Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

A systematic scoping review of sustainable

tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable
development goals

S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, Sundari Ramakrishna, C. Michael Hall, Kourosh

Esfandiar & Siamak Seyfi

To cite this article: S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, Sundari Ramakrishna, C. Michael Hall,

Kourosh Esfandiar & Siamak Seyfi (2020): A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism
indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI:
10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621

Published online: 24 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6825

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621

A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators

in relation to the sustainable development goals
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesha , Sundari Ramakrishnaa, C. Michael Hallb ,
Kourosh Esfandiarc and Siamak Seyfid
a
School of Hospitality, Tourism and Events, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia; bDepartment of
Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand;
c
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia; dDepartment of Geography,
University of Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Sustainable tourism indicators (STIs) are an integral element of tourism Received 3 June 2019
planning and management. This study systematically reviews the Accepted 25 May 2020
research contributions on the development of STIs based on four crite-
KEYWORDS
ria including: i) the relevance of the STIs to the sustainable development
Sustainable tourism
goals (SDGs); ii) governance; iii) stakeholders involved; and iv) the dis- indicators (STIs); sustainable
tinction between subjective and objective indicators. A search of Scopus development goals (SDGs);
indexed journals published up to April 2018, yielded 97 papers for governance; stakeholders;
examination. The findings demonstrate the lack of direct attention to objective and
the SDGs in those papers published after their launch in 2016. However, subjective indicators
the majority of the SDGs and their targets have indirectly been covered
in the reviewed papers. The results revealed that, among the sustain-
ability themes of economic growth, social inclusion, environmental pro-
tection, and governance, the STIs studies tended to overlook the
dimension of governance. The findings showed that residents are the
most engaged stakeholder group, and tourists the least engaged as
compared with government and businesses. The results also indicated
that more attention is afforded to objective compared to subjective
indicators. The findings also demonstrated that much of the focus is on
European countries rather than the Global South which is the major
focus of the SDGs.

Introduction
The number of international tourist arrivals has grown steadily to reach 1.5 billion tourist arrivals
in 2019 (United Nations World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2020). This figure is expected to
continue to increase with a forecast of 1.8 billion international tourists by 2030 (UNWTO &
United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2017) although this figure may be revisited fol-
lowing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Go €ssling et al., 2020). Nevertheless, while inter-
national tourism might receive the greatest share of attention, the bulk of all tourism is actually
domestic, accounting for almost 85% of global travel. The number of tourist trips undertaken
each year prior to the advent of COVID-19 exceeded the world’s population (Hall, 2015).
Absolute expenditure on tourism has also risen substantially, and the World Travel and Tourism

CONTACT S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh mostafa.rasoolimanesh@taylors.edu.my School of Hospitality, Tourism and

Events, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Council (WTTC, 2018) estimates that global tourism contributed US$7.6 trillion or 10.2% to the
world’s GDP in 2017.
Given the economic significance of tourism and its growth, it is little surprise that there is a
wealth of literature highlighting various impacts of tourism at various scales (Esfandiar et al.,
2020; Go €ssling et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2015; Rasoolimanesh & Jaafar, 2017; Rutty, Go
€ssling, Scott,
& Hall, 2015; Scott et al., 2016; Sharpley & Telfer, 2014). However, although interest in impacts
has long been a feature of tourism research (Mathieson & Wall, 1982), there is growing concern
about the sustainability of the tourism sector and the limits to its growth (Fodness, 2017;
Go€ssling et al., 2012; Hall, 2019; Saarinen, 2015).
Butler (1999) argues that ambiguities surrounding what is meant by sustainable tourism have
resulted in the sporadic and non-systematic monitoring of tourism impacts. As such, efforts to
benchmark tourism impacts have been hampered by a lack of consensus as to the choice of
indicators and how they should be applied (Hall, 2008; Tanguay et al., 2013; Torres-Delgado &
Palomeque, 2014). This situation has far-reaching consequences with respect to tourism’s contri-
bution to sustainability given the importance of appropriate indicators to effectively assess and
manage tourism’s impacts (Tanguay et al., 2013; Torres-Delgado & Palomeque, 2014;
UNWTO, 2004).
The SDGs are a core element of the United Nations 2030 agenda (UN, 2015). The agenda pro-
motes sustainable development by way of monitoring and controlling the use of natural resour-
ces and encouraging conservation efforts, creating employment opportunities for local
communities while promoting local culture and products, and using marine resources sustainably
so as to increase the economic benefits for small islands developing states and underdeveloped
countries (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017). Consequently, the SDGs have become major focal points for
the study of tourism’s contribution to sustainable development (Hall, 2019; UNWTO & UNDP,
2017). As noted above, the development of appropriate indicators and monitoring strategies is
regarded as integral for assessing progress toward the achievement of the SDGs (UNWTO &
UNDP, 2017), as well as for gauging the sustainability of tourism in general (Lozano-Oyola et al.,
2012; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005; Stoddard et al., 2012). Nevertheless, despite the essential role
of sustainable tourism indicators (STIs) in monitoring the impacts of tourism (Miller & Twining-
Ward, 2005; Tanguay et al., 2013; Torres-Delgado & Palomeque, 2014), little has been done to
connect these indicators with the SDGs. SDGs are relatively new, and this conclusion is not
entirely surprising. However, indicator selection and monitoring is regarded as integral to the
SDGs process (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017). By considering this criterion, we therefore discuss the
relations to different SDGs in previous STIs studies and highlight the importance of direct future
linkage. Therefore, the connection of sustainable tourism indicators with the SDGs is the focus of
the current study.
In order to implement the SDGs and their targets, each state party has to define specified tar-
gets and (sub-)timelines, and develop appropriate implementation processes. As a result, govern-
ance becomes inseparable from SDG implementation (Biermann et al., 2017; Meuleman &
Niestroy, 2015). Tourism research also recognizes that ensuring economic, socio-cultural and
environmental sustainability requires an effective process of governance, adjusted to specific pur-
poses and contexts (Richins, 2009). Effective governance usually entails the need for appropriate
institutions, decision-making frameworks, planning processes, and codes of practice (Bramwell &
Lane, 2011). Governance is an important issue for ensuring that tourism strategy implementation
are indeed sustainable and responsive to the needs of stakeholders and destination communities
and the means by which that is monitored and evaluated (Hall, 2008, 2009), as well as aligning
tourism with existing governance arrangements (Jenkins et al., 2014).
Responding to the needs of stakeholders is integral to the successful planning and implemen-
tation of sustainable tourism strategies (Hall, 2008; Torres-Delgado & Palomeque, 2014).
Government, the private sector, non-government organizations, residents, and temporary popula-
tions (e.g., seasonal workers and tourists) are key stakeholders in sustainable tourism (Byrd,
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3

2007). Their participation in the development of appropriate indicators also helps ensure that
that monitoring and evaluation processes are successfully implemented and the results accepted
by stakeholders (Blackstock et al., 2008; Hall, 2009).
STIs may be either subjective (i.e., measuring perceptions or attitudes) or objective (i.e., meas-
uring an aspect of physical reality). As noted by the UNWTO (1996), “indicators of sustainability
are not always quantifiable and may necessarily be somewhat subjective” (p. 7). Both subjective
and objective indicators have their utility in sustainable tourism development, but there is a sig-
nificant preference for objective indicators (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Miller, 2001), because they are
widely seen to be more rigorous (Mearns, 2012).
The current study, therefore, sets out to review the existing literature with respect to sustain-
able tourism indicators. These indicators are considered in light of four criteria: (a) the relevance
of STIs to the SDGs, (b) the role of governance as an important element of sustainability, (c) the
stakeholders involved, and (d) the distinction between subjective and objective indicators. In so
doing, this study looks to highlight gaps in the research literature, to contribute toward the for-
mation of a composite picture of existing STIs, and to offer recommendations for the develop-
ment of indicators with which to measure sustainable tourism.

