tourism development and trust in local government

Tourism development and trust in local government

• School of Tourism and Hospitality
• University of Mauritius

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

The relationship between tourism development and citizens' trust in government is an under-researched area. This study developed a model that established theoretical relationships between important variables of tourism development and two types of political trust: political trust in the specific context of tourism and general level of political trust. Findings suggest a significant relationship between the two constructs. Results indicate that communities should feel empowered in tourism, should be knowledgeable of the sector, and should derive benefits from development for them to trust local government. The most important lesson of the study is that if the tourism sector is properly managed and developed, it can have beneficial political effects for governments such as increasing their legitimacy vis-à-vis citizens. The paper argues that like defense and social policies, tourism development have a determining impact on political trust and the industry therefore deserves more respect among political scientists.

• Political economy
• Political trust
• Social exchange theory

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• Development
• Transportation
• Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management
• Strategy and Management

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

• 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Tourism Policy Social Sciences 100%
• Tourism Sector Social Sciences 100%
• Industrial Sector Social Sciences 100%
• Political Scientist Social Sciences 100%
• Trust in Local Government Keyphrases 100%
• Local Government Economics, Econometrics and Finance 100%
• Specific Industry Economics, Econometrics and Finance 50%
• Trust in Government Keyphrases 25%

T1 - Tourism development and trust in local government

AU - Nunkoo, Robin

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - The relationship between tourism development and citizens' trust in government is an under-researched area. This study developed a model that established theoretical relationships between important variables of tourism development and two types of political trust: political trust in the specific context of tourism and general level of political trust. Findings suggest a significant relationship between the two constructs. Results indicate that communities should feel empowered in tourism, should be knowledgeable of the sector, and should derive benefits from development for them to trust local government. The most important lesson of the study is that if the tourism sector is properly managed and developed, it can have beneficial political effects for governments such as increasing their legitimacy vis-à-vis citizens. The paper argues that like defense and social policies, tourism development have a determining impact on political trust and the industry therefore deserves more respect among political scientists.

AB - The relationship between tourism development and citizens' trust in government is an under-researched area. This study developed a model that established theoretical relationships between important variables of tourism development and two types of political trust: political trust in the specific context of tourism and general level of political trust. Findings suggest a significant relationship between the two constructs. Results indicate that communities should feel empowered in tourism, should be knowledgeable of the sector, and should derive benefits from development for them to trust local government. The most important lesson of the study is that if the tourism sector is properly managed and developed, it can have beneficial political effects for governments such as increasing their legitimacy vis-à-vis citizens. The paper argues that like defense and social policies, tourism development have a determining impact on political trust and the industry therefore deserves more respect among political scientists.

KW - Knowledge

KW - Political economy

KW - Political trust

KW - Social exchange theory

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908377185&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016

DO - 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.016

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84908377185

SN - 0261-5177

JO - Tourism Management

JF - Tourism Management

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Tourism development and trust in local government

• Author & abstract
• 16 References
• 35 Citations
• Most related
• Related works & more

Corrections

• Nunkoo, Robin

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher, references listed on ideas.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

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

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

The benefits of tourism for rural community development

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

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

23k Accesses

14 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Development studies

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Creativity development of tourism villages in Bandung Regency, Indonesia: co-creating sustainability and urban resilience

Eco-tourism, climate change, and environmental policies: empirical evidence from developing economies

Knowledge mapping of relative deprivation theory and its applicability in tourism research

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review

The role of rural tourism.

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

Contributions of rural tourism to rural community development

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

Methodology

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

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

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

Selection of experts

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

Generating items to represent the construct

Step 1: data collection.

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

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

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

Step 3: Examine interexpert consensus for construct-irrelevant variances

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

Step 4: Examine intergroup consistency

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

Step 5: Examine interexpert reliability

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

Step 6: Examine the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

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

Face validity

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

Interexpert consensus

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

Intergroup consistency and interexpert reliability

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

The hierarchical framework

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

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

The priority index of each attribute and sub-attribute.

