Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eti

Circular tourism economy in European Union between

competitiveness, risk and sustainability
Manuela Rozalia Gabor a, b, Mirela Panait c, d, *, Ioan Bogdan Bacoş a, e,
Laura Elly Naghi f, Flavia Dana Oltean a, b
a
“George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology of Targu Mures, Faculty of Economics and Law, Department
ED1 – Economic Sciences, Targu Mures, Romania
b
“George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology of Targu Mures, Department of Economic Research, Targu
Mures, Romania
c
Petroleum – Gas University of Ploiesti, 100680 Ploiesti, Romania
d
Institute of National Economy; Romanian Academy, 050771 Bucharest, Romania
e
Doctoral School IOSUD, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology of Targu Mures, Romania
f
Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tourism is an important sector of the world economy, significantly contributing to the creation of
Circular tourism GDP in certain countries. Despite the positive effects recorded at the economic and social levels,
Circular economy researchers began to highlight the negative externalities generated by tourism on the environ­
Environment pollution
ment, via air, soil and water degradation. Structural Equation Model (SEM) framework with
Air quality
SPSS—AMOS 22.0 software was used to investigate the total, direct and indirect effects of the
Statistical inference
Regression model independent variable on the dependent variable (Municipal waste) considering the intervening
Structural equation modeling effects of the mediators. This method has been employed in the case of all 30 European countries
under focus. As independent variables of SEM, after the numerous variants testes and analysis of
the model, we used as follows: TTCI, average stays, HDI, GDP, tourism in GDP (%), PM 10, PM 2.5,
CO2, Consumption of renewable resources (%) and Circular material uses rate (CMR) (%). The main
conclusions of the study regard, on the one hand, the negative impact that both the increase of
average stay/tourists’ arrivals/overnight stays and the decrease of tourism competitiveness rank
(from the last to the first rank) have on waste management and environment pollution. On the
other hand, the improvement of circular economy indicators (consumption of renewable re­
sources and circular material uses rate) has a positive impact on waste management and envi­
ronment pollution in European countries.

1. Introduction

Despite the consequences of COVID-19 pandemic, tourism is considered one of the most important sectors of the world economy
generating 10.4 % of the global gross domestic product (GDP), representing an important source of employment especially for women
and having an important contribution to poverty alleviation (Balsalobre - Lorente et al., 2020; Palazzo et al., 2022). In addition to the
positive economic and social effects, the negative externalities generated by tourism are increasingly being studied by researchers who

* Corresponding author at: Petroleum – Gas University of Ploiesti, 100680 Ploiesti, Romania.
E-mail address: mirela.matei@upg-ploiesti.ro (M. Panait).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103407
Received 15 May 2023; Received in revised form 28 July 2023; Accepted 8 October 2023
Available online 11 October 2023
2352-1864/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

underline the potential that this field of activity has for supporting efforts to reduce environmental degradation. Tourism is considered
a carbon-intensive industry, and scientific studies focus on the relationship between the development of this sector and the CO2
emissions generated by specific activities (Leitão and Lorente, 2020; Sharif et al., 2020a; Campos, 2021; Pata and Balsalobre-Lorente,
2022). However, tourism also generates water and soil pollution, which is why the impact of tourism on ecological footprint is an
increasingly discussed topic in the scientific literature (Khan et al., 2017; Sinha et al., 2020; Ghosh et al., 2022). The last two decades
represented a flourishing period for international tourism industry and for the supporting services (accommodation, local trans­
portation, food and beverage, waste management) until the outburst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the blooming
development of international tourism generated significant concerns on the local infrastructure, noise, pollution, transport-related
emissions, especially the CO2 emissions as negative effects of this activity were recorded and national concerns on tourism sustain­
ability were raised.
Due to these exposures, several risk management policies were drafted in order to limit the impact of the tourism on the global
environment – the prices of the services were already prepared to increase in order to support the contribution to the CO2 emission and
sustainability measures (Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2021). In 2018, one in ten enterprises in the European non-financial industry was
connected to tourism, employing an estimated 12.3 million persons. In 2018, Europe represented 51 % of the international arrivals
accounting for 710 million tourists from around the world that focused mainly on Spain, Italy, France and Greece, as an international
type of pilgrimage to either historical, religious sites or beaches was noticed. In 2019, Spain represented the most popular European
Union (EU) destination for holidays, as 299 million nights were spent in tourist accommodation, concentrated in three regions –
Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, and Catalonia. (Eurostat a, 2021). Unfortunately, the same revenues-generating activity caused
serious concern, as negative effects on the local communities were registered, such as the 4.8 tons of waste per EU inhabitant that were
generated in 2020, which represented an increase of 140 % compared with 2004 (Eurostat b, 2022).
The major shock of the tourism industry as a result of the 2020 pandemic brought about a break in the alarming levels of the air
quality and also allowed the change in the approach of tourism voyages around the world (European Environment Agency - European
Air Quality Index, 2020). The countries depending heavily on international tourists were severely impacted and domestic tourism was
the main form of destination as EU member states implemented restrictions to non-essential travel and even closed their borders for
certain periods of time. The summer of 2020 recorded decreases in the number of international arrivals, as well as a diminution of the
tourism establishments turnover (less accentuated in the case of camping grounds or trailer parks), as “staycation” replaced inter­
national vacations and new favorite destinations were noticed – Croatia, Canary Islands (Spain) and Tirol (Austria) (Eurostat c, 2022).
The number of nights spent in European tourism accommodation was reduced by half in 2020 engendering a severe impact upon the
tourism industry. Therefore, the resilience of tourism and the reconfiguration of this activity in the context of digitalization represent
new directions of analysis, considering the economic, social and political instability that characterizes the beginning of the millennium
but also the remarkable technical progress recorded. (Surugiu et al.,2023, 2019; Bănescu et al., 2021).
Despite the pandemic, the high concentration of tourist numbers in relatively few locations gave rise and continues to generate
concerns regarding sustainable development and emissions, which strengthens the necessity of risk management measures in tourism
industry (Sharif et al., 2020b; Bekun et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2022). In this regard, at European level, 25 regions registered a higher
number of international tourists even during the pandemic, namely: capital regions, coastal regions (renowned for popular beaches),
and mountain areas (preferred for winter holidays). As the tourists’ number has increased over the last 20 years, tourism transport,
pollution and waste management have become top priorities on the list of tourism and government representatives.
Risk management national policies are required in order to reduce the negative effect on the economies and on the quality of life of
the locals. In spite of their slow progress, low-carbon tourism and waste-selection represent some of the highly important measures on the
SD12 agenda of public and private entities. Prior to the pandemic, tourism emissions were estimated to reach 5.6 % out of total CO2
emissions by 2030 and transport-related emissions were expected to increase with 25 % at 1.9 billion tones between 2016 and 2030,
according to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 2019).
With a view to quantifying the theoretical concept of circular tourism economy, our research focused on several indicators, such as:
tourism industry indicators (tourists arrivals, overnight stays, average stay, tourism competitiveness), air quality ratios (CO2, PM 10,
PM2.5), economic and social development (GDP, HDI and tourism in GDP as percent), and sustainability (consumption of renewable
resources, municipal waste and the circular material uses rate). The employed databases are provided by international entities like the
World Economic Forum 2029, the World Bank, the World Health Organization 2017, the Eurostat, the European Environment Agency,
the National Center for Environmental Health (HDI, 2018; HDI, 2021; National Center for Environmental Health, 2021; World Eco­
nomic Forum, 2019; World Health Organisation, 2017, European Environment Agency - European Air Quality Index, 2020). This
approach involved complex statistical methods that were used with the aim to identify the best predictors for municipal waste in
Europe, among and within groups of countries, according to their EU status, as follows: EU15, EU27/28 and non-EU. Furthermore, our
research is also looking into the risk management policies implemented by the European countries in order to evaluate whether the
low-carbon solutions implemented locally have had a significant impact on tourism.
Therefore, tourism represents an important sector of the economy, significantly contributing to job creation and GDP increase in
certain countries. Despite the positive effects recorded at the economic and social levels, the negative externalities generated by
tourism on the environment, via air, soil and water degradation must be taken into account and as a result, this article will put forward
additional considerations for the European countries that are interested in having an efficient transition to low carbon economy. Thus,
the objectives of this paper are: (i) to develop the theoretical concept of circular tourism economy and its link to the sustainability in the
European context, (ii) to identify the best predictors for municipal waste in the case of European countries split on different clusters
(EU15, EU27/28 and non-EU) and finally, (iii) to evaluate the implemented low-carbon solutions and their impact on tourism.
In the first part of the work, the authors provide an overview of the topic in international and European contexts regarding the

2
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

impact of tourism on the environment. In the literature review section, the results of the most relevant studies are presented. In
addition, the authors discuss the identified research gap. In the following sections, the methods and the data are introduced, so that
they can finally be interpreted in the context of similar studies. The last part of the article allows the authors to lay out the conclusions,
limitations and research directions, but also to present some economic policy measures based on the results obtained.