Literature review
Sustainable tourism indicators
Although still a contested subject, sustainability in a tourism context is generally regarded as
aiming to strike a balance between the economic, environmental, and social needs of all stake-
holders in considering the impacts of tourism (Buckley, 2012; Hall et al., 2015; Waligo et al.,
2013). Attempts to operationalize the concept of sustainable tourism have led to the develop-
ment of numerous sets of indicators in the hope of being able to quantify sustainability and has
seen the demand for indicator tools rise sharply in recent years, especially at the destination
level (Tanguay et al., 2013). This has contributed to increased research on sustainable tourism
indicators (Torres-Delgado & Palomeque, 2014), with several projects having been mounted to
develop indicator frameworks (e.g., Kristjansdottir et al., 2018).
A number of different methods to develop sustainable tourism indicators have been pro-
posed. Tanguay et al. (2013) suggested that there were two main routes to the development of
sustainable tourism indicators which they described as the scientific or academic approach and
the policy-maker approach. The former considers sustainability to be a complex subject requiring
technical and scientific methods of assessment, while the latter is contingent upon local condi-
tions, which invariably align with policy agendas. Advocates of the policy-maker approach main-
tain that the resulting STI is the product of a consensus among stakeholders and is, therefore,
more inclusive and easily understood by the public than STIs developed through a purely scien-
tific approach (Tanguay et al., 2013). Unlike STIs developed via the scientific approach, however,
policy-maker STIs are often prone to conflicts of interest.
In seeking to overcome these issues, Tanguay et al. (2013) proposed an alternative approach
in which indicator development is based on a core systematic process while also embodying an
operational policy. Other researchers, such as Blancas et al. (2016), proposed a new indicator-
based tool to assess the degree of progress and regress in tourism sustainability, the latter being
an issue often ignored in indicator research. Kristjansdo ttir et al. (2018) found that research into
sustainability indicators has developed simultaneously across different academic disciplines,
including tourism, and that the number of academic disciplines weighing into the STI debate
continues to grow. Unlike earlier work, which considered indicators thematically and thus dis-
cussed tourism discretely in terms of its economic, social, and environmental impacts,
Kristjansdo
ttir et al. (2018) stress the value of first, adjusting established indicator frameworks
and developing new systemic frameworks; and second, developing integrated STI, in order to aid
4 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

policy- and decision-makers in evaluating the various roles of tourism within complex socio-eco-
logical systems.
Tourism operates at multiple scales. Thus far, researchers have tended to prioritize the devel-
opment of indicators for communities and destinations (i.e., the meso and macro-levels).
However, there is also a need for indicators aimed at the micro-organizational level (i.e., small
tourism enterprises) given that small, locally-owned tourism enterprises have the potential to
contribute to the goals of sustainable tourism development as they provide economic and socio-
cultural benefits (Koens & Thomas, 2015; Roberts & Tribe, 2008; Zapata et al., 2011). Roberts and
Tribe (2008) argued that the social, political, and economic dimensions of sustainability are often
relegated to the periphery when it comes to small tourism enterprises, with the environmental
sustainability of these enterprises taking precedence (see also Coles et al., 2016).
The UNWTO (2004) guidebook—Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism
Destinations—contains a relatively comprehensive list of indicators that provide a valuable start-
ing point for matching the selected indicators to the policy objectives of a given destination.
The European Tourism Indicator System (European Commission, 2016) is another management,
information and monitoring tool specifically intended for sustainable tourism destination.
However, while destinations may share a number of common core indicators, they also differ in
the sustainability issues they face and the governance mechanisms they employ, thus necessitat-
ing site- and destination-specific indicators (Biermann et al., 2017). Indeed, the development of
the SDGs highlights the importance of common but differentiated governance in successfully
implementing sustainability initiatives at various scales (Meuleman & Niestroy, 2015). As a result,
common but differentiated metrics also need to be devised and monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms established for the different scales of tourism in order to give effect to such an
implementation strategy (Lu et al., 2015; Kanie & Biermann, 2017). This suggests that while there
may be value in selecting STIs to compare different units of evaluation in different systems of
governance, ultimately decision-makers will need to reach some form of consensus over the STIs
relevant for the specific destination, community or organization seeking to implement the SDGs.
STI policies at the subnational, national and global levels play an important role in helping
countries to achieve the SDGs. They are integral to the 2030 agenda in which STI has been posi-
tioned as key means of implementation of the SDGs. STI policies and frameworks are therefore
required to be embedded in SDG initiatives to address them effectively. Yet, as Cervantes and
Hong (2018, p.97) commented, “STI policy frameworks will need to evolve to pinpoint the chal-
lenges raised by the SDGs” to address not only the innovation policy but also other societal
demands and challenges as enshrined by the SDGs.

The sustainable development goals

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted at the 70th UN General Assembly in
September 2015, set a series of SDGs. The 17 SDGs underpinning the 2030 agenda for sustain-
able development have 169 associated targets, which cover all aspects of sustainability; namely,
to end poverty, promote prosperity and well-being for all, and to protect the planet. The SDGs
present a novel type of global governance in which goal-setting features as a core governance
strategy via inclusive goal-setting processes, the non-binding nature of the SDGs, weak institu-
tional arrangements, and the extensive flexibility that governments enjoy in their implementation
(Biermann et al., 2017; Kanie & Biermann, 2017).
The SDGs are the successor development instrument to the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) (Yiu & Saner, 2014; Nanda, 2016). The MDGs started as a global effort in 2000 to address
the indignity of poverty, hunger, prevent diseases, and expand primary education to all children,
among other development priorities. Although they were relatively successful if assessed by
national indicators, reviews of the MDGs highlighted the extent to which the results “mask[ed]
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 5

regional differences and inequalities and disparities between various groups and minorities” and
failed to integrate human rights and adequately promote gender equality and the empowerment
of women (Amnesty International, 2013). In developing the SDGs the Open Working Group
(OWG) of the UN General Assembly (2014) sought “to complete the unfinished business of the
Millennium Development Goals and respond to new challenges … . [and] constitute an inte-
grated, indivisible set of global priorities for sustainable development”. In responding to the
OWG the UN Secretary-General (2014, p. 56) stressed the importance of “a rigorous and participa-
tory review and monitoring framework to hold Governments, businesses and international organ-
izations accountable to the people for results, and to ensure that no harm is done to the
planet”. However, the key difference between the MDGs and the SDGs is that the SDGs have a
more universal agenda, which applies to all countries rather than being primarily focused on
developing countries as was the MDGs (Nanda, 2016). While continuing the balanced approach
to sustainable development they have a stronger human rights focus and greater emphasis on
gender equality and the empowerment of women, as well as paying special attention to income
inequality, climate change and biodiversity loss (Nanda, 2016). The SDGs therefore strongly
reflect the concept of Leaving No-one Behind to include all segments of society in building a
more sustainable planet for all humanity (Stuart & Woodroffe, 2016). The SDGs (17 goals and 169
targets) were also designed to be more detailed than corresponding provisions in the MDGs in
order to better facilitate implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Fukuda-Parr, 2016; Nanda,
2016). For example, in reviewing the SDGs the International Council for Science and the
International Social Science Council (2015) highlighted that the SDGSs addressed critical systemic
barriers to sustainable development that the MDGs had neglected, including weak institutional
capacity, including with respect to indicator provision, the focus of the present paper.
The SDGs are regarded as a framework for the promotion and development of sustainable
tourism (UN & UNDP, 2017). Tourism has the potential to contribute, directly or indirectly, to
each of the 17 SDGs (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017). Tourism has been identified as playing a particu-
larly important role in the pursuit of goals 8 (Inclusive and sustainable economic growth), 12
(Sustainable consumption and production), and 14 (Sustainable use of oceans and marine resour-
ces) (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017). The UNWTO and UNDP (2017) approach to SDGs has been
criticized for its emphasis on measurement and surveillance, reflecting the application of scien-
tific and utilitarian economic approaches in the service of resource utilization and economic
development (Hall, 2019). Nevertheless, such concerns are in the minority. STI development for
SDGs strongly reflects the perspective that, “effective management requires consistent measure-
ment of impact” (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017, p. 56; see also Kristjansdo ttir et al., 2018), with the
UNWTO and UNDP (2017, p. 56) observing: “While the tourism private sector can contribute to
all 17 SDGs … its impact is still difficult to measure given that there is no universal means by
which travel and tourism businesses and destinations can measure and monitor their progress or
contribution towards the SDGs.”