Discussion/Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chienkuo Technology University, Changhua, Taiwan

Yung-Lun Liu

Dayeh University, Changhua, Taiwan

Jui-Te Chiang & Pen-Fa Ko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jui-Te Chiang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

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

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2022

Accepted : 06 March 2023

Published : 31 March 2023

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

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Political Economy of Tourism: Trust in Government, Political Support and their Determinants

Tourism Management

This study developed a comprehensive model of residents’ trust in government actors and political support for tourism based on social exchange theory, institutional theory of political trust, and cultural theory of political trust. The model was tested on a sample of 391 residents of Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Findings suggested that residents’ perceptions of the benefits and costs of tourism and their trust in government actors were significant determinants of political support. Their perceptions of the political and economic performance of government actors significantly predicted trust in government actors. Interpersonal trust, perceived costs of tourism, and perceived power in tourism decision-making were insignificant determinants of trust. The study found partial support for social exchange theory. Cultural theory of political trust was not found to be relevant, while strong support was found for institutional theory of political trust.

Related Papers

Tourism Geographies

Robin Nunkoo, Ph.D

Political trust is a key requirement if tourism policies of the government are to flourish and sustain. The purpose of the research is to investigate the determinants of political trust and analyze whether the latter influences residents’ support for mass and alternative tourism. To this end, we developed a structural model based on the social exchange theory, institutional theory of political trust, and cultural theory of political trust. The model proposes six determinants of political trust which in turn is proposed to influence residents’ support for mass and alternative tourism. Data were collected from residents’ of Mauritius selected using a stratified random sampling approach. We used a survey method based on a structured questionnaire. Using AMOS, the data were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis to determine the fit of the measurement model. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized model. Results indicated that such variables as the political and economic performance of government in tourism, interpersonal trust, and tourism benefits significantly predicted political trust. In turn, the latter was found to influence residents’ support for mass tourism only, lending support to Hetherington sacrificed-based concept borrowed from political science. The theoretical contribution of the study relates to the inclusion of the political trust variable to analyze its relationship between residents’ support for two opposing types of tourism development in a single theoretical model. We found that such relationship is contextual, depending on the object of exchange, conceptualized in here as the types of tourism residents are asked to support. Political trust figures more prominently for mass tourism than for alternative tourism given the considerable amount of sacrifices residents have to make to accommodate mass development. Our findings suggest that it is important for government to foster political trust among local people for tourism development to sustain.

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

Robin Nunkoo, Ph.D , Valentina Della Corte

This research establishes the theoretical link between the development of tourism and citizens’ trust. The research is grounded in political economy of state intervention in tourism and draws from social exchange theory to build the theoretical model. The latter incorporates variables such as trust, power, knowledge, and benefits and costs of tourism, which are central to any exchange process between social actors. The model distinguishes and proposes a theoretical relationship between domain specific political trust and generic political trust. The former refers to citizens' trust in local government in the specific context of tourism development while the latter refers to citizens' general level of trust in local government. The model is tested using data collected from residents of the metropolitan area of Naples, Italy. Results suggest that residents’ trust in local government in the specific context of tourism strongly influences their general level of trust, suggesting a spill-over effect of political trust. We demonstrated empirically that political trust in the context of tourism and the general trust in an institution are theoretically distinct concepts. The constructs we used to conceptualize tourism development has distinct influence on the two dimensions of political trust.

The relationship between tourism development and citizens’ trust in government is an under-researched area. This study developed a model that established theoretical relationships between important variables of tourism development and two types of political trust: political trust in the specific context of tourism and general level of political trust. Findings suggest a significant relationship between the two constructs. Results indicate that communities should feel empowered in tourism, should be knowledgeable of the sector, and should derive benefits from development for them to trust local government. The most important lesson of the study is that if the tourism sector is properly managed and developed, it can have beneficial political effects for governments such as increasing their legitimacy vis-à-vis citizens. The paper argues that like defense and social policies, tourism development have a determining impact on political trust and the industry therefore deserves more respect among political scientists.

Annals of Tourism Research

Robin Nunkoo, Ph.D , Haywantee Ramkissoon (PhD)

Political trust is important for good governance. However, there is a paucity of research on this topic in the tourism literature. This paper tests a model of public trust in tourism institutions developed on the premise of the institutional and cultural theories of political trust. Results from the structural equation modeling analysis suggest that perceived economic and political performance of institutions, residents’ power in tourism, and interpersonal trust are good determinants of political trust in tourism institutions. A significant relationship is also noted between public trust and political support for tourism. The theoretical and practical implications, of the findings, the study’s limitations, and some directions for future research are discussed.

