The Faculty of Humanities

Sustainable Tourism Development

Front page for examination assignment

Examination period Winter 2020/2021

Teacher: Janne Liburd

Title of assignment: Stakeholder collaboration and local community implication in the case of
Venice’s sustainable tourism development

Min./Max. number of characters: Number of characters in assignment[1]:

14,400-19,200 (Max. 6-8 standard pages per student 57,230 characters
(excl. appendices).
(1 norm page = 2,400 characters incl. blanc spaces)

Please notice that in case your assignment does not meet the minimum/maximum requirements stipulated in the curriculum your a ssignment
will be dismissed and you will have used up one examination attempt.

(Please mark) Yes, my assignment may in anonymized form be published on BlackBoard for future
X students in this course

Solemn declaration

I hereby declare that I have drawn up the assignment single-handed and independently. All quotes are marked as
such and duly referenced. The full assignment or parts thereof have not been handed in as full or partial fulfilment
of examination requirements in any other courses.
Read more here: http://www.sdu.dk/en/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Eksamen.aspx

Handed in by (indicate Birthdate and name):

Name: Erik Dallakyan Birthdate: 12-12-1996

Name: Giulia Barbero Birthdate: 06-05-1997

Name: Theodora-Ioana Dragomir Birthdate: 23-01-1998

[1]
Characters are counted from the first character in the introduction until and including the last character in the conclusion. Footnotes are included. Charts are
counted with theirs characters. The following is excluded from the total count: abstract, table of contents, bibliography, list of references, appendix. For more
information, see the examination regulations of the course in the curriculum.
Venice:

expectations VS reality

By Erik Dallakyan

Giulia Barbero

Theodora Dragomir
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. METHODOLOGY 3
Paradigm 3
Ontology 3
Epistemology 4
Methodology 4
Participatory Inquiry 5

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 5
Mass tourism 6
UNESCO World Heritage Sites 7
Sustainability and Sustainable Tourism Development 8

4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9
The Collaboration Theory 9
The Stakeholder Theory 10
Community Involvement Theory 12

5. FINDINGS 15
Sustainability and Venice 15
Stakeholders in Venice 17
UNESCO 19
Local communities and Venice’s STD 20
Case studies on collaboration with local communities 24

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 27

Limitations and recommendations 30

7. REFERENCES 32

This assignment is the result of a collaborative work and all the group members equally
contributed to its completion.
 1. INTRODUCTION

“At mass tourist destinations, tourism can become more but never fully sustainable”

(Sörensson, 2010, p. 330). This quotation suggests that while it is possible to move towards a

more sustainable tourism development (STD) pathway in destinations where there is mass

tourism, it also recognizes that sustainability is not something to “achieve”. Sörensson suggests

that in mass tourist destinations all aspects of sustainability (economic, cultural, and

environmental) are not addressed equally. While it is common for researchers to use the term

“mass tourism” without defining it at all (Vainikka, 2013) which makes it difficult to assess

the phenomenon and label certain destinations with that term, it is important to understand how

sustainable tourism development can be better addressed in these destinations. Liburd (2018)

draws attention to the importance of focusing on the significance of stakeholder collaboration

in the concept of sustainability. But do all stakeholders have equal voices in the collaboration

process? Are they collaborating with each other or the stakeholders in power are the ones

making decisions for others? Are local communities part of the collaboration? These questions

served as motivational factors for the authors of this research to further investigate the

involvement of stakeholders in sustainable tourism development of Venice.

“Venice and its lagoon” has been a UNESCO world heritage site since 1987 (UNESCO,

n.d.). The period from late 1980s to present marks the five-fold increase in annual tourist

arrivals (Bertocchi et al., 2020). The increase was impactful for environmental and cultural

pillars according to Hardy (2019). Given the prominent role of stakeholders in STD, it is

necessary to understand whether all stakeholders are involved in Venice’s STD. As the paper

will illustrate, there have been plentiful campaigns in Venice for STD, however most of them

did not include the local communities in the process.

1
 Researchers have investigated the phenomenon of mass tourism and potential avenues

for STD in mass tourist destinations, however they focused on governments/policy makers as

contributors to STD (Ioannides, 2020). Some researchers came up with tools for STD, not even

mentioning a crucial element of STD – collaboration between stakeholders (Chang et al., 2020;

Bhuiyan et al., 2020).

As research in stakeholders collaboration for STD is missing the aspect of including all

stakeholders in the process, this paper will aim to address the issue by focusing on the local

communities of Venice, since they are the ones having no power and being left out. Based on

the lack of tourism research on local communities’ involvement in STD, the research question

for this paper will be the following:

How could local communities be involved in Venice’s sustainable tourism development

process?

The research was conducted using the guidelines of the critical theory paradigm to raise

awareness of the issue of Venice’s local communities not having equal voice as other

stakeholders in power. Therefore, the research aims to change the existing status quo, that is –

those in power (governments, local authorities) are the ones deciding how other stakeholders

should collaborate for STD.

The paper starts with a methodology section (2) explaining the authors’ ontological and

epistemological stance as well as introducing to the methods used. Section 3 is a literature

review, where the definitions of mass tourism and UNESCO world heritage sites are critically

addressed. STD is reviewed too. Theoretical framework (4) discusses the theories on

collaboration, stakeholders and local community involvement which will help to discuss the

findings. Section 5 represents findings regarding Venice and STD, STD campaigns in Venice,

and two case studies on the involvement of local communities in STD. The last section

2
concludes the paper, addresses the research question and involves recommendations for further

research based on limitations.

2. METHODOLOGY

Paradigm

Liburd (2018) points out the importance of carefully choosing the correct paradigm

when considering the research needs for sustainable tourism development. According to the

study, in papers, authors need to critically assess the impacts the paper will have and the

outcomes it will provoke.

This paper is informed by the paradigm of critical theory, to raise consciousness and

awareness of the readers and to rally them to a common point of view through a dialogic

approach (Guba, 1990). For the purpose of bringing the readers to a new understanding, the

authors will be critical throughout the research by calling the current ideology into question for

social justice. (Crotty, 1998). This argument is further approved by Jennings (2015), who states

that critical theory should lead to transformational change and alter the social circumstances.

The critical theory research applied to tourism includes studies of the relationship between

those in power (here the local authorities, governments), and those with no or less power- the

disempowered stakeholders (here local communities, residents and local businesses,

particularly in regards to tourism planning and development) (Jennings, 2010).

Ontology

According to Jennings (2010), the critical theory’s ontology acknowledges that socio-

historical realities exist and are reflective of power relations. It is presumed that reality has

3
been shaped by numerous factors involving cultural, political, ethnic gender and religious ones

which are interconnected with each other and create a social system (Rehman and Alharthi,

2016). In this paper, the authors recognise that the collaboration between stakeholders is built

on power relations, leaving the oppressed group (local communities) out of the collaboration

process. The critical inquirer does not perceive all realities as equal, since its point of view

focuses on a minority or oppressed group in order to advocate their cause. (Jennings, 2010).

Epistemology

Epistemologically, critical theory is subjective since it is suggested that no object can

be researched without being influenced by the researcher (Rehman and Alharthi, 2016).

Typically, in critical theory, researchers acknowledge their values influence research processes

(Jennings, 2018), relating to social justice, meaning that they might have an inter-subjective or

even subjective approach to the research. Therefore, the epistemology of the research is

intersubjective, as it is a result of sign-mediated interexperiential exchanges that occur between

the authors (Mascolo, 2016; Wertsch, 1998). The authors of this study recognize that their

backgrounds have affected the way the research was conducted and the issues that were voiced.