2. Literature review

Tourism is conceived as an economic sector with a decisive impact on the financial, social and development structure of pre­
dominantly rural areas used as a fundamental calculation in the context of revitalizing and expanding local economies (Cvijanovic
et al., 2017; Ristić et al., 2016). Environmental protection becomes an essential prerequisite for achieving sustainable competitive
advantage and an integral part of the proactive management of the tourism industry (Bacoș and Gabor, 2021). Although the term air
quality is often analysed by public health specialists and environmental analysts, existing studies show little attention to the influence
of these quality indicators on the tourism industry (Bacoș and Gabor, 2021), but the vice-versa is of real concern nowadays, as well.
Introduced as an option as often as possible in some regions, tourism contributes to the positive development of the place, as it
attracts tourists and private companies, and it develops the region both economically and socially (Almstedt et al., 2016; Cawley et al.,
2007; Halseth et al., 2009). The association of tourism, especially ecotourism, with outdoor recreation has grown continuously, putting
strong and visible pressure on the tourism resources in both developed and developing countries (Vickery et al., 2000). A major
motivation of modern travelers is to avoid ordinary/ crowded environments and to find comfortable, peaceful and air quality places,
with the primary aim of psychological relaxation (Ritchie and Crouch, 2000).
Since the Industrial Revolution, the term pollution has become widely known, but there are still several authors (Buckley, 1991;
Dwyer and Kim, 2010; Mieczkowski, 1995; Milman and Pizam, 1995) that integrate the concept of environmental quality within the
quality of natural attractions, leading to environmentally quality destinations. The emergence of the term air quality accompanied
technological advances in medicine and the acknowledgement of serious health problems associated with air pollution (Costa et al.,
2014). For instance, in 2001, tourists’ perceptions before choosing Hong Kong as a tourist destination were examined in a study
(Cheung and Law, 2001). The finding was that Asian visitors were mostly concerned about air quality when selecting their travel
destination compared to European tourists. Moreover, Mcneill and Roberge (2000) stated that a lower air quality index may have
noticeable effects on tourism in Greater Vancouver and the Lower Fraser Valley.
Although the term sustainability has started to take on new forms and sustainable investment has been emerging since the 2000s,
Buckley states that the tourism industry remains far from sustainable investment (Buckley, 2012). An important aspect in the sus­
tainability of tourism and sustainable tourism destinations is the global climate change, noted by Pang et al. (2013), suggesting that major
and continuous climate change negatively affects the tourism industry by decreasing tourist satisfaction.
According to the air quality policy-making framework developed by LeBlanc and Craig (Craig et al., 2008), these matters involve
both key researchers and politicians. The need for a developed framework ensures a close link between all those involved in mitigating
air pollution and increasing air quality indicators. As costs represent an important factor in the global economy, and one of the im­
pediments to implementing environmental policies, the framework recommends a preliminary analysis of policies, economic impact,
underlying criteria, conventions, and socio-cultural conditions.
One of the most recent studies (Robaina et al., 2020) presents information and data from five European countries (Austria, Cyprus,
Switzerland, United Kingdom and Italy) and demonstrates the correlation between air quality and tourism demand, also specifying the
impact that the tourism industry has on air quality in the above-mentioned countries. The results of another study conducted by
Ciarlantini et al. (2022) show indirect links between economic development and air quality, but most importantly, the differences between
foreign and local tourists in these countries are described. Although air pollution has been shown to cause serious health problems for
both people and the environment (Lelieveld et al., 2015), the world’s largest cities face massive air pollution from fuel combustion on a
daily basis (Kurt et al., 2016). In addition, there is also a causal relationship between macroeconomics indicators and air quality and air
pollution (Bacoș and Gabor, 2022).
Considering the results of the aforementioned studies, it turns out that further research is needed regarding the negative exter­
nalities generated by tourism on the environment, especially from the perspective of waste management.
Although the European Union is the most important promoter of the circular economy at the international level by creating a
meaningful institutional and legal framework for the member countries, the most important achievements are identified in the in­
dustrial and household sectors. The new Circular Economy Action Plan released in 2020 highlights the major role of consumers and
emphasizes the sectors that have high potential for circularity construction and buildings, electronics and ICT, batteries and vehicles,
packaging, plastics, textiles, nutrients, food and water. The promotion of circularity in these sectors will ensure a reduced impact of
tourism on the environment, but this economic sector must also enter into a complex process of metamorphosis that will ensure the
promotion of a new business model within hotels, restaurants, etc. ”Circular economy solutions will be tailored to the outermost regions and
islands, due to their dependence on resource imports, high waste generation fueled by tourism, and waste exports.”(COM, 2020, 98).
The concept of circular tourism economy must be strengthened considering the importance of the tourism industry in certain
European countries, taking in account the efforts made by the public authorities to promote the circular economy and the transition to
a low carbon economy (Manniche et al., 2017; Vargas-Sánchez, 2018; Rodríguez et al., 2020).
Improving the competitiveness and sustainability of tourism represent the two keys that can be used to intensify the positive
externalities generated by tourism in the national economies and implicitly in the world economy. The promotion of the principles of
circularity must also be achieved in tourism (Manniche et al., 2017) through at least four channels (i) building and construction, (ii)
refurbishing and decorating, (iii) operation services, (iv) circular practices in accommodation (managers, staff and interaction with

3
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

guests).
Relying on the results from literature review and considering the aim and objectives of this research, the following research hy­
potheses can be formulated:

• H1 = Increase of average stay/tourists’ arrivals/overnight stays has a negative impact on waste management and environment.
• H2 = Decrease of tourism competitiveness rank (from last to first rank) has a negative impact on waste management and environment.
• H3 = Economic and societal development has a positive impact on waste management and environment.
• H4 =Increasing rates of circular economy indicators (consumption of renewable resources and circular material uses rate) have a positive
impact on waste management and environment.
• H5: There are differences between clusters of countries (EU15 – EU27/28 – non EU) considering the SDGs (environment, air quality,
circular economy).

3. Data and methods

According to the aim, objectives and hypotheses of the research, the variables used for research were extracted from the EUROSTAT
database, World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, World Bank, Global Economy, European Environment Agency and
National Center for Environmental Health for the period 2008–2021 for a number of 30 European countries (EU/non-EU members)
with available data on all databases. The research data base included both categorical and continuous variables, as follows:

• Categorical variables such as: country name, EU (non-)membership status specified in two ways (in parentheses it is mentioned the
codification number received by each category for the analysis by the statistical software SPSS 23.0 licensed):
○ EU15 (code 1), EU27/28 (code 2) and non-EU (code 3);

○ EU15 (1958–2007) -code 1, EU27 (2007–2012) - code 2, EU28 (2013–2019) – code 3, non-EU – code 4, EU27 (2020–2021)-UK –

code 5. As non-EU members, our database includes Croatia only for period 2008–2012, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. As
EU15 members, we found available data for: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and UK.
• Continuous variables selected from the above-mentioned databases:
○ Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) for 2008–2021;

○ Overnight stays (number) for 2009 – 2021;

○ Tourist arrivals (number of persons) for 2008 – 2021;

○ Average stay, calculated by authors as overnights/arrivals for 2009–2021;

○ GDP (GDP (billion euro) for 2008 – 2021;

○ Tourism in GDP (%) for 2008 – 2020;

○ PM10, PM 2.5, CO2 for 2008 – 2021;

○ Consumption of renewable resources (%) for 2008 – 2021;

○ Human Development Index (HDI) for 2008 – 2021;

○ Municipal waste (Kg/capita) for 2008 – 2021;

○ Circular material uses rate (CMR) (%) for 2010–2021.

