JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1873353

Tourism, technology and ICT: a critical review of

affordances and concessions
€sslinga,b,c
Stefan Go
a
Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal, Norway; bSchool of Business and Economics,
Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden; cService Management and Service Studies, Lund University,
Helsingborg, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The digital information age has changed global tourism in profound Received 23 November 2020
ways. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are pervasive, Accepted 2 January 2021
and they have become inextricably linked with contemporary consumer
KEYWORDS
cultures. ICTs represent affordances: to apprise, plan, order, network,
ICT; corporations; platform
socialize, stream, transact and rate. These are remunerated with conces- economy; SDGs; social
sions in the form of consumer data that is used to determine product/ media; tourism
service marketability, and to predict and manipulate consumer choices.
As a result, ICTs have profoundly changed society, with repercussions
for identity formation, social norms, and business structures. Tourism is
at the forefront of these developments: as a driver of ICT introductions,
an arena for testing & trialing, and a global market. This paper critically
examines these developments and its linkages to tourism and sustain-
ability goals, concluding that existing academic assessments are optimis-
tic, simplistic and monocausal, with a focus on business and marketing
opportunities. Tourism appears to have developed through four stages
of ICT adoption - opportunity, disruption, immersion and usurpation -,
which reflect on new opportunities and risks, and the need for more
critical evaluations of the implications of the ICT economy.

Introduction
Technology and ICT innovations1, specifically the smartphone, have fundamentally altered the
basis for economic development and business models, and implied unprecedented changes in
human behaviour and social psychology (Cusumano et al., 2019; Trottier, 2012; Turkle, 2011,
2015; Zuboff, 2019). There is much evidence that social, psychological, economic and environ-
mental outcomes of technology and ICT innovations are profound, interrelated, and complex in
their outcomes. Consumers have shifted from the use of technology and ICTs to accomplish tasks
towards becoming enmeshed in online lives, with concomitant repercussions for social network-
ing, connectedness and friendship (e.g. Turkle, 2011, 2015); identity and personality formation
(e.g. Belk, 2013; Ryan & Xenos, 2011); mental form (creativity, attention spans, intellectual cap-
acity; e.g. Carr, 2020; Mills, 2016); interests, learning, education, and opinion (e.g. Allcott &
Gentzkow, 2017; Lewis et al., 2010; van Laar et al., 2020); and consumer choices, practices, and
cultures (e.g. Cochoy et al., 2017; Denegri-Knott and Molesworth 2010; Leban et al., 2020).

CONTACT Stefan G€ossling stefan.gossling@ism.lu.se Western Norway Research Institute, PO Box 163, Sogndal,
6851, Norway.
ß 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 S. GÖSSLING

Important characteristics of the ICT economy are its rapid expansion, global reach, and oli-
gopolistic structures funneling vast financial flows towards small owner groups: Founders of
platform economy models are counted among the wealthiest individuals in the world (Forbes,
2020), a phenomenon trailing its own issues of wealth distribution and inequality (Piketty,
2014). Tourism is an integral part of all of these dimensions of the growing ICT economy
(Go€ssling & Hall, 2019; Martin, 2016; Moazed & Johnson, 2016), which at its core continues to
represent an industrial economy with physical infrastructures and natural resource dependency,
specifically fossil fuels (Lenzen et al., 2018).
As this short introduction illustrates, the ways in which technology innovations and ICT influ-
ence economic development and society are entangled and convoluted. Tourism is an arena in
which these processes become particularly evident, demanding a better understanding of out-
comes in regard to the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2020). This paper is intended as a
contribution to the debate, as ICT innovations are generally understood as socially enriching and
supportive of the SDGs (e.g. Ekholm & Rockstro €m, 2019; Sachs et al., 2019). As noted by Hughes
and Moscardo (2019: 237), “The existing discussion of ICT and tourism has mostly focused on
ways in which new technologies can automate or make existing tasks more efficient (doing old
things better) or ways that expand and alter existing tasks (doing old things in new ways)”. In
other words, the wider implications of technology and ICT innovations have not been sufficiently
studied, specifically in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the need to
transform economic models (Dorninger et al., 2021).
The following discussion is theoretically embedded in critical geography. It devotes considerable
space to the framing of the drivers, changes and outcomes of the technology and ICT development,
to illustrate its potency in changing society and economy. It then moves on to describe how this
has affected tourism and travel, followed by an analysis of ICT as consumer affordances with a less-
discussed prerogative of concessions. The last section examines the ICT progression as stages with
specific characteristics, before more general conclusions for tourism sustainability are drawn.

Critical scholarship and the SDGs

The discussion in this paper has a starting point in critical geography (Bauder et al., 2008).
Geography is an interdisciplinary science that is commonly described as the study of systems,
specifically interrelationships of physical aspects of the Earth system and human activity includ-
ing perspectives on society, governance, and economic systems. It is here used as the theoretical
lens to study implications of technology and ICT in tourism contexts, also embracing relevant
insights from sociology, psychology, politics. As Bauder et al. (2008: 1) emphasize, critical geog-
raphy is “both an approach to scholarship and a practice of scholarship” with an explicitly nor-
mative link to the Frankfurt School and Marcuse’s (1964, quoted in ibid.) description of critical
theory as a tool of social analysis to “improve the human condition” or what today may be
described as ‘advancing the SDGs’. Critical scholarship thus explicitly connects to practice
(Werner et al., 2020) and even though geography is primarily concerned with place, it also inves-
tigates “the processes that shape the evolution of socio-technical systems” (Murphy, 2015: 73).
Some authors in tourism studies have called for “critical” or “transformative” tourism scholar-
ship (Ateljevic et al., 2013; Boluk et al., 2019; Gretzel et al. 2020). “Critical” in this paper is how-
ever more than an assessment of progress on the SDGs, a comment on the desirability of social
development processes, or a blanket critique of “neoliberalism” and “paradigms”. It is here
understood as a framework that allows for reflection on complexities in interconnected eco-
nomic-social-environmental systems, the consideration of ‘challenge hierarchies’ that make some
issues priorities over others, the discussion of roadblocks, as well responsibilities for change. It
distinguishes dichotomies of individual and society, consumer and citizen, business and govern-
ance. As humanity approaches less desirable socio-environmental states in path-dependent
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3