Methodology

In general, a qualitative research methodology is applied (Jennings, 2018). According

to Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) this paradigm assumes a methodology that is dialogic. Rehmen

and Alharthi (2016) gave more insights explaining that it requires the subjects to be engaged

in dialogue by the investigator aiming to alter their perspectives on social systems. To

effectively address the research question, the paper will utilise qualitative data. Specifically,

secondary research, or desk research methods (reviewing journal articles from online sources

4
and literature, as well as official websites) will be applied for this paper to collect empirical

materials.

Participatory Inquiry

In an attempt to approach STD as an open-ended process where knowing, doing, making

and relating are interwoven in a participatory environment (Heape and Liburd, 2018), the

authors of this paper adhered to the Participatory Inquiry method. It was already questioned in

the Introduction of this paper whether all the stakeholders have equal voices in the collaboration

process. As a result of the interaction and relationship between stakeholders new perspectives

related to STD can emerge, that otherwise might be overlooked (Heape and Liburd, 2018).

This method enables the researchers to co-generate ideas, co-learn and critically reflect

on particular ideas and understandings brought about through the process of collaborative work

(Heape and Liburd, 2018). The authors of this study challenged themselves to engage in a task

that is “wicked” in a sense that multiple resolutions can apply (Heape and Liburd, 2018).

Although the lack of primary research hinders from gaining insights from the stakeholders, it

was attempted to obtain as much literature and perspectives as time and resource constraints

allowed to uncover “wicked tasks” and critically discuss the identified issues.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to address the definitions of critical elements in the

research.

5
Mass tourism

Notwithstanding the immense importance that mass tourism has, the concept does not

appear in contemporary social sciences oftentimes (Obrador, et al., 2009). Considering that

mass tourism in Venice has driven out locals in recent years (BBC, 2020), it is important to

understand how the scholars conceptualized and discussed the notion of mass tourism.

According to Vainikka (2013, p. 271) “mass tourism is a distinct form of tourism that can be

separated from the others based on its linkage to mass production, mass consumption and mass

tourist destinations'', although the author does not specify what the other types of tourism are.

Mass tourism is included in plenty of tourism-related articles as a phenomenon

occurring in specific destinations; however, it is not always defined per se (Dodds and Butler,

2009; Weaver, 2014; Sörensson, 2010). For example, Dodds and Butler (2009) in their work

discuss the barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass tourism destinations,

without conceptualizing/explaining mass tourism.

Another major limitation regarding the literature about mass tourism is that the number

of tourists relative to a concrete destination to constitute mass tourism has not been specified

before. The authors instead focus on the notion of the mass of people moving together (Sezgin

and Yolal, 2012; Vainikka 2013; Sayeda, 2017), leaving a gap in the literature about mass

tourism regarding how to measure it. Sezgin and Yolal (2012), and Sayeda (2017) share the

idea that mass tourism is about a group of people reaching holiday facilities together and having

accommodations together. Sezgin and Yolal (2012) also add that these tours are usually under

the organization of tourism professionals.

Some authors also explicitly showcase negative connotations regarding mass tourism

(Shaw, et al., 2000; Sörensson, 2011). Sörensson (2011) states that mass tourism has been, and

6
still is a “bad” type of tourism and must be further developed to become more sustainable. This

paper does not aim to discuss what “type” of tourism mass tourism is. However, it attempts to

investigate STD pathways in a mass tourist destination - Venice.

UNESCO World Heritage Sites

Forasmuch as Venice and its lagoon is a UNESCO world heritage site, and therefore

UNESCO is one of the stakeholders with power, it was chosen to review UNESCO world

heritage sites too.

In 1972, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) adopted the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and

Natural Heritage” (UNESCO, n.d.) setting sights on ensuring “the identification, protection,

conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of cultural and natural

heritage of outstanding universal value” (Leask, 2006, p. 7). Moreover, according to UNESCO:

“Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future

generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and

inspiration.” (UNESCO, n.d.)

As the next subsection will manifest, this resonates well with sustainable tourism

development’s definition in terms of recognizing the heritage as part of both the present and

future. Among the motivational factors by States Parties to nominate their sites for inscription,

Leask (2006) mentions achieving international recognition and perceived economic growth

encouraged by tourism activity. But as the next subsection will show, this is only one pillar of

sustainability. And although UNESCO’s mission states the “encouragement of the participation

of local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage” (UNESCO, n.d.),

7
it is yet to be analysed whether the local population is indeed taking part in these processes for

STD.

Sustainability and Sustainable Tourism Development

Sustainability is composed of three pillars, according to Basiago (1999); Pope et al.

(2004); Gibson (2006); Waas et al. (2011); Moldan et al. (2012); Schoolman et al. (2012);

Boyer et al. (2016). Sometimes they are even referred to as ‘dimensions’, ‘components’, ‘stool

legs’, ‘aspects’, ‘perspectives’. The three pillars are the economical, the environmental and the

social elements. By analyzing these elements, one can discuss whether a business, a practice

or a city can be defined as “sustainable”.

Fig. 1: Three pillars of sustainability (source: Thwink.org)

Sustainability is seen as a bridge of “complex interactions” between the tourism

industry, tourists, the environment and the host communities so that the long-term capacity and

quality of both natural and human resources can be maintained (Bramwell and Lane, 1993).

The World Tourism Organisation (WTO, 2001) defines sustainable tourism

development as meeting the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and

enhancing opportunities for the future. According to Heape and Liburd (2018) STD is to be

considered as an “open ended process of inquiry” as opposed to achieving specific outcomes.

8
With the help of these definitions, the paper will attempt to analyse how the collaboration

between all stakeholders could lead to a more sustainable tourism development path in Venice.

The 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals aim to promote prosperity and protect

the planet (UN, 2016). They are relevant for sustainable tourism development, as three of the

17 goals are directly linked to tourism (Liburd, 2018), however tourism contributes indirectly

to many other aspects that will later be presented in the findings section. “The new Goals are

unique in that they call for action by all countries, poor, rich and middle-income to promote

prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognise that ending poverty must go hand-in-

hand with strategies that build economic growth and address a range of social needs including

education, health, social protection and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and

environmental protection. While the SDGs are not legally binding, governments are expected

to take ownership and establish national frameworks for the achievement of the 17 Goals.”

(UN, 2016).

4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter aims to draw in theories on collaboration and stakeholders, which will

eventually lead to community involvement theory.

The Collaboration Theory

“Collaboration is a process of joint decision making among key stakeholders of a problem

domain about the future of that domain” (Gray, 1989, p. 227).

In order to perform better regarding SDGs, Liburd (2018) finds collaboration for

intentional change with others will be needed to gain advantages and recommends a thorough

9
glimpse at Higham & Miller (2017) to understand why include collective, intergenerational

well-being, social cohesion and equity and the recognition of biophysical limits may be

approaches worth adopted by stewards for international changes.

Collaboration often increases the boundaries of knowledge (Anandarajan and

Anandarajan, 2010), which is why it is important for stakeholders to collaborate with the local

communities, because this will help to understand sustainability in its entirety for Venice.

Studies show that for collaboration for STD to be successful, all stakeholders must be involved

in the process. Liburd (2018) points out the importance of focusing on the significance of

stakeholder collaboration in the concept of sustainability and, moreover, the importance of

implicating co-operation, co-creation, coordination. Without the joint efforts (collaboration) of

those responsible for the utilisation and deployment of the available resources (stakeholders)

efficiency cannot be achieved (Fatimath, 2015).