Governance
The role of governance in sustainable tourism is seldom clearly articulated in studies of STIs
(Tanguay et al., 2013). Nevertheless, one of the hallmarks of sustainable development is access
to decision making, thereby enhancing democratic processes, practices, and ownership
(Bramwell & Lane, 2011). Sustainable tourism requires effective governance including appropriate
institutions, decision-making rules and policy evaluation and monitoring practices if it is to satisfy
the economic, sociocultural, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development
(Bramwell & Lane, 2011). Although interest in governance has grown, it remains a seldom dis-
cussed concept in the sustainable tourism literature (Jenkins et al., 2014). Significantly, multi-
stakeholder partnerships and multi-level architecture of the SDGs have been recognised by both
6 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

the UN and researchers as necessitating coherent governance for them to be effective (Bernstein
et al., 2014; Bull & McNeill, 2019; Meuleman, 2019), Indeed, the importance of governance for
integrating and implementing the three ‘traditional ‘social, economic and environmental ele-
ments of balanced approaches to sustainable development is such that governance should be
treated as a pillar of sustainability in its own right (Jitmaneeroj, 2016; Mutisya & Yarime, 2014;
Stafford-Smith et al., 2017; Niavis et al., 2019). Timmermans (2019) also suggested that
“ultimately”, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs are “all about governance”, providing, as Kanie et al.
(2012) describe it, a “charter moment” to revitalize the institutional arrangements for sustainable
development.
Governance includes having transparent planning processes and political debate to identify
agendas, issues, who is involved, what parties are affected, the alternative courses of action avail-
able, the measures of such actions, and how they will be evaluated and monitored (Hall, 2011).
Developing the organizational capacity for sustainability requires an appropriate commitment to
research and development and to human resource development (Labuschagne et al., 2005). In
addition to government and industry involvement, local residents and community members also
need to be able to participate in tourism planning and decision-making processes in order to
feel ownership of sustainable tourism strategies (Bramwell, 2010; Kristjansdottir et al., 2018).
Governance is “the act of governing” (Hall, 2011, p. 439). Tourism governance is based on a
multiscale set of arrangements that encompass specific actors, including tourism-related policy-
making institutions; private–public partnerships; regulatory bodies; supranational organizations;
government at local, regional, and national levels; communities; and private enterprises (Hall,
2011). The multi-scaled arrangements for tourism also reflect the common but differentiated gov-
ernance approach employed with respect to the SDGs (Biermann et al., 2017). Such arrange-
ments are framed by metagovernance, which is described as “the governance of governance”
(Jessop, 2011, p. 106). Metagovernance is focused explicitly on the practices and procedures
used to secure governmental influence, as well as command and control within governance
regimes (Amore & Hall, 2016). In terms of the SDGs, Biermann et al. (2017) suggest that metago-
vernance allows for different forms of state intervention at different levels and in particular situa-
tions, while it is also integral to the development of the multi-stakeholder partnerships that are
critical to implementing the 2030 Agenda (Bull & McNeil, 2019; Horan, 2019; Mundle et al., 2017).
Metagovernance, therefore, suggests that tourism interventions and policies reflect broader theo-
ries about the role of the state and the proper actions of government, as well as theories of
social interaction and change in socioeconomic systems. The importance of metagovernance
with respect to understanding sustainable tourism governance and policymaking, including SDG
indicator selection (Meuleman, 2019; Meuleman & Niestroy, 2015), cannot be overstated. As
observed by Hall (2011, p. 438) policy measures, “have implicit theoretical foundations and hence
assumptions about, for instance, the appropriate role of the state; the relationship between the
state and individual policy actors (businesses, associations, individuals); their responsibilities; and
how they are supposed to act politically.”

Stakeholders involved
A stakeholder is identified as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by” tourism
development in an area (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Governments, businesses, nongovernment organ-
izations, residents, as well as temporary populations (especially workers and tourists) are key
actors in the successful planning and implementation of sustainable tourism strategies ((Byrd,
2007; Gunn, 1994; Hall, 2008; Torres-Delgado & Palomeque, 2014).
Tourists are clearly important stakeholders. For example, tourists are central to the UNWTOs
conceptualization of sustainable tourism:
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 7

Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of the present tourists and host regions while protecting
and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in
such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity,
essential ecological processes, biological diversity, and life support systems (UNWTO, 1998, p. 21).

It has also long been recognized that STIs should take into consideration those populations
affected by tourism development (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Lee & Hsieh, 2016). Miller (2001), in his
study on the development of indicators for sustainable tourism, concluded that it was essential
to win the strong support of local people involved in tourism development. Similarly, Twining-
Ward and Butler (2002) found it necessary to clarify the meaning of sustainable tourism develop-
ment with community groups and how the concept applied to their local context before an
appropriate STI could be chosen. This process of winning local support was not simply about
complying with theoretical best practices but was essential for ensuring project feasibility
and outcomes.
Given the role of the private sector in tourism development and related networks, the busi-
ness community is also a critical stakeholder (Byrd, 2007). The UNWTO and UNDP (2017) argue
that the business community plays a central role in the achievement of SDGs. For example,
Taleb Rifai, Secretary-General of the UNWTO states that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development “sets the path that we all must embrace. … the private sector, which is the key
player in tourism, … is beginning to recognise that the SDGs offer true business opportunities as
sustainable business operations can spur competitiveness and increase profit” (UNWTO & UNDP,
2017, pp. 6–7). Similarly, Achim Steiner, UNDP Administrator, suggests that “the role of the pri-
vate sector and access to financing are paramount to building a more sustainable tourism sector.
Long-term competitiveness depends on the willingness to manage industry vulnerabilities and
invest in new markets and services” (UNWTO & UNDP, 2017, p. 9).

