovery

UNWTO (2020b) Global and regional tourism performance. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://www.unwto.org/global-and-regional-tourism-performance

VanderWeele TJ (2019) Measures of Community Well-Being: a Template. Int J Com WB 2:253–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00036-8

Villasante S, Lopes PF, Coll M (2016) The role of marine ecosystem services for human well-being: Disentangling synergies and trade-offs at multiple scales. Ecosystem Services 17:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.022

Weidenfeld A (2018) Tourism diversification and its implications for smart specialisation. Sustainability 10(2):319. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020319

Wellness Summit, Global Spa & and International, SRI, “The Global Wellness Tourism Economy” (2017) Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 15. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2013marketing/White_Papers/15

Wellness Tourism Worldwide (2011) 4WR: Wellness, Who, Where, What? Wellness Travel 2020 Full Report. https://globalwellnesssummit.com/wp-content/uploads/Industry-Research/Global/2011-wellness-tourism-worldwide-wellness-for-whom.pdf

World Bank, Spenceley A (2020) Tools and resources for nature-based tourism. https://doi.org/10.1596/34433

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2017) Measuring Sustainable Tourism: A call for Action—Report of the 6th International Conference on Tourism Statistics, Manila, Philippines, 21–23 June 2017. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284418954

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2019a) International Tourism Highlights, 2019 Edition. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284421152

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2019b) Recommendations on Sustainable Development of Indigenous Tourism. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284421299

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and Guangdong Chimelong Group (2020) Sustainable Development of Wildlife Tourism in Asia and the Pacific. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284421572

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2019) Baseline Report on the Integration of Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns into Tourism Policies. UNWTO, Madrid. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284420605

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) and McKinsey Company (2017) Coping with success: Managing overcrowding in tourism destinations. Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/policy-research/coping-with-success—managing-overcrowding-in-tourism-destinations-2017.pdf

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2020) Economic impact | World travel & tourism council (WTTC). Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2019) The economic impact of global wildlife tourism. August 2019. https://travesiasdigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Economic-Impact-of-Global-Wildlife-Tourism-Final-19.pdf

World Wide Fund For Nature—WWF (2019) Blue Planet: Coasts. Retrieved Sept 12, 2019, from http://wwf.panda.org/our_work/oceans/coasts/

Zahra T (2017) Nautical and maritime tourism diversification strategies (Exploratory opinion) (INT/808-EESC-2016-05923-00-00-ac-tra). European Economic and Social Committee. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/nautical-and-maritime-tourism-diversification-strategies

Zhang H, Gordon S, Buhalis D, Ding X (2017) Experience value cocreation on destination online platforms. J Travel Res 57(8):1093–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517733557

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Health and Business Studies, Singidunum University, Valjevo, Serbia

Ivana Damnjanović

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Damnjanović .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Economics, Business and Tourism, University of Split, Split, Croatia

Ante Mandić

Lidija Petrić

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Damnjanović, I. (2021). Overtourism and the Local Community Well-Being. In: Mandić, A., Petrić, L. (eds) Mediterranean Protected Areas in the Era of Overtourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69193-6_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69193-6_5

Published : 20 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-69192-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-69193-6

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Unveiling How Tourism Benefits and Empowers the Local Community

The Impact of Tourism on Local Communities

Economic benefits of tourism for local communities, social and cultural benefits of tourism, environmental benefits of tourism, challenges and solutions: managing tourism for community benefit.

The tourism industry is a vertical with one of the most comprehensive impacts on economic and social landscapes. That’s precisely what makes it essential for macro- and micro-economies . Tourism can help generate additional revenue streams for local communities enabling locals to kickstart new businesses, rebuild and restore structures, and attract more tourists .

If you want to discover the impact of tourism on the local community, you’ve found an excellent resource. Below you can learn how tourism benefits local communities, real-life examples, and the most common challenges and solutions of managing tourism for community benefits.

To truly understand how tourism benefits local communities, you need to understand its impact. Let’s see the tourism industry’s power to shape communities socio-economically and its direct and indirect impacts on numerous aspects of local life.

How tourism shapes communities socio-economically

The best way to recognize tourism’s potential to shape the social and economic aspects of local communities is to approach the subject with financial experts’ goggles on. 

When many tourists arrive at a destination, their needs, expectations, and wants generate demand. The demand, in this instance, can be pretty diverse . New arrivals can generate demand for:

• Food and beverages
• Transportation
• Handy crafts
• Various sources of entertainment

This specific outcome has a positive economic impact on a community. It creates new jobs, generates additional revenue, and enables people to pursue various business ideas that were borderline impossible before the arrival of tourists.

The social impact follows the economic one. Local communities become more financially independent . Community participation in business activities enables it to become financially secure, stress-free, and experience feelings of ease and safety. However, tourism’s impact doesn’t end there. It has numerous direct and indirect effects on various aspects of local life.

The direct and indirect impacts of tourism on various aspects of local life

The subject of tourism’s impact on various aspects of local life has been of interest to researchers since the early 1980s . While the general consensus is that it is difficult to measure these effects, they are still there. 

Tourism’s direct and indirect impacts can contribute to changes in the following ways:

• Value systems
• Individual behavior
• Family relationships
• Collective lifestyles
• Moral conduct
• Create expressions
• Traditional ceremonies
• Community organization

Now that you understand how tourism impacts local communities economically, we must dive deeper into the matter. Below you can find three unique economic benefits of tourism for local communities. 

The multiplier effect: How tourist spending stimulates local economies

The multiplier effect directly results from tourists buying products and services in their destination. Tourists can buy a wide range of products and services while visiting or staying. These range from food, drinks, and transportation to locally produced goods and locally led excursions and activities. 

Suddenly, you have local businesses of all sizes generating revenue. With the surplus in the local budget, the community can thrive. It increases not only their standard of life, but they can now invest in their businesses to make their products and services more attractive, thus generating repeat business and even more revenue.

Job creation: An in-depth look at how tourism creates employment opportunities

The most immediate benefit of tourism is job creation . The tourism services value chain consists of travel organization and reservations, transport from and to the destination, accommodation, food and beverages, and tourist activities. The last three items on this list are of interest to you.

In other words, local communities can benefit from job creation in accommodation, food and beverages, and tourist activities . How does this happen? Tourists create demand for products and services in these three categories. If the supply is lower than demand, local communities will have to respond accordingly to provide a great stay experience and keep the tourists returning.

Most often, new jobs will open in hotels, restaurants, small businesses, transportation companies, and tourist activity businesses.

Infrastructure development: Exploring how tourism funds improve local facilities and services

Remember that surplus in local budgets we’ve mentioned above? Local communities can now use it to facilitate infrastructure development which is yet another benefit of tourism for local communities. That’s perhaps the most noteworthy benefit because tourism infrastructure directly contributes to tourism growth and competitiveness . 

The increasing funds in local businesses’ budgets and municipal budgets enable various projects. For instance, hotels can go through renovation and build new facilities; cities can renovate roads and build new ones to facilitate access to tourist attractions; they can invest in newer and better means of transportation, and so on. The bottom line, tourism funds can kickstart community-based tourism development overall.

Case study: A real-life example of a community that has economically benefited from tourism

Here is a real-life example to help you understand tourism’s importance to local communities. A case study of Bomborat Chital from 2018 is a perfect one to paint the picture of the economic benefits of tourism for local communities. 

Over 92% of respondents said that tourism was vital for the economic development of their community and region. The respondents said that tourism led to an increase in:

• Household income
• Improved infrastructure
• Hotel business growth
• The capability of acquiring knowledge related to tourism and hotel management

Tourism has also helped increase the demand for local fresh and dry fruits, hand-crafted goods made by the locals, hotels, and transport.