“Collaboration theory offers strong possibilities for managing tourism and recreation

related issues at the destination level” (Jamal & Getz, 1995, p. 193), especially when

considering the variations of interpretation on tourism development by interdependent

stakeholders forming the destination’s communities.

The Stakeholder Theory

Freeman (1984, p. 46) defined a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect

or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives”. A critical and complex part

of implementing a collaborative planning approach is the identification and legitimisation of

potential stakeholders (Roberts & Simpson, 1999). The literature reveals that stakeholders can

be of different types, which Waligo, Clarke and Hawkins (2013) categorised into six groups:

tourists, industry, local community, government, special interest groups and educational

10
institutions. (Fatimath, 2015). Based on the definitions that are used for sustainability and

sustainable tourism four distinct groups are identified; the present visitors, future visitors,

present host community, and future host community (Byrd, 2007).

Fig. 2: Stakeholder types (source: Fatimath, 2015)

In the findings section, the paper will aim to exemplify the stakeholders based on the

case of Venice and analyse how a collaboration between them could lead to a better

understanding of how the processes towards sustainable development goals could be

approached in Venice.

As said by Getz and Timur (2012, p. 236), “applying stakeholder theory to a destination

context requires incorporating stakeholder considerations into the destination’s strategic

tourism planning”. Stakeholder theory hasn’t been researched enough in tourism, even though

it is an essential element in a sustainable tourism process. (Getz & Timur, 2012)

11
Community Involvement Theory

The two aforementioned theories are to be considered core components of the creation

process of this research and are pillars to the community involvement theory which is to be

investigated in this section. In order to analyze how an engagement of the local communities

could actually contribute to the sustainable tourism development of a destination, it’s necessary

to understand how to define and identify a community.

Firstly, UNESCO (2007, p. 2) asserted that the local community is a category that

“involves all forms of non-State actors. That is, from the smallest groups of citizens, in

whichever form they manifest themselves”. According to Liburd and Edwards (2018), “host

community” defines those people living in a specific geographic area of the tourism destination,

assuming that a tourism destination is “a place or area where a collection of tourism related

products and attractions are offered which deliver a tourism experience for individuals or

groups traveling away from their home or place” (Jalis, 2019, p.22), thus where a community

hosts tourists.

When considering the residents’ relationship with heritage and their relevance as

stakeholders, UNESCO (2014, p.5) states that the “local communities and indigenous people

are often committed custodians of World Heritage sites”. Although both the terms local and

host are utilized in academic research, when a community is being analyzed for its relationship

with tourism and tourists, scholars mainly refer to it as a “host” community.

Trelka (2020) considers that the local communities are ideally merged together

regardless of whether they claim a direct connection to the environment’s history and culture

or if they actually have a link with it. In line with this idea, it is fundamental to consider the

local community as a heterogeneous group of people living in the same geographical area

12
(limited by topographically defined boundaries) having different interests in the sustainable

tourism development of that region, since the authors acknowledge that a host community

“comprises multiple stakeholder groups, which may hold diverse views and conflicting

interests toward how it operates” (Li, 2015, p. 251).

Considering the local communities as part of a sustainable development plan, the World

Commission on Environment and Development (1987) asserted the necessity of prioritizing

the needs of those people included in the related process: not only by meeting their basic human

needs but also by preserving their cultural identity. Following Burns and Sofield (2001, p. i),

the host community “is a fundamental component of any tourism system” and is therefore

considered an essential stakeholder.

On the other hand, UNEP and WTO (2005, p. 11) defined sustainable tourism as “a

tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental

impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities”:

this definition is very relevant to this research since the needs of the host communities are here

considered to be on the same level of those of the tourists and other stakeholders.

The Community Involvement Theory aims “to enable a significant number of local

community members to gradually gain substantial control over the development and

management of tourism activities in their region” (National Institute for Research and

Development in Tourism, 2014, p. 25). Following this statement, the local communities should

play an active role in the decision-making practices concerning the tourism development of

that destination collaborating with other stakeholders (Maiden, 2008).

This topic has been the subject of many studies and researches, especially in the context

of host communities in a World Heritage Site: according to Rasoolimanesh and Jaafar (2016,

p. 2), “the participation of local residents in WHS heritage management and tourism

13
development contributes toward improving their quality of life and, at the same time, the

sustainable conservation of the heritage site itself”, helping the community to value their

territory and being part of a wider social network. The process of community involvement

strives to create an empowering environment for all stakeholders, but with a focus on the host

communities (Michael, 2009).

The degree of power distribution is usually the central reason for a lack of locals’

participation; hence the local responsive institutions and the legal policies are in charge of

facilitating and supporting locals’ involvement in first place (Tosun, 2006). As stated by

Timothy (1999), there are two main points to consider regarding community involvement in

tourism development: the community participation in decision making, and their participation

in benefit sharing.

As previously stated in the course of this research, the authors acknowledge that the

local community is not to be considered homogeneous: Tosun (2000) indeed examined the

community participation in the tourism industry and developed a model for this specific field

where he also suggested three typologies of participation of the local communities on a local,

regional and national level. There’s thus a need for identifying the stakeholders’ landscape in

order to proceed with a collaboration process (Unit, 2000).

Linked to the responsibility of local communities towards the place they inhabit, it’s

worth mentioning the concept of stewardship: Brown and Mitchell (2000, p. 71), stated that

“stewardship means, simply, people taking care of the earth. In its broadest sense, it refers to

the essential role individuals and communities play in the careful management of our common

natural and cultural wealth for now and future generations”. This notion wants to emphasize

the fundamental role of those caring about the conservation of a destination and whose efforts

have different and various motivations (Liburd, 2018).

14
 5. FINDINGS

This section will start by analyzing the pillars of sustainability in Venice. Relevant

SDGs will be identified and case studies relating to local communities’ involvement in STD

will be reviewed too.

Sustainability and Venice

In the past, Venice’s economy was feeding on its sea trading powers, however this has

changed over time (Connor et al., 2015). Tourism is now the most important industry for

Venice in economic terms, with over 25 million tourists annually, being attracted by Venice’s

culture, history, architecture and art. The industry is contributing to Venice’s gross income with

approximately 2 billion euros yearly (Hardy, 2019). However, one cannot help but wonder at

what cost. The cost could be considered the damage done in the remaining two pillars of

sustainability: social and environmental. Housing affordability and environmental impacts are

issues that are direct causes of mass tourism, destroying local life (Hardy, 2019).

Stating that the number of annual tourists is currently five times as many as at the end

of 1980s, Bertocchi et. al. (2020) refers to this phenomenon as overtourism. The study suggests

that “Venice has become an emblematic example of a destination struggling with overtourism”

(Bertocchi et. al., 2020, p. 1). Seraphin et al. (2018) condemn that Venice is a victim of over-

tourism. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss how over-tourism is characterized, and

why other authors would suggest that there is over-tourism in Venice. By using the term

overtourism or over-tourism the authors explicitly show negative connotation, not really

considering negative for whom. For the scope of this paper, mass tourism is considered as a

phenomenon happening in Venice (though it was discussed in the literature review that no

author gave a way to calculate the phenomenon), instead of over-tourism to avoid negative

connotations.