processes and as a result of ‘lock-in’ (Unruh, 2000), there is a need to move beyond the sweep-
ing calls “to come to terms with tourism’s negative impacts” (Caton et al., 2014: 125), and to
rather understand the system dynamics and their structural conditions to advance the SDGs.
For this purpose, the paper moves beyond the discussion of individual SDG goals in favor of
a more comprehensive understanding of underlying developments, and with a view to highlight
‘taboos’ and omissions. ‘Taboos’ here refers to key barriers to progress on the SDGs that coun-
tries choose to not discuss, including population growth and affluence (Ehrlich and Holdren
1971). Both issues are acknowledged widely in the literature (Hubacek et al., 2017; Ivanova &
Wood, 2020; Wynes & Nicholas, 2017), specifically in regard to unequal wealth distribution
(Piketty 2014), but they are socially and politically ignored and even contradicted. Likewise, main-
stream opinion purports that technology & ICT benefit human development (Sachs et al., 2019),
omitting more problematic implications, such as those related to surveillance and corporate
power (Babic et al., 2017; Zuboff, 2019).
The following sections take the form of discourse analysis, i.e. a discussion of depictions of
social reality (Potter, 2004). The image of technology and ICT as something inherently beneficial
to the human project is socially constructive of a given reality (Gill, 2000). This is for instance evi-
dent in the creation and widespread adoption of biology nomenclature in the business and man-
agement literature. Terminology such as “business ecosystem” (Kandiah & Gossain, 1998) is now
featuring widely in consultancy documents (e.g. Copenhagen Economics, 2020a), or, in the con-
text of tourism studies, recognizable in related terms of “tourism ecosystem” (Gretzel et al.,
2015), “urban smart tourism ecosystems” (Brandt et al., 2017), “managerial ecology” (Hall, 2019)
or “scapegoat ecology” (Mkono, Hughes and Echentille 2020). However, ‘ecology’ describes rela-
tions of organisms with other organisms and their physical environment, while the term
‘ecosystem’ refers to the interaction of organisms in a specific physical environment; in both
cases on the basis of rules founded in biology, physics and chemistry. In comparison, businesses
are embedded in socio-economic organizational structures, and governed by economic and legal
rules. The difference should be obvious: an ecosystem does not strive for abstract profit nor will
it exist outside laws of energy preservation; it follows causality as set out in the natural sciences.
In contrast, socio-economic systems are governed by rules and laws that will change over time,
and allow for unequal exchange in time or energy (Dorninger et al., 2021). Much of the termin-
ology that is in use in the (tourism) literature is thus socially constructive, possibly to invoke
notions of efficiency or economic-environmental alignment.
Given the vast size of the field discussing sustainability and the SDGs, the paper does not
attempt to engage in a systematic literature review. Instead, it is focused on the discussion of
the implications of technology and ICT innovations for socio-economic-environmental systems in
human development terms and more specific tourism contexts. It seeks to embrace complexity
and to consider insights from various disciplines, on the premise that it is important to recognize
the challenges incurred in the technology and ICT progression: to dismantle contradictions, to
discuss ways to overcome fundamental roadblocks, and to devise strategies to increase benefits.

Emergence and outcomes of technology and ICT developments

Many of the technology and ICT innovations people take for granted have been introduced
rather recently (Figure 1), bearing evidence of an acceleration in the development of socio-
technological systems. The World Wide Web was made available in 1993, a period also character-
ized by an expansion in personal computer use. Emails increasingly replaced other forms of com-
munication (letters, facsimiles) in the mid 1990s. Nokia introduced the first cellphones with
internet capabilities in 1996. Websites caused an early wave of Internet gold fever, but the dot-
com bubble was initially short-lived (Goodnight & Green, 2010). Yet, by 2000, the Pew Research
Center (2000) recorded that some 43% of American Internet users would miss going online “a
4 S. GÖSSLING

Figure 1. Technology innovations and ICT developments, 1990–2020.

Time scale positions indicate when technologies/ICTs became widely available to consumers, not when these were invented. The most recent
tech & ICT developments have not as yet become relevant for mass-markets.

lot”. At this point in time, the introduction of the Web2.0 allowed users to make the step from
being passive observers of online content to become its generators. The Internet turned to par-
ticipation, and became driven by contributions from individuals and their interactive collabor-
ation (Sutter, 2009), vastly increasing the interest in technology and ICT.
The most significant hallmark over the past 30 years of technology innovations is arguably the
smartphone, introduced by Apple in 2007. The phone made it possible to use applications (apps),
of which just 500 were available through the IOS App Store in 2008 – compared to 2,560,000 in
2020 (Google Play Store; BusinessofApps, 2020). New ICT services, such as social media, including
social networking sites, blogs, review sites, and wikis (Gandomi & Haider, 2015), rapidly gained in
popularity in subsequent years. A global survey found that consumers spent an average 80 minutes
per day accessing the mobile Internet in 2015, and 130 minutes in 2019 (Zenithmedia, 2020).
Throughout the past decade, tech innovations have been added to the market: smart speakers and
smart watches around 2010, data glasses (smart glasses) in 2013. These innovations enabled new
applications, ranging from biometric ID to e-governance to wireless payment. Virtual reality (VR)
headsets are now in use in various contexts, including gaming and augmented reality applications.
In the future, emotion sensors are likely to represent the next step in the technology development
chain, again allowing for new ICT innovations. The timeline (Figure 1) illustrates both the recency of
many innovations, as well as the growing speed of market integration.
Growing opportunities to use mobile ICT have gone along with very significant changes in
consumer behaviour that fundamentally altered business models. Large global tech firms profited
most, with estimates that apps were downloaded 115 billion times in 2019 (Google Play and IOS
App Stores; BusinessofApps, 2020). Platforms increasingly control purchases of goods (Amazon;
Alibaba; E-bay), the flow of information (Alphabet including Google), data processing (Microsoft),
sociality online (Facebook; Instagram; Weibo; Whatsapp; Tencent; Twitter), trade, sales and logis-
tics (JD; SAP), entertainment streaming (Netflix, YouTube), or financial transactions (PayPal,
ApplePay). Market concentration processes are ongoing. For example, Facebook bought
Instagram in 2012 and Whatsapp in 2014. Cooperation between the corporate leaders has simul-
taneously intensified, as evident in the increasing number of sites asking for registration through
Facebook or Google accounts. This confirms and reinforces these platforms’ market dominance,
as well as their capabilities in verifying identity. As an outcome, there has been a consolidation
in terms of the largest players in terms of revenue generation, the structure of financial flows to
“centers”, product and service diversity, as well as control of consumer information. This has
prompted lawsuits alleging anticompetitive behaviour (Vermont Law School, 2020).
Financial flows are perhaps best suited to illustrate the economic outcomes of concentration
processes. Babic et al. (2017) show that on the basis of a comparison of state revenue (taxes)
and business revenue (turnover), the 100 largest economic entities in the world comprise 71 cor-
porations and 29 countries. In 2016, Walmart’s revenue was larger than Spain’s; Royal Dutch
Shell’s larger than Sweden’s. Facebook’s marketing income alone was US$148 billion in 2014
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 5

Figure 2. Drivers, changes and outcomes of the technology & ICT innovations.
Source: author, based on Babic et al., 2017; Mills, 2016; Zuboff, 2019

(Deloitte, 2015), and hence only slightly smaller than Denmark’s tax revenue in 2016 (Babic et al.,
2017). While the global economy continues to be dominated by corporations belonging to the
oil and automotive industries, tech and ICT corporations have become increasingly important.
The largest 20 technology corporations reported a combined revenue of US$2,641 billion in 2019
(FXXSI, 2020), exceeding the tax revenue of any nation state save the USA (Babic et al., 2017).
It is obvious that the rapid growth of the ICT economy initiated complex changes that have
affected businesses small and large, with repercussions for individuals and society, as well as
consumer culture more generally. Figure 2 illustrates this in a generalized model of drivers,
changes, and outcomes for consumers and businesses. Drivers of consumer ICT interest include
access to information, social networks, and goods and services; businesses profit from new mar-
kets, productivity gains, new business models, as well as the control of consumer preferences.
Notably, in the ICT economy, means of production loose importance in comparison to the con-
trol of transactions. Drivers of change thus always need to be understood as both opportunities
and necessities: where ICT turn into standards, business involvement is no longer a choice.
Thus, the widespread adoption of ICT has led to changes in the way consumers find, access, and
interpret information; how they plan and purchase; learn and debate; interact and participate. For
companies, there have been major shifts in management and marketing; sales and yield manage-
ment strategies; growth and expansion; as well as implications for profitability. Over the last decade,
these changes have had an unprecedented acuity for society and businesses.
Last, outcomes for society and businesses are complex. On the side of the consumer, ICT inno-
vations have generated new consumer cultures, social norms and concomitant needs, such as to
manage one’s online reputation. Social media also change perspectives on time, as being
“constantly online” (Mills, 2016: 4) means living in the present, attenuating the importance of
past and future. This has repercussions for the way humans interact, think, and learn; including
creativity, attention spans, and overall intellectual capacity (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Lewis
et al., 2010; van Laar et al., 2020). Carr (2020: 112) calls online presence a “permanent state of
distractedness”, and there is evidence that online culture affects cognitive processes including
6 S. GÖSSLING