Tourism doesn’t offer only economic benefits to local communities. It can also bolster the social and cultural aspects of a local community. Let’s see how.

Preservation of culture and heritage: How tourism motivates communities to preserve and showcase their cultural assets

How can tourists motivate people to preserve and showcase their cultural assets? You probably know what cultural tourism is. Here is a quick reminder :

“Cultural tourism is a sub-segment of tourism which is focused on visiting destinations to experience and learn about a particular culture first-hand.”

Simply put, it creates demand for cultural assets. Cultural attractions can range from cuisine and national holidays to local outfits and customs. This demand can motivate communities to preserve the things that help them generate income. 

Improved quality of life: Exploring how tourism’s economic impact can lead to enhanced living standards

Improved quality of life follows the economic benefits of tourism. The theory is rather straightforward – if families in certain regions have access to more income, their quality of life will improve. Such is the case with regions where tourism flourishes. Additional revenue streams and increased revenue can help people in certain regions achieve enhanced living standards.

Living standards include the level of wealth, material goods, comfort, and products and services available to a geographic area. Since tourism helps improve infrastructure, create new jobs, and generate repeat business, local communities can achieve an improved quality of life . 

Social cohesion: Analysis of how tourism can bring communities together

Finally, tourism can help improve social cohesion and bring communities together. While the mechanism behind this benefit is not as obvious, it’s easy to understand it once your attention is brought to it.

Here is how it works: tourism creates opportunities for people from all socioeconomic tiers (wealth, income, race, education, and power). It also creates opportunities for people to learn and understand each other, thus promoting equality , collaboration, and working towards achieving a common goal despite their differences.

Case study: A real-life example of a community that has experienced social or cultural benefits from tourism

The Namibia tourism case study is an excellent example of how tourism can unlock social and cultural benefits. The country’s government has been focusing on tourism since the early 2000s. Initially, the primary goal was to promote and enable tourism purely for its economic benefits.

However, the government discovered that it also has cultural and social benefits. It enabled people to come and work together around a common cause. In this case, people came together to preserve cultural heritage. The tourism policy also included pro-poor aspects to help relieve poverty and facilitate the development of communities in rural areas.

Ecotourism and responsible tourism are buzz works in the travel vertical. These types of tourism can help local communities conserve and preserve wildlife and natural wealth. Below you can find out more about the environmental benefits of tourism.

Conservation efforts: How tourism contributes to the preservation of natural resources

In some instances, wildlife and nature itself can be the main attractions and primary reason tourists come to visit. It’s a crystal clear message to local communities that they need to conserve these natural resources to keep generating income from tourism.

Plus, governments worldwide have joined together in the initiative to preserve nature . This double effect facilitates the entire initiative and helps motivate communities, even in rural areas, to start preserving nature and wildlife. 

Sustainable tourism: The role of ecotourism in fostering environmental awareness and protection

Sustainable tourism is a broad concept. While it covers tourism experience, it also includes concerns for environmental issues. Governments with relevant policies try to enforce sustainability across industries in their effort to minimize their carbon footprint.  

These policies apply to all communities. It helps increase environmental awareness and streamline the protection of natural resources. 

Case study: A real-life example of a community that has benefited environmentally from tourism

Bhutan’s government developed an excellent policy to structure ecotourism, maintain community involvement, and still generate profits. Bhutan has a daily tariff every tourist must pay to experience what this country has to offer.

The tariff involves the necessary expenses such as hotel, food, tour guide, trekking equipment, and internal transportation. The enforced tariff ensured that only respectful and responsible tourists visited. In return, the communities in Bhutan can continue to effortlessly preserve nature and the environment overall. 

As you’ve seen in the previous example, the government played a vital role with its laws and regulations in enabling local communities to thrive while still reaping the benefits of tourism. What are the potential negative impacts tourism can have then? Let’s see.

Analysis of potential negative impacts of tourism on local communities

Many things can lead to negative impacts of tourism on local communities. A recent study reveals that the most common factors are:

• Inadequate government planning, 
• Policies and regulations, 
• Insufficient knowledge and skills of tour operators, 
• and the broader social issues .

Below you can find the potential challenges that can impact three areas, including strategies for communities to maximize benefits while minimizing potential drawbacks of tourism.

Sociocultural challenges

Tourists with little to no awareness can irritate the local communities by failing to respect local customs and values.

The best strategy would be for local communities to establish open communication channels with municipal government and leadership. Working together, they need to come up with relevant policies and regulations.

Write brochures and put on relevant signage to communicate local customs, rules of conduct, and other important information .

Economic challenges

Overcrowding can worsen the sanitation status and break down already poor infrastructure. Local communities should always register businesses and avoid working in the gray market because it not only brings tax income to local budgets but provides legal protection.

Local communities should only collaborate with reputable and licensed tour operators. These practices can secure enough funds in local budgets to help preserve the sanitation status and streamline infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

Environmental Challenges

Overcrowding and poor regulations can disrupt nature and wildlife, thus indirectly affecting communities and making destinations less attractive to tourists.

Local communities can thwart this risk in multiple ways. For instance, with sufficient money in local budgets, they can fund nature preservation societies, launch voluntourism projects, and work together with the government to prioritize nature preservation.

As you can see, tourism benefits local communities in several ways. Economic benefits include local economic stimulation, job creation, and infrastructure developmen t. Social and cultural benefits include improved quality of life and social cohesion. And environmental benefits include improved conservation, preservation, and promotion of sustainable tourism. 

The role of tourism is crucial for community development and enrichment. Yes, it also comes with adverse effects, but with the right strategies, such as collaboration with local governments, communities can overcome these challenges and start generating revenue .

The most noteworthy strategies include having relevant rules, regulations, and policies. It’s also essential to maintain communication with the government. There has to be a plan with clearly defined goals followed by a comprehensive strategy and execution timeline. 

Collaboration with tour operators and local government can help local communities manage the negative impacts of tourism. Preventing overcrowding and staying true to sustainable practices is paramount in this instance. 

Local government plays a vital role in promoting sustainable tourism. Enforcing relevant rules and regulations can help the community develop better behavior patterns and join forces in promoting sustainable tourism.

Local businesses should definitely establish some sort of online presence. Initially, a simple website and social media profile are more than enough. 

Tourism can help local communities thrive. One of the aspects positively affected by tourism is real estate, as tourism can drive real estate prices.

People from the community perform tourism activities, making them essential for tourism development. It means that the community is always involved in tourism development. 

Some tourism types, such as volunteerism, can bring educators from around the world to teach people in local communities new skills. Also, the government can recognize the potential of certain regions enabling people to take on government-funded courses.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Yay you are now subscribed to our newsletter.

Cristóbal Reali, VP of Global Sales at Mize, with over 20 years of experience, has led high-performance teams in major companies in the tourism industry, as well as in the public sector. He has successfully undertaken ventures, including a DMO and technology transformation consulting. In his role at Mize, he stands out not only for his analytical and strategic ability but also for effective leadership. He speaks English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. He holds a degree in Economics from UBA, complementing his professional training at Harvard Business School Online.

Mize is the leading hotel booking optimization solution in the world. With over 170 partners using our fintech products, Mize creates new extra profit for the hotel booking industry using its fully automated proprietary technology and has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue across its suite of products for its partners. Mize was founded in 2016 with its headquarters in Tel Aviv and offices worldwide.