15
 Currently, Venice is meeting the needs of present tourists (proof being the rising

numbers of tourists every year, that seem to be enjoying visiting the city), however, the

situation shows that it will not fulfil the needs of future generations of tourists and host

communities, if the world heritage site will not be preserved for future generations to enjoy.

What is more, Venice’s current tourism approach does not even meet the needs of current host

communities in full, as it is only on an economic plan, but not in terms of environment, health

and wellbeing. This is a visible issue when looking at the numbers of protests that take place

in Venice (Coldwell, 2017) which Venice is having issues in three out of four of these

components.

Analysis of this issue shows the need for tackling several goals out of the 17 SDGs for

Venice. Should these goals be approached, they would be the following, according to analysis

of Venice’s current sustainability issues:

Goal 3 is for good health and wellbeing and it is related to Venice’s local community’s

health and wellbeing, which has been directly affected by mass tourism. The disastrous floods

of the mid-1960s brought the environmental vulnerabilities of Venice to the attention of the

international community (Deheyn and Shaffer, 2007). Besides, Venice is unsurprisingly highly

vulnerable to climate change (The World Bank, IBRD-IDA, 2016).

Goal 11 refers to sustainable cities and communities. Locals seem to experience loss of

sense of belonging and sense of place, shown through the presence of protests. Moreover,

public spaces are being privatized and congested, and tourism induced real estate speculation.

Above all other aspects, mass tourism is dismantling socio-cultural connectivity (Milano,

2017). Related to sustainability in cities, mass tourism contributes to air pollution in cities,

whether it is consumption and production, or transportation means such as planes, taxis, and

rental cars. Goal 11 encourages the creation of more sustainable transportation and the use of

16
buses, bikes, and walking, as “air pollution causes more than 400.000 premature deaths in the

European Union” (Europe Environment Agency, 2020). Moreover, mass tourism is also

perceived as a threat to cultural heritages (Borges et al., 2011), and goal 11.4 aims to strengthen

efforts to protect this natural and cultural heritage.

Goal 12 is for responsible consumption and production and it is directly linked to the

damages caused by mass tourism. When too many visitors arrive in a particular place at the

same time, a large amount of waste is accumulated (Styles, Schönberger and Martos, 2013).

Besides, tourists tend to consume resources such as water in an irresponsible manner (Page,

Essex and Causevic, 2014). Goal 12 tackles these issues helps to bring a better quality of life

for the local community while minimizing the use of natural resources.

Goal 13 stands for climate action. It is no secret that mass tourism has a great impact

on the environment and climate change is surely part of the consequences of it: travel and

transportation, as air travel, have increased rapidly in the past years, becoming responsible for

greenhouse gas emissions (Başarir and Çakir, 2015). When an environment loses its

authenticity to mass tourism, it also happens to lose nature, to force an ecosystem to change to

deal with high numbers of people.

To sum up, these goals were deemed by the authors as the most relevant ones, however

it can be argued that there might be more relevant ones. The next subchapters will attempt to

analyse the involvement of local communities in Venice’s STD.

Stakeholders in Venice

The role of stakeholders in STD is becoming more prominent in both academia and

industry (Waligo et al., 2013). However not all tourism stakeholders are involved in STD

activities (VAN HUY, 2018).

17
 This section will aim to exemplify the stakeholders based on the case of Venice and

analyze how the collaboration between them could lead to a better understanding of the journey

towards sustainable tourism development. In order to identify the stakeholders from STD

perspective, the authors will apply the Stakeholder Power/Interest grid (Ackermann & Eden,

2016). The four quadrants of the grid help to define four categories of stakeholders depending

on their level of power and interest (see Fig. 3). The authors rated the levels of the Venice’s

relevant stakeholders’ power and interest and put them in groups as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Venice stakeholder power/interest grid (source: Ackermann & Eden, 2016).

The first quadrant, marked with orange, represents stakeholders that have a high level

of interest in Venice’s STD, however they don’t have the level of power to affect STD policies.

These include local communities, activist groups, universities, as well as museums/galleries.

The second quadrant – marked in red, represents both a high level of power and interest. These

include UNESCO, government/municipality, and NGOs. The yellow quadrant incorporates

tourists, airlines, other transportation companies, hotels/hostels, media. According to

Ackermann & Eden (2016) they can influence future overall context – in this case mainly

hinder sustainable tourism development of Venice. The last and green quadrant involves

stakeholders with low level of interest and power (industry bodies, suppliers).

18
 The authors of this paper recognize that the evaluation of stakeholder’s power and

interest is subjective and might be influenced by their background. Besides, due to the

fragmented formation of the tourism industry (Kadi et al., 2015), it is impossible to include all

stakeholders in a map. Moreover, such a representation of stakeholders is not dynamic and can

not really showcase future changes. However, it helps to see the general picture, and to analyze

who is in power, who is making decisions for whom – thus raising awareness for social justice

and for equality between stakeholders.

For the scope of this paper, the authors will focus on one stakeholder from orange

quadrant - local communities, who are the ones mostly affected by mass tourism in Venice but

not being included in STD processes, and one stakeholder from the red quadrant – UNESCO,

that in contrast has high level of power.

UNESCO

The “Venice and its Lagoon” site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List

in 1987, “in recognition of its unique historical, archaeological, urban and artistic heritage and

exceptional cultural traditions, integrated into an extraordinary natural landscape” (UNESCO,

n.d).

Under the Code of the Cultural and Landscape Heritage (Legislative Decree no.

42/2004), the institutional tasks of protection and preservation of the cultural heritage and

landscape are performed by The Ministry for Cultural Heritage and Activities through its local

offices -Regional Directorates and Superintendencies (UNESCO, n.d.)

In 1973 Special Law for Venice was implemented as one of the primary tools to protect

the landscape, historical, archaeological and artistic heritage of the city of Venice and its lagoon

“by ensuring its socio-economic livelihood” (UNESCO, n.d.). There is a management plan

19
based on a participatory approach involving all responsible bodies as well as local

organizations. Numerous projects are incorporated in the management plan for communication

and participation in decision-making and for facilitating the execution of the objectives of

protection of the property (UNESCO, n.d.). However, the participation of the local

communities is limited to just raising awareness. And the “participatory approach” does not

even mention the locals.

Among the Management Plan priorities is a sustainable tourism strategy. Strategic

objectives have been brought about to proffer complementary and alternative options to

traditional tourism by creating a network among the municipalities in the boundary region of

the lagoon and other stakeholders operating within the area (UNESCO, n.d.).

To sum up, UNESCO mainly builds partnerships with government

bodies/municipalities. This shows that both UNESCO and the government of Italy, are the ones

initiating STD strategies. They are the stakeholders with power and interest. Their interests in

preserving the cultural heritage as well as promoting non alternative tourism and socio-

economic livelihood are well in alignment with the locals’ interests. However, not all

stakeholders have equal voices, especially local communities, which will be explored in the

next subsection through case studies.

Local communities and Venice’s STD

The authors included stewardship’s definition in this research to visualize the locals as

responsible stakeholders in the sustainable tourism development of their territory. Venice’s

locals have been protesting against the tourist influx and cruise ship tourism during the past

years, marching in the centre of the city carrying banners with diverse slogans and starting the

so-called “anti-tourism movement” (Seraphin; Sheeran; Pilato, 2018, p. 1). Vincent and

Thompson (2002) highlight the importance of the sustainability aspect in a tourism

20
development plan, asserting that it can’t be achieved without the community support. Together

with the rising number of residents’ associations, the authorities of Venice attempted giving

them a voice through tourism campaigns: #EnjoyRespectVenezia was launched in 2017, the

International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development: the objective of this campaign is

to preserve the uniqueness of Venice developing a sustainable tourism plan “in harmony with

the daily life of residents” (Città di Venezia, 2017a).