Objective or subjective indicators

Effective indicators provide “decision-makers of host communities with information that enables
them to identify, evaluate and make timely decisions on critical changes being caused by tour-
ism to the natural environment, communities and other resources in the destination” (Sirakaya
et al., 2001, p. 425). STIs may be either subjective or objective in nature (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006).
Subjective indicators usually refer to attitudes, experiences, perceptions, and the satisfaction of
residents or tourists; whereas objective indicators are measures of economic, physical, social or
societal reality unfiltered by perceptions and independent of personal evaluations (Miller, 2001).
Common objective indicators include employment rates, energy efficiency, usage and availability
of clean potable water, biodiversity conservation, and crime rates (Mearns, 2012). However, sus-
tainability indicators “are not always quantifiable and may necessarily be somewhat subjective”
(UNWTO, 1996, p. 7).
Depending on the objectives of the monitoring exercise, both objective and subjective indica-
tors of sustainable tourism development may be necessary (Miller, 2001), as well as adaptation
and localization (UNWTO, 2004). While both subjective and objective indicators have their value
in sustainable tourism development, their inherent limitations invariably impacts indicator selec-
tion (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Miller, 2001). Choi and Sirakaya (2006) concluded that it was neces-
sary to evaluate the implementation of both sets of indicators in order to create stronger
monitoring systems. As a result of initiatives, such as the SDGs, there appears to be “greater
interest in developing new methodologies than applying existing indicator frameworks”
(Kristjansdo
ttir et al., 2018, p. 583). Nevertheless, in developing, common but differentiated, local-
ized frameworks and methodologies to meet SDG strategies an improved understanding of exist-
ing STI indicators, their governance, and relevance to stakeholders may prove invaluable.
8 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Research method
This study employed a systematic scoping review to assess the STIs literature with respect to
four criteria including (a) the relevance to the SDGs, (b) governance, (c) the stakeholders
involved, and (d) the subjective and objective indicators. Scoping reviews are commonly utilised
to provide an exploratory overview of a topic, map the literature, and identify key concepts, the-
ories and sources of evidence and are best designed where an area is complex or has not yet
been comprehensively reviewed (Grant & Booth, 2009; Moher et al., 2015). Systematic scoping
reviews differ from full systematic reviews in terms of the specificity of the research question,
with systemic reviews being highly specific and less exploratory, as well as the extent of the lit-
erature reviewed, with scoping reviews often being limited to a single appropriate database
(Grant & Booth, 2009; Moher et al., 2015). Scoping reviews are increasingly utilised in the social
sciences (Moher et al., 2015), including tourism (e.g., Welling et al., 2015; Seyfi & Hall, 2019), and
for evidence-based policy-making in relation to intervention selection (Hall, 2014).
The present study reviewed journal articles published in Scopus-indexed journals up to April
2018 for sustainable tourism indicators and indices with which to measure the sustainability of
tourism destinations. Large scale bibliometric research is usually undertaken via major databases,
such as Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar. Given that the paper aims to scope
refereed literature on sustainable tourism indicators we did not use Google Scholar because it
also includes grey literature, while Scopus was selected over WoS because it incorporates a
larger selection of tourism journals, but still includes all article types and indexes all authors,
institutional addresses and bibliographic references for each pubication indexed in the database
(Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016), with its use is widely accepted in bibliometric analysis (Mongeon &
Paul-Hus, 2016; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016).
A keyword search of the title, abstract, and keywords was conducted using the search terms
sustainable tourism and indicator. This initial search resulted in 236 papers being identified.
Another keyword search for tourism impact and indicator yielded 59 papers. While a third search
with the keyword sustainable tourism indicator resulted in 22 papers. In all, 316 papers were iden-
tified after three searches. This figure was reduced to 288 papers following the removal of dupli-
cates. Screening the abstracts for relevance to sustainable tourism indicators reduced this figure
further to 116 papers.
To identify research in relation to ‘subjective indicators’, a further search was undertaken for
cognate keywords previously identified in related literature, including residents’ attitude and per-
ceptions, and sustainable tourism, sustainable tourism attitude scale, and tourism impact scale. This
search yielded 18 papers describing the use of subjective indicators on tourism from either resi-
dent or tourist perspectives. Four duplicates were removed, leaving 130 papers to be reviewed
in full. These 130 papers were filtered through a manual abstract review. This filtering process
led to the exclusion of papers based one or more of the following criteria: (a) the full paper
could not be retrieved (7 papers excluded), and (b) central themes that do not address any of
the sustainability dimensions with indicators (26 papers excluded). In conclusion, 97 journal
articles were reviewed for this study. Figure 1 illustrates the article selection process.
Four criteria: the relevance to the SDGs; governance; stakeholders involved; and subjective
and objective indicators, were used as the main themes for reviewing the papers, and possible
sub-criteria under each theme were considered as sub-themes for analysis. The 17 SDGs were
identified as the sub-themes of relevance to the SDGs. Under each sub-theme, the possible
codes were determined and trialled before commencing analysis and reviewing the papers
(Moher et al., 2015). Under the 17 SDGs, 169 targets were considered as possible codes. Then,
the papers were separately reviewed according to the pre-determined sub-themes and codes
under each criteria by at least two of the authors to establish reliability and consistency (Potter
& Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Deductive thematic analysis was then applied to review and analyze
the papers based on the criteria and associated sub-themes and codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9

Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the selection procedure of the systematic literature review.

Table 1. STI publication by journal title (i.e., more than three papers per journal only).
Journal Title Number of Papers
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15
Tourism Management 13
Sustainability 8
Journal of Travel Research 6
Annals of Tourism Research 5
Ecological indicators 4
Tourism Management Perspectives 4
Tourism Economics 3

Findings
The results showed that the Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Tourism Management are the two
most popular journals for the publication of STIs. Table 1 shows the number of papers published
in the top eight journals.
An analysis was conducted to identify the setting (i.e., country/location) for each study and, in
the case of multi-country studies, the source of data collection. Table 2 shows the number of
studies per country setting. Six papers were not country-specific or the authors did not collect
any country-specific data. STI studies were undertaken in 34 countries, with the majority in
10 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Table 2. Number of studies by single country setting.

Country Setting Number of Studies
Spain 12
United States (10 states) 10
Taiwan 7
Africa (Lesotho, Namibia þ 2 Cape Verde) 4
Malaysia 3
Italy 3
Greece 3
Germany 3
Iran 3
India 2
Australia 2
China 2
Tobago and Trinidad 2
UK (Scotland & England) 2

Europe (16 countries), of which 11 are OECD members. The most frequently studied country was
Spain (12 papers). Ten papers were based on research in ten different states of the USA. The
majority of these papers (seven) measured residents’ attitudes towards tourism and the percep-
tions of those who live in or near a major tourist location. Seven papers described research
undertaken in Taiwan, with limited studies being undertaken in South America, Africa, and
Australasia as compared to Asia.
Fourteen studies (14.5% of reviewed papers) utilized multi-country data (Table 3) that provide
comparative insights into trends and the development of sustainable tourism indicators in a
regional and global context (O’Mahony et al., 2009). These studies were informed by data
sourced from public domain datasets, including the World Bank’s Development Indicators
(Bojanic, 2011), Euromonitor International (Qureshi et al., 2017), Eurobarometer (Stumpf et al.,
2018), Eurostat (Blancas et al., 2015, 2016), Global Footprint Network (Hunter & Shaw, 2007), and
€
TourMIS (Onder et al., 2017). In the second step, each of the 97 papers was examined to identify
the relationship/relevance of the indicators to the 17 SDGs, governance, target stakeholders, and
type of indicator (objective or subjective).

The sustainable development goals

Table 4 summarizes the frequency with which the papers reviewed in this study linked STIs with
the 17 SDGs.
Despite the SDGs coming into force on 1st of January 2016, and having been well outlined by
the end of 2014 (UN Secretary-General, 2014), none of the 24 papers reviewed here published
between 2016 and early 2018 made any mention of them. A possible reason for lack of inclusion
of the SDGs in any of the reviewed papers published after the confirmation of the SDGs in 2015,
would be time between research being undertaken and having work eventually published.
Alternatively, while the overall significance of the SDGs for sustainable tourism theory was clear
(Hall, 2019), a period of time may have needed to elapse for their significance for practice,
including tourism indicator development, to become a focus and diffused through the tourism
studies community. Indeed, overall it could be argued that for tourism indicator selection in rela-
tion to the SDGs has been more reactive than proactive given the difficulties identified by the
UNWTO and UNDP (2017) in choosing tourism related SDG indicators.
Among the 17 SDGs, Goal 8 (i.e., Decent work and economic growth) was the most relevant
to the STI studies because of the emphasis on tourism-related employment generation and busi-
ness development, as well as revenue-generation activities arising from tourism at the local,
regional, and national level. Authors used various environmental indicators, such as the degree
of naturalness of a tourist area, biodiversity conservation, availability of open spaces, degradation
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 11

Table 3. STI studies with multi-country settings (more than one country).
Author(s) and Year of Publication
Blancas et al. (2015)
Blancas et al. (2016)
Bojanic (2011)
Cernat and Gourdon (2012)
Cottrell et al. (2004)
Hunter and Shaw (2007)
Ko (2005)
Lupoli et al. (2015)
O’Mahony et al. (2009)
€
Onder et al. (2017)
Page et al. (2014)
Qureshi et al. (2017)
Sirakaya-Turk et al. (2008)
Stumpf et al. (2018)
Journal
Environmental Impact Assessment
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Tourism Management
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Tourism Management
Tourism Management
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Journal of Coastal Research
Tourism Economics
Tourism Management Perspectives
Journal of Cleaner Production
Journal of Travel Research
Global Business and Finance Review
Multi-country settings
29 countries of the European Union
derived from Eurostat
29 countries of the European Union
derived from Eurostat
120 countries from the World Bank
World Development Indicators
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand
Costa Rica and the Netherlands
United Kingdom, Australia, New
Zealand, Brazil, Spain
12 countries (case studies)
Ecuador and Costa Rica
Spain, Netherlands, and Ireland
27 European cities in 17 countries
derived from TourMIS
Tanzania, The Gambia, and the
Dominican Republic
37 countries (Euromonitor
International)
Turkey and Northern Cyprus
28 countries of the European Union
derived from Eurobarometer

Table 4. Number of papers with indicators relevant to the SDGs.