Related Posts

What Is a Tourist Flow? 6 Characteristics

5 min. En las últimas décadas, el turismo ha experimentado un crecimiento notable, pasando de ser una actividad elitista a un fenómeno de masas. De acuerdo a la OMT, el volumen de negocio del turismo hoy en día iguala, o incluso supera, a las exportaciones de petróleo, automóviles o productos alimenticios. Se trata de una […]

From Screening to Hiring: A Guide to Effective Recruitment in the Travel Industry

6 min. The recruitment process of new employees is not based on a paradigm that applies across industries, instead, it revolves around best practices. The same goes for travel companies, including travel tech brands. We are talking about a very profitable market that reached $10.0 billion in 2023, attracting entrepreneurs and numerous workers. It simply […]

Unveiling the 13 Hottest Travel Trends of 2024

13 min. No one knows better than you how dynamic the realm of travel is. Dynamic shifts brought by technological strides, ever-changing traveler priorities, and global events are the new normal in 2024.  How do you navigate this landscape that keeps transforming? You should familiarize yourself with the very travel trends that shape the world […]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Attitudes of local population towards the impacts of tourism development: evidence from czechia.

A commentary has been posted on this article:

Commentary: Attitudes of Local Population of Tourism Development Impacts

• Read general commentary

• 1 Department of Travel and Tourism, College of Polytechnics Jihlava, Jihlava, Czechia
• 2 CiTUR, School of Tourism and Maritime Technology, Polytechnic of Leiria, Peniche, Portugal

Increasing the socio-economic effects caused by the tourism development in the local population, they adopt some attitudes according to the impacts directly or indirectly perceived. However, some of this impact can be considered positive or negative, according to different perspectives. The issue of the resident-tourist relationship has been much-discussed recently. Therefore, many case studies are being conducted that address the impacts on both residents and tourists. The goal of this manuscript is to analyze the attitudes of local residents to the development of tourism in the urban monument zone Předhradí. Primary data were collected in a questionnaire survey for residents who have a permanent residence in a municipality of Předhradí in 2020. In our research, we tried to identify the significant negative impacts of tourism development. In the same way, we evaluate how the locals see positive effects on their quality of life conducted with tourism development. The research finds out that local respondents perceived some negative impacts to increase the economic perspective, as they referred to in the higher traffic load or increased noise. The pandemic crises are perceived as a game-changer in the tourism industry. For that reason, we suggest the primary considerations for future research not only with the academic perfective as for the practical point of view. The local population’s entrepreneurship attitudes must be one of the tools to assume the resilience toward the tourism development impacts.

Introduction

Tourism has played in history and may play in the future a positive and significant role in society, although it can also bring adverse socio-economic effects if managed poorly ( Marković and Klarić, 2015 ). The tourism industry holds a significant economic significance and is continually and dynamically developing ( Linderová and Janeček, 2017 ). Tourism, the third-largest sector in the world, represents 10% of the world’s GDP, and it is also responsible for 5% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions ( Migale et al., 2019 ). As tourism evolved, its original meaning of traveling to the unknown, to places outside of the ordinary, where visitors experience a sense of excitement by directly contacting the local community, has changed ( Pompurová et al., 2020 ). We can state that the possible negative socio-economic effects certainly stand out from the local identity’s weakening under tourism and weekend visitors’ influence ( Marković and Klarić, 2015 ). The issue of the resident-tourist relationship has been much-discussed recently. Therefore, many case studies are being conducted that address the impacts on both residents and tourists. Great emphasis needs to be placed on maintaining good relations between these groups, as this is the cornerstone of sustainable tourism. Marković and Klarić (2015) further state that the next potential threat is the consumption of the most valuable areas for tourism, thereby reducing the possibility of using it by the domestic population.

A rural area is an open swath of land with few homes or other buildings and not very many people. A rural areas population density is very low. Many people live in a city, or urban area. Their homes and businesses are located very close to one another ( Stanley, 2011 ). Sociologists commonly describe the ideal type of personal contacts in cities and towns as anonymous, segmental, and impersonal and contrast them with the intimate and personal type in rural areas ( Simmel, 1971 ). In a rural area, there are fewer people, and their homes and businesses are located far away from one another, e.g., in the United States, rural areas take up about 98% of the country but are home to only 25% of the population. In Ethiopia, a less-developed country where agricultural jobs are much more common, 87% of the population live in rural areas ( Stanley, 2011 ).

In numerous countries, rural areas are less developed areas that have many specific problems. A typical example is Czechia, where rural areas have been out of the general public interest for many years. It resulted in an undesired situation of Czech farmers (particularly the small ones), a high unemployment rate, shortage of finance and legislative support, which would promote business investments and new job creation. The situation has changed after the European Union’s (EU) entry. Generally, the EU member states want to increase the quality of life, clear or mitigate regional disparity and keep sustainable development in rural areas ( Šimková, 2007 ). According to the UNWTO report, tourism movements will increase annually by 3–5% in the next few years. Tourist expectations will also change in conjunction with this increase. These visitors, also called new tourists, prefer holidays oriented to their interest and buy tourism products that are more based on nature, authenticity, and experience. Rural tourism, as one of the new types of tourism, has been increasingly prevalent in the tourism industry ( Ayazlar and Ayazlar, 2015 ).

Rural areas are intrinsically essential and fundamentally different from urban areas and thus (often) require a different set of interventions and policies that aim to improve their populations’ livelihood. Research and empirical evidence show that rural areas are characterized by slow dynamics of farm productivity, widespread income inequality, and volatility of agricultural income; considerable outward migration flows to urban areas that result in the depopulation of rural areas; a lack of efficient physical, technological and information technology infrastructures; public and private services that are more costly to provide and more difficult to access than in urban areas ( OECD, 2020 ).

Despite their importance, rural statistics on income and livelihoods are sparse and uncommon, mainly since there is no consistent international definition of rural areas. Rural areas are usually defined based on national policy objectives; sometimes, as a residual, once urban areas are defined, or periodically based on a combination of multiple criteria, for example, population size and density, the presence of agriculture, remoteness from urban areas and a lack of infrastructure and/or basic social services ( Dijkstra et al., 2021 ).

The area considered rural is defined concerning the areas deemed to be urban. Often what is rural is simply what is not urban. Still, it is easy to think of different kinds or degrees of rurality, from fairly populated areas with extensive cropland to less densely settled areas of sparse vegetation. Rural definitions most usually address one or more of three dimensions that characterize differences between urban and rural areas and among rural areas ( Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2018 ): (1) The sparse settlement reflects the idea that urban areas are those that have the most people and that most densely settled, while rural areas are more sparsely populated and settled. (2) Land cover is the physical cover on the land, including vegetation (either planted or naturally occurring) and any buildings or features constructed by humans. The land cover follows and determines land use related to the human activities that occur there. (3) Remoteness affects the opportunities people have to gain access to markets and public services. It is most often represented by the difficulty of physical travel to places where markets and services are more available.

Urban-rural typology statistics use the new urban-rural typology. This typology uses a three-step approach to classify the NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) level three regions. Rural areas are all areas outside urban clusters. Urban clusters are clusters of contiguous grid cells of 1 km 2 with a density of at least 300 inhabitants per km 2 and a minimum population of 5,000. NUTS 3 regions are classified as follows on the basis of the share of their population in rural areas ( Eurostat, 2021 ):

- Predominantly rural if the share of the population living in rural areas is higher than 50% ,

- Intermediate if the share of the population living in rural areas is between 20% and 50% ,

- Predominantly urban if the share of the population living in rural areas is below 20%.

To resolve the distortion created by extremely small NUTS 3 regions, for classification purposes regions smaller than 500 km 2 are combined with one or more of their neighbors. The size of the urban centers in the region is considered. A predominantly rural region that contains an urban center of more than 200,000 inhabitants making up at least 25% of the regional population, becomes intermediate. An intermediate region that includes an urban center of more than 500,000 inhabitants making up at least 25% of the regional population becomes predominantly urban. In the NUTS codes of Czechia, the three levels are ( Table 1 ):

Table 1. NUTS statistical regions of Czechia.