The available data regards several 30 European countries such as: all the 15 members of EU-15, a number of 11 EU27/28 countries
(Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Croatia - after 2013, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia)

Table 1
Resume of research hypothesis, theoretical background and statistical methods.
Research hypothesis Theoretical background Statistical methods
applied

H1: Increasing of average stay/tourists’ arrivals/overnight stays has a Mcneill and Roberge (2000), Pang • Descriptive statistics
negative impact on waste management and environment et al. (2013), Robaina et al. (2020), • Non -parametrical correlation coefficients
pollution. Kurt et al. (2016) Spearman rho
H2: Decreasing of tourism competitiveness rank (from last to first Mcneill and Roberge (2000), Pang • Kruskal – Wallis test with Dunn’s Post-Hoc for
rank) has a negative impact on waste management and et al. (2013), Robaina et al. (2020), pairwise comparison
environment pollution. Kurt et al. (2016)
H3: Economic and social development has a positive impact on waste Craig et al. (2008), Ciarlantini et al. • Multilinear regression with moderation effect
management and environment pollution. (2022), Lelieveld et al. (2015), Bacoș and collinearity diagnosis with municipal waste
and Gabor (2021) as dependent variables
• Structural Equation Model (SEM)
H4: Increasing rates of circular economy indicators (consumption of Craig et al. (2008), Ciarlantini et al.
renewable resources and circular material uses rate) have a (2022), Lelieveld et al. (2015)
positive impact on waste management and environment pollution
H5: There are differences between EU status of countries (EU15 – Bacoș and Gabor (2021), Bacoș and
EU27/28 – non EU) considering the SDGs (environment, air Gabor (2022)
quality, circular economy).

4
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

and a number of 4 non-EU countries (Croatia - only for period 2008–2012, Island, Norway and Switzerland). By using two types of
codification as mentioned above, Croatia was included in the right group for each year. Descriptive statistics were used for all the
continuous variables, as follows: groups of countries are presented in Supplementary material (Table 1) as mean ± standard deviation
(minimum – maximum) for entire population (N = 30 European countries), whereas subgroups of countries are outlined according to
the status (EU15, EU27/28 and non-EU) and to the absolute and relative frequencies for categorical variables.
The descriptive statistics were used to observe the extent to which differences and /or similarities occur, on the one hand, between
European countries overall and, on the other hand, within each group of countries according to their EU (non-)membership status and
thus, to prepare the combination of statistical methods for analysis, as the core approach for all five research hypotheses from Table 1.
Considering that all research data consists in continuous variables, with a view to applying the adequate statistical methods, all
data was tested for normal distribution with One-sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test. All data has no normal distribution, therefore, the
non-parametrical statistical methods were applied.
The non-parametric correlation of Spearman rho was applied to analyse the direction, power and statistical significance of association
between indicators within each category/group of countries (EU15/EU27/28/non-EU) and to validate (or not) the research hy­
potheses H1 and H2 from Table 1: H1: Increasing of average stay/tourists’ arrivals/overnight stays has a negative impact on waste man­
agement and environment pollution and H2: Decreasing of tourism competitiveness rank (from last to first rank) has a negative impact on waste
management and environment pollution.
In order to test whether the distribution of each variables is the same and statistically significant differences exist between EU15,
EU27/28 and non-EU group of countries, the Kruskal – Wallis test with Dunn’s Post-Hoc for pairwise comparison was applied. The
advantage of this test is represented by the fact that under the circumstances of non-normal distribution of data, the Kruskal – Wallis
test does not take into consideration the absolute value of parameters but their rank. The Kruskal – Wallis test with Dunn’s Post-Hoc for
pairwise comparison was applied in order to validate (or not) the research hypothesis H5: There are differences between EU status of
countries (EU15 – EU27/28 – non EU) considering the SDGs (environment, air quality, circular economy). These differences were statis­
tically significant in the case of air quality indicators (as mentioned by the theoretical background in Table 1). Nevertheless, according
to the aim of this paper, the authors’ intention is to test and confirm the hypothesis H5 for municipal waste, too, in relationship with
tourism indicators and macroeconomic indicators from the present study.
So that the best predictor for municipal waste (as dependent variable) should be identified, a multilinear regression analysis with Enter
method, moderation effect and collinearity diagnosis was applied seeking to confirm/validate the research hypotheses H3: Economic and
social development has a positive impact on waste management and environment pollution and H4: Increasing rates of circular economy in­
dicators (consumption of renewable resources and circular material uses rate) have a positive impact on waste management and environment
pollution. All the independent variables used in the model were standardized and after the collinearity diagnosis, the overnight stays and
tourism arrivals were removed from the regression model due to the outside values of VIF ∕ ∈ [1; 10]. The categorial variable of EU15
-EU27/28 -non-EU country was used as moderation effect. The regression model helped to identify therefore the best predictors for waste
management, the level and direction of their influence (positive/negative), and based on the value of standardized coefficient Beta
which macroeconomic indicator is the more important. In addition, by applying the regression model using the standardized inde­
pendent variables (Zscore), our results will highlight the best predictors for waste management in the context of tourism competi­
tiveness and will also prove (or not) the aim of this research, the importance of UE member for circular economy.
Therefore, the regression model helped to identify the best predictors for waste management, the measure and direction of their
influence and the hierarchy of this macroeconomic indicators (based on the value of standardized coefficient Beta). In addition, by
applying the regression model also with the standardized independent variables (Zscore), our results will highlight the best predictors
for waste management in the context of tourism competitiveness and will prove (or not) the aim of this research.
The Structural Equation Model (SEM) framework was applied to reach out the aim of the research and to validate or not the research
hypotheses H3 and H4 with SPSS—AMOS 22.0 software owing to its advantages to investigate the total, direct and indirect effects of the
independent variables on the dependent variable (Municipal waste) considering the intervening effects of the mediators. The main limit
of the SEM is linked to the representativeness and goodness of fit of the model, but these aspects were eliminated by taking into
consideration the corrected bias of statistical significance for independent variables. By applying SEM we will complete the results of
the regression model by identifying the causal relationship between waste management and macroeconomic variables. We used this
method overall, for all 30 European countries from the study. As independent variables of SEM, after the numerous variant tests and
analyses of the model fit indices, we used: TTCI rank, average stays, HDI, GDP, tourism in GDP (%), PM 10, PM 2.5, CO2, Consumption of
renewable resources (%) and Circular material uses rate (CMR) (%). In the case of the missing values, an interpolation method of series
mean (SMEAN) was used for SEM. Therefore, we used the following variables:

• ten observed, endogenous variables of the model: TTCI rank, average stays, HDI, GDP, tourism in GDP (%), PM 10, PM 2.5, CO2,
Consumption of renewable resources (%) and Circular material uses rate (CMR) (%), which are, in fact, the variables from the
regression model;
• one observed, exogenous variable of the model: municipal waste;
• one unobserved, exogenous variable: e1.

Table 1 introduces the research hypotheses, the theoretical background from literature review and statistical methods applied in
order to test each of them.
The statistical analysis was accomplished by means of the SPSS 23.0 software (licensed) and SPSS-AMOS 22.0 software (licensed).
In the case of the statistical significance, a threshold of p-value < 0.05 was considered for all the inference methods and p-value < 0.1

5
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

for the regression analysis. Graphical representations of heat maps for correlations matrix were achieved via Microsoft Excel. All these
results are presented in detail in the next section.