analytical thinking, memory, performance, social cue interpretation and social competence (Mills,
2016). On the side of businesses, a growing share of transactions are managed through ICT.
Smaller companies face the new markets’ oligopolistic tendencies and depend on platforms dic-
tating their own rules. Business value is measured in views, likes or stars. Developments have
also meant that volunteered and extracted individualized consumer data is the central commod-
ity in the ICT economy.
The complexity of these processes is best illustrated looking into one individual company such
as Facebook, though Booking or Airbnb are likely equally revealing in tourism contexts. Launched
in 2004, Facebook claimed to support 4.5 million jobs globally in 2014 (Deloitte, 2015), and e208
billion in economic activity across 15 EU markets in 2019 (Copenhagen Economics, 2020b). Figures
such as these support an understanding of Facebook as a job engine, omitting that as a result of
the platform’s growth, vast job numbers have also disappeared: Between the mid-1990s and mid-
2000s, print media started to struggle with the transition to (additional) digital editions, while simul-
taneously facing revenue losses due to a massive shift of advertisement flowing to Facebook and
other platforms (ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission), 2018). As a result, many
daily newspapers went bankrupt in the 2000s (Herndon, 2012), while journalists were replaced with
‘authors’ (O’Regan & Young, 2019). By implication, power over news flows (and hence opinion)
shifted, while investigative journalism controlling the dealings of large corporations disappeared
(Carson, 2014). The information vacuum was filled by Facebook and other online platforms with
their new formats including news apps, podcasts, or video streaming and a focus on specific stories
(ACCC (Australian Competition & Consumer Commission), 2018): “News” became “algorithmically
personalized services” (Bodo , 2019), with contents increasingly designed to shape opinion, written
by people without education in journalism ethics.
The importance of these changes in terms of misleading information has been intensely dis-
cussed, because it affects trust in government services and institutions (Einstein & Glick, 2015). It
undermines the “intellectual well-being” of society and thus the foundations of democracy
(Lewandowsky et al., 2017: 355). Notably, misleading information is often targeted at specific audi-
ences determined on the basis of algorithms using ‘volunteered’ consumer data (Sinclair 2016). It
involves complex sets of techniques such as bots (automated user accounts to manipulate other
users or algorithms), spamming (deceptive profiles in social network communities), astroturfing
(coordination of large groups of platform users to spread specific content), contagion (spread of
content through social media chains), algorithmic bias (spread of specific information that is not
balanced in terms of its reporting), and outright fake news (fabricated information) (Treen, Williams
& O’Neill, 2020). All of these forms of online misinformation tap into human interest to receive
“newsworthy” information, also to create social capital (Phua et al., 2017). As confirmed by
Vosoughi et al. (2018), false news spread faster than real news. Facebook enables and accelerates
misinformation, due to the platform’s global use and outreach and its functioning as an “echo
chamber” (Treen et al., 2020), in which opinion polarization is based on processes of belief system
reinforcement within social media groups with specific identities (Dovidio et al., 1998).
ICT media innovations thus undermine social and political form, creating a “post-truth world
[that has] emerged as a result of [ … ] growing economic inequality, increased polarization,
declining trust in science, and an increasingly fractioned media landscape” (Lewandowsky et al.,
2017: 353). Put differently, part of the ICT economy feeds on the deteriorating socio-economic-
political structures that its business model creates. It is for this reason Zuboff (2019) describes
the ICT economy as “surveillance capitalism” that seeks to replace the nation state with
“instrumentarianism”. Her observations need to be seen in light of global tendencies for coun-
tries to drift towards autocratic regimes (V-Dem Institute, 2020), the ICT economy’s tax avoidance
strategies (e.g. Los Angeles Times, 2016), as well as mechanisms of data collection through (self)-
surveillance (Chantre-Astaiza et al., 2019; Erevelles et al., 2016).
As Carr (2020) notes, just ten years ago the Internet was associated with access to information.
Today, the opportunity of access has turned into a necessity to engage, as sociality in Gen Z (and
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 7

partially in Gen Y) is largely lived and organized through apps and social media. ICT taps into the
basic human need to connect, to belong, and to be accepted among peers: it defines ‘meaning’
(Williams, 2001) and thus affects identity formation, autonomy, and wider social norms.

Technology, ICT & the SDGs

The preceding discussion raises significant questions regarding the role of the ICT economy in
the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. In 2015, the UN Sustainable Development
Summit in New York adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have since pro-
vided the guideline for global development (UN 2018). The SDGs address poverty and inequality,
health and education, gender equality, water and energy, climate, and the environment on land
and in the oceans. The UN (2020) acknowledges that very limited progress on the SDGs has
been undermined by the COVID-19 crisis. Naidoo and Fisher (2020: 198) suggest that “[ … ] the
very foundations on which the SDGs were built have shifted.” With expectations that climate
change will lead to greater food security vulnerabilities, the socio-economic situation in many
countries is now characterized by a very real risk of “geopolitical unrest” (ibid.).
In discussing the key challenges, Naidoo and Fisher (2020) start with population growth: “[ … ]
if the world’s population rises, as predicted, to 9.7 billion by 2050, it will exacerbate all other
threats to sustainability” (ibid.: 200). Notably, children born in high-income countries contribute
to resource consumption at a rate up to several orders of magnitude greater than children born
in poorer parts of Africa (Ivanova & Wood, 2020). This is particularly relevant in the context of cli-
mate change: Wynes and Nicholas (2017) suggest that having one fewer child saves, in devel-
oped countries, 58.6 t of CO2-equivalent per year. In comparison, a car-free lifestyle can save 2.4
t CO2-equivalent per year. Population growth is also linked to loss of biological diversity and
food production (Crist et al., 2017). Yet, politically, population growth continues to be a non-
issue (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018), and many high-income countries retain policies to increase
birth rates (e.g. Lepperhoff & Correll, 2014).
A second major sustainability challenge is affluence (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971; Holdren and
Ehrlich 1974; Saez 2017; Wiedmann et al., 2020). There is ample evidence that resource consump-
tion increases with wealth (Hubacek et al., 2017; Ivanova & Wood, 2020). It is equally clear that
ecological modernization cannot outweigh growing resource use, requiring behaviour change
and limits to consumption (Alcott, 2008; Sorrell et al., 2020; Spangenberg & Lorek, 2019). Yet, the
implications of affluence and wealth distribution are not usually discussed in the development
literature (see e.g. Sachs et al., 2019), other than in terms of the need to increase income levels
among the poor. Recent years have seen an acceleration of global inequalities in wealth distribu-
tion, with estimates that the world’s 2,153 billionaires possess the same wealth as the
4,600,000,000 least wealthy (Oxfam, 2020). In line with these concentration processes, global cor-
porations have become more powerful economically and politically, while seeking to avoid tax
payments and to obscure production processes (e.g. Cherry & Sneirson, 2012; Contractor, 2016).
Naidoo and Fisher (2020) also raise the issue of subsidies, as governments support fossil fuel
industries with 6.3% of global GDP (in 2015). These processes have relevance for the ICT econ-
omy, which is more energy-efficient than other economic sectors in principle (Lange et al., 2020),
but still consuming large amounts of energy (Hittinger & Jaramillo, 2019). There is also a differ-
ence in the ‘value’ generated: Agriculture produces food, while the ICT economy may burn fossil
fuels to generate cryptocurrencies via algorithm-based ‘mining’ (Gallersdo €rfer et al., 2020).
In light of these reflections, there is a need to reinforce efforts to advance the SDGs (Naidoo
& Fisher, 2020; UN 2020); a discussion in which artificial intelligence and digital technologies
often feature as “solutions”. Sachs et al. (2019: 810), for example, underline that “digital technolo-
gies can raise productivity, lower production costs, reduce emissions, expand access, reduce
resource intensity of production processes, improve matching in markets, enable the use of big data
8 S. GÖSSLING