It is essential to highlight those rural statistics are territorial in nature, in contrast to sectoral statistics that focus on a single activity. People in rural areas are typically engaged in several different economic activities beyond agriculture, fisheries, and forestry, for example, mining and quarrying and craft production. Some of the main challenges facing rural areas include malnutrition, food insecurity, poverty, limited adequate health and education services, a lack of access to other basic infrastructure, and the under-utilization of labor. In formulating a rural development policy, the FAO draws on issues identified in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development while acknowledging that rural areas have particular characteristics that present unique challenges. These include, among others: the dispersion of rural populations; topographical features (terrain and landscapes) that may act as a barrier for the efficient provision of infrastructure; an (over) reliance on the agricultural sector; ensuring that natural resources and environmental quality are protected ( Dijkstra et al., 2021 ).

We can state that rural tourism is tourism which takes place in non-urbanized areas. These areas typically include (but are not limited to) national parks, forests, countryside areas, and mountain areas.

Rural tourism is closely aligned with the concept of sustainable tourism, given that it is essentially linked to green spaces and commonly environmentally friendly forms of tourism, such as hiking or camping. Lane (2009) states that pure rural tourism is defined as a tourism type located in rural areas. Rural tourism has a different scale, character, and function ( Sharpley and Roberts, 2004 ). Šimková (2007) states that rural tourism or agro-tourism becomes very popular, especially in economically developed countries. Its economic and socially positive impact allows farmers to gain additional financial sources and create new job positions for other local people. It is a very positive and ecological form of tourism. Unlike uncontrolled, mass, and purely commercial tourism, these leisure activities negatively impact the environment. Nulty (2004) claims that the rural tourism industry interlinks with a range of activity types, thus bringing economic benefit to various areas ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Effects of rural tourism ( Nulty, 2004 ).

In rural areas, there are positive as well as negative impacts ( White, 1985 ; Oppermann, 1995 ; Sharpley and Sharpley, 1997 ; Butler and Hall, 1998 ; Hall, 1999 ; Roberts and Hall, 2001 ; Sharpley and Roberts, 2004 ; Lane, 2009 ; Dashper, 2014 ; Nair et al., 2015 ; Dewi and Djunaid, 2019 ):

- Positive social-economic impacts : provide source of new, alternative, or supplementary income and employment, help reduce gender and other social power imbalances, encourage collective community activity, provide opportunities for retaining population in areas that might otherwise experience depopulation, enable areas to be repopulated and overall multiplier effects, although in rural areas these tend to be lower.

- Negative social-economic impacts : economic leakages, local price inflation, labor in-migration, distort local employment structure, distort local housing market, reinforce perception of women’s employment as low paid and part-time and an extension of “the domestic role,” self-contained complexes with tenuous links to the local economy, and seasonal patterns of demand.

- Positive cultural impacts : reinvigorate local culture, instill sense of local pride, self-esteem, and identity.

- Negative cultural impacts : manufacture of distort local culture for commodification and staged authenticity, destroy indigenous culture.

- Positive physical (built and “natural”) impacts : contribution to conservation and protection, assist refurbishment and re-use of abandoned properties.

- Negative physical (built and “natural”) impacts : habitat destruction, littering, emissions and other forms of pollution, congestion, and new construction sprawl, perhaps grafted on to existing settlements.

Actually, the tourism industry is facing a new challenge, but, despite the catastrophic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is evident that when the projects work at their maximum capacity, they will support all stakeholders’ economies ( Li et al., 2021 ). Overtourism is a problem addressed by many researchers at many levels. It is a phenomenon that is inconspicuous and slow. Diaz-Parra and Jover (2021) state that overtourism illustrates how the residents lose the right to everyday life in their local spaces. Mechanisms of commodification and gentrification contribute to socio-spatial injustices and also make some places “inauthentic” for visitors and residents. Therefore, most destinations can only start to deal with it late. Overtourism is even worse by the recommendations of celebrities or influencers or the making of popular movies in the area ( Závodná, 2020 ). Overtourism has become a significant concern for an increasing number of destinations as tourism numbers continue to grow, stimulated by general economic and technological growth and the expansion of the global middle Class ( Rončák, 2020 ). Overtourism is an issue that arises inconspicuously and gradually. Therefore, most destinations start to solve it only when there are too many difficulties, and sometimes it is too late to maintain the original state of the destination. While visitors want to experience the locals’ authentic feeling, the real locals are moving to places where they are not threatened by excessive night noise, light, and crowds of entertaining people. However, it is not only local people who are suffering. The same negative impact is also experienced by infrastructure, monuments, or nature ( Závodná, 2020 ).

The attractiveness of tourism resources has several barriers in the long-term considering the community. The challenges may include financial issues, land ownership, or problems of community participation and involvement. Without creating opportunities for residents to participate in the decision-making process around benefits generated from the tourism development, the decision is more complicated. According to this challenge, some community members are operating against stronger competitors and poor market conditions ( Lo and Janta, 2020 ).

It is not straightforward to evaluate the attitudes of local inhabitants to tourism development. An outstanding illustration of the change in residents’ attitude toward tourists is the Doxey index ( Doxey, 1975 ). The appearance of negative attitudes among residents toward tourists results from the social carrying capacity limits being exceeded, the inability to accept changes as they occur ( Szromek et al., 2020 ). Doxey irritation index (Irridex) is based on the understanding of residents’ attitude change toward tourists and tourism development in different stages of a destination’s life cycle. This model assumes the resulting circumstances with negative sociocultural impacts can lead to irritation in the local community. Its four stages of euphoria, apathy, irritation, and antagonism explain the residents’ deteriorating responses to tourism development Table 2 ).

Table 2. Doxey irritation index.

During the first stage, the number of tourists is small and the local community welcomes tourism. In the apathy phase, the number of tourists increases, and the relationship between tourists and residents becomes formalized. Irritation is the phase when residents become concerned about tourism due to the significant growth of arrivals and increasing competition for resources. In the last stage, antagonism, tourists become responsible for everything wrong that has happened in the host community ( Pavlić and Portolan, 2015 ). Irridex as a concept is not based on any detailed empirical research ( Fridgen, 1991 ). The model assumes a degree of homogeneity and positive linear relationship and ignores complexities within the host community as well as the multidimensionality of tourism impacts ( Cordero, 2008 ). Pavlić and Portolan (2015) state that the Irridex is a theoretical model that requires constant and contextual empirical tests, as it can be changed depending on geographical locations, problems, and even aims of a study. Nonetheless, the model serves as a valuable framework for the understanding of the changing resident attitudes and developmental stages of a destination ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. Sustainable Development and Tourism Area Life Cycle. Szromek et al. (2020) .

Materials and Methods

The goal of this manuscript is to analyze the attitudes of local residents to the development of tourism in the urban monument zone Předhradí. In connection with the research goal, the following research questions were posed: What are the significant negative impacts of tourism development according to locals? Do locals see positive impacts on their quality of life conducted with tourism development?

Primary data were collected in a questionnaire survey for residents who have a permanent residence in a municipality of Předhradí in 2020. The questionnaire consisted of thirteen questions which directly concerned the municipality of Předhradí. These were open, semi-open and closed questions. It was a random selection. Because it is not easy to organize empirical research, the administrators tried to behave in a user-friendly way. All the participants were informed about the research and anonymity of the questionnaire. The participants were willing to participate in the research and also had the opportunity to contact the interviewer via the email stated on the questionnaire list and inform themselves about the research results.