Haywantee Ramkissoon (PhD)

Public trust is important for the good governance of tourism. However, research on trust in the tourism literature is limited. This paper tests a model of public trust in tourism institutions. The institutional and cultural theories of political trust inform the structural model. Results from the structural equation modeling analysis suggest that the perceived economic and political performance of institutions, residents’ power and inter-personal trust are good determinants of political trust in tourism institutions. A significant relationship is also noted between public trust and political support for tourism. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings, the study’s limitations and some directions for future research are discussed. Key word: political trust, tourism institutions; good governance; support for tourism

Trust and power between actors are two central concepts in social exchanges. Yet, studies investigating residents’ support for tourism using the social exchange theory have failed to consider these constructs simultaneously. This study tests a model of community support with the social exchange theory as its theoretical basis. Results indicate that support is determined by residents’ trust in government actors and perceived benefits. Trust is in turn predicted by residents’ perceived benefits and costs and their level of power. The theoretical contributions of the study emanate from the inclusion of the trust and power variables in the model. The practical implications of the findings and the limitations of the study are discussed. Some suggestions for future research are also made.

The dynamics of trust and distrust are central to understanding modern society, social relations, and development processes. However, numerous studies suggest that societal trust and citizen’s trust in government and its institutions are on the decline, challenging the legitimacy of government and leading to an undemocratic and unsustainable form of development. Recognizing its importance, the authors for the first time situate trust within the context of tourism development and planning. This volume discusses trust in tourism from different yet intrinsically connected perspectives. Chapters review how diminishing societal trust may have adversely affected tourism planning systems, the role of trust in good tourism governance and sustainable tourism, how trust can be used as a facilitator of participatory tourism planning, political trust in tourism institutions, power and how tourism development can be a basis for trust creation among society members by using social capital theory. In addition, a final section on ‘Researching Trust in Tourism Development’ means that readers are not only provided a thorough theoretical framework on trust and an understanding of its importance for sustainable tourism and good governance of the sector, but also methodological aspects of research on trust in the context of tourism development and planning. This significant volume is valuable reading for students, academics and researchers interested in tourism development and planning.

David Cardenas

Local residents remain peripheral players in tourism development planning, and exhibit little appreciation of potential impacts. Yet the long-term viability of sustainable initiatives depends on community members’ initial understanding, support and engagement in the planning process. Trust is a key construct that most scholars believe to be critical in gauging and understanding resident support for tourism development. However, limited tourism research has been conducted exploring the dimension of trust. The purpose of this study was to explore the construct of trust, and its antecedents, ability, benevolence, and integrity, in the context of a tourism development project.

Journal of Travel Research (in press)

Robin Nunkoo, Ph.D , Kevin Kam Fung So

Social exchange theory (SET) has made significant contributions to research on community support for tourism. Nevertheless, studies are based on an incomplete set of variables and are characterized by alternative, yet contradictory, yet theoretically sound research propositions. Using key constructs of SET, this study develops a baseline model of residents’ support and compares it with four nested models. Each nested model contains the terms of the baseline model and additional relationships, reflecting alternative theoretical possibilities. The models were tested using data collected from residents of Niagara Region, Canada. Results indicated that in the best fitted model, residents’ support for tourism was influenced by their perceptions of positive impacts. Residents’ power and their trust significantly predicted their life satisfaction and their perceptions of positive impacts. Personal benefits from tourism significantly influenced perceptions of positive and negative impacts. The study provides valuable and clearer insights on relationships among SET variables.

Trust, Tourism Development and Planning

Peter Edwards

RELATED PAPERS

Untergang und Neuanfang. Tagungsbeiträge der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Spätantike und Frühmittelalter

Stefanie Hoss

Harold de Asis

Gayatri Ayu

Brahmastra Pandey

pranay paleti

Tudor Mihăescu

Doktora tezi

Dr. Deniz Balcı

Muhammad Nabeel Musharraf

Pondera antiqua et mediaevalia I

Vassiliki Stefanaki , John H Kroll

Corina Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck

Md. Sabbir Ahmed

Journal of Molecular Structure

Robert W Gable

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Maria Torloni

哪里买新加坡国立大学毕业证 nus毕业证双学位证书教育部认证

Turkish Journal of Agriculture: Food Science and Technology

ismet yıldırım

arXiv (Cornell University)

Ronaldo Garcia

SFU毕业证成绩单offer 西蒙菲莎大学一手制作’

mridula Aggarwal

Annuaire d’Archéologie Suisse

Bastien Jakob , Laure Bassin

Ellite : Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching

suhardianto suhardianto

East European journal of physics

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Role of Local Government Units in Tourism