and make public services more readily available”. Even though some risks are mentioned, such as the
loss of jobs, tax avoidance, the theft of digital identities, privacy invasion, or data monopolies, there
appears to be a very limited understanding of the wider socio-economic-environmental implications
of ICT innovations. As Banister and Stead (2004: 628) observed in transport contexts, “every techno-
logical innovation has acted to increase demand rather than to reduce it” (Banister & Stead, 2004:
628), raising the prospect of potentially contradictory outcomes of ICT innovations.

Technology and ICT in tourism studies

Relationships of technology & ICT with tourism have received much attention since the early
days of computerized reservation systems, global distribution systems, and the introduction of
the Internet (Inkpen, 1998; O’Connor, 1999; Tjoa, 1997; Werthner & Klein, 1999). Digitalization is
now the largest field in tourism studies that also has seen the publication of many influential
papers, if measured in citation numbers. These discuss marketing and management (Buhalis,
2003; Buhalis & Laws, 2001; Carter & Bedard, 2001; Carter & Richer, 1999) wider ICT develop-
ments (Buhalis, 2003; Buhalis & Law, 2008), social media (Leung et al., 2013; Xiang & Gretzel,
2010) and recommender systems (Ricci et al., 2015).
The field has now reached such a degree of maturity that reviews are increasingly common-
place. In a meta-study of reviews, Ukpabi and Karjaluoto (2017) show that there has been a par-
ticular interest in ICT applications (Buhalis & Law, 2008; Frew, 2000; Law et al., 2009; 2010; 2014;
Leung & Law, 2007); social media (Leung et al., 2013; Lu & Stepchenkova, 2015; Zeng &
Gerritsen, 2014); market segmentation based on ICT (Pesonen, 2013); and Internet marketing
(Leung et al., 2015). Ukpabi and Karjaluoto (2017) see these as dimensions of consumer adoption
of ICT, either in the form of web-based services, social media, or mobile information systems. In
the most recent review, Law et al. (2019) distinguish consumer and supplier perspectives. They
conclude that, on the consumer side, most papers discuss purchase decisions, followed by post-
purchase behaviour, information searches, technology adoption, alternatives evaluation, and
need recognition. On the supplier-side, ICT research is occupied with management, followed by
research, product distribution, promotion, and communication.
This suggests that ICT research in tourism is preoccupied with business models or consumer
responses. Studies have predominantly had economic perspectives, often with normative starting
points. In comparison, critical studies of ICT in environmental, social or governance contexts are
relatively rare. They also focus on potential positive contributions: to measure carbon content, to
design “intelligent” transport systems, to manage and monitor - from energy to waste to visitors
(e.g. Ali & Frew, 2014; Buning & Lulla, 2021; Gallego & Font, 2020; Giglio et al., 2019; Scott &
Frew, 2013; Serrano et al., 2020). Budeanu (2013) raised the prospect of an increase in demand
in socially and environmentally “better” products and services as a result of online comparison,
though concluding that such an interest was not as yet evident on social media. It may be
argued that neither has this interest developed over the past seven years. This is also true for
social equity, local control, employment quality, or biological diversity preservation, the future
ICT-advancing-sustainability propositions heralded by Benckendorff et al. (2014). In recalling the
outline of this paper, interrelationships of ICT with sustainability beget complexity, and they can
contradict or confound the SDGs (Go €ssling, 2017; Nagle & Vidon, 2020).
The dearth of critical assessments of tourism and ICT interrelationships is evident. Yet, such
views are needed, as there are consequences for i) businesses, in terms of revenue generation
and distribution, market access and concentration, competition, dependency structures, profit-
ability, reputation, value chains and business ethics; ii) destinations in terms of changes in spend-
ing, length of stay, timing of holidays, tax evasion, health and safety, control, overtourism
phenomena; and iii) consumers in regard to judgement, information search, purchase decision-
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9

Figure 3. Affordances and concessions*.

The timeline should be seen as an approximation.

making, cultural learning, utilization of transport systems, or the performance of mobilities

(Go€ssling & Hall, 2019).
Double-edged outcomes can be illustrated for consumers, for whom opportunities associated
with technology and ICT innovations represent affordances, defined here with Gibson (1966) as
“resources or support”. As Figure 3 shows, affordances have demanded concessions. Affordances
include information & advice in the form of websites, travel advice, weather data, or translation
services. There is also support for finding accommodation, including rental, reciprocal or free
10 S. GÖSSLING

stays, as well as services related to food, such as special-interest gastronomy (vegan, distin-
guished), food communication, or deliveries. Services related to transportation include informa-
tion, reservations, planning and routing, or rentals/sharing (cars, bicycles, e-scooters). Social
networks refers to sociality through co-presence, social capital generation, or new relations
(Germann Molz, 2006, 2012; Go €ssling & Stavrinidi, 2016).
Orientation comprises tools to navigate unfamiliar environments, including the outdoors.
Payment is of central relevance for any traveler and reduces risks (carrying cash), including pay-
ment functions and blockchain currencies (Tham & Sigala, 2020). Health refers to options to
monitor or improve one’s fitness (pulse, steps walked, kilometers cycled, calories “burnt”). Finally,
travelness (Urry, 2012) is an important emerging use of ICT related to self-representation needs
(Marwick, 2015; Ok Lyu, 2016) and affecting identity formation (Go €ssling & Stavrinidi, 2016).
Social media has great relevance in this context because of its roles in upward comparison; this
is, tendencies to compare one’s own situation with better-off others (Matley, 2018; Taylor &
Strutton, 2016). Comparison may involve staged and manipulated situations, depicted in edited
and modified photographs (Marwick, 2015), again underlining the complexity of ICT uses
and outcomes.
ICT affordances are usually taken for granted by customers, though there are concessions of
personal data. Figure 3 suggests that these concessions have become more comprehensive over
time, beginning with general consumer (citizen) interests and social network structures
(Grimmelmann, 2008), and subsequently tracking purchasing behaviour and consumer preferen-
ces (Erevelles et al., 2016), as well as locational data (Humphreys, 2017). It may be argued that
citizen data then gained importance (see Cambridge Analytica scandal; Venturini & Rogers,
2019), along with economic status data to derive credit ratings and consumer profiles (Hurley &
Adebayo, 2017). More recently, the introduction of smart watches initiated real-time health data
collection, linked to remote monitoring, and with options to make this data available to the
health system (King & Sarrafzadeh 2018). In the near future, focus will be on emotions, including
opportunities to distinguish individuals on the basis of their personality types (Matsuda et al.,
2018; Xing et al., 2019). An important caveat is that while some jurisdictions have implemented
barriers to limit opportunities for private data collection (EC 2020), the reality is that individuals
are incapable to consider all privacy policies (McDonald & Cranor, 2008), and even unlikely to
see the need to protect their privacy (Acquisti et al., 2015).
There is much evidence that these processes are driven by large corporations to gain con-
sumer control, with complex outcomes for society. AirBnB, for example, introduced mutual
reviews, encouraging guests to rate hosts and hosts to rate guests, in a form of reciprocal sur-
veillance (cf. Celata et al., 2017; Newell, 2014). This effectively expands surveillance structures
(Lyon et al., 2012) and introduces the need for online reputation management. Notably, the pri-
vate sector has opportunities for data collection that are equal to those of government, though
with fewer restrictions (Marx, 2012). This discussion will gain importance with the emergence of
AI and the potential for ICTs to determine identity and personality, questioning the autonomy of
an increasingly expandable, replaceable, manipulable, and exploitable global consumer class
doubling as workforce.