Based on the demographic distribution of the population of the municipality of Předhradí determined through the Czech Statistical Office, a percentage of the sample was planned. The municipality of Předhradí has a total of 417 inhabitants, of which 205 women (49.16%) and 212 men (50.84%). The examined sample consisted of 107 respondents of different age categories ( Table 3 ), of which 52 were women (48.60%) and 55 men (51.40%), so it can be stated that this is an even distribution. The effort in compiling the surveyed sample was to get as close as possible to the structure of the basic sample.

Table 3. Structure of respondents.

Our results come from quantitative research methods. In this research, we used mathematical, statistical methods, the analysis method—also Correspondence Analysis (CA) and the method of generalization. For evaluating the results, the Statistica 13 EN Program was used. Using the graphic tools of this CA, it is possible to describe an association of nominal or ordinal variables and to obtain a graphic representation of a relationship in multidimensional space—for the readers; it is easier to understand. The analysis provides further evidence that correlations exist between variables.

Correspondence analysis is a multivariate statistical technique. It is conceptually similar to principal component analysis but applies to categorical rather than continuous data. In a similar manner to principal component analysis, it provides a means of displaying or summarizing a set of data in a two-dimensional graphical form ( Zámková and Prokop, 2014 ).

All data should be non-negative and on the same scale for CA to be applicable, and the method treats rows and columns equivalently. It is traditionally applied to contingency tables. CA decomposes the chi-squared statistic associated with this table into orthogonal factors. The distance between single points is defined as a chi-squared distance. The distance between the i-th and i′-th row is given by the formula

where r ij are the elements of row profiles matrix R and weights c j correspond to the elements of column loadings vector cT, which is equal to the mean column profile (centroid) of the column profiles in multidimensional space. The distance between columns j and j′ is defined similarly, weights correspond to the elements of the row loadings vector r and sum over all rows. In correspondence analysis we observe the relation between single categories of two categorical variables. The result of this analysis is the correspondence map introducing the axes of the reduced coordinates system, where single categories of both variables are displayed in graphic form. The aim of this analysis is to reduce the multidimensional space of row and column profiles and to save as far as possible original data information. Each row and column of the correspondence table can be displayed in c-dimensional (r-dimensional, respectively) space with coordinates equal to the values of the corresponding profiles. The row and column coordinates on each axis are scaled to have inertias equal to the principal inertia along that axis: these are the principal row and column coordinates ( Hebák et al., 2007 ).

For the correspondence analysis model, the degree of dispersion of points is defined, i.e., row and column categories, the so-called total inertia. The term inertia comes from mechanics, where it is defined as the sum of the product of mass and square distances from the centroid of all the object’s particles. Geometrically, inertia expresses the degree of dispersion of points in multidimensional space and it can be understood as an analogy to the dispersion known from statistical modeling. In a correspondence analysis, the total inertia (I) is equal to the weighted average (with weights p i ++ ) chi-square of the distance of the row profiles from their average/mean (vector c), ( Greenacre, 2007 ; Hebák et al., 2007 ; Beh and Lombardo, 2014 ):

The same as the weighted average (with weights p + j ) chi-square of the distance of the column profiles from their average (vector r)

A significant part of the total inertia of the original table is usually explained by the first several axes. That is why it is generally sufficient for the result of the correspondence analysis to be represented in the space of the first two or three ordinal axes. Total inertia equals the sum of all eigenvalues of the matrix. Therefore, it is possible to specify how many ordinal axes it is reasonable to interpret. This can be decided in either of two ways. (1) We set a threshold value (e.g., 80%) and determine how many axes have a cumulative inertia higher than the set threshold value. (2) We interpret the ordinal axes whose eigenvalue is above-average, i.e., higher than the average of all eigenvalues.

The contributions of the row points to the inertia in the corresponding dimension are defined by the quotient

where ∫ ik corresponds with the elements of the matrix F (the score of the i-th row category in the k-th dimension), r i elements of the row loadings vector and λ (k)is inertia expressed by the k-th dimension (an eigenvalue of the matrix). A contribution of the row points to inertia expresses the relative degree of the effect of the given category on the final orientation of the main axes.

In a similar fashion, the contributions of column points to inertia are expressed in the corresponding dimension

For each row category, we can calculate the total row inertia, defined as

Similarly, for column categories, the total column inertia is defined as

The values of inertia for individual columns and rows give us an indication of the significance of the various categories on the resulting ordination ( Greenacre, 2007 ; Hebák et al., 2007 ; Beh and Lombardo, 2014 ).

Results and Discussion

Tourism development brings a lot of positive impacts for destinations, e.g., economic growth, new working possibilities, new business opportunities, etc. It stimulates the local economy. The effects of tourism development are not only positive. Also, few negative influences can be observed. The most controversial is the number of tourists ( Yang et al., 2020 ). As the prosperity of the world increases, more people are able to enjoy trips that were once only possible for the select few. Dream destinations have now become possible for many throughout the world. This has led to too many people trying to visit the “must-see” locations of the world creating “tourist ghettos.” This inevitably leads to disappointment as people are reduced to a melancholy mass ( Pompurová et al., 2020 ). The positive relationships between tourism psychological empowerment, tourism economic empowerment, and participation willingness would be more robust when village residents’ participation ability is higher ( Yang et al., 2020 ).

Our research was focused on the attitudes of locals to tourism development in the municipality of Předhradí. We conducted research on 107 persons, which is a quarter of all inhabitants.

The most visible positive impacts for them were economic development in the local area, more job opportunities, and better care for cultural monuments. So, we can state that locals consider the economic benefits as the most critical impacts of tourism development. As the less significant impact, local people see the revival of local traditions ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3. Positive impacts of tourism development in the municipality of Předhradí. Own elaboration, 2021.

From negative impacts were the pollution of public spaces and the inappropriate behavior of tourists marked as the biggest threat of tourism development for the local area. We assumed as most negative impacts higher traffic load or increased noise. Local respondents perceived these impacts as necessary. They do not see them as a problem. The reason should be in inexperience of local people with tourists and tourism development. Up to 59% of surveyed locals perceive the future influx of tourists as a positive state. Only 5% of surveyed locals do not agree with the castle Rychmburk disclosure. On the other hand, more than two-thirds of interviewed locals (67%) see it as a positive act ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 4. Negative impacts of tourism development in the municipality of Předhradí. Own elaboration, 2021.

For tourism development in the rural area is critical participation of the local community. Locals should know the positive impacts of tourism. They should participate and support tourism development. But they also have to feel the positive effects in their life or business. The negative attitudes of local people should be discussed with the local autonomy and solutions should be found. Resident support is crucial to tourism development’s sustainability by focusing on the mixed relationship between (a) residents’ perceived personal benefits from tourism and perceived negative tourism impacts and (b) perceived negative tourism impacts and residents’ support for tourism. Tolerance for tourism development revealed by residents implies that higher tolerance reduces the effect of perceived negative impacts on residents’ support for tourism development ( Qin et al., 2021 ).