4. Results

The first method to test the research hypotheses and take into consideration the non-normal distribution of data is represented by
the non-parametrical correlation coefficient Spearman rho, which was applied separately to each subgroup: EU15, EU27/28 and non-EU
countries. These results are presented as heat maps in Figs. 1–3. Therefore, for EU15 countries, there are both (direct) and negative
(inverse) correlations, statistically significant for p-value < 0.05 and p-value < 0.01, as follows:

• Direct correlation of power intensity between tourists’ arrivals and CO2 (0.738), overnight stays and CO2 (0.744), GDP and CO2
(0.665), PM10 and PM2.5 (0.801);
• Direct correlations of medium intensity between overnight stays and GDP (0.592), overnight stays and PM 10 (0.423), overnight stays
and PM 2.5 (0.427), average stay and PM 10 (0.474), average stay and PM 2.5 (0.373), tourism in GDP (%) and municipal waste
(0.393);
• Inverse (negative) correlation of power intensity between tourism in GDP (%) and HDI (− 0.705);
• Inverse (negative) correlation of medium intensity between HDI and municipal waste (− 0.547), TTCI rank and overnight stay
(− 0.612), TTCI rank and tourists’ arrivals (− 0.606), TTCI rank and GDP (− 0.486), TTCI rank and CO2 (− 0.418).

In the case of EU27/28 countries, there are both positive (direct) and negative (inverse) correlations, statistically significant for p-
value < 0.05 and p-value < 0.01, as explained below:
Tourist arrivals (no of pers)

Consumption of renewable

Circular material uses rate

Municipal waste (Kg/cap)
Tourism in GDP (%)
Overnight stays (no)

GDP (billion euro)

resources (%)
Average stay

(CMR) (%)
TTCI rank

PM 2.5
PM 10

CO2

HDI
EU15

TTCI rank 1.000 -0.453 -0.444 -.020 .020 -0.349 -.015 -0.099 -0.334 -.004 -.082 .000 -0.247
Overnight stays
1.000 0.847 0.202 0.144 0.46 0.281 0.276 0.53 -.016 0.133 -.085 0.218
(no)

Tourist arrivals
1.000 .036 .085 0.52 0.195 0.212 0.556 -.026 0.151 -0.116 0.263
(no of pers)

Average stay 1.000 0.201 .035 0.342 0.252 0.203 .050 -.084 .060 -0.123
Tourism in
1.000 0.131 .018 .072 0.116 -.073 -0.504 0.274 .016
GDP (%)
GDP (billion
1.000 0.17 0.241 0.529 -0.107 0.112 -0.107 0.271
euro)
PM 10 1.000 0.645 0.357 -0.206 .052 -.078 0.129
PM 2.5 1.000 0.379 -0.316 -0.115 .059 0.262
CO2 1.000 -0.182 .040 -0.125 0.196
Consumption of
renewable 1.000 0.253 -.046 -0.275
resources (%)
HDI 1.000 -0.392 .071
Municipal
1.000 .030
waste (Kg/cap)

Circular
material uses 1.000
rate (CMR) (%)

Fig. 1. The heat map of correlation coefficients for EU15 countries. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is sig­
nificant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

6
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

renewable resources (%)

Tourist arrivals (no of

Circular material uses

Tourism in GDP (%)
Overnight stays (no)

GDP (billion euro)

Municipal waste
Consumption of

rate (CMR) (%)

Average stay
TTCI rank

(Kg/cap)
PM 2.5
PM 10
pers)

CO2

HDI
EU27/28

TTCI rank 1.000 -.084 -.008 -0.181 0.115 .043 .016 .017 .040 0.19 -0.199 -0.153 -0.269
Overnight stays
1.000 0.811 0.301 0.168 0.358 0.383 0.376 0.521 -0.252 .072 -.076 .062
(no)
Tourist arrivals
1.000 0.113 0.128 0.448 0.268 0.3 0.611 -0.167 0.135 -0.192 0.192
(no of pers)

Average stay 1.000 0.276 -.071 0.505 0.335 .025 -0.348 -0.334 0.286 -0.206

Tourism in
1.000 -.065 0.258 0.232 -.024 -0.127 -0.179 .044 -0.314
GDP (%)
GDP (billion
1.000 .035 .047 0.496 -.090 0.206 -0.157 0.222
euro)
PM 10 1.000 0.614 0.233 -0.296 -0.293 .055 -0.289
PM 2.5 1.000 0.325 -0.347 -0.28 -.084 -.090
CO2 1.000 -0.258 .047 -0.348 0.159
Consumption
of renewable 1.000 .041 -.101 -.044
resources (%)
HDI 1.000 -0.133 0.316
Municipal
1.000 -.086
waste (Kg/cap)
Circular
material uses 1.000
rate (CMR) (%)

Fig. 2. The heat map of correlation coefficients for EU27/28 countries. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

• Direct correlation of power intensity between tourists’ arrivals and CO2 (0.738), overnight stays and CO2 (0.692), tourists’ arrivals
and CO2 (0.789), average stay and PM 10 (0.676), GDP and CO2 (0.634), PM10 and PM2.5 (0.782);
• Direct correlations of medium intensity between overnight stays and PM 10 (0.575), overnight stays and PM 2.5 (0.553), overnight
stays and GDP (0.457), tourists’ arrivals and PM 10 (0.417), tourists’ arrivals and PM 2.5 (0.456), average stay and PM 2.5 (0.466),
average stays and tourism in GDP (%) (0.414), tourism in GDP (%) and PM10 (0.382), HDI and circular material uses rate (%)
(0.457);
• Inverse (negative) correlation of medium intensity between municipal waste and CO2 (− 0.502), average stay and consumption of
renewable resources % (− 0.521), PM 2.5 and consumption of renewable resources (− 0.509), tourism in GDP (%) and circular
material uses rate (%) (− 0.484), TTCI rank and circular material uses rate (%) (− 0.390), average stays and HDI (− 0.483), over­
night stays and consumption of renewable resources (− 0.369), HDI and PM 10 (− 0.417), HDI and PM 2.5 (− 0.379).

As regards the non-EU countries, there are both positive and negative correlations, statistically significant for p-value < 0.05 and p-
value < 0.01, as follows:

• Direct correlation of power intensity between municipal waste and consumption of renewable resources % (0.672), PM 10 and CO2
(0.666);
• Direct correlations of medium intensity between overnight stays and tourism in GDP (%) (0.496), overnight stays and PM 2.5 (0.423),
tourists’ arrivals and tourism in GDP (%) (0.458), tourists’ arrivals and PM 2.5 (0.463), tourists’ arrivals and CO2 (0.428), tourism
in GDP (%) and PM 2.5 (0.465), tourism in GDP (%) and CO2 (0.404), GDP and CO2 (0.509), GDP and PM 10 (0.533), GDP and PM
2.5 (0.509), HDI and consumption of renewable resources (0.478), HDI and circular material uses rate (0.416);
• Inverse (negative) correlation of power intensity between TTCI rank and circular material uses rate (%) (− 0.766), PM 2.5 and con­
sumption of renewable resources (− 0.713), HDI and PM 10 (− 0.698), tourism in GDP (%) and circular material uses rate (%)
(− 0.684), HDI and CO2 (− 0.673), PM 10 and consumption of renewable resources (− 0.666);

7
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

renewable resources (%)

Tourist arrivals (no of

Circular material uses

Tourism in GDP (%)
Overnight stays (no)

GDP (billion euro)

Municipal waste
Consumption of

rate (CMR) (%)

Average stay
TTCI rank

(Kg/cap)
PM 2.5
PM 10
non-EU

pers)

CO2

HDI
TTCI rank 1.000 0.255 .045 -.069 .210 -.156 -0.362 -0.424 -0.209 0.000 .158 -0.295 -0.566
Overnight
1.000 0.879 .092 0.368 .120 .136 0.34 .068 -0.37 -.110 -0.355 -.205
stays (no)
Tourist
arrivals (no of 1.000 -.146 0.321 0.238 .195 0.346 0.269 -.198 -0.246 -.140 -.061
pers)

Average stay 1.000 .337 -0.286 -0.328 -.145 -.232 -.154 .033 -.070 .260

Tourism in
1.000 0.259 .266 .317 .217 -0.421 -.222 .137 -0.502
GDP (%)
GDP (billion
1.000 0.387 0.349 0.382 -.094 -.193 .140 0.321
euro)
PM 10 1.000 0.654 0.474 -0.449 -0.488 .014 .154
PM 2.5 1.000 0.325 -0.521 -0.337 .003 .267
CO2 1.000 -0.451 -0.581 .015 -.198
Consumption
of renewable 1.000 0.404 0.527 .038
resources (%)
HDI 1.000 -.034 0.303
Municipal
1.000 .142
waste Kg/cap)
Circular
material uses 1.000
rate (CMR) (%)

Fig. 3. The heat map of correlation coefficients for non-EU countries. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

• Inverse (negative) correlation of medium intensity between tourism in GDP (%) consumption of renewable resources % (− 0.635),
overnight stays and consumption of renewable resources (− 0.601), TTCI and PM 2.5 (− 0.579), CO2 and consumption of renewable
resources % (− 0.590), PM 2.5 and HDI (− 0.517), municipal waste and TTCI (− 0.447), municipal waste and overnight stays
(− 0.416), TTCI and PM 10 (− 0.489), average stays and PM 10 (− 0.447), municipal waste and CO2 (− 0.502).