This campaign is included in a document released the same year by Venice’s authorities

called “Project of territorial governance of tourism in Venice” (2017b, p. 7), a development

plan “based upon a vision inspired by three principles: innovation; sustainability; the promotion

of what the Venetian territory has to offer culturally”. The document has a section named “The

stages of the participatory route”, where the authors explained that the Municipality of Venice

set up meetings with residents’ cultural associations and individuals to create a strategy with a

wide consensus to regulate touristic flow: consensus in decision-making in a community

involvement process may indeed not be achieved due to people’s diverse perspectives (Cooke

and Kothari 2001).

This could be identified and interpreted as an important step in the way of a Community

Involvement development, considering that the participants (residents and stakeholders)

presented 23 projects to the Council Committee for a “solution to the tourist pressure to the

city”. Furthermore, the section B on this document is called “Protecting residents”, which

“aims at supporting the conservation of residents in the old city and to counteract the gradual

erosion of quality of services for the residents, whereas in the past they have often been

replaced with low-level services directed predominantly or even entirely at tourists” (Città di

Venezia, 2017b, p. 83).

21
 Nevertheless, according to a survey conducted in 2019 in Venice by Bertocchi and

Visentin (2019) about the residents’ motivations for moving out of Venice, the overwhelming

situation with tourism doesn’t seem to be close to a resolution two years after the document’s

proposals. Following the survey conducted in North, South and Centre of Venice, the reasons

for residents to leave Venice are: “life has become too expensive, Venice is itself inconvenient,

the lack of jobs, the possibility to rent a house” in addition to “too many tourists” and “lack of

services for residents”, already identified by the Government in their document.

The Municipality set the “idealistic” goal of solving the problem by 2020, the year the

current administration’s mandate comes to an end. Ramachandra and Mansor (2014), while

analyzing the field of university-community engagement, highlighted their will to define it “as

a process and not on the outcome”: for the scope of this research and following this statement,

it is fundamental to focus on the process of community involvement, rather than seeking to

reach long-term objectives in a short time.

The document spread by the authorities claims that they “believe that Venice can

innovate itself by means of a sustainable tourism with the aim of fully using its urban scale,

with respect to its authenticity and uniqueness, sharing it with the world in being a World

Heritage Site” (Città di Venezia, 2017b, p.7): the emphasis in the document is though more on

monitoring the tourists to avoid overcrowding and traffic congestion, rather than reducing the

tourist flow to respect the city-carrying capacity and restore a balance in the resident’s daily

life.

Detourism: Travel Venice like a local.

The “detourism” campaign was started by the City of Venice in 2017 in the framework

of ALTER ECO project in which Venice is an active participant, aiming “to develop alternative

tourist strategies to enhance sustainable tourism development by promoting Mediterranean

22
identity”. (Interreg Mediterranean ALTER ECO, n.d.). “Detourism'' is an awareness campaign

for promoting slow and sustainable tourism and authentic experiences on the lagoon islands

and mainland of Venice. It encourages travelers to go beyond the usual tourist sights and see

Venice with new eyes (Città di Venezia, 2017c). By doing so, there is an opportunity to

experience Venice as Venetians do. Tourists can download the City of Venice’s self-guided

"Art and culture itinerary of Classic Dorsoduro" walking tour and buy a magazine which is

available both in Italian and in English that details Venice’s under-visited attractions (Città di

Venezia, 2017c). There is also a detourism newsletter released every week that contains new

ideas and advice for participating in an unusual event (Città di Venezia, 2017c).

“The idea of DETOURISM is to invite guests to the lagoon to put themselves in the shoes of

the local people; not to be a tourist but to travel the city slowly and get lost looking for a

more authentic and lesser-known Venice.” (Città di Venezia, 2017c)

The campaign obviously tackles the local communities by promoting the tourists to

“put themselves in the shoes of local people”. However, the campaign is not a result of

collaboration with local communities, but rather for them. According to ALTER ECO Project

2020 official website: “thanks to the collaboration of the tourism industry stakeholders who

participated in the AlterEco Living Lab, the campaign is a reference point both for limiting the

number of accesses to major tourist attractions and for communication actions in the context

of educational tourism initiatives”. It is worth mentioning that STD is a designing with, not a

designing for (Heape and Liburd, 2018).

Campaign For a Living Venice

In contrast to the “Detourism” campaign the “Campaign for a living Venice” seems to

address the issue of giving voice to the local communities of Venice. The “Campaign For A

Living Venice” came to life by Paul Rosenberg who is a writer and musician, and

23
internationally acclaimed author Allan Gurganus, who launched this campaign together to

provide an online platform to display international support for Venice and its citizens, “for a

sustainable future for Venice” (Campaign For a Living Venice, 2016a). That included creating

a website, which involves a section “Get involved”. The section allows everyone (thus local

communities too) to voice their opinions on policy issues in Venice directly to those making

the choices (Campaign For a Living Venice, 2016b). The users can write a brief letter to

indicated e-mail addresses including those of the Venice Mayor, Venice Vice Mayor, Office

of the Prime Minister of Italy. However, the campaign lacks recognition, and it is unknown

whether those parties actually consider the issues voiced by local communities.

Case studies on collaboration with local communities

“One particularly important form of collaboration consists of joint efforts between local

residents, tourists, and the public sector” (Kapera, 2018)

The purpose of this subsection is to provide an example of how collaboration of tourism

stakeholders with the local communities can be a successful tool in developing sustainability

in tourism. The first case, of Akamas, Cyprus, shows a “flawed implementation” of sustainable

tourism. Ioannides (1995) presents the case study of Akamas, a peninsula that covers

approximately 230 km2 in Cyprus. There are 10 “Laona” villages on the peninsula whose

inhabitants engage in traditional agricultural practices including vine growing and animal

husbandry, mainly goat herding. The paper states that the main objective of the government for

the peninsula was to promote sustainable tourism development within the region, emphasizing

alternative tourism as the key economic sector. The ‘blue plan’, as officials called it, aims to

limit all constructions in the rural area and transform surrounding forested land into a national

park in order to attract the ‘back-packer’ tourists, that would supposedly protect and prove

economically beneficial to the local community. However, villagers believed that these strict

24
development control regulations would harm the community’s goal of boosting up the

economy, and that the government officials are ‘denying them a piece of the cake’, as the blue

plan was being conceived during a tourism boom in the rest of Cyprus, which pushed other

areas close to Akamas to flourish and develop many tourist facilities at excessively high

densities. What is more, villagers express their concern about government officials’ wishes to

portray them as traditional, authentic and sustainable as possible (maybe even grotesque), and

some even express their concerns of having to ‘dress like their grandfather and ride a donkey

in order to seem more authentic for the tourists’. The local community of Akamas maintains

were never approached for expressing their opinions and were never involved in the planning

process. In the same time, the planners state that they avoided soliciting the opinion of the local

community due to risks of stirring up trouble among interest groups and even saying that if

they had left the community to decide what was best for Akamas, “all they would have is

chaos”. Ioannides (1995) affirms that “planners failed to demonstrate how environmental

protection will prove economically beneficial to local communities”, mostly because they

failed to vision how the local community would be involved in the management and operation

of the future national park. From the example above, one can detect distrust between the

government and the local community and, as a conclusion, Ioannis warns that “uncontrolled

development of mass tourism leads to serious environmental and sociocultural problems”. The

author recommends that the host community must be fully involved in all stages of the

development of tourism, as the community is a pivotal part of implementation.