Currently, the Rychmurk castle is not accessible to the public. In the castle, there is situated the home for people with mental illness. Tourists can visit the castle during opening hours or on request. They also can see the educational route around the castle. The local government wants to open the castle for the public and tourists in a more extensive range. In the municipality in Předhradí are located two restaurants. There is no official accommodation possibility. Tourists can use accommodation facilities in the town of Chrudim (district town), which is 30 km far. The municipality of Předhradí belongs to Chrudim administrative district. In Chrudim are located fourteen accommodation facilities. The nearest town with accommodation facilities to Předhradí is the town of Skuteč (4 km far). There are located three accommodation facilities, only two of them are open during the whole year. The Chrudim administrative area was visited by 105 thousand visitors in 2019. It is around one-fifth of all visitors in the Pardubice region. According to research results, we classified the municipality of Předhradí to the stage of irritation “euphoria.” Ironically, being commodified, marked, and used in public policy focused on maximizing economic output implies an essential ideological component. It is a new phenomenon with consequences in the tourism campaigns selling authentic happiness ( Phillips et al., 2021 ). The locals have only some pieces of information about tourism development, and the developing plan is missing. A small number of tourists actually visit the area. The majority of them are 1-day visitors or excursionists. Locals have open attitudes toward tourists and welcome tourists. The majority of local inhabitants see especially positive impacts of tourism development. They assume economic development and increasing job opportunities (around 60% of respondents). Tourism development is also seen as a toll of cultural heritage revitalization. A business model transformation based on cultural heritage revitalization is most frequently occurring, thanks to touristic ventures aiming at production or extraction facilities. Some of these places appear with new touristic functions, even if initially, they have been designed for other purposes. Such transformed business models effectively preserve and save cultural heritage from degradation ( Szromek et al., 2020 ). The biggest concerns evoke the pollution of public spaces and the inappropriate behavior of tourists. Local inhabitants do not see the potentially high number of tourists, increasing noise, or criminality as a problem. We guess that these aspects of tourism development are not highlighted due to local people’s inexperience with their tourism popularity ( Figures 5 , 6 ).

Figure 5. Identification of Municipality Předhradí in the Tourism Area Life Cycle (1). Own elaboration according to Szromek et al. (2020) .

Figure 6. Identification of Municipality Předhradí in the Tourism Area Life Cycle (2). Own elaboration according to Babu and Munjal (2015) .

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study focuses on the evidence from Czechia and considers that the local population’s attitudes may change from different countries. It represents a limitation that opens an opportunity for future research. When the tourism development component is in the research, the effect of brand equity can influence the results. We suggest extending the analysis to other sensitives effects of tourism development through the local population’s attitudes in different countries ( Passagem et al., 2020 ).

Clearly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the tourism and hospitality businesses throughout the world, and in Czechia is expected the same. To contribute to business longevity, we suggest future research to explore the growth and decline of business organizations within government policy dynamics to support those organizations. Probably, social attitudes have changed, and these have primarily reduced the ability of the environment to keep the pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels of business. Hospitality businesses need to change and innovate to survive.

Although some municipalities, e.g., Předhradí, revealed some “euphoria,” most local inhabitants confirm positive impacts of tourism development. We must consider that economic growth seems the channel that supports human development expansion. Tourism specialization’s potential impact on private and public incomes is the relevant developmental channel in transition economies ( Croes et al., 2021 ).

We suggest applying a similar study after the pandemic crisis to compare the results and take some measures to adjust to the new reality. This kind of comparative study will be appreciated not only from the academic perspective as from a practical standpoint. For many reasons, Czechia can be a great example to reply to other geographical regions.

According to other findings, the COVID-19 pandemic as presenting opportunities for strategic innovation. The use of technology, particularly social media, to create innovative approaches to marketing and new delivery modes is one of the options and directions for future research. On the other hand, the direct personal contact that enables non-contact delivery provision can represent an opportunity for the future ( Hemmington and Neill, 2021 ).

The actual crisis requires a more enlightened understanding to determine appropriate management strategies to promote sustainable behaviors. In another way, the residents’ behavior can profoundly influence the community ( Ramkissoon, 2020 ).

The goal of this manuscript was to analyze the attitudes of local residents to the development of tourism in the urban monument zone Předhradí. In connection with the research goal, the following research questions were posed: What are the significant negative impacts of tourism development according to locals? Do locals see positive impacts on their quality of life conducted with tourism development?

Considering the theoretical framework on attitudes of the local population, we found some relevant conclusions when we take evidence from Czechia. For example, in the Municipality Předhradí, the most significant concerns evoke public spaces’ pollution and tourists’ inappropriate behavior. If we consider the trends around the globe and the same in Czechia to protect the environment, there will probably be many changes in these subjects in the following years. Furthermore, the pandemic crisis appears with a negative impact and some transformational trends in the pollution levels.

On the other hand, the tourism development impacts can occur positively or negatively, so the social-economic effect on the local population can process consequences, as evidenced in our case study. We assumed that local respondents perceived some negative impacts as necessary to increase the economic perspective, as they referred to in the higher traffic load or increased noise.

Our study’s highlight positive impact was economic development in the local area, with better care for cultural monuments and more job opportunities. According to the new challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, our study must be considered in further research to compare the results and adjust the new reality measures.

Locals are an essential part of the destination. Together with businesses and tourist attractions, they form the destination’s climate; locals, business people, and visitors are interconnected and influence each other. Information and cooperation of residents are important for the development of tourism in the area. It is necessary to treat them with respect, taking into account their worries and ideas. This behavior model makes it possible to reduce the negative social impact of tourism development on the local community. If local people have the opportunity to participate in decisions about the direction of development in the area, attention is paid to their views, concerns, and suggestions for improvement; it has positive effects. Thus, residents will rather form tourism destinations in cooperation with local governments and entrepreneurs.

Furthermore, it is possible to reduce the level of criticism from local people in the event of negative tourism development manifestations. They will be more tolerant of tourists and look for standard ways of developing tourism in a destination that suits the majority. Local people should also have the opportunity to actively participate in the development of tourism, e.g., in the form of discussions on development plans, participation in revitalizing the environment, reviving local traditions, promoting local accommodation, etc. They should see the positive effects of tourism development in their daily lives. A simple saying works “satisfied locals generate satisfied tourists.”

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Ethics committee at the College of Polytechnics Jihlava. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

IL: topic proposed. IL and PS: experimental design and data collection. IL, PS, and NA: manuscript writing. PS and NA: content proofreading. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

We greateful for the financial support from the College of Polytechnics Jihlava and the CiTUR, ESTM, Polytechnic of Leiria (through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., within the scope of reference Project No. UIDB/04470/2020).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ayazlar, G., and Ayazlar, R. A. (2015). “Rural tourism: a conceptual approach,” in Tourism, Environment and Sustainability , eds C. Avcıkurt, M. Dinu, R. Efe, N. Hacıoğlu, and A. Soykan (Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press), 167–184.

Google Scholar

Babu, V., and Munjal, S. (2015). Oachira Panthrandu Vilakku: a study of a culturally embedded festival aligned with economic benefits. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 7, 403–416. doi: 10.1108/WHATT-03-2015-0009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beh, E. J., and Lombardo, R. (2014). Correspondence Analysis: Theory, Practice and New Strategies. Chichester: Wiley.

Butler, R. W., and Hall, C. M. (1998). “Tourism and recreation in rural areas: myth and reality,” in Rural Tourism Management: Sustainable Options , eds D. Hall and T. Mikkonen (Auchincruive: The Scottish Agricultural College), 97–107.

Cordero, J. C. M. (2008). Resident perception of tourism: a critical theoretical and methodological review. Cienc. Ergo Sum 15, 35–44.

Croes, R., Ridderstaat, J., Bak, M., and Zientara, P. (2021). Tourism specialization, economic growth, human development and transition economies: the case of Poland. Tour. Manag . 82:104181. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104181

Dashper, K. (2014). “Rural tourism: opportunities and challenges,” in Rural Tourism: an International Perspective , ed. K. Dashper (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 1–16.

Dewi, L., and Djunaid, I. S. (2019). Enhancing local economic through rural tourism: case study ciseeng village. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit . 10, 19–27. doi: 10.30997/jsh.v10i1.1607

Diaz-Parra, I., and Jover, J. (2021). Overtourism, place alienation and the right to the city: insights from the historic centre of Seville, Spain. J. Sustain. Tour. 29, 158–175. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1717504

Dijkstra, L., Brandmüller, T., Kemper, T., Khan, A. A., and Veneri, P. (2021). Applying the Degree of Urbanisation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Doxey, G. (1975). “A causation theory of visitor–resident irritants: methodology and research inferences,” in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference the Impact of Tourism (San Diego, CA: The Travel Research Association), 195–198.