Considering the results deriving from the heat maps illustrative of the three groups of countries (EU15, EU27/28 and non-EU) and
in order to test if there are statistically significant differences between groups of countries according to their EU status, we applied a
non-parametrical test, respectively the Kruskal Wallis test with Dunn’ Post Hoc multiple comparisons (Fig. 4).
According to the results there are statistically significant differences between EU15, EU27/28 and non - EU countries. These precise
differences are outlined in Fig. 4 which presents the results of the Dunn’s Post hoc multiple comparisons between three European types
of countries according to their EU status. The statistically significant differences (p-value < 0.05) are represented with yellow lines in
the graphics, whereas the black line or no line represent no significant differences between groups.
Taking into account Fig. 4, we can conclude that the more usual differences occur between EU 15 and EU 27/28 groups of countries
except for the average stays and HDI. Moreover, there are differences for most of the indicators between EU 15 and non-EU groups of
countries, except for municipal waste, circular material uses rate (%), and TTCI. Regarding the comparison between EU27/28 and non-
EU groups of countries, there are no differences pertaining to circular material uses rate (%), tourism in GDP (%), overnight stays,
tourists’ arrivals, and CO2.
All the previous results emerging from the descriptive statistics correlations coefficients (Figs. 1–3) and the Kruskal Wallis test
justified the application of other statistical method, respectively the multilinear regression model with moderator effect so as to find out
the best predictor, at the European level for all the 30 countries under focus, concerning the municipal waste. The previous methods
highlight the fact that there are differences between groups of countries depending on their EU status and even different intensity
correlations within each group of countries, which justified the choice of the country’s EU status as moderator effect for the regression
model. Therefore, the multilinear regression with Enter method and collinearity diagnosis were applied, with municipal west as

8
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

TTCI rank Overnight stays (no) Tourist arrivals (no pers) Average stay

Consumption of renewable
Tourism in GDP (%) GDP (billion euro) HDI
resources (%)

Circular material uses rate

PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2
(CMR) (%)

Municipal waste (Kg/capita)

Fig. 4. Results of Dunn’s Post hoc multiple comparison between EU15 – EU27.28 – non -EU countries.

9
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

dependent variable and all the other indicators as independent variables. After the collinearity analysis based on VIF values between
[1,10], we decided to eliminate the overnight stays and the tourists’ arrivals. The Supplementary material presents the model summary
with a value of R2 equal to 0.532. The independent variables explain 53.2 % of the total variance of dependent variable from model.
However, the model is statistically significant based on the results from Supplementary material. All independent variables were
standardized first (Zscore).
According to the results from Table 2, the EU status (EU15, Eu27/28 or non-EU) has a statistically significant moderator effect for
three independent variables, namely: tourism in GDP (%), consumption of renewable resources and circular material uses rate (%) (p-value
< 0.1). Furthermore, the best predictors for municipal waste at the European level for the 30 countries in the study are (in the order of
importance according to the values of standardized beta coefficients), as follows: TTCI rank, average stay, PM 2.5 and HDI.
The regression equation based on the unstandardized beta coefficients from Table 2 is (all the best predictors for municipal waste
are marked in bold):
Municipal waste = 486.677 – 56.211 TTCI rank + 39.331 average stay + 3.074 Tourism in GDP + 9.051 GDP – 5.399 PM 10 –
32.978 PM 2.5 – 10.508 CO2 – 18.222 HDI − 16.106 Circular material uses rate – 3.451 Consumption of renewable resources.
Thus, practically, while decreasing with 1 unit/rank of TTCI (to the top of values, respectively the most competitive tourist
countries), the municipal waste increases with 56.211 kh/capita. On the average stay increasing with 1 stay, the municipal waste
increases with 39.331 kg/capita. In the case of an increase with 1 unit of PM 2.5, the municipal waste decreases with 32.978 kg/capita,
whereas the increase with 1 unit of HDI makes the municipal waste at European level decrease with 18.222 kg/capita.
Fig. 5(a–d) graphically present the dependent variable (municipal waste) for each best predictors from the regression model.
The standardized model for SEM is shown in Fig. 6.
The hypothesis for the chi-square statistics is the reduced model (overidentified); this fits the data, as does the just-identified (full,
saturated) model. The results of SEM by using AMOS 22.0 software indicate that the chi-square statistic for the estimated model is
1003.449, df = 39 and p = 0.000. The unstandardized coefficients (estimate) and significant regression paths (P) are presented in
Table 3, based on the maximum likelihood estimates method. The results show that six of all the regression paths are statistically
significant for p < 0.05 in the case of the unstandardized model marked in bold in Table 3 on the p column.
There are also statistically significant covariances such as: PM 10 and PM 2.5 (p < 0.001), PM 2.5 and CO2 (p = 0.004), PM 10 and
CO2 (p = 0.008), Consumption of renewable resources and Circular material uses rate (p < 0.001). There is no statistically significant
covariance between TTCI rank and the average stays or between GDP and tourism in GDP (%).
As Fig. 7 indicates, the total effects are explained only through direct effects (standardized), with no intervening variables involved
(p-value < 0.05 bias corrected), as follows:

Table 2
The regression coefficients.b
Independent variables and the intercepts for moderator effect Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficient s Statistics

B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF

Error

Moderator effect (Constant) 486.677 17.611 27.635 .000

(intercepts) Intercept_TTCI & EU15/28/non-EU -27.613 19.680 -.088 -1.403 .162 .548 1.825
Intercept_average stay & EU15/28/ 6.041 14.493 .033 .417 .677 .354 2.828
non-EU
Intercept_tour in GDP (%) & EU15/ -50.658 13.486 -.286 -3.756 .000 .372 2.691
28/non-EU
Intercept_GDP & EU15/28/non-EU -6.333 14.588 -.034 -.434 .665 .361 2.770
Intercept_PM10 & EU15/28/non-EU 30.400 28.426 .135 1.069 .286 .136 7.347
Intercept_PM2.5 & EU15/28/non-EU -38.395 24.707 -.165 -1.554 .122 .193 5.195
Intercept_CO2 & EU15/28/non-EU .626 21.547 .004 .029 .977 .118 8.473
Intercept_Consump of renew res & -41.113 18.729 -.151 -2.195 .029 .456 2.195
EU15/28/non-EU
Intercept_HDI & EU15/28/non-EU -9.176 14.726 -.048 -.623 .534 .369 2.712
Intercept_CMR & EU15/28/non-EU -35.202 20.322 -.209 -1.732 .085 .148 6.762
Standardized Zscore: TTCI rank -56.211 11.817 -.408 -4.757 .000 .294 3.404
independent Zscore: Average stay 39.331 10.899 .288 3.609 .000 .339 2.948
variables Zscore: Tourism in GDP (%) 3.074 9.452 .023 .325 .745 .451 2.219
Zscore: GDP (billion euro) 9.051 11.683 .061 .775 .439 .352 2.842
Zscore: PM 10 -5.399 19.565 -.038 -.276 .783 .111 9.014
Zscore: PM 2.5 -32.978 17.222 -.230 -1.915 .057 .149 6.704
Zscore: CO2 -10.508 18.264 -.080 -.575 .566 .111 9.040
Zscore: HDI -18.222 11.211 -.135 -1.625 .106 .314 3.183
Zscore: Circular material uses rate -16.106 17.065 -.120 -.944 .346 .134 7.475
(CMR) (%)
Zscore: Consumption of renewable -3.451 13.832 -.017 -.249 .803 .480 2.081
resources (%)

a. Dependent Variable: Municipal waste (Kg/capita).