Opportunities and Challenges in Tourism Development Roles of Local Government Units in the Philippines1

Aser B. Javier, Ph.D. and Dulce B. Elazigue2

INTRODUCTION

Tourism as a product and service oriented industry, could generate widespread benefits and impacts to the economy and society. It could contribute to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) particularly those concerning poverty alleviation, environmental conservation, and generation of employment opportunities for women, indigenous communities and young people. Further, tourism could be a source of revenue (foreign exchange earnings, tax revenue) to the government and because of its multiplier effect, could provide opportunities for local economic development (LED). The direct, upstream, and downstream industries involved in tourism activities have the potential for creating sectoral linkages and economic opportunities in the localities.

The major sub sectors prevalent in Philippine tourism include ecotourism; medical, health and wellness and retirement; meetings, incentives, conventions and exhibitions ‐ (MICE); adventure, outdoor and sports; amusement, entertainment and leisure; and cultural and heritage tourism (Alvia and Libosada, Jr., 2009). In 2005, the Philippines’ gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices was estimated at US$99 billion. Tourism’s direct contribution to GDP is around 2% and employment generated is around 1.5 million jobs. In 2006, there were over 3.49 million people directly and indirectly employed in the tourism industry. From 2004 to 2007, the industry registered annual average growth rates of 10.5% and 34.9% in terms of tourist arrivals and receipts, respectively (Gutierrez, 2008). In 2007, travel and tourism contributed an estimated 3.8 million jobs across the economy (or around 8.8% of total employment).

In view of the socio-economic benefits that could accrue to communities, it is imperative that communities capitalise on opportunities from tourism. One of the major

1 Paper presented to the 3rd Annual Conference of the Academic Network of Development Studies in Asia (ANDA). Skills Development for New Dynamism in Asian Developing Countries under Globalization. March 5-7, 2011 Symposion Hall, Nagoya University Japan. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and Nagoya University.

2 Dr Aser B. Javier is Associate Professor at the Institute of Development Management and Governance and is currently Director of the Institute of Strategic Planning and Policy Studies of the College of Public Affairs of the University of the Philippines Los Banos. Ms. Dulce B. Elazigue is University Researcher of the Institute of Strategic Planning and Policy Studies of the College of Public Affairs of the University of the Philippines Los Banos authorities which provide the key roles to this success is that of local government units (LGUs). LGUs could provide the ideal, authority, infrastructure, policy and planning procedures to maximise the benefit for its communities. LGUs play a major role in a community’s development, provide the links between the people and government, address its community’s problems and concerns, enforce policies and hold influence over its communities. The LGUs are also intermediaries in channelling the framework of government into each individual community in order to create a beneficial outcome.

In the context of sustainable development, local governments also play important roles on the success of its local tourism industry, as well as have a strong influence in conserving its resources. Sustainable tourism development refers to the management of all resources that meets the needs of tourists and host regions while protecting the opportunities for the future, in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems (Tourism Act of 2010). Vital to this approach is the contribution of a full range of stakeholders and the community in planning and decision making in order to determine the community’s long term interest. On this basis, the local government can have a profound influence on the local tourism industry, and plays a part in conserving the very asset on which its future depends.

Further, local government’s institutional capacity to provide for tourism development will be affected by a number of issues, including: individual capacities, resources (financial and physical), community acceptance, and governance.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The role of local government is to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well–being of their communities and their involvement in tourism must be related to that. The LGUs have the mandate to craft their own tourism plan which sets out the priorities over the medium to longer term and how the local authority intends to contribute to community well–being. The plan must set out the following the community outcomes as a result of tourism development, how these have been identified and how the local authority will contribute to these. The Local Government Tourism Strategy may contribute to economic development strategies and or regional as well as national tourism strategies and serve as the basis of the role of LGUs (Figure 1). Figure 1. Interrelation between local and regional/national tourism strategy and community outcomes (Adapted from Local Government New Zealand (2004).

Community Outcomes

Contributes Contributes to Local government’s to contribution identified

Economic Local Tourism Plan Provides basis for local Development Government’s involvement Strategy

May be part of

Provides basis for local Government’s involvement Regional/National Tourism Strategy

TOURISM APPROACH TO LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (LED)

The Philippine government sees the need to focus on tourism in order to capitalize on the lost opportunities that could have been