Eurostat (2021). Rural Development. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/rural-development/methodology (accessed March 10, 2021).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2018). Guidelines on Defining Rural Areas and Compiling Indicators for Development Policy. Rome: FAO

Fridgen, J. (1991). Dimension of Tourism. Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association.

Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence Analysis in Practice. London: Chapman & Hall.

Hall, D. (1999). “Rural wilderness and forest tourism: markets, products and management,” in Tourism Industry and Education Symposium , eds D. Hall and L. O.’ Hanlon (Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Polytechnics), 69–86.

Hebák, P., Hustopecký, J., Pecáková, I., Prùša, M., řezánková, H., Svobodová, A., et al. (2007). Multidimensional Statistical Methods 3. Prague: Informatorium.

Hemmington, N., and Neill, L. (2021). Hospitality business longevity under COVID-19: the impact of COVID-19 on New Zealand’s hospitality industry. Tour. Hosp. Res. 21, 1–13. doi: 10.1177/1467358421993875

Lane, B. (2009). “Rural tourism: an overview,” in The Sage Handbook of Tourism Studies , eds T. Jamal and M. Robinson (London: SAGE Publications), 354–370.

Li, H., Hameed, J., Khuhro, R. A., Albasher, G., Alqahtani, W., Sadiq, M. W., et al. (2021). The impact of the economic corridor on economic stability: a double mediating role of environmental sustainability and sustainable development under the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19. Front. Psychol . 11:634375. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.634375

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Linderová, I., and Janeček, P. (2017). Accessible tourism for all - current state in the czech business and non-business environment. E M Ekon. Manag. 20, 168–186. doi: 10.15240/tul/001/2017-4-012

Lo, Y. C., and Janta, P. (2020). Resident’s perspective on developing community-based tourism – a qualitative study of Muen Ngoen Kong Community, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Front. Psychol . 11:1493. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01493

Marković, I., and Klarić, Z. (2015). Attitudes of local population of tourism impacts on destination sustainability – case of Croatia. Turizam 19, 98–110. doi: 10.5937/Turizam1503098M

Migale, G. H., Stimie, J. E., and Brent, A. C. (2019). Sustainable hotel strategy execution: a review and way forward. South African J. Ind. Eng. 30, 102–117. doi: 10.7166/30-4-2025

Nair, V., Munikrishnan, U. T., Rajaratnam, S. D., and King, N. (2015). Redefining rural tourism in Malaysia: a conceptual perspective. Asia Pacific J. Tour. Res . 23, 314–337. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2014.889026

Nulty, P. M. (2004). “Establishing the principles for sustainable rural tourism, rural tourism in Europe,” in Proceedings of the Experiences, Development and Perspectives , Madrid.

OECD (2020). Rural Well-Being: Geography of Opportunities. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Oppermann, M. (1995). A model of travel itineraries. J. Travel Res . 33, 57–61. doi: 10.1177/004728759503300409

Passagem, N., Crespo, C., and Almeida, N. (2020). The impact of country of origin on brand equity: an analysis of the wine sector. Wine Econ. Policy 9, 63–81. doi: 10.36253/web-8407

Pavlić, I., and Portolan, A. (2015). “Irritation index, tourism,” in Encyclopedia of Tourism , eds J. Jafari and H. Xiao (Cham: Springer).

Phillips, T., Taylor, J., Narain, E., and Chandler, P. (2021). Selling authentic happiness: indigenous wellbeing and romanticised inequality in tourism advertising. Ann. Tour. Res. 87:103115. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.103115

Pompurová, K., Sokolová, J., Cole, D., Marčeková, R., and Kožiak, R. (2020). Are visitors interested in volunteer tourism? evidence from Slovakia. J. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 7, 3339–3353. doi: 10.9770/jesi.2020.7.4(50)

Qin, X., Shen, H., Ye, S., and Zhou, L. (2021). Revisiting residents’ support for tourism development: the role of tolerance. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 47, 114–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.010

Ramkissoon, H. (2020). COVID-19 place confinement, pro-social, pro-environmental behaviors, and residents’ wellbeing: a new conceptual framework. Front. Psychol 11:2248. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02248

Roberts, L., and Hall, D. (2001). Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice. New York, NY: CABI Publishing.

Rončák, M. (2020). “Prague and the impact of low-cost airlines,” in Overtourism: Issues, Realities and Solutions , eds R. Dodds and R. W. Butler (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter), 139–151. doi: 10.1515/9783110607369-011

Sharpley, R., and Roberts, L. (2004). Rural tourism-10 years on. Int. J. Tour. Res. 6, 119–124. doi: 10.1002/jtr.478

Sharpley, R., and Sharpley, J. (1997). Rural Tourism. an Introduction. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Šimková, E. (2007). Strategic approaches to rural tourism and sustainable development of rural areas. Agric. Econ. 53, 263–270. doi: 10.17221/979-AGRICECON

Simmel, G. (1971). “The metropolis of mental life,” in George Simmel: On Individuality and SOCIAL Forms , ed. D. N. Levine (Chicago, IL: University Press), 324–339.

Stanley, M. (2011). Rural Area. Available online at: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rural-area/ (accessed March 15, 2021).

Szromek, A. R., Kruczek, Z., and Walas, B. (2020). The attitude of tourist destination residents towardsthe effects of overtourism—Kraków case study. Sustainability 12:228. doi: 10.3390/su12010228

White, P. E. (1985). Modelling population change in the Cilento region of southern Italy. Environ. Plan. A 17, 1401–1413. doi: 10.1068/a171401

Yang, J., Wang, J., Zhang, L., and Xiao, X. (2020). How to promote ethnic village residents’ behavior participating in tourism poverty alleviation: a tourism empowerment perspective. Front. Psychol . 11:2064. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02064

Zámková, M., and Prokop, M. (2014). Comparison of consumer behavior of Slovaks and Czechs in the market of organic products by using correspondence analysis. Acta Univ. Agric. et Silvic. Mendelianae Brun . 62, 783–795. doi: 10.11118/actaun201462040783

Závodná, L. S. (2020). Management of overtourism in practical examples. Stud. Tur. 11, 52–60.

Keywords : tourism development, locals, Doxey irritation index, tourism area life cycle, rural area, Czechia

Citation: Linderová I, Scholz P and Almeida N (2021) Attitudes of Local Population Towards the Impacts of Tourism Development: Evidence From Czechia. Front. Psychol. 12:684773. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684773

Received: 23 March 2021; Accepted: 05 May 2021; Published: 01 June 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Linderová, Scholz and Almeida. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Nuno Almeida, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• 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: 29 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
• 81.177.182.159

Character limit 500 /500

Small Towns, Big Impact: 10 Examples Of Sustainable Tourism in Picturesque Locations

• Small towns like Giethoorn, Hallstatt, and Cinque Terre showcase sustainable tourism practices with car-free streets, eco-friendly transportation, and a focus on waste management, preserving natural beauty while promoting responsible travel.
• Travelers can appreciate the commitment to sustainability in towns like Sintra, Gimmelwald, and Bled, where eco-friendly transportation, regional products, and conservation efforts ensure a minimal impact on the environment and support local communities.
• Tasiilaq and Portree exemplify sustainable living with self-sufficiency, renewable energy sources, traditional practices, and preservation of cultural heritage, setting a standard for eco-conscious practices and responsible exploration.