On the opposite side, there is a contrasting case study by Mitchell and Reid (2001) that

shows a successful usage of collaboration with the local community of Taquile Island, Peru,

which led to the implementation of sustainable development process in the island’s tourism.

The island is inhabited by 100,000 people who cultivate 65% of the land area. The community

benefits from a combination between modern and traditional administration, as nobody is a

25
member of a political party on the island, and they only have an elected Lieutenant Governor

responsible for public issues and meeting with local governments of neighbouring islands.

“With the help of the authorities or in the assemblies on Sundays in the plaza, they generally

resolve their problems and disputes” (Prochaska 1990, p. 28). According to the author, the

community’s livelihood is mostly based on a handicraft industry (they have control over its

manufacture and marketing), and the tourism industry at the time her study was conducted. She

claims that the residents had successfully integrated tourism with its traditional way of life,

which allowed for an egalitarian distribution of benefits. These days, as residents of Taquile

have remained involved in the tourism industry, with 98% of their population being employed

in this industry, the revenue has encouraged improvements in households and generally

improving the economy. Most of the tourism services are owned and operated by the residents,

including accommodation, restaurants, handicraft sales and entrance fee collection. 93% of the

residents agree that the local authorities are making efforts to encourage community

participation in tourism, and they admit “community unity is often demonstrated by communal

action, long-rooted in a holistic sharing ethic” (Mitchell & Reid, 2001). It is notable that the

people of taquile have a great decision power which could allow them to remove certain local

authorities in case of poor decisions. Moreover, annual democratic elections on Taquile reduce

the possibility of autocratic decision-making power (Mitchell and Reid, 2001). The public is

always consulted for opinions on major issues that may affect their day-to-day activities,

traditions or values. The authors state that “the participatory nature of the Taquilenos was

characterized by one key-informant as “collective consciousness”. Once again, the conclusion

that can be withdrawn from this article is that a good balance between local community power

and travel agencies can lead to great socio-economic benefits for the community, as well as

highlighting an important issue- that the integration of destination communities in tourism

would lead to a greater care for the environment and natural and cultural resources.

26
 This section analyzed Venice’s sustainable tourism development, pointing out to SDGs

3, 11, 12, 13 as relevant to the research. Mass tourism was deemed to not resonate well with

SDGs. Local communities’ involvement in STD was exemplified through case studies which

suggested that local communities mostly are not collaborating with other stakeholders. The

case studies from Akamas and Taquile indicated the importance of the local communities’

involvement in STD.

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As an outcome of analysing all presented literature and case studies, the authors

recognised a pattern of sustainable tourism development not being addressed in a way that

considers all stakeholders of the tourism industry in Venice. Previous campaigns mainly failed

to include locals in an efficient way from a sustainable tourism development point of view,

which is a vital component of the development plan if a sustainable future for next generations

is desired. As the paper has presented in other case studies, from Akamas, Cyprus and Taquile

Island, Peru, local community involvement is essential when planning tourism for a destination.

Nonetheless, the authors also recognise that the culture of people living in these areas are

different and it cannot be assumed the local communities in Venice would approach this issue

similarly, and different approaches could have different outcomes. Still, the authors looked at

the bigger picture and used this data to come to the conclusion that the involvement of locals

is crucial for sustainable tourism development.

It is not the scope of this paper to label Venice’s authorities as indifferent to the SDGs:

many diverse workshops, laboratories and meetings happening in Venice address the

incompatibility of the current tourism situation with a sustainable development plan. It is

27
although worth mentioning that the stress seems to be more on accomplishing those objectives

on a specific deadline, than on creating a sustainable tourism process aiming at a communities'

involvement.

This research has indeed a critical approach towards the World Tourism Organization’s

definition of sustainable tourism, which places the host communities’ needs on the same level

as tourists’ ones: the authors believe that a sustainable tourism plan should be based on the

locals’ necessities, before considering what the tourists need and suggest that Venice’s

authorities include this aspect in their plans. Venice’s Project for Territorial Governance, for

instance, highlighted the importance of making the tourist flow compatible with the resident’s

daily life in their project presentation. At the same time, the document suggests that the focus

was more on monitoring and educating the tourists, while the residents are treated as relevant

stakeholders, not as the most affected ones by the current situation. The authors believe locals

should be treated as stewards of their territory, especially when they reside in a world heritage

site: their involvement is fundamental to help them develop a better understanding of the issues

and their responsibility towards them, together with the ability to speak up for themselves.

A major reason for failing to involve the local communities of Venice in STD relates

to the issue of power relationships. Campaigns were initiated by either those not in power (as

we saw in the case of “Campaign for a living Venice”), or they limited themselves to just

encouraging the tourists to put themselves in the shoes of local communities (such as the

“Detourism” campaign.). “Campaign for a living Venice” was initiated by foreign enthusiasts

who were eager to raise awareness of the issues that the locals of Venice faced. However, they

could not reach a recognition (which is attributable to the fact that they lacked power) and it

remains unknown whether the locals voiced their concerns through their website and whether

their concerns were addressed by the authorities. As for the “Detourism” campaign, it solely

28
touches upon the issue that tourists should go off the beaten track which will help the locals to

avoid mass tourism. However, the authors of this paper believe that instead of doing something

for the local communities, they should be viewed as an equal stakeholder together with other

stakeholders, who can take part in STD processes.

UNESCO as a stakeholder having both a high level of interest and power was studied

too. Despite the different laws and regulations that were implemented in Venice with the help

of UNESCO to ensure its sustainability and to “encourage the participation of the local

population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage”, the case studies showed

the opposite in terms of the participation of local communities. As already mentioned in the

literature review “for collaboration for STD to be successful, all stakeholders must be involved

in the process”. But who should encourage collaboration between stakeholders to ensure

Venice’s STD? Someone having a high level of power – the Government of Italy? But why

only the government, what about other stakeholders? Those in power should not be the ones

making decisions, and as critical inquirers the authors of this paper should raise awareness for

the sake of social justice – that is equality between all stakeholders. The government’s role

should be initiating the collaboration but not necessarily dictating what to do for other

stakeholders.

Addressing the research question as an overall conclusion, this paper intends to explore

how the local communities could be involved in Venice’s STD. The authors were critical

throughout the paper, voicing their concerns about local communities not being involved in the

collaboration process for Venice’s STD. Though intersubjective and influenced by their

backgrounds, the authors of this study looked closer at previous STD campaigns in Venice, and

did a comprehensive literature review regarding the topic, concluding that collaboration

between stakeholders and local communities could be the first step to more involvement of

29
local communities in the process of STD. The authors acknowledge the complexity of the

process which led to the raising of many other issues, such as: how should the collaboration be

started or by whom? Should it actually be initiated by those in power? Shouldn’t local

communities be able to talk on behalf of themselves?

Limitations and recommendations

This subsection will attempt to devise recommendations regarding Venice’s STD,

though the authors recognize that recommendations are just some of many possible resolutions.

Then limitations regarding this research and recommendations based on them will be presented.