ICT & SDGs: from divergence to support

The ICT economy imposes systemic risks on society that also undermine sustainability goals,
such as those related to equality, autonomy, transparency, and democracy. It also creates new
challenges for individuals in terms of competition, learning, or socializing. These downsides of
the ICT economy are not usually discussed; yet they have specific relevance in light of the pro-
gression that is observable. In tourism, developments may be conceptualized as four distinct
stages. Each of these stages covers about one decade, described here as opportunity, disruption,
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 11

Figure 4. Four stages of ICT development in tourism.

immersion and usurpation. Stage 1, Opportunity (roughly 1985-1995), is characterized by major

advances in connectivity and coordination (Figure 4). For example, computerized reservation sys-
tems made bookings seamless, and allowed for reservations to be made in real-time. Global dis-
tribution systems increased outreach, facilitating in particular air transport. Company websites
combined tourist information interests with opportunities for self-representation and marketing.
In this early stage of the technology and ICT revolution, structural change implied benefits in
terms of efficiency and user-friendliness, with a low level of complexity involved in transactions.
Stage 2, Disruption (1996–2006), sees the emergence of the platform economy. Quasi-monopo-
lies are established, as global platforms become intermediaries in reservation transactions.
Disruptive innovations (Booking, the low cost carriers) increase the speed and ease of reservations,
introduce direct competition on price, while adding capacity and increasing overall demand. The
introduction of rating systems trails its own issues of reputation management, trust, and wider con-
sumer norm changes, with concomitant repercussions for businesses and consumers.
Stage 3, Immersion (2007-2015), describes the wider absorption of ICT in the daily lives of con-
sumers as a result of widespread smartphone adoption, and patterns of immersion in social media
use. Disruptive innovations (e.g. AirBnB) continue to affect market propositions and to upset estab-
lished business models. The collection of ‘volunteered’ consumer data becomes systemic, and
makes it possible to predict and shape demand. Markets become increasingly concentrated as
established platforms increase their outreach, and start to become interconnected and integrated.
Finally, stage 4, Usurpation (2016-2020, ongoing), may be understood as the expansion of
power and control mechanisms by a limited number of dominating platforms on a global scale,
with a focus on the individualized consumer. With access to data defining consumers - also in
their role as citizens -, platforms gather information encompassing social and professional net-
works, economic ratings, health, views, and personality. Surveillance has turned into a norm, and
can be mutual, as in the case of Airbnb hosts and guests. The ultimate corporate goal is to
shape consumer demand in real time, as well as to influence the preferences of citizens in
social-media engineered democracies. This coincides with the growing dependence of individuals
on ICT for participation in social and professional life.
There is some evidence that the next stage in this development will see a major role for
robotics, cryptocurrencies, and artificial intelligence (Law et al., 2018). Provisionally, it may be
called a stage of Assertion, the cementing of control and power structures, through ICT. This fifth
12 S. GÖSSLING

stage is likely to simultaneously undermine governmental and institutional control, as exempli-

fied by the expansion of cryptocurrencies. It will also further question sustainable development
goals in that the ICT economy seeks to extract economic value and to control the economically
valuable population. By implication, the interest in “redundant” people will be limited. As the ICT
economy is guided by an economic imperative, environmental and social goals will only be con-
sidered where consumers demand this.
Toward the end of 2020, the ICT expansion consequently predicts structures that represent
growing risks for society. It will be difficult to correct these developments, as ICT powerfully con-
nect to social needs that they reinforce and echo. Social media streamline desires, reinforce fears,
and they demand specific preferences while ruling out others: travel platforms, for example, are as
much about applauding movement as they are about condemning stasis. Individual entanglement
with the ICT economy and the building of digital identities dependent on social media thus repre-
sent major barriers to more critical views of the implications of technology and ICT developments.
Findings such as these can also be discussed in relation to popular views that the ICT economy
will make key contributions to the SDGs (e.g. Sachs et al., 2019). While such notions refer to the
potential of resource efficiency gains, it also remains questionable whether such gains, if they
materialize, will not be dwarfed by the overall growth of the economy. This would be specifically
true for the tourism economy and its resource use dynamic (Lenzen et al., 2018). There is thus a
need to critically examine technology and ICT outcomes, bearing in mind complexities, causalities,
and hierarchies, such as the double-challenge of population and affluence growth. Currently, the
evidence is that the ICT economy contributes to accelerating resource use, the channeling of trans-
action benefits to the already wealthy, and further deterioration of social development goals.
This critical discussion of the ICT economy reveals a need for regulation. This, however, will
be difficult, as the ICT economy dissolves boundaries between consumer and citizen, corporation
and state. Even though some proposals exist (e.g. Leal et al., 2020), there can be little doubt that
bolder action is necessary. Even though hopes have been expressed that technology and ICT will
make major contributions to advancing the SDGs, it appears that ICT tools are currently used to
investigate and understand the very problems the ICT economy created in the first place (e.g.
Celata & Romano, 2020; Peeters et al. 2018). Even forward-looking discussions of ICT (Fennell,
2020; Han et al., 2018; McGrath et al., 2020) do not suggest transformative outcomes. This con-
firms a risk that ongoing discussions of ICT benefits are socially constructive in the sense that
they support a narrative of technology and ICT as inherently beneficial, in spite of much evi-
dence to the contrary.