Sustainable tourism has never been so discussed, and people have been significantly seeking trips that support sustainable tourism . Luckily, many small towns are committed to sustainability , promoting responsible travel practices that respect local communities, protect fragile ecosystems, and preserve cultural heritage.

When it comes to eco-friendly tourism, small towns have a lot to teach the world. From car-free streets and efficient public transportation to encouraging local producers, these places prove that finding a balance between tourism and preservation is possible.

Embracing sustainable tourism is an ethical choice and a crucial step towards ensuring a harmonious coexistence between humans and the environment, forging a path to a more balanced and resilient world. Here are 10 examples of sustainable tourism in some of the world's most scenic towns.

RELATED: Here Are 10 Ways You Can Be Eco-Minded When Visiting National Parks Sustainably

Giethoorn, The Netherlands

Giethoorn, often called the "Venice of the North," is a picturesque village in the Netherlands. The only way to navigate this town where cars aren't allowed is by bike, boat, or foot.

Giethoorn stands out as a model of sustainable tourism, promoting eco-friendly practices such as electric boat transportation and maintaining a car-free town center. This commitment to preserving its idyllic waterways and natural surroundings has earned Giethoorn a reputation as a leading example of how tourism and environmental conservation coexist.

Visitors can explore this tranquil village while appreciating its dedication to sustainability.

• Population: 2,135

There are no train stations in Giethoorn , and the closest station is located in Steenwijk, where travelers can get a bus or rent a bike.

Hallstatt, Austria

Travelers spending the weekend in Hallstatt , Austria, will discover more than a breathtaking Alpine scenery, but a place committed to sustainability.

This village has implemented various eco-friendly initiatives, such as restricting car access in the center during the daytime. It's a way to encourage cycling and promote renewable energy sources.

Additionally, Hallstatt emphasizes waste management and conservation of its pristine environment. Visitors can explore the village's stunning lakeside setting and charming architecture while appreciating its dedication to preserving natural beauty for generations to come.

• Population: 734

Cinque Terre, Italy

Cinque Terre is arguably Italy's most stunning coastal area . Despite its popularity and increasing number of tourists, the country created rules to mitigate the environmental impact. Initiatives focus on waste management, protecting the marine environment, and educating both residents and visitors about sustainable practices.

The use of cars is limited, with an efficient train system connecting the villages. Businesses focus on sustainability, promoting local products like wine producers , farmers, and fishermen.

• Population: 3,500

Sintra, Portugal

Sintra is a lovely town in Portugal where travelers can spend at least two days . It attracts visitors due to its colorful constructions and history heritage, as it's a UNESCO World Heritage site.

When visiting, many travelers might not be aware of Portugal's efforts to make it a sustainable destination, as it ranks among the world's 100 Green Destinations . The town promotes eco-friendly transportation and encourages visitors to explore on foot or via electric trams, and strict zoning laws prevent overdevelopment, ensuring the historic charm remains intact.

Local businesses emphasize regional products, reducing the carbon footprint. Efforts are made to manage waste effectively, and conservation programs protect the lush surrounding forests.

• Sustainable accommodations: Penha Longa , Rosegarden House

RELATED: 10 Countries In Europe Perfect For Sustainable Tourism

Gimmelwald, Switzerland

Gimmelwals is located 300 meters above sea level, and its small-scale tourism bolsters the local economy and fosters a sense of community. Tourism became possible by creating an efficient local train and cable car. Nestled in the Swiss Alps, the villages in this region are entirely car-free , which helps to preserve the clean mountain air.

Hiking trails lead through pristine landscapes, and traditional wooden chalets seamlessly blend with the scenery. Locally-owned accommodations and eateries prioritize regional fare, reducing food miles.

• Population: 130
• Sustainable accommodations: Pension Gimmelwald , Mountain Hostel Gimmelwald

Bled, Slovenia

Bled, Slovenia, has been committed to sustainable tourism for many years. It also ranks among the Top 100 Sustainable Destinations thanks to initiatives such as efficient public transportation, allowing travelers to leave their cars behind.

Some areas in the city have walking-only areas so people won't damage the site. The pristine Lake Bled is central to the community's commitment to conservation, with electric boats available, leaving no environmental footprint.

Bled's compact size encourages exploration on foot or by bike, minimizing reliance on motorized transportation. Additionally, efforts to preserve cultural heritage and support the local economy further contribute to its sustainable ethos.

• Sustainable accommodations: Hotel & Glamping RIBNO Bled

Jalapão, Brazil

Located in the heart of Brazil, Jalapão has been recently discovered by the tourism hub. This paradise is home to South America's largest savanna, waterfalls, vast fields of golden grass, dunes, and natural water springs where it's impossible to sink.

The best thing about Jalapão is that locals run tourism, including tourism agencies, hotels, and restaurants in local communities. The locals are committed to preserving the fragile ecosystem, and it's forbidden to use sunscreen when entering the natural water springs as it can affect the fish.

• Recommended agency: Jalapão Brasil

Portree, Scotland

Portree is a coastal town that thrives on renewable energy sources, harnessing wind and water power. Locals are also committed to sustainability and are familiar with eco-conscious practices, from recycling initiatives to community gardens.

Portree's compact layout encourages walking or cycling, reducing car needs. The town's rich Gaelic heritage is preserved through cultural events and initiatives.

Accommodations often prioritize energy efficiency and local sourcing. By harmonizing with its breathtaking natural surroundings, Portree showcases a model of sustainability for small communities worldwide.

• Sustainable accommodations: Skeabost Country House Hotel

Tasiilaq, Greenland

Tasiilaq, Greenland, is home to several Viking settlements , and it's a beacon of sustainable living in the Arctic. With a mere 2,000 residents, this remote town champions self-sufficiency. Energy is primarily sourced from renewable hydroelectric power, minimizing reliance on fossil fuels.

Locals engage in traditional hunting and fishing practices, respecting ecological balance. The Visit Greenland's website highlights the country has been recognized as an "Eco-tourism and Responsible Travel Destination."

• Sustainable accommodations: The Red House

RELATED: Eco-Tourism For Dummies: 10 Ways To Get Involved With Sustainable Missions While Traveling Abroad

Tahoma, California ( Vikingsholm)

Nestled in the picturesque town of Tahoma, Vikingsholm, located on the shores of Lake Tahoe, California, embraces the historic Scandinavian-style mansion and showcases early 20th-century architectural brilliance while prioritizing eco-conscious practices. Surrounded by the Emerald Bay State Park, it encourages responsible exploration and education on local flora and fauna. Visitors can access the site through emission-reducing shuttle services, minimizing individual carbon footprints. Vikingsholm serves as a testament to preserving natural beauty while offering a glimpse into the past.

They encourage visitors to take the Traveler Responsibility Pledge .

Growing the Young Generation's Interest in Agriculture through Synergy between Tourism and Organic Farming

• Permatasari, P.
• Winarno, J.

Sustainable agriculture is becoming increasingly important in the context of global population growth and climate change. However, young people's interest in agriculture has declined due to urbanization and a shift in career preferences. In light of this challenge, the idea to create a synergy between tourism and organic farming has emerged as an interesting and potential solution. This article explores how this synergy can play an important role in growing young people's interest in agriculture. The research method is qualitative with a phenomenological approach. The research was conducted at an organic farming center in Karanganyar Regency, Central Java. The results show that organic farming, combined with elements of education, sustainability, and social interaction in the tourism experience, has a positive impact on the local economy, improves environmental awareness, and strengthens the connection with nature and local communities. By taking advantage of the potential synergy between tourism and organic farming, young people can be inspired to engage in sustainable agriculture, to create positive changes in future agricultural practices, and to promote a more environmentally conscious and sustainable society.