10
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

Fig. 5. The municipal waste and best predictors according to regression model.

• the direct effect of TTCI rank is - 0.404 (p-value = 0.001) and this aspect confirms the results of the regression model;
• the direct effect of HDI is - 0.274 (p-value = 0.007), which confirms the results of the regression model;
• the direct effect of average stays is + 0.154 and it confirms the regression results too;
• the direct effect of CO2 is − 0.122, which represents a new aspect derived from this method;
• the direct effect of tourism in GDP (%) is + 0.100 and it is also a new feature compared to the regression model.

Based on the results from Table 3, column p (bias-corrected), the direct effect of the observed variable PM 2.5 is not statistically
significant (p = 0.067) but only for 93.7 %.
The results indicate a satisfactory estimated model using structural equation modeling, as follows:

• CMIN (chi-squared statistic) is 103.449, and CMIN/DF (the relative chi squared) is 25.729; this means that the fit of data is reduced
by only 25 % by dropping one or more paths;
• The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is 0.692, and the adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) is 0.478, consisting in relatively close values;
• The PGFI (parsimony GFI) of the independent model is higher than the PGFI of the default model (0.482 > 0.409);
• The normed fixed index (NFI) is 0.436, indicating a relatively good fit of the estimated model;
• The comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.441 and the Tucker–Lewis index is 0.212, indicating a relatively poor model data fit, in general;

11
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

Fig. 6. The standardized model for SEM.

Table 3
Regression Weights and Squared Multiple Correlations.
Unstandardized p (Bias- Squared Multiple Correlations
Corrected)

Estimate S.E. C.R. p Estimate

(Standardized)

Municipal <— TTCI rank -3.645 .361 -10.105 *** .001 TTCI rank -.404
waste
Municipal <— Average stay 24.707 6.416 3.851 *** .007 Average stay .154
waste
Municipal <— HDI -1004.607 145.945 -6.883 *** .001 HDI -.274
waste
Municipal <— Tourism in GDP (%) 4.645 1.858 2.501 .012 .050 Tourism in GDP (%) .100
waste
Municipal <— GDP -.009 .008 -1.176 .240 .452 GDP -.047
waste
Municipal <— Consumption of .211 .380 .555 .579 .681 Consumption of .023
waste renewable resources renewable resources
Municipal <— Circular material uses 1.794 1.108 1.619 .105 .178 Circular material uses .067
waste rate (%) rate (%)
Municipal <— PM 10.1 -.292 1.543 -.189 .850 .874 PM 10.1 -.015
waste
Municipal <— PM 2.5 -4.082 2.050 -1.991 .047 .067 PM 2.5 -.154
waste
Municipal <— CO2 -.095 .032 -3.023 .003 .010 CO2 -.122
waste

(Note: *** = p < 0.001). (Source: authors’ own calculations).

• The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.243, with the lower value for the 90 % confidence interval (LO 90)
= 0.230 and a higher value for the 90 % confidence interval (HI 90) = 0.256; this means only a 24 % lack of fit when compared to
the saturated model.

5. Discussions

Economic development generates numerous positive effects on the environment, but more and more specialists draw attention on
the negative externalities. Specialists have observed a different impact of the economic activity on the environment depending on the
economic development, the Kuznets curve being analyzed and confirmed for different periods and regions (Shahbaz et al., 2013;
Armeanu et al., 2018; Panait et al., 2019; Shahbaz and Sinha, 2019; Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2022; Fatima et al., 2022; Sharif et al.,

12
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

changing the business model

promo�ng techinical and social
(hotels and des�na�ons as circular
innova�ons
economy living labs)

Circular economy
as call for paradigm
shi� in tourism

changing the consumers a�tude

promo�ng the mul�-level
(challenges of hedonism in
transi�on
tourism consump�on)

Fig. 7. Circular economy as call for paradigm shift in tourism Source authors based on Manniche et al. (2017)).

2020c). The Kuznets curve was also studied to capture the impact of the development of certain sectors on the environment, tourism
being one of the fields chosen for carrying out scientific studies considering the importance of this sector in certain countries. The
results of these studies confirmed the major impact that the development of domestic and international tourism has on the envi­
ronment (Arbulú et al., 2015; De Vita et al., 2015; Ozturk et al., 2016; Zaman et al., 2016; Anser et al., 2020; Papavasileiou and
Tzouvanas, 2021).
Each of the statistical methods applied emphasizes important aspects of the research and contributes to the confirmation or
rejection of the research hypotheses as follows:

• the descriptive statistics show the differences between groups of countries according to their EU status, EU 15 – EU27/28 – non-EU
but also in relation to all 30 European countries (entire population of study with available data);
• the Spearman rho correlation coefficients show the direct and inverse association, as well as the power of association between in­
dicators, inside each group of countries and help to validate the research hypothesis.
• the Kruskal – Wallis test show the statistically significant differences between groups of European countries depending on their EU
status;
• the Dunn’s Post-Hoc multiple comparisons precisely show, for each indicator and each pair of comparison, the statistically significant
differences, but also the similarities between them;
• the multilinear regression model helps to find out the best predictors in the case of municipal waste at the European level, respectively
TTCI rank, average stay, PM 2.5 and HDI, the hierarchy of importance, the quantitative aspect and the direction (increase/decrease)
in which 1-unit increase of the independent variables (predictors) affect the municipal waste for Europe;
• by using the moderation effect in the regression modeling we found out that the EU status of the countries is statistically significant
for independent variables in close connection with the circular economy indicators, namely the Consumption of renewable re­
sources and Circular material uses rate, but also the tourism in GDP (%).

Therefore, the first four research hypotheses are confirmed, as follows:

H1. : Increase of average stay/tourists’ arrivals/overnight stays has a negative impact on waste management and environment pollution.
H2. : Decrease of tourism competitiveness rank (from last to first rank) has a negative impact on waste management and environment
pollution.
H3. : Economic and social development has a positive impact on waste management and environment pollution.
H4. : Increasing rates of circular economy indicators (consumption of renewable resources and circular material uses rate) have a positive
impact on waste management and environment pollution.
H5. : There are differences between EU status of countries (EU15 – EU27/28 – non EU) was partially confirmed.
In European Union countries, the circular economy concept is promoted by public authorities and important efforts are done on
institutional and regulations field. Due this public implication, the circular economy is a reality of our days, most concerns being
identified in the industrial field. However, tourism is a field in which the principles of the circular economy can be applied, taking into
account the particularities of certain types of tourism, such as cultural tourism and heritage tourism (Valentina et al., 2015; Vasile
et al., 2016; Girard and Nocca, 2017; Rudan et al., 2021; Renfors, 2022; Rudan, 2023).
A new concept of circular tourism economy gain ground, and this form of economy presupposes the existence of formal and
informal links between different categories of stakeholders such as public authorities, entrepreneurs, tourists, the local population. The
links that exist at the local level between stakeholders are essential for promoting the principles of circularity in tourism and also have
the role of stimulating the innovativeness of entrepreneurs.

13
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

6. Conclusions

Tourist activity has a dramatic impact on the environment, through air, soil and water pollution. The pollution represents the main
negative challenge faced by the environment, generated by the movements of tourists, both domestically and internationally. Although
at first glance, the tourism industry does not seem to have a significant negative impact on the environment, statistical data and studies
prove the opposite, especially in certain countries dependent on this economic branch. The complexity of the negative externalities
engendered by tourism led us to focus our study on the impact of this activity on waste management. Waste management is a problem
highlighted by urbanization, but also by the increase in the flow of people as a result of the intensification of tourist activity together
with the improvement of the standard of living.
Reducing the negative impact of tourism on the environment can be achieved by promoting the principles of the circular economy
at the level of operators in this field, which must act on several levels related to (1) the construction of hotels and guesthouses, (2) the
use of renewable energy, taking into account the involvement of stakeholders in the new energy transition that targets the entire planet
and the use of energy-efficient equipment, (3) the reduction of food waste and use of household waste to generate energy (such as
cooking oil that can be used as an alternative energy source), (4) furniture refurbishment, (5) the promotion of circular water man­
agement considering the high consumption of water specific to this industry, (6). Promoting the principles of the circular economy in
tourism involves improving the innovation capacity of tourism operators, creating informal partnerships with consumers in order to
ensure a symbiosis among these stakeholders and engender beneficial results, improving communication with consumers and suppliers
through reports on non- financial performance. The change of paradigm and the transition from the linear economy to the circular
economy requires the awareness of consumers regarding the role they have in promoting the principles of circularity, and in the field of
tourism, despite the challenges generated by the hedonistic tendencies of tourists, hotels and tourism destinations could be even
promoted as circular economy living labs.