Conclusion
This paper observes that technology and ICT innovations are widely understood as making posi-
tive contributions to human development. This overlooks surveillance structures and quasi-
monopolies in the ICT economy that blur lines between government and corporation, consumer
and citizen. The ICT economy transforms global economies, society and individuals. While many
of the affordances of the ICT economy are welcomed by consumers, there is a social cost in
terms of equality, autonomy, transparency, and democracy. The ICT economy in its current form
does not make the world fairer or more resilient, and it is not respectful of environmental limits.
Some important interrelationships have been discussed in the context of tourism, examined
in terms of a juxtaposition of affordances and concessions. Technology and ICT are attractive
because of the wide range of opportunities they offer to navigate tourist life. Yet, affordances
demand concessions in the form of personal data. Individuals are increasingly tracked and pro-
filed with the purpose of revenue generation. Tourism is a specifically relevant arena for these
developments, as the platform economy is a prominent driver of developments in the sector,
and because of the many applications with relevance for travelers.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 13

If technologies and ICTs are to make positive contributions to sustainable development, these
insights need to be addressed. This is primarily a structural problem, in which the dominance of
individual platforms, their influence, and the evident lack of regulation have created barriers to
transform the sector. There clearly is an opportunity for ICT to make substantial sustainability
contributions, but to harness this potential will require awareness of risks and complexities, also
in regard to consumption and production norms, citizenship and governance. Critical scholarship
will continue to have an important role in empowering transformations, though this will require
the field to acknowledge that it has to far been largely uncritical, supportive and hence socially
constructive of developments.

Note
1. The terminology used in this paper distinguishes technologies and Information and Communication
technologies (ICTs). Technologies are defined as hardware (from smartphones to smart glasses), while ICTs
describes the software (websites, applications, social media, artificial intelligence) used by technology.

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

References
Buhalis, D & Laws, E. (eds). (2001). Tourism Distribution Channels-Practices, Issues and Transformations., Continuum
Publishing.
(2013). Ateljevic, I., Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (Eds.). The critical turn in tourism studies: Creating an academy of
hope. Routledge.
ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) (2018). Issues Paper: Digital Platforms Inquiry. Canberra,
ACT, Australia: ACCC.
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information.
Science (New York, N.Y.).), 347(6221), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465
Alcott, B. (2008). The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecological
Economics, 64(4), 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.015
Ali, A., & Frew, A. J. (2014). ICT and sustainable tourism development: An innovative perspective. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 5(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-12-2012-0034
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Babic, M., Fichtner, J., & Heemskerk, E. M. (2017). States versus corporations: Rethinking the power of business in
international politics. The International Spectator, 52(4), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2017.1389151
Banister, D., & Stead, D. (2004). Impact of information and communications technology on transport. Transport
Reviews, 24 (5), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000206060
Bauder, H., Engel, D., & Mauro, S. (2008). Critical geographies: a collection of readings. Praxis e-Press.
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.
1086/671052
Benckendorff, P. J., Sheldon, P. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2014). Tourism information technology. CABI.
Bodo , B. (2019). Selling news to audiences–a qualitative inquiry into the emerging logics of algorithmic news per-
sonalization in. Digital Journalism, 7(8), 1054–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1624185
Boluk, K. A., Cavaliere, C. T., & Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2019). A critical framework for interrogating the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda in tourism.
Bongaarts, J., & O’Neill, B. C. (2018). Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold? Science (New York,
N.Y.), 361(6403), 650–652. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat8680
Brandt, T., Bendler, J., & Neumann, D. (2017). Social media analytics and value creation in urban smart tourism eco-
systems. Information & Management, 54(6), 703–713.
Budeanu, A. (2013). Sustainability and tourism social media. In A.M. Munar, S. Gyimo thy, & C. Liping (Eds.), Tourism
social media: Transformations in identity, community and culture. (pp. 87–103). Emerald.
Buhalis, D. (2003). e tourism –Information Technology for strategic tourism management. Prentice Hall.
14 S. GÖSSLING

Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10
years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609–623. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.005
Buning, R. J., & Lulla, V. (2021). Visitor bikeshare usage: tracking visitor spatiotemporal behavior using big data.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(4), 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1825456
BusinessofApps (2020). App download and usage statistics. Available: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-
statistics/ Accessed 13 October 2020.
Carr, N. (2020). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. WW Norton & Company.
Carson, A. (2014). The political economy of the print media and the decline of corporate investigative journalism in
Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2014.963025
Carter, R., & Bedard, F. (2001). E-Business for Tourism-Practical Guidelines for Tourism Destinations and Business., WTO
Business Council.
Carter, R., & Richer, P. (1999). Marketing Tourism Destination Online., WTO Business Council.
Caton, K., Schott, C., & Daniele, R. (2014). Tourism’s imperative for global citizenship. Journal of Teaching in Travel &
Tourism, 14, 123–128.
Celata, F., Hendrickson, C. Y., & Sanna, V. S. (2017). The sharing economy as community marketplace? Trust, reci-
procity and belonging in peer-to-peer accommodation platforms. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and
Society, 10(2), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsw044
Celata, F., & Romano, A. (2020). Overtourism and online short-term rental platforms in Italian cities. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1788568
Chantre-Astaiza, A., Fuentes-Moraleda, L., Mun ~oz-Mazo n, A., & Ramirez-Gonzalez, G. (2019). Science mapping of
tourist mobility 1980–2019. Technological advancements in the collection of the data for tourist traceability.
Sustainability, 11(17), 4738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174738
Cherry, M. A., & Sneirson, J. F. (2012). Chevron, Greenwashing, and the Myth of’Green Oil Companies. Journal of
Energy, Climate, and the Environment, 3, 133–153.
Cochoy, F., Hagberg, J., Petersson McIntyre, M., & So €rum, N. (Eds) (2017). Digitalizing Consumptions. How devices
shape consumer culture. Routledge.
Contractor, F. J. (2016). Tax avoidance by multinational companies: Methods, policies, and ethics. Rutgers Business
Review, 1(1), 27–43.
Copenhagen Economics (2020a). Empowering the European Business Ecosystem. Available: https://www.copenhage-
neconomics.com/publications/publication/empowering-the-european-business-ecosystem Accessed 14 October
2020.
Copenhagen Economics (2020b). The Facebook Company. Empowering the European Business Ecosystem.
Available: https://www.copenhageneconomics.com/publications/publication/empowering-the-european-business-
ecosystem Accessed 17 November 2020.
Crist, E., Mora, C., & Engelman, R. (2017). The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity
protection. Science (New York, N.Y.), 356(6335), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2011
Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2019). The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competi-
tion, innovation, and power. HarperCollins.
Deloitte (2015). Facebook’s global economic impact. Available: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/
Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-uk-global-economic-impact-of-facebook.pdf Accessed
14 October 2020.
Denegri-Knott, J., & Molesworth, M. (2010). Concepts and practices of digital virtual consumption. Consumption
Markets & Culture , 13(2), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253860903562130
Dorninger, C., Hornborg, A., Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Schaffartzik, A., Giljum, S., Engler, J.-O., Feller, R. L.,
Hubacek, K., & Wieland, H. (2021). Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: implications for sustainabil-
ity in the 21st century. Ecological Economics, 179, 106824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106824
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: status, differentiation, and a common in-group
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.109
EC (2020). EU data protection rules. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/eu-data-pro-
tection-rules_en Accessed 19 November 2020.
Einstein, K. L., & Glick, D. M. (2015). Do I think BLS data are BS? The consequences of conspiracy theories. Political
Behavior, 37(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z
Ekholm, B., Rockstro €m, J. (2019). Digital technology can cut global emissions by 15%. Here’s how. Available: https://
www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/why-digitalization-is-the-key-to-exponential-climate-action/ Accessed 7
November 2020.
Ehrlich, P. R. & Holdren, J. (1971). Impact of Population Growth, Science, 171, 1212–1217.
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer analytics and the transformation of marketing.
Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.001
Fennell, D. A. (2020). Technology and the sustainable tourist in the new age of disruption. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1769639
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 15