Sustainable Development Goals Number of papers applicable to SDGs
GOAL 1: No Poverty 0
GOAL 2: Zero Hunger 0
GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being 45
GOAL 4: Quality Education 17
GOAL 5: Gender Equality 12
GOAL 6: Clean Water and Sanitation 51
GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy 32
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth 79
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure 33
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequality 15
GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities 21
GOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and Production 9
GOAL 13: Climate Action 16
GOAL 14: Life below Water 16
GOAL 15: Life on Land 63
GOAL 16: Peace and Justice Strong Institutions 3
GOAL 17: Partnerships to Achieve the Goals 3

of nature parks, and percentage of forest cover, indicators that might potentially contribute to
Goal 15 (Life on Land). Goal 15 focuses on promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosys-
tems and their resources, and halting biodiversity loss. These environmental indicators were the
second most frequently examined set of indicators, having been used in 63 studies. In compari-
son, indicators relating to climate change and Goal 13 (Climate Action) and Goal 14 (Life below
Water) were used in only 16 papers.
Tourism can be a powerful tool for community development and for reducing inequalities if it
engages local populations and all key stakeholders in its development (UNWTO, 2015). Tourism
indicators relating to Goal 10 (Reduced Inequality) are strongly linked to the equitable participa-
tion of residents and non-residents in tourism. Indicators relevant to Goal 5 (Gender Equality)
were observed in 12 papers. More specifically, they are related to the empowerment of women,
training opportunities for female community members, opportunities for women to participate in
tourism, and women’s employment in tourism businesses.
12 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Only one out of the 97 papers reviewed lacked sufficient information with which to determine
the contribution of the tourism indicators under investigation to each of the 17 SDGs (Cracolici
et al., 2008). No paper described tourism indicators related to Goal 1 (No Poverty) or Goal 2 (Zero
Hunger), which was somewhat surprising given the substantial volumes of literature arguing that
tourism provides a route for the alleviation of poverty (Zapata et al., 2011; Phi et al., 2018). This
could be because of the fact that the majority of papers have had a primary focus on the Global
North where some of the main goals of both the MDGS and the SDGs with respect to poverty and
hunger reduction may be seen as less pressing for sustainable tourism than environmental issues.

Governance
Out of 97 papers, only 22% of papers examined indicators related to the governance dimensions
of sustainability. Indicators in most of the papers were categorized as either economic, social, or
environmental indicators. Environmental indicators appeared in 95% of the papers, while eco-
nomic and social indicators appeared in 90% and 88% of papers, respectively.
Indicators relevant to governance were usually developed in conjunction with studies focused
on the perceptions and attitudes of residents in relation to tourism activities. Survey questions in
perceptual studies tended to be based on psychological, social, and political empowerment
(Boley et al., 2014; Huh & Vogt, 2008). Nevertheless, planning processes, policy instruments, deci-
sion-making processes, and the influence of non-state actors (e.g., businesses, the community,
and voluntary sectors), have a profound effect on the sustainability of tourism development
(Bramwell, 2010; Bramwell & Lane, 2011; Hall, 2011). Given this, the relatively low level of inclu-
sion of governance-related STIs in sustainable tourism research was an unexpected finding.
Table 5 summarizes the various elements of the governance dimension as reflected in the indica-
tors described in this review. The majority of these indicators cover aspects of transparency and
inclusivity, such as access to decision making and information, the ability to influence tourism
development through democratic participation, and the availability of equal employment oppor-
tunities for local residents in tourism enterprises.

Stakeholders involved
The stakeholder criterion in this review is inclusive of business, government, residents, and tourists.
This criterion refers to the inclusion of one or more stakeholder groups in the STI setting, either
being consulted in the development of the indicators or as respondents to the survey instruments
used in the studies. It is noteworthy that tourists were considered stakeholders in only 19% (18
out of 97) papers reviewed here. Where tourists have been considered, researchers investigate
such concerns as attitudes toward water usage (Page et al., 2014), perspectives of sustainability
(Cottrell et al., 2004), perceptions of environmental conditions and potential indicator standards
(Moore & Polley, 2007), and measurements of satisfaction (Stumpf et al., 2018). This is a significant
finding given the degree of attention afforded to other stakeholder groups. For instance, residents
were included in 46% (45 out of 97) of studies, business in 40% (39 out of 97), and government in
31% (30 out of 97). Residents were the most frequently interviewed and consulted of the four
stakeholder groups regarding the survey instruments used in the studies reviewed here. Of the 18
subjective indicator papers, only one paper used tourists as the only stakeholder group (Page
et al., 2014), whereas the other 17 papers had local residents as survey respondents.

Subjective versus objective indicators

Approximately 81% (79 out of 97) of the papers described the use of objective indicators in their
research, with the remaining 19% examining subjective indicators. No paper used both

Table 5. Papers with governance-related indicators.
Author(s) & year of
publication
Agyeiwaah et al. (2017)
Andereck et al. (2007)
Boley et al. (2014)
Choi and Sirakaya (2005)
Choi and Sirakaya (2006)
Cottrell et al. (2013)
Herrera-Ulloa et al. (2003)
Huayhuaca et al. (2010)
Ko (2005)
(Kunasekaran et al., 2017)
Lankford and Howard (1994)
€
Onder et al. (2017)
Ribeiro et al. (2018)
Roberts and Tribe (2008)
Scaccia and De Urioste-
Stone (2016)
Sirakaya-Turk et al. (2008)
Torres-Delgado and
Palomeque (2014)
Tudorache et al. (2017)
Categories of indicators with governance elements
Access to decision-making
and information
Full participation by
community in tourism
decision making
Residents have access to
decision making
Full participation by
community in tourism
decision making
Full participation by
community in tourism
decision making.
Residents have access to
decision making. Sharing
of information with
residents by policy and
decision-makers.
Full participation by
community in tourism
decision making
Local community
participation and given
opportunity in tourism
decision making
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
Ability to influence tourism
development through
democratic participation
Residents influence tourism
development
Residents influence tourism
development
Residents influence tourism
development
Two-way communication
between residents and
local government.
Representation of major &
minor groups in National
Sustainable
Development Council.
Residents influence tourism
development
Consultations with residents
before any tourism
infrastructure
is developed
Residents ability to influence
tourism development
Full participation by
community members in
tourism decision making.
Two-way communication
between residents and
local government.
Residents influence tourism
development
Local communities
empowered to lead and
invest in tourism
development.
Residents satisfied with their
involvement and
influence in development
of tourism
13
Equal employment
opportunities were given to
local residents in tourism
enterprises
Employment from within
the local community in
tourism enterprises.
Equal opportunities to local
residents to establish
tourism enterprises
Tourism facilities and
services are developed in
co-operation with
local businesses.
Tourism facilities and
services developed in
cooperation with local
businesses. Equal
opportunities for local
residents to establish
tourism enterprises.
Tourism contributes to local
community needs
Local residents are
recognized and valued as
an equal partner.
Residents have access to
funds and training
opportunities to
develop tourism
Equal opportunities for local
residents to establish
tourism enterprises
Equal opportunities for local
residents to establish
tourism enterprises
Real estate owned by
local residents
(continued)
14 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Table 5. Continued.
Categories of indicators with governance elements
Equal employment
Ability to influence tourism opportunities were given to
Author(s) & year of Access to decision-making development through local residents in tourism
publication and information democratic participation enterprises
Yu et al. (2011) Tourism decisions must be Full participation by local
made by all members of community in tourism
the community development.

subjective and objective indicators. The majority of subjective indicators described in these
papers were used to gain insights into residents’ perceptions, to measure their attitudes, or as
part of the development of a residents’ attitude scale.