Keeping in mind that STD is a designing with not a designing for, the Government of

Italy could indeed kickstart a collaboration enabling the involvement of local communities in

a long-term participative process. Moreover, as noted by Ioannides & Gyimóthy (2020) Covid-

19 gave a perfect opportunity to choose a brand new direction and move forward by adopting

a more sustainable tourism development path. So, this could be an ideal opportunity for

designing a participatory approach to Venice’s STD, constituting an important issue to focus

on in further research.

Instead of focusing on a time limit to achieve sustainability goals, as in Venice’s

Guidelines for 2015-2020, it would be worth developing a long-term path where the

community finds its place as a primary stakeholder whose needs are key. Addressing the locals’

daily issues is the only way a sustainable tourism development could work.

One of the major limitations of this paper is the lack of primary research, as giving

voice to the people who consider themselves local community would have been the core of

understanding first of all how exactly the “local community of Venice” can be defined, and

also their opinion on how exactly they should be involved in the planning process by the local

30
authorities, or even, if all of them would like to participate in the future of Venice tourism.

Although this research aimed to give voice to the local communities, the authors actually spoke

on behalf of them, due to the impossibility of conducting primary research and directly

involving them. Therefore, further research is needed, to include surveys or in-depth interviews

to gather more insight into the opinions of a destination’s local community.

Another limitation is that as critical inquirers the authors may indeed not raise

awareness of the issue of not involving Venice’s local communities in STD. This paper could

be a good means to raise awareness, however it might not reach the audience that should be

aware of these findings. Thus the paper cannot lead to transformational change and alter the

social circumstances- something that, according to Jennings (2018), critical theory should be

able to do. Accordingly, further research by acknowledged authors could be a means to voice

these issues and reach Venice’s stakeholders.

To sum up, the authors of the paper understand that the complexity of STD raises many

questions that cannot be addressed in this word count limit and due to the fact that it is a process,

and it is not about achieving any specific outcomes (Heape & Liburd, 2018). However, the

authors acknowledge that collaboration for sustainable tourism development should enable the

equal participation of all stakeholders in the process and bring them to a common understanding

of STD.

31
 7. REFERENCES

Ackermann, F. & Eden, C. (2016) Strategic management of stakeholder: Theory and practice.
Long Range Planning 44(3), 179-196.

Anandarajan, A. & Anandarajan, M. (2010) An overview of e-research collaboration. In E-

Research collaboration, (pp. 3-13). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Başarir, Ç. & Çakir, Y.N., 2015. Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, financial
development, energy and tourism. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 5(11), 1227-1238

Basiago A. D. (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development

theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 19(2), 145-161.

BBC. (2020) Can Venice turn the tide on mass tourism?. Retrieved January 12, 2021 from
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200806-can-venice-turn-the-tide-on-mass-tourism

Bertocchi, D., & Visentin, F. (2019). “The Overwhelmed City”: Physical and Social Over-
Capacities of Global Tourism in Venice. Sustainability, 11(24), 6937.

Bertocchi, D., Camatti, N., Giove, S., & van der Borg, J. (2020). Venice and overtourism:
Simulating sustainable development scenarios through a tourism carrying capacity model.
Sustainability, 12(2), 512.

Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Hassan, S., Darda, M. A., & Habib, M. W. (2020). Aspects of Sustainable
Tourism Development and COVID-19 Pandemic.

Borges, M. A., Carbone, G., Bushell, R., & Jaeger, T. (2011). Sustainable tourism and natural
World Heritage: Priorities for action. IUCN.

Boyer R. H., Peterson N. D., Arora P., & Caldwell K. (2016) Five approaches to social
sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability 8(9), 878.

Bramwell, B. & Lane, B. (1993) Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach? Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 1(1), 1–5.

Brown, J., & Mitchell, B. (2000). The stewardship approach and its relevance for protected
landscapes. In The George Wright Forum (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 70-79). George Wright Society.

32
Burns, G. L., & Sofield, T. (2001). Wildlife Tourism Research Report No. 4, Status
Assessment of Wildlife Tourism in Australia Series. The Host Community: Social and
Cultural Issues Concerning Wildlife Tourism.

Byrd, E. T. (2007). Stakeholders in sustainable tourism development and their roles: applying
stakeholder theory to sustainable tourism development. Tourism review.

Campaign For a Living Venice (2016a). About. Retrieved December 10, 2020 from
https://campaignforalivingvenice.org/about/

Campaign For a Living Venice (2016b). Get involved. Retrieved December 10, 2020 from
https://campaignforalivingvenice.org/get-involved/

Chang, C. L., McAleer, M., & Ramos, V. (2020). A charter for sustainable tourism after
COVID-19.

Città di Venezia (2017a). #EnjoyRespectVenezia. Retrieved December 25, 2020, from

https://www.comune.venezia.it/en/content/enjoyrespectvenezia

Città di Venezia (2017b). Project of territorial governance of tourism in Venice, 2017.

Retrieved December 25, 2020 from
https://www.comune.venezia.it/sites/comune.venezia.it/files/documenti/documenti/territoria
l%20governance%202017.pdf

Città di Venezia (2017c). Detourism: travel Venice like a local. Retrieved December 26,
2020, from https://www.veneziaunica.it/en/content/detourism-venezia

Coldwell, W. (2017). First Venice and Barcelona: now anti-tourism marches spread across
Europe. The Guardian, 10, 2017.

Connor, C. J., Hanna, T. S., Van Rensselaer, W. A., & Wingerter, Z. R. (2015). Safe and
Sustainable Tourism: Managing Venice’s Millions of Visitors.

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed books.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Sage.

33
Deheyn, D. D., & Shaffer, L. R. (2007). Saving Venice: Engineering and ecology in the
Venice lagoon. Technology in Society, 29(2), 205-213.

Din, K. H. (1997). Indigenization of Tourism Development: Some constraints and

possibilities. In Pacific Rim Tourism, M. Oppermann, ed. New York: CAB International, 76-
81.

Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (2009). Barriers to implementing sustainable tourism policy in mass
tourism destinations.

Europe Environment Agency (2020) Air quality in Europe - 2020 report, European
Commission. Retrieved December 22, 2020 from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2020-report

Fathimath, A. (2015). The role of stakeholder collaboration in sustainable tourism

competitiveness: The case of Auckland, New Zealand. Doctoral dissertation, Auckland
University of Technology). Retrieved November 20, 2020 from
https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston,

Mass.).

Getz, D., & Timur, S. (2012). 12 Stakeholder involvement in sustainable tourism: balancing
the voices. Global tourism, 230.

Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for

effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-
making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8(3), 259-280

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative Paradigms Conference, Mar, 1989,
Indiana U, School of Education, San Francisco, CA, US. Sage Publications, Inc.

Hardy, P. (2019). Sinking city: how Venice is managing Europe's worst tourism crisis, The
Guardian. Retrieved November 2020 from

34
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/30/sinking-city-how-venice-is-managing-
europes-worst-tourism-crisis.

Heape, C., & Liburd, J. (2018). Collaborative learning for sustainable tourism development.
Collaboration for sustainable tourism development, 226-243.

Higham, J. & Miller, G. (2017). Transforming societies and transforming societies:

sustainable tourism in times of change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 1-8

Interreg Mediterranean ALTER ECO (n.d.). Retrieved December 24, 2020 from https://alter-
eco.interreg-med.eu/

Ioannides, D. (1995). A flawed implementation of sustainable tourism: the experience of

Akamas, Cyprus. Tourism management, 16(8), 583-592.

Ioannides, D., & Gyimóthy, S. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping
the unsustainable global tourism path. Tourism Geographies, 1-9.