Forbes (2020). The richest people in the world. Available: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#1cd64db251c7

Accessed 12 March 2020.
Frew, A. J. (2000). Information and communications technology research in the travel and tourism domain: perspec-
tive and direction. Journal of Travel Research, 39(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750003900203
FXXSI (2020). Top 10 world’s most valuable technology companies in 2020. Available: https://fxssi.com/most-valu-
able-tech-companies Accessed 15 October 2020.
Gallego, I., & Font, X. (2020). Changes in air passenger demand as a result of the COVID-19 crisis: using Big Data to
inform tourism policy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1773476
Gallersdo €rfer, U., Klaaßen, L., & Stoll, C. (2020). Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond bitcoin. Joule, 4(9),
1843–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.07.013
Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. International Journal
of Information Management, 35(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007
Germann Molz, J. (2006). Watch us wander’: mobile surveillance and the surveillance of mobility. Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space, 38(2), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37275
Germann Molz, J. G. (2012). Travel connections: Tourism, technology and togetherness in a mobile world. Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin.
Giglio, S., Bertacchini, F., Bilotta, E., & Pantano, P. (2019). Using social media to identify tourism attractiveness in six
Italian cities. Tourism Management, 72, 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.007
Gill, R. (2000). Discourse Analysis. In Atkinson, P., Bauer, M.W. & Gaskell, G. (Eds), Qualitative Researching with Text,
Image and Sound (pp. 172–190). Sage.
Goodnight, G. T., & Green, S. (2010). Rhetoric, risk, and markets: The dot-com bubble. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
96(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335631003796669
Go€ssling, S. (2017). Tourism, information technologies and sustainability: an exploratory review. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 25(7), 1024–1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1122017
Go€ssling, S., & Hall, C. M. (2019). Sharing versus collaborative economy: how to align ICT developments and the
SDGs in tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1560455
Go€ssling, S., & Stavrinidi, I. (2016). Social networking, mobilities, and the rise of liquid identities. Mobilities, 11(5),
723–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2015.1034453
Gretzel, U., Werthner, H., Koo, C., & Lamsfus, C. (2015). Conceptual foundations for understanding smart tourism
ecosystems. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 558–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.043
Grimmelmann, J. (2008). Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review, 94, 1137–1206.
Gretzel, U., Fuchs, M., Baggio, R., Hoepken, W., Law, R., Neidhardt, J., Pesonen, J., Zanker, M. & Xiang, Z. (2020).
e-Tourism beyond COVID-19: a call for transformative research. Information Technology & Tourism, 22, 187–203,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00181-3
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
Han, W., McCabe, S., Wang, Y., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2018). Evaluating user-generated content in social media: an
effective approach to encourage greater pro-environmental behavior in tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
26(4), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1372442
Herndon, K. (2012). The decline of the daily newspaper: How an American institution lost the online revolution. Peter
Lang.
Hittinger, E., & Jaramillo, P. (2019). Internet of Things: Energy boon or bane? Science (New York, N.Y.).), 364(6438),
326–328. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau8825
Holdren, J. P., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Human population and the global environment: population growth, rising per
capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force.
American Scientist, 62(3), 282–292.
Hubacek, K., Baiocchi, G., Feng, K., Castillo, R. M., Sun, L., & Xue, J. (2017). Global carbon inequality. Energy, Ecology
and Environment, 2(6), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-017-0072-9
Hughes, K., & Moscardo, G. (2019). ICT and the future of tourist management. Journal of Tourism Futures, 5(3),
228–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2018-0072
Humphreys, L. (2017). Locating Locational Data in Mobile and Social Media. In Zimmer, M. and Kinder-Kurlanda, K.
(Eds) Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age (pp. 245–254). Peter Lang.
Hurley, M., & Adebayo, J. (2017). Credit scoring in the era of big data. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 18(1),
148–216.
Inkpen, G. (1998). Information Technology for Travel and Tourism., Addison Wesley Logman.
Ivanova, D., & Wood, R. (2020). The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to
sustainability. Global Sustainability, 3 https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.12
Kandiah, G., & Gossain, S. (1998). Reinventing value: The new business ecosystem. Strategy & Leadership, 26(5),
28–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054622
16 S. GÖSSLING

King, C. E., & Sarrafzadeh, M. (2018). A survey of smartwatches in remote health monitoring. Journal of Healthcare
Informatics Research, 2(1–2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41666-017-0012-7
Lange, S., Pohl, J., & Santarius, T. (2020). Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand?
Ecological Economics, 176, 106760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106760
Law, R., Buhalis, D., & Cobanoglu, C. (2014). Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality
and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(5), 727–750. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCHM-08-2013-0367
Law, R., Chan, I. C. C., & Wang, L. (2018). A comprehensive review of mobile technology use in hospitality and tour-
ism. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(6), 626–648.
Law, R., Leung, R., & Buhalis, D. (2009). Information technology application in hospitality and tourism: a review of
publication from 2005-2007. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26(5-6), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548400903163160
Law, R., Leung, D., & Chan, I. C. C. (2019). Progression and development of information and communication tech-
nology research in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(2),
511–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2018-0586
Law, R., Qi, S., & Buhalis, D. (2010). Progress in tourism management: A review of website evaluation in tourism
research. Tourism Management, 31(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.11.007
Leal, F., Malheiro, B., Veloso, B., & Burguillo, J. C. (2020). Responsible processing of crowdsourced tourism data.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1778011
Leban, M., Seo, Y., & Voyer, B. G. (2020). Transformational effects of social media lurking practices on luxury con-
sumption. Journal of Business Research, 116, 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.010
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y. Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y. P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism.
Nature Climate Change, 8(6), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
Lepperhoff, J., & Correll, L. (2014). Children in Family Policy Discourses in Germany: from invisible family members
to society’s great hope. Global Studies of Childhood, 4(3), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2014.4.3.143
Leung, X. Y., Xue, L., & Bai, B. (2015). Internet marketing research in hospitality and tourism: a review and journal
preferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(7), 1556–1572. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0268
Leung, R., & Law, R. (2007). Information technology publications in leading tourism journals: A study of 1985 to
2004. Information Technology & Tourism, 9(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830507781367357
Leung, D., Law, R., Van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 3–22.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-
truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.
2017.07.008
Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: mobile social media in genera-
tive learning communities. Social Science Information, 49(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018410370726
Los Angeles Times (2016). One of Facebook’s biggest accomplishments: Paying far lower taxes. Available: https://
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-facebook-taxes-20160714-snap-story.html Accessed 18 October 2020.
Lu, W., & Stepchenkova, S. (2015). User-generated content as a research mode in tourism and hospitality applica-
tions: Topics, methods, and software. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(2), 119–154.
Lyon, D., Haggerty, K. D., & Ball, K. (2012). Introducing surveillance studies. In: Ball, K., Haggerty, K. D., and Lyon, D.
(Eds) Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies (pp. 1–11). Routledge.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press.
Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capital-
ism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027
Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture, 27(1 75), 137–160. https://
doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2798379
Marx, G. T. (2012). Preface. In: Ball, K., Haggerty, K.D., and Lyon, D. (Eds) Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies
(pp. xx–xxxi). Routledge.
Matley, D. (2018). This is NOT a #humblebrag, this is just a #brag”: The pragmatics of selfpraise, hashtags and
politeness in Instagram posts. Discourse. Context & Media, 22, 30–38.
Matsuda, Y., Fedotov, D., Takahashi, Y., Arakawa, Y., Yasumoto, K., & Minker, W. (2018). Emotour: Estimating emotion
and satisfaction of users based on behavioral cues and audiovisual data. Sensors, 18(11), 3978. https://doi.org/10.
3390/s18113978
McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2008). The cost of reading privacy policies. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the
Information Society, 4, 543.
McGrath, G. M., Lockstone-Binney, L., Ong, F., Wilson-Evered, E., Blaer, M., & Whitelaw, P. (2020). Teaching sustain-
ability in tourism education: a teaching simulation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09669582.2020.1791892
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 17