7. Practical applications and future research

In the field of tourism, we should witness a paradigm shift regarding the objectives of entrepreneurs who should no longer focus on
waste reduction, but they should take into account the repetitive recovering and reuse of certain materials, thus promoting the
principles of the circular economy. Circular economy principles must be promoted in all areas related to tourism, but certain forms of
tourism like cultural tourism or heritage tourism even favor the reuse and recycling of certain materials.
The authors are aware of the limits of their research considering the sample of countries, the variables used and the analyzed
period. On this account, the authors plan the realization of scientific studies focused on the situation in the countries of the European
Union, taking into account the specific concerns of these countries to promote the principles of sustainable development through
specific actions related to the Green Deal and EU waste policy. We are considering carrying out a panel analysis given that the EU
countries can be divided into old member countries and new member countries. The accession period focuses not only on the stability
of the legislative and institutional system, but also on the education and awareness of citizens as consumers of tourist services.
Consumers are important stakeholders in the circular tourism economy promotion equation, considering the generation and man­
agement of waste by and through tourism activities.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Manuela Rozalia Gabor: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software; Writing- Original draft preparation; Mirela Panait Writing-
Reviewing, Editing, Validation, Visualization, Investigation; Supervision; Ioan Bogdan Bacoș: Data curation, Writing- Original draft
preparation. Laura Elly Naghi: Writing- Reviewing and Editing Validation, Flavia Dana Oltean Writing- Reviewing and Editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements

Supported by the grant No. 164/1/10.01.2023 of the “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and
Technology of Târgu Mureș.

Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.eti.2023.103407.

14
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

References

Almstedt, Å., Lundmark, L., Pettersson, Ö., 2016. Public spending on rural tourism in Sweden. Fennia. Int. J. Geogr. 194 (1), 18–31. 〈https://fennia.journal.fi/article/
view/46265〉.
Anser, M.K., Yousaf, Z., Nassani, A.A., Abro, M.M.Q., Zaman, K., 2020. International tourism, social distribution, and environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from a
panel of G-7 countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 2707–2720.
Arbulú, I., Lozano, J., Rey-Maquieira, J., 2015. Tourism and solid waste generation in Europe: a panel data assessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Waste
Manag. 46, 628–636.
Armeanu, D., Vintilă, G., Andrei, J.V., Gherghina, Ş.C., Drăgoi, M.C., Teodor, C., 2018. Exploring the link between environmental pollution and economic growth in
EU-28 countries: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve? PLoS One 13 (5), e0195708.
Bacoș, I.B., Gabor, M.R., 2021. Air quality indices - case study: environmental sustainability pillar and Romania’s positioning in the European and global context. Acta
Marisiensis. Ser. Technol. 18 (1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.2478/amset-2021-0004.
Bacoș, I.B., Gabor, M.R., 2022. Comparative Quantitative Analysis of Air Quality Indicators and Macroeconomic Indicators for EU and Non-EU Member Countries. In:
Moldovan, L., Gligor, A. (Eds.), The 15th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering. Inter-Eng 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol
386. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93817-8_21.
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Driha, O.M., Shahbaz, M., Sinha, A., 2020. The effects of tourism and globalization over environmental degradation in developed countries.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 7130–7144.
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Driha, O.M., Bekun, F.V., Adedoyin, F.F., 2021. The asymmetric impact of air transport on economic growth in Spain: fresh evidence from the
tourism-led growth hypothesis. Curr. Issues Tour. 24 (4), 503–519.
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M., Shahbaz, M., 2022. The environmental Kuznets curve, based on the economic complexity, and the pollution
haven hypothesis in PIIGS countries. Renew. Energy 185, 1441–1455.
Bănescu, C., Boboc, C., Ghiță, S., & Vasile, V., 2021, June. Tourism in Digital Era. In: Proceedings of the 7th BASIQ International Conference on New Trends in
Sustainable Business and Consumption, Foggia, Italy (pp. 3–5).
Bekun, F.V., Adedoyin, F.F., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Driha, O.M., 2021. The validation of the tourism-led growth hypothesis in the next leading economies: accounting
for the relevant role of education on carbon emissions reduction? Strateg. Sustain. Tour., Econ. Growth Clean. Energy 249–278.
Buckley, R., 1991. Environmental impacts of recreation in parks and reserves. In: Perspectives in Environmental Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
pp. 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76502-5_13.
Buckley, R., 2012. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 (2), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003.
Campos C., Laso J., Cristobal J., Alberti J., Bala A., Fullana A., Fullana-i-Palmer P., Margallo M., Aldaco R., “Towards more sustainable tourism under a carbon
footprint approach: The Camion Lebaniego case study”, Journal of Cleaner Prodution, 2021. Available on Towards more sustainable tourism under a carbon
footprint approach: The Camino Lebaniego case study - ScienceDirect.
Cawley, M., Marsat, J.-B., Gillmor, D.A., 2007. Promoting integrated rural tourism: comparative perspectives on institutional networking in France and Ireland. Tour.
Geogr. 9 (4), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680701647626.
Cheung, C., & Law, R., 2001. The impact of air quality on tourism: the case of Hong Kong. Pacific Tourism Review, 5, 69–74.
Ciarlantini, S., Madaleno, M., Robaina, M., Monteiro, A., Eusébio, C., Carneiro, M.J., Gama, C., 2022. Air pollution and tourism growth relationship: exploring
regional dynamics in five European countries through an EKC model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18087-w.
COM, 2020. 98 final, A new Circular Economy Action Plan, For a cleaner and more competitive Europe, European Union.
Costa, S., Ferreira, J., Silveira, C., Costa, C., Lopes, D., Relvas, H., Borrego, C., Roebeling, P., Miranda, A.I., Teixeira, J.P., 2014. Integrating health on air quality
assessment—review report on health risks of two major european outdoor air pollutants: PM and NO2. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part B 17 (6), 307–340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2014.946164.
Craig, L., Krewski, D., Samet, J., Shortreed, J., van Bree, L., Krupnick, A.J., 2008. International perspectives on air quality: risk management principles for policy
development – conference statement. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Part A 71 (1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390701557321.
Cvijanovic, D., Matijasevic-Obradovic, J., Skoric, S., 2017. The impact of air quality conditioned by emission of pollutants to the development of rural tourism and
potentials of rural areas. Ekon. Poljopr. 64 (3), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj1703871C.
De Vita, G., Katircioglu, S., Altinay, L., Fethi, S., Mercan, M., 2015. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in a tourism development context. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 16652–16663.
Dwyer, L., Kim, C., 2010. Destination competitiveness: determinants and indicators. Curr. Issues Tour. 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962.
European Environment Agency - European Air Quality Index , 2020. [Online]. Available: 〈https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality-index/index〉.
Eurostat a 2021. Tourism statistics. Tourism destinations nights spent by international guests Available on Tourism statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu).
Eurostat b 2022. Waste statistics: waste generation by economic activities and households. Available on Waste statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu) Accessed on
November 21.
Eurostat c, 2022. Tourism statistics at regional level. Available on Tourism statistics at regional level - Statistics Explained (europa.eu).
Fatima, T., Mentel, G., Doğan, B., Hashim, Z., Shahzad, U., 2022. Investigating the role of export product diversification for renewable, and non-renewable energy
consumption in GCC (gulf cooperation council) countries: does the Kuznets hypothesis exist? Environ., Dev. Sustain. 24 (6), 8397–8417.
Ghosh, S., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Doğan, B., Paiano, A., Talbi, B., 2022. Modelling an empirical framework of the implications of tourism and economic complexity on
environmental sustainability in G7 economies. J. Clean. Prod. 376, 134281.
Girard, L.F., Nocca, F., 2017. From linear to circular tourism 1. Aestimum 70, 51.
Halseth, G., Markey, S., & Bruce, D. , 2009. The next rural economies: constructing rural place in global economies.
HDI, 2018. HDI 2019 〈https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_development/European-union/〉.
HDI, 2021. 〈https://en.populationdata.net/rankings/hdi/europe/〉.
Khan, S.A.R., Qianli, D., SongBo, W., Zaman, K., Zhang, Y., 2017. Travel and tourism competitiveness index: The impact of air transportation, railways transportation,
travel and transport services on international inbound and outbound tourism. J. Air Transp. Manag. 58, 125–134.
Kurt, O.K., Zhang, J., Pinkerton, K.E., 2016. Pulmonary health effects of air pollution. In: Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins,
pp. 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCP.0000000000000248.
Leitão, N.C., Lorente, D.B., 2020. The linkage between economic growth, renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, and international trade: the evidence for the
European Union. Energies 13 (18), 4838.
Lelieveld, J., Evans, J., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., Pozzer, A., 2015. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature
525, 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15371.
Manniche, J., Larsen, K.T., Broegaard, R.B., & Holland, E., 2017. Destination: a circular tourism economy. A Handbook for Transitioning toward a Circular Economy
within the Tourism and Hospitality Sectors in the South Baltic Region. Centre for Regional & Tourism Research (CRT).
Mcneill, R., & Roberge, A., 2000. The Impact of Visual Air Quality on Tourism Revenues in Greater Vancouver and the Lower Fraser Valley.
Mieczkowski, Z. , 1995. Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation. Print.
Milman, A., Pizam, A., 1995. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: the central florida case. J. Travel Res. 33 (3), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/
004728759503300304.
National Center for Environmental Health , 2021. Air Quality and Air pollutants [Online]. Available: 〈https://www.cdc.gov/air/pollutants.htm〉.
Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., 2016. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 23, 1916–1928.
Palazzo, M., Gigauri, I., Panait, M.C., Apostu, S.A., Siano, A., 2022. Sustainable tourism Issues in European countries during the global pandemic crisis. Sustainability
14 (7), 3844.