Discussion
This systematic scoping review of the STI research literature has focused on: (a) the relevance of
the STIs to SDGs, (b) governance, (c) stakeholder involvement, and (d) subjective and objective
indicators. Kristjansdo
ttir et al. (2018), in a systematic review of integrated sustainability indica-
tors for tourism, stated that it was “essential to unite the visions of integrated SDGs with the
vision of sustainable tourism” (p. 586). The UNWTO and UNDP (2017) recognise the lack of suit-
able metrics and indicators for tourism and the SDGs and suggest that most existing indicators
operate at a national level, with some SDGs targets having no indicators at all. Accordingly,
greater effort should be made to evaluate the appropriateness of the indicators identified in pre-
vious studies as SDG indicators. This paper undertook to critically gauge the relevance of the
existing STI literature to the SDGs, exploring ways in which these indicators might be used to
benchmark progress at different scales.
This paper has also highlighted how the framing of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs reflect a com-
mon but differentiated governance approach (Biermann et al., 2017; Meuleman, 2019; Meuleman
& Niestroy, 2015). This means that implementation of the SDGs means that both common and
differentiated metrics will need to be devised and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms estab-
lished to give effect to the SDGs at different scales in different locations (Kanie & Biermann,
2017; Lu et al., 2015; Meuleman, 2019;). In order to effectively develop and implement sustain-
ability metrics for tourism, new opportunities may need to be provided at destinations for actors
who might previously have been excluded from the policy process (Bramwell, 2010). Effective
governance and the implementation of sustainable tourism also usually entails relevant institu-
tions and evidence-based decision-making rules informed by clear indicators. Tourism indicators
related to the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development have
been studied extensively, as indicated by the prevalence of these themes in the articles reviewed
here. Nonetheless, the dimension of governance has received surprisingly little attention given
the importance often attached to participatory approaches in tourism planning (Hall, 2008).
Tourists were found to be the least engaged stakeholder group in the reviewed papers, while
government, local businesses, and residents were acknowledged as key stakeholders in numer-
ous STI studies. Given the attention that the business community has received in these studies it
is clear that the business sector is widely regarded as a critical stakeholder in STI development
(UNWTO & UNDP, 2017). However, this needs to be understood as being more than just larger
corporations, as significant as they are, to also recognize that small business owners are a vital
part of the host community, along with local residents and government officials (Byrd, 2007).
The results of this study also suggest a lack of research on subjective indicators, which may
be extremely important with respect to governance (Meuleman, 2019). Most studies reviewed
here have described the use of objective indicators, employing instruments or evaluation tools
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 15

to measure tourism revenue, employment rates, energy efficiency, the usage and availability of
clean potable water, biodiversity conservation, or crime rates. Subjective indicators, on the other
hand, are based on personal feelings and attitudes and are usually qualitative in nature. As men-
tioned earlier, subjective indicators refer to stakeholder attitudes, experiences, perceptions, and
satisfaction levels and these indicators are very context-based. Therefore, despite of their import-
ance, ongoing data collection and evaluation of these indicators is more difficult and expensive
compared to objective indicators. In addition, objective indicators may be regarded as more
rigorous (Mearns, 2012).

Conclusion
This systematic scoping review identified significant gaps in indicator development, which might
potentially be used to inform future indicator research. Many of the SDGs are interrelated,
wherein one goal can support and be a means to an end to achieve another. As Timmermans
(2019) stated, “The SDGs are indivisible and their implementation requires coordination, integra-
tion and ultimately effective and coherent policies and institutional design”. This review can
therefore provide a platform to potentially help policy-makers, business and researchers better
understand how tourism indicators can be used to address the SDGs at various scales within a
common but differentiated approach.
Researchers also need to address the relationships between different modes of governance
and indicator development as well as in the monitoring and evaluation process. Deliberative
planning, access to decision making and the ability of affected parties to influence and shape
policy instruments related to tourism are critical for ensuring the long-term sustainability of tour-
ism development. Importantly, effective governance also enables the implementation of the
other three dimensions of sustainable tourism: economic development, social inclusion, and
environmental protection.
Tourists have been included as stakeholders in only a limited number of articles. Nevertheless,
tourists should be regarded as important stakeholders in sustainable tourism studies because
their experience and feedback provides valuable input with which to improve visitor behavior
and sustainable tourism decision making. Ultimately, tourists pay for the destination experience.
Future research, therefore, should develop tourist related STIs as well as examine the complimen-
tary nature of objective and subjective indicators and their integration in monitoring and evalu-
ation systems.
On a final note, there is a paucity of STI studies in developing countries, arguably the ones at
which the SDGs are primarily aimed. Other than Taiwan, few STI studies have been undertaken
in Asia, South America, or Africa. This may partly be a result of the nature of the data base used
and the dominance of English language journals but, regardless, this gap in the research litera-
ture raises a number of significant questions with respect not only to tourism indicator develop-
ment and the SDGs, but also the wider relevance of indicators and their applicability outside of
developed countries.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the Ministry of Education, Malaysia to fund this paper under
the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), 2019 (Grant no. FRGS/1/2019/WAB12/TAYLOR/02/1) that makes
this paper possible.
16 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Notes on contributors
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh is an Associate Professor the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Events of Taylor’s
University. His research interest areas contain sustainable tourism, community participation, and residents’ percep-
tions toward tourism development. He has published widely in top tier tourism journals. Mostafa serves as a mem-
ber of editorial board of several reputed international journals.

Sundari Ramakrishna is a Senior Lecturer at Taylors’ University, Malaysia, with 21 years of working in conservation
of natural resources in a non-governmental organization setting. Her particular interest is applying sustainability
and green economy concepts in natural resource management with emphasis on remote communities and
Indigenous Peoples. She has carried out various community based projects in Malaysia funded by the development
aid agencies and international foundations such as UNDP, DANIDA, OxfamNovib, Toyota Foundation and Rufford
Foundation. She has several publications, editors of three books and numerous conference proceedings.

C. Michael Hall is a Professor of Marketing at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Docent, Department of
Geography, University of Oulu, Finland; and a Visiting Professor in the School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus
University, Kalmar, Sweden. He has published widely on sustainability, regional development, tourism, food and
wine, and global environmental change.

Kourosh (Korey) Esfandiar is a PhD candidate in the School of Business and Law at Edith Cowan University,
Australia. Korey’s primary research interests are entrepreneurship, social marketing and sustainability in the hospi-
tality, recreation and tourism context. His studies for the PhD degree focus on social psychological investigations
of people’s pro-environmental binning behaviour during nature-based tourism and recreation activities in a
national park context.

Siamak Seyfi is a Lecturer in the Department of Geography within the EIREST (Interdisciplinary Research Group for
Tourism Studies) at the University of Pantheon-Sorbonne, France. Using primarily qualitative and mixed methods
his research interests are sustainable tourism, cultural tourism, political ecology, power and the environment.