Mills, K. L. (2016). Possible effects of internet use on cognitive development in adolescence. Media and
Communication, 4(3), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.516
Mkono, M., Hughes, K., & Echentille, S. (2020). Hero or villain? Responses to Greta Thunberg’s activism and the
implications for travel and tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(12), 2081–2098.
Moazed, A., & Johnson, N. L. (2016). Modern monopolies: what it takes to dominate the 21st century economy. St.
Martin’s Press.
Murphy, J. T. (2015). Human geography and socio-technical transition studies: Promising intersections.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.03.002
Nagle, D. S., & Vidon, E. S. (2020). Purchasing protection: outdoor companies and the authentication of technology
use in nature-based tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.
1828432
Naidoo, R., & Fisher, B. (2020). Reset sustainable development goals for a pandemic world. Nature, 583(7815),
198–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01999-x
Newell, B. C. (2014). Crossing lenses: policing’s new visibility and the role of smartphone journalism as a form of
freedom-preserving reciprocal surveillance. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, 59–104.
O’Connor, P. (1999). Electronic Information Distribution in Tourism and Hospitality. CABI Publishing.
O’Regan, T., & Young, C. (2019). Journalism by numbers: trajectories of growth and decline of journalists in the
Australian census 1961–2016. Media International Australia, 172(1), 13–32.
Ok Lyu, S. (2016). Travel selfies on social media as objectified self-presentation. Tourism Management, 54, 185–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.001
Oxfam (2020). Time to care. Available: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/time-care Accessed 6 November 2020.
Pesonen, A. J. (2013). Information and communications technology and market segmentation in tourism: a review.
Tourism Review, 68(2), 14–30.
Pew Research Center (2000). Tracking Online Life. Available: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2000/05/10/
tracking-online-life/ Accessed 20 November 2020.
Peeters, P., Go€ssling, S., Klijs, J., Milano, C., Novelli, M., Dijkmans, C., Eijgelaar, E., Hartman, S., Heslinga, J., Isaac, R.,
Mitas, O., Moretti, S., Nawijn, J., Papp, B., and Postma, A. (2018). Research for TRAN Committee – Overtourism:
impact and possible policy responses. Available: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/
629184/IPOL_STU(2018)629184_EN.pdf Accessed 10 October 2020.
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding
social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 72,
115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.041
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century. Havard University Press.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse Analysis. In: Hardy, M. and Bryman, A. (Eds), Handbook of Data Analysis (pp. 607–624).
Sage.
Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2015). Recommender systems handbook. Springer.
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shy-
ness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658–1664. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockstro €m, J. (2019). Six transforma-
tions to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-019-0352-9
Saez, E. (2017). Income and wealth inequality: Evidence and policy implications. Contemporary Economic Policy,
35(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12210
Scott, M. M., & Frew, A. J. (2013). Exploring the role of in-trip applications for sustainable tourism: Expert perspec-
tives. In Gretzel, U., Law, R. & Fuchs, M. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (pp.
36–46). Springer.
Serrano, L., Ariza-Montes, A., Nader, M., Sianes, A., & Law, R. (2020). Exploring preferences and sustainable attitudes
of Airbnb green users in the review comments and ratings: a text mining approach. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1838529
Sorrell, S., Gatersleben, B., & Druckman, A. (2020). The limits of energy sufficiency: A review of the evidence for
rebound effects and negative spillovers from behavioural change. Energy Research & Social Science, 64, 101439.
Spangenberg, J. H., & Lorek, S. (2019). Sufficiency and consumer behaviour: From theory to policy. Energy Policy,
129, 1070–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.013
Sutter, J. (2009). Tutorial: Introduction to web 2.0. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1),
40. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02540
Taylor, D. G., & Strutton, D. (2016). Does Facebook usage lead to conspicuous consumption? Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, 10(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-01-2015-0009
Tham, A., & Sigala, M. (2020). Road block (chain): bit (coin) s for tourism sustainable development goals? Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 11(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-05-2019-0069
Tjoa, A. M. (ed.) (1997). Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism. Springer.
18 S. GÖSSLING

Treen, K. M. D. I., Williams, H. T., & O’Neill, S. J. (2020). Online misinformation about climate change. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(5), e665.
Trottier, D. (2012). Social media as surveillance: Rethinking visibility in a converging world. Ashgate Publishing.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Random House.
Ukpabi, D., & Karjaluoto, H. (2017). Consumers’ acceptance of information and communications technology in tour-
ism: A review. Telematics and Informatics, 34 (5), 618–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.12.002
UN (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. Available: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-
Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020.pdf Accessed 2 November 2020.
Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-
4215(00)00070-7
Urry, J. (2012). Social networks, mobile lives and social inequalities. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 24–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.003
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-cen-
tury digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. SAGE Open, 10(1), 215824401990017. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2158244019900176
V-Dem Institute (2020). Democracy Report 2020. Available: https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/de/39/
de39af54-0bc5-4421-89ae-fb20dcc53dba/democracy_report.pdf Accessed 2 November 2020.
Venturini, T., & Rogers, R. (2019). API-Based Research” or How can Digital Sociology and Journalism Studies Learn
from the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Breach. Digital Journalism, 7(4), 532–540. https://doi.org/10.
1080/21670811.2019.1591927
Vermont Law School (2020). Class-action lawsuit against Facebook alleges anticompetitive behavior. Available:
https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/12/class-action-lawsuit-against-facebook-alleges-anticompetitive-behavior/
Accessed 22 December 2020.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6380),
1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
Werner, M., Asher, K., Barraclough, L., Featherstone, D., Loftus, A., Ouma, S., Theodore, N., & Kent, A. (2020). Radical
geography for a resurgent left. Antipode, 52, 3–11.
Werthner, H., & Klein, S. (1999). Information Technology and Tourism - A Challenging Relationship. Springer.
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature
Communications, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. Guildford Publications.
Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss
the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/aa7541
Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search. Tourism Management, 31(2),
179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.016
Xing, B., Zhang, H., Zhang, K., Zhang, L., Wu, X., Shi, X., Yu, S., & Zhang, S. (2019). Exploiting EEG signals and audio-
visual feature fusion for video emotion recognition. IEEE Access., 7, 59844–59861. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.
2019.2914872
Zeng, B., & Gerritsen, R. (2014). What do we know about social media in tourism? A review. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 10, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.001
Zenithmedia (2020). Consumers will spend 800 hours using mobile internet devices this year. Available: https://
www.zenithmedia.com/consumers-will-spend-800-hours-using-mobile-internet-devices-this-year/ Accessed 11
March 2020.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.
Public Affairs.