15
M.R. Gabor et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 32 (2023) 103407

Panait, M., Voica, M.C., Rădulescu, I., 2019. Approaches regarding environmental Kuznets curve in the European Union from the perspective of sustainable
development. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 17 (3), 6801–6820.
Pang, S., Mckercher, B., Prideaux, B., 2013. Climate change and tourism: an overview. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.688509.
Papavasileiou, E.F., Tzouvanas, P., 2021. Tourism carbon Kuznets-curve hypothesis: A systematic literature review and a paradigm shift to a corporation-performance
perspective. J. Travel Res. 60 (4), 896–911.
Pata, U.K., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., 2022. Exploring the impact of tourism and energy consumption on the load capacity factor in Turkey: a novel dynamic ARDL
approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (9), 13491–13503.
Renfors, S.M., 2022. Circular Economy in tourism: Overview of recent developments in research. Matkailututkimus 18 (1), 47–63.
Ristić, L., Vujičić, M., & Leković, M. (2016). Tourism as a factor of sustainable development of rural areas belonging to rudnička morava (Vol. 63).
Ritchie, J.R.B., Crouch, G.I., 2000. The competitive destination: a sustainable tourism perspective. Tour. Manag. 21, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1079/
9780851996646.0000.
Robaina, M., Madaleno, M., Silva, S., Eusébio, C., Carneiro, M., Gama, C., Oliveira, K., Russo, M., Monteiro, A., 2020. The relationship between tourism and air quality
in five European countries. Econ. Anal. Policy 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.07.012.
Rodríguez, C., Florido, C., Jacob, M., 2020. Circular economy contributions to the tourism sector: A critical literature review. Sustainability 12 (11), 4338.
Rudan, E., 2023. Circular Economy of Cultural Heritage—Possibility to Create a New Tourism Product through Adaptive Reuse. Journal of Risk and Financial
Management. J. Risk Manag. 16 (3), 196.
Rudan, E., Nižić, M.K., Grdić, Z.Š., 2021. Effect of circular economy on the sustainability of cultural tourism (Croatia). Econ. Environ. 76 (1), 19-19.
Shah, S.A.R., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Radulescu, M., Zhang, Q., & Hussain, B. , 2022. Revising the tourism-induced environment Kuznets curve hypothesis in top 8
Asian economies: the role of ICT and renewable energy consumption. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, (ahead-of-print).
Shahbaz, M., Sinha, A., 2019. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a literature survey. J. Econ. Stud. 46 (1), 106–168.
Shahbaz, M., Mutascu, M., Azim, P., 2013. Environmental Kuznets curve in Romania and the role of energy consumption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 18, 165–173.
Sharif, A., Godil, D.I., Xu, B., Sinha, A., Khan, S.A.R., Jermsittiparsert, K., 2020a. Revisiting the role of tourism and globalization in environmental degradation in
China: Fresh insights from the quantile ARDL approach. J. Clean. Prod. 272, 122906.
Sharif, A., Afshan, S., Chrea, S., Amel, A., Khan, S.A.R., 2020b. The role of tourism, transportation and globalization in testing environmental Kuznets curve in
Malaysia: new insights from quantile ARDL approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 25494–25509.
Sharif, A., Afshan, S., Chrea, S., Amel, A., Khan, S.A.R., 2020c. The role of tourism, transportation and globalization in testing environmental Kuznets curve in
Malaysia: new insights from quantile ARDL approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 25494–25509.
Sinha, A., Driha, O., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., 2020. Tourism and inequality in per capita water availability: is the linkage sustainable? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27,
10129–10134.
Surugiu, C., Surugiu, M., Mazilescu, R., 2019. Sharing economy, ict and digital marketing impact on the recent tourism developments. Hyperion Int. J. Econophys. N.
Econ. 12, 1.
Surugiu, M.R., Vasile, V., Mazilescu, R., Surugiu, C., Vasile, R., 2023. Determinants of resilience building in tourism: a case study on Romania in the context of the
pandemic crises. J. Tour. Manag. Res. 10 (1), 15–31.
UNWTO, 2019. Tourism’s carbon emissions measured in landmark report launched at COP25. Available on Tourism’s Carbon Emissions Measured in Landmark
Report Launched At COP25 (unwto.org).
Valentina, V., Marius-Răzvan, S., Login, I.A., Anca, C., 2015. Changes in cultural heritage consumption model: Challenges and Limits. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 188,
42–52.
Vargas-Sánchez, A., 2018. The unavoidable disruption of the circular economy in tourism. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 10 (6), 652–661.
Vasile, V., Surugiu, M.R., Login, I.A., 2016. Heritage entrepreneurship and ecotourism. A new vision on ecosystem protection and in-situ specific activities for cultural
heritage consumption. Rev. Romana De. Econ. 42.
Vickery, R., Font, X., Tribe, J., Yale, K., 2000. Environmental Management for Rural Tourism and Recreation. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
World Economic Forum, 2019. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019 published by the World Economic Forum’s Platform, [Online]. Available: 〈http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TTCR_2019.pdf〉.
World Health Organisation, 2017. Evolution of WHO air quality guidelines: past, present and future. Cph.: WHO Reg. Off. Eur.
Zaman, K., Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Raza, S.A., 2016. Tourism development, energy consumption and Environmental Kuznets Curve: Trivariate analysis in the
panel of developed and developing countries. Tour. Manag. 54, 275–283.

Web References

〈https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Statistici_privind_energia_din_surse_regenerabile&oldid= 388641〉.
〈https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.FEC.RNEW.ZS〉.
〈https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/share-of-energy-consumption-from〉.
〈https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/AirQualityAssessmentRegimes/index.html?AirPollutant=PM2.5&ReportingYear= 2021〉.
〈https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Quarterly_greenhouse_gas_emissions_in_the_EU〉.
〈https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tour_occ_ninat/default/table?lang=en〉.
〈https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/tourism/data/database〉.
〈https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tour_occ_arnat/default/table?lang=en〉.

16