Jalis, M. H. (2019). Marketing and Branding Initiatives for Local Food and Tourism Identity
of Terengganu, Malaysia. In Positioning and Branding Tourism Destinations for Global
Competitiveness (pp. 1-22). IGI Global.

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.
Annals of tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.

Jennings, G. (2010). Theoretical paradigms underpinning tourism research. Tourism

Research, 33-68.

Jennings, G. (2015). Qualitative research for the university sector: Paradigms that inform
Research. Imagine Consulting Group International Pty Ltd.

Jennings, G. (2018). Reflections on Research Paradigms: Their relationship to understanding

and facilitating collaboration for sustainable tourism development. In Collaboration for
Sustainable Tourism Development (pp.244-267), Chapter: 14, Publisher: Goodfellow
Publishers Limited

Kadi, A. J., Jaafar, M., & Hassan, F. (2015). Stakeholders' contribution in sustainable tourism.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 74-78.

35
Kapera, I. (2018). Sustainable tourism development efforts by local governments in Poland.
Sustainable cities and society, 40, 581-588.

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms. In
educational contexts. International Journal of higher education, 6(5), 26-41.

Leask, A. (2006). World heritage site designation. Managing world heritage sites, 31-45

Li, Y., & Hunter, C. (2015). Community involvement for sustainable heritage tourism: a
conceptual model. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development.

Liburd, J. J., & Edwards, D. (Eds.). (2018). Collaboration for sustainable tourism
development. Goodfellow Publishers Limited.

Maiden, J. A. (2008). Participation in sustainable tourism development: Stakeholders &

partnership working. Cardiff University.

Mascolo, M. F. (2016). Beyond objectivity and subjectivity: The intersubjective foundations

of psychological science. Integrative psychological and behavioral science, 50(4), 543-554.

Michael, M. (2009). Community involvement and participation in tourism development in

Tanzania: a case study of local communities in Barabarani village, MTO WA MBU, Arusha-
Tanzania.

Milano, C. (2017). Overtourism y turismofobia. Tendencias globales y contextos locales.

Mitchell, R. E., & Reid, D. G. (2001). Community integration: Island tourism in Peru. Annals
of tourism research, 28(1), 113-139.

Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., Hák., T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental
sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol Indic 17, 4-13.

National Institute for Research and Development in Tourism. (2014). INTERREG IVC
project CHARTS Good Practice Guide. “Host Communities and Responsible Tourism”.

Obrador, P., Crang, M., & Travlou, P. (2009) Taking Mediterranean tourists seriously,
Cultures of mass tourism: doing the Mediterranean in the age of banal mobilities, 1-20.

36
Page, S. J., Essex, S., & Causevic, S. (2014). Tourist attitudes towards water use in the
developing world: A comparative analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 57-67.

Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability

assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24, 595–616.

Prochaska, R. (1990) Taquile y Sus Tejidos. Lima: ARIUS SA

Ramachandra, A., & Mansor, N. N. A. (2014). Sustainability of community engagement‐in

the hands of stakeholders?. Education+ Training, 56(7), 588-598.

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Jaafar, M. (2016). Community participation toward tourism

development and conservation program in rural world heritage sites. In Tourism-from
empirical research towards practical application. IntechOpen.

Rehman, A. A., & Alharthi, K. (2016). An introduction to research paradigms. International

Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(8), 51-59.

Roberts, L., & Simpson, F. (1999). Developing partnership approaches to tourism in Central
and Eastern Europe. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3-4), 314-330.

Sayeda, T. (2017). The effects of mass tourism: An evaluative study on Cox’s Bazar,
Bangladesh. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 22(5), 31-36.

Schoolman, E. D., Guest, J. S., Bush, K. F., Bell, A. R. (2012). How interdisciplinary is
sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustainability
Science, 7(1), 67–80.

Seraphin, H., Sheeran, P., & Pilato, M. (2018). Over-tourism and the fall of Venice as a
destination. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9, 374-376.

Sezgin, E., & Yolal, M. (2012). Golden age of mass tourism: Its history and development.
Visions for Global Tourism Industry-Creating and Sustaining Competitive Strategies, 73-90.

Shaw, G., Williams, A., & Dinan, C. (2000). Resort Europe: The Limits of Mass Tourism and
the Rise of Sustainable Practices.

37
 Sörensson, A. (2010). Sustainable tourism at mass tourist destinations: best practice from
tourist producers in Europe. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 142, 593-
604.

Sörensson, A. (2011). Sustainable mass tourism: Fantasy or reality?. International Journal of

Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 7(5), 325-334.

Styles, D., Schönberger, H., Galvez Martos, J. L. (2013). Best Environmental Management
Practice in the Tourism Sector, JRC Scientific and Policy Report. Retrieved December 27,
2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/best-environmental-management-practice-tourism-sector.

Thwink.org. (n.d.) The Three Pillars of Sustainability. Retrieved December 5, 2020 from

http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ThreePillarsOfSustainability.htm

Timothy, D. (1999). Participatory Planning: A view of tourism in Indonesia. Annals of

Tourism Research 26, 371-391

Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in

developing countries, Tourism Management, 21(6). 613-633

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development,

Tourism Management, 27 (3), 493-504.

Trelka, M. (2020). Negotiating Authority: Local Communities in the World Heritage

Convention. Archaeologies, 1-21.

UNEP, UNWTO. 2005. Making Tourism More Sustainable - A Guide for Policy Makers.

UNESCO. (n.d.). Venice and its Lagoon, Retrieved December 11, 2020 from
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/394/

UNESCO. (n.d.). The World Heritage Convention, Retrieved December 12, 2020 from
https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/

UNESCO. (n.d.). World Heritage, Retrieved December 12, 2020, from

https://whc.unesco.org/en/about

38
UNESCO (n.d.). Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. World Heritage committee. Thirty-first session, Christchurch, New Zealand 23 June
– 2 July 2007.

UNESCO (n.d). Engaging Local Communities in Stewardship of World Heritage A

methodology based on the COMPACT experience. World Heritage Paper Series No. 40,
2014.

Unit, W. E. C. S. (2000). Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges for Conservation.

United Nations (2016). 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Retrieved on 28 November

2020 from: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

United Nations (2020). The 17 goals. Retrieved November on 20, 2020 from
https://sdgs.un.org/goals.

Vainikka, V. (2013). Rethinking mass tourism. Tourist Studies, 13(3), 268-286.

Van-Huy, N. (2018). A systematic literature review of stakeholder’s collaboration in tourism

settings.

Vincent, V. C. & Thompson, W. (2002). Assessing community support and sustainability for
ecotourism development, Journal of Travel Research, 41 (2), 153-160.

Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable development: A bird’s
eye view. Sustainability, 3(10), 1637-1661.

Waligo, V. M., Clarke, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Implementing sustainable tourism: A multi-
stakeholder involvement management framework. Tourism management, 36, 342-353.

WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weaver, D. B. (2014). Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: Toward enlightened

mass tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 53(2), 131-140.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford university press.

World Tourism Organization and United Nations Development Programme (2017), Tourism
and the Sustainable Development Goals – Journey to 2030, UNWTO, Madrid.

39
World Tourism Organization. (2001). The concept of sustainable tourism. Retrieved
December 1, 2020 from http://www.worldtourism.org/sustainable/concepts.htm.

World Tourism Organization. (2018). Sustainable development of tourism: definition.

Retrieved December 1, 2020 from https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development.

40