ORCID
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7138-0280
C. Michael Hall https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-4587
Kourosh Esfandiar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6242-2899
Siamak Seyfi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2427-7958

References
Agyeiwaah, E., McKercher, B., & Suntikul, W. (2017). Identifying core indicators of sustainable tourism: A path for-
ward? Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.07.005
Amnesty International. (2013, September 23). UN Millennium Development Goals: Human rights must not be margi-
nalized in post-2015 agenda. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/09/un- millennium-development-
goals-human-rights-must-not-be-marginaized-post-agenda/.
Amore, A., & Hall, C. M. (2016). From governance to meta-governance in tourism? Re-incorporating politics, interests
and values in the analysis of tourism governance. Tourism Recreation Research, 41(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02508281.2016.1151162
Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Vogt, C. A., & Knopf, R. C. (2007). A cross-cultural analysis of tourism and quality of
life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost612.0
Bernstein, S., Gupta, J., Andresen, S., Haas, P. M., Kanie, N., Kok, M., Levy, M. A., & Stevens, C. (2014). Coherent gov-
ernance, the UN and the SDGs. Post-2015/UNU-IAS Policy Brief, 4. UN University Institute for the Advanced
Study of Sustainability.
Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010
Blackstock, K. L., White, V., McCrum, G., Scott, A., & Hunter, C. (2008). Measuring responsibility: An appraisal of a
Scottish national park’s sustainable tourism indicators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 276–297. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669580802154090
Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Gonzalez, M. (2015). A European sustainable tourism labels proposal using a
composite indicator. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.05.
001
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 17

Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., Gonzalez, M., & Caballero, R. (2016). Sustainable tourism composite indicators: A
dynamic evaluation to manage changes in sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10), 1403–1424.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1122014
Bojanic, D. (2011). Using a tourism importance-performance typology to investigate environmental sustainability on
a global level. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(8), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.584624
Boley, B. B., McGehee, N., Perdue, R., & Long, P. (2014). Empowerment and resident attitudes toward tourism:
Strengthening the theoretical foundation through a Weberian lens. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 33–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.08.005
Bramwell, B. (2010). Participative planning and governance for sustainable tourism. Tourism Recreation Research,
35(3), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2010.11081640
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2011). Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.580586
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainability reporting and certification in tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 37(1), 85–90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2012.11081692
Bull, B., & McNeill, D. (2019). From market multilateralism to governance by goal setting: SDGs and the changing
role of partnerships in a new global order. Business and Politics, 21(4), 464–486. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.
9
Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14616689908721291
Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: Applying stakeholder theory to
sustainable tourism development. Tourism Review, 62(2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/16605370780000309
Cernat, L., & Gourdon, J. (2012). Paths to success: Benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourism. Tourism
Management, 33(5), 1044–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.007
Cervantes, M., & Hong, S. J. (2018). STI policies for delivering on the sustainable development goals. In OECD, sci-
ence, technology and innovation outlook 2018: Adapting to technological and societal disruption (pp. 95–119).
OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-9-en.
Choi, H. S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sus-
tainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287505274651
Choi, H. S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism
Management, 27(6), 1274–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.018
Coles, T., Dinan, C., & Warren, N. (2016). Energy practices among small-and medium-sized tourism enterprises: A
case of misdirected effort? Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.
028
Cottrell, S., van der Duim, R., Ankersmid, P., & Kelder, L. (2004). Measuring the sustainability of tourism in Manuel
Antonio/Quepos and Texel: A tourist perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(5), 409–431. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09669580408667247
Cottrell, S. P., Vaske, J., & Roemer, J. (2013). Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The case of Frankenwald
Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2013.05.005
Cracolici, M. F., Cuffaro, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). Sustainable tourist development in Italian holiday destinations.
International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2008.
020345
Esfandiar, K., Dowling, R., Pearce, J., & Goh, E. (2020). Personal norms and the adoption of pro-environmental bin-
ning behaviour in national parks: An integrated structural model approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(1),
10–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1663203
European Commission. (2016). The European Tourism Indicator System. ETIS toolkit for sustainable destination man-
agement. Luxembourg: European Union.
Fodness, D. (2017). The problematic nature of sustainable tourism: Some implications for planners and managers.
Current Issues in Tourism, 20(16), 1671–1683. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1209162
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: Shifts in
purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender & Development, 24(1), 43–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2016.1145895
Go€ssling, S., Peeters, P., Hall, C. M., Ceron, J. P., Dubois, G., Lehmann, L. V., & Scott, D. (2012). Tourism and water
use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tourism Management, 33(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tourman.2011.03.015
Go€ssling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Global trends in length of stay: Implications for destination management
and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(12), 2087–2101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.
1529771
18 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Go€ssling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodolo-
gies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gunn, C. A. (1994). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases. Taylor & Francis.
Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Pearson.
Hall, C. M. (2009). Archetypal approaches to implementation and their implications for tourism policy. Tourism
Recreation Research, 34(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2009.11081599
Hall, C. M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 19(4–5), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.570346
Hall, C. M. (2014). Tourism and social marketing. Routledge.
Hall, C. M. (2015). On the mobility of tourism mobilities. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13683500.2014.971719
Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of
sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), 1044–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.
1560456
Hall, C. M., Gossling, S., & Scott, D. (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. Routledge.
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, scopus and the web of science: A longitudinal and cross-dis-
ciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Herrera-Ulloa, A.  F., Charles, A. T., Lluch-Cota, S., Herman, H., Hernandez-Vaquez, N., & Ortega-Rubio, A. (2003). A
regional-scale sustainable development index: The case of Baja California Sur, Mexico. International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500309470111
Horan, D. (2019). A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability, 11(18), 4947. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su11184947
Huayhuaca, C., Cottrell, S., Raadik, J., & Gradl, S. (2010). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism development:
Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 3(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJTP.2010.034207
Huh, C., & Vogt, C. A. (2008). Changes in residents’ attitudes toward tourism over time: A cohort analytical
approach. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507308327
Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tourism
Management, 28(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.016
International Council for Science and International Social Science Council. (2015). Review of targets for the sustain-
able development goals: The science perspective. International Council for Science and International Social Science
Council. http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/review-of-targets-for-the-sustainable- develop-
ment-goals-the-science-perspective-2015/SDG-Report.pdf.
Jenkins, J. M., Hall, C. M., & Mkono, M. (2014). Tourism and public policy: Contemporary debates and future direc-
tions. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to tourism (pp. 542–555).
Wiley-Blackwell.
Jessop, B. (2011). Metagovernance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), Handbook of governance (pp. 106–123). SAGE.
Jitmaneeroj, B. (2016). Reform priorities for corporate sustainability. Management Decision, 54(6), 1497–1521. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2015-0505
Kanie, N., Betsill, M. M., Zondervan, R., Biermann, F., & Young, O. R. (2012). A charter moment: Restructuring govern-
ance for sustainability. Public Administration and Development, 32(3), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1625
Kanie, N., & Biermann, F. (Eds.). (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable development goals as governance innov-
ation. MIT Press.
Ko, T. G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: A conceptual approach. Tourism
Management, 26(3), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.12.003
Koens, K., & Thomas, R. (2015). Is small beautiful? Understanding the contribution of small businesses in township
tourism to economic development. Development Southern Africa, 32(3), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0376835X.2015.1010715
Kristjansdo 
ttir, K. R., Olafsdottir, R., & Ragnarsdo
ttir, K. V. (2018). Reviewing integrated sustainability indicators for
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1364741
Kunasekaran, P., Gill, S., Ramachandran, S., Shuib, A., Baum, T., & Afandi, S. H. M. (2017). Measuring sustainable indi-
genous tourism indicators: A case of Mah Meri ethnic group in Carey Island. Sustainability, 9(7), 1256. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su9071256
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G. (2005). Assessing the sustainability performances of industries.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.10.007
Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a tourism impact attitude scale. Annals of Tourism Research,
21(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90008-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90008-6
Lee, T. H., & Hsieh, H.-P. (2016). Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s wetland. Ecological
Indicators, 67, 779–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.023
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 19

Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F. J., Gonzalez, M., & Caballero, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools
in cultural destinations. Ecological Indicators, 18, 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.014
Lu, Y., Nakicenovic, N., Visbeck, M., & Stevance, A. (2015). Five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Nature, 520(7548), 432–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/520432a
Lupoli, C. A., Morse, W. C., Bailey, C., & Schelhas, J. (2015). Indicator development methodology for volunteer tour-
ism in host communities: Creating a low-cost, locally applicable, rapid assessment tool. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 23(5), 726–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1008498
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts. Longman.
Mearns, K. F. (2012). Lessons from the application of sustainability indicators to community-based ecotourism ven-
tures in Southern Africa. African Journal of Business Management, 6(26), 7851–7860. https://doi.org/10.5897/
ajbm11.2581
Meuleman, L. (2019). Metagovernance for sustainability: A framework for implementing the sustainable development
goals. Routledge.
Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common but differentiated governance: A metagovernance approach to make
the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7(9), 12295–12321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912295
Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism
researchers. Tourism Management, 22(4), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00067-4 https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00067-4
Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition: The challenge of developing and
using indicators. CABI Publishing.
Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015). All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews,
realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis.
Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Moore, S. A., & Polley, A. (2007). Defining indicators and standards for tourism impacts in protected areas: Cape
Range National Park, Australia. Environmental Management, 39(3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-
0191-5
Mundle, L., Beisheim, M., & Berger, L. (2017). How private meta-governance helps standard-setting partnerships
deliver. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(5), 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-
07-2016-0045
Mutisya, E., & Yarime, M. (2014). Moving towards urban sustainability in Kenya: A framework for integration of
environmental, economic, social and governance dimensions. Sustainability Science, 9(2), 205–215. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-013-0223-7
Nanda, V. P. (2016). The journey from the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals.
Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 44, 389–412.
Niavis, S., Papatheochari, T., Psycharis, Y., Rodriguez, J., Font, X., & Martinez Codina, A. (2019). Conceptualising tour-
ism sustainability and operationalising its assessment: Evidence from a Mediterranean community of projects.
Sustainability, 11(15), 4042. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154042
O’Mahony, C., Ferreira, M., Fernandez-Palacios, Y., Cummins, V., & Haroun, R. (2009). Data availability and accessibil-
ity for sustainable tourism: An assessment involving different European coastal tourism destinations. Journal of
Coastal Research, SI, 56, 1135–1139.
€
Onder, €ber, K., & Zekan, B. (2017). Towards a sustainable urban tourism development in Europe: The role of
I., Wo
benchmarking and tourism management information systems - A partial model of destination competitiveness.
Tourism Economics, 23(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816616656247
Page, S. J., Essex, S., & Causevic, S. (2014). Tourist attitudes towards water use in the developing world: A compara-
tive analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.004
Phi, G. T., Whitford, M., & Reid, S. (2018). What’s in the black box? Evaluating anti-poverty tourism interventions uti-
lizing theory of change. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(17), 1930–1945. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.
1232703
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539
Qureshi, M. I., Hassan, M. A., Hishan, S., Rasli, A., & Zaman, K. (2017). Dynamic linkages between sustainable tourism,
energy, health and wealth: Evidence from top 80 international tourist destination cities in 37 countries. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 158, 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.001
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Jaafar, M. (2017). Sustainable tourism development and residents’ perceptions in World
Heritage Site destinations. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10941665.2016.1175491
Ribeiro, M. A., Pinto, P., Silva, J. A., & Woosnam, K. M. (2018). Examining the predictive validity of SUS-TAS with
maximum parsimony in developing island countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(3), 379–398. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1355918
20 S. M. RASOOLIMANESH ET AL.

Richins, H. (2009). Environmental, cultural, economic and socio-community sustainability: A framework for sustain-
able tourism in resort destinations. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10668-008-9143-6
Roberts, S., & Tribe, J. (2008). Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises - An exploratory perspective.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost579.0
Rutty, M., Go €ssling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2015). The global effects and impacts of tourism. In C. M. Hall, S.
Go€ssling, & D. Scott (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability (pp. 36–62). Routledge.
Saarinen, J. (2015). Conflicting limits to growth in sustainable tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(10), 903–907.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.972344
Scaccia, M., & De Urioste-Stone, S. (2016). Resident perceptions of sustainable tourism in Maine. International
Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 11(3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V11-N3-375-384
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Go€ssling, S. (2016). A report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and its implications for
tourism: Why we will always have Paris. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(7), 933–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2016.1187623
Seyfi, S., & Hall, C. M. (2019). Sanctions and tourism: Effects, complexities and research. Tourism Geographies, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1663911
Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. J. (2014). Tourism and development: Concepts and issues (2nd ed.). Channel View
Publications.
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T. B., & Choi, H.-S. (2001). Developing indicators for destination sustainability. In D. Weaver (Ed.),
The encyclopedia of ecotourism (pp. 411–432). CAB International.
Sirakaya-Turk, E., Ekinci, Y., & Kaya, G. (2008). An examination of the validity of SUS-TAS in cross-cultures. Journal of
Travel Research, 46(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507308328
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., &
O’Connell, D. (2017). Integration: The key to implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability
Science, 12(6), 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3
Stoddard, J. E., Pollard, C. E., & Evans, M. R. (2012). The triple bottom line: A framework for sustainable tourism
development. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 13(3), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15256480.2012.698173
Stuart, E., & Woodroffe, J. (2016). Leaving no-one behind: Can the sustainable development goals succeed where
the millennium development goals lacked? Gender & Development, 24(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13552074.2016.1142206
Stumpf, P., Vojtko, V., & Valtrova, B. (2018). Satisfaction of European tourists - Benchmarking of EU countries. Global
Business Finance Review, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2018.23.1.1
Tanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., & Therrien, M. (2013). Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection criteria for policy
implementation and scientific recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(6), 862–879. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09669582.2012.742531
Timmermans, F. (2019). Foreword. In L. Meuleman (Ed.), Metagovernance for sustainability: A framework for imple-
menting the sustainable development goals. Routledge.
Torres-Delgado, A., & Palomeque, F. L. (2014). Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Annals of
Tourism Research, 49, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.09.003
Tudorache, D., Simon, T., Frenī, C., & Musteaţa-Pavel, M. (2017). Difficulties and challenges in applying the European
Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) for sustainable tourist destinations: The case of Braşov County in the Romanian
Carpathians. Sustainability, 9(10), 1879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101879
Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on a small island: Development and use of sustainable
tourism development indicators in Samoa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09669580208667174
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted
by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. United Nations A/RES/70/1. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.
org/content/documents/21252030Agenda for Sustainable Development web.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2014). Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable
Development Goals, U.N. Doe. A/68/970. United Nations.
United Nations Security-General. (2014). Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable devel-
opment agenda, entitled the road to dignity by 2030: Endingpoverty, transforming all lives and protecting the
planet, U.N. Doc. A/69/700. United Nations.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2004). Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations: A
guidebook. UNWTO.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2015). Tourism and the sustainable development goals. UNWTO.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2015). International tourist arrivals 2019. World Tourism Barometer.
United Nations World Tourism Organization, 18(1), 3.
United Nations World Tourism Organization & United Nations Development Programme. (2017). Tourism and the
Sustainable Development Goals – Journey to 2030. UNWTO.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 21

United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2020). UNWTO World Tourism Barometer (English version). UNWTO.
Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-stakeholder involvement
management framework. Tourism Management, 36, 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.008

Welling, J. T., Arnason,  ır, R. (2015). Glacier tourism: A scoping review. Tourism Geographies, 17(5),
Þ., & Olafsdott
635–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1084529
World Travel and Tourism Council. (2018). Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2018 Italy. WTTC. https://www.wttc.
org/economic-impact/country-analysis/country-reports/
World Travel Organisation. (1996). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guide to the development and
use of indicators of sustainable tourism. WTO.
World Travel Organisation. (1998). Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable Tourism. WTO.
Yiu, L. S., & Saner, R. (2014). Sustainable Development Goals and Millennium Development Goals: An analysis of the
shaping and negotiation process. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 36(2), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.
1080/23276665.2014.911487
Yu, C. P., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism: A reex-
amination of the sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0047287509353189
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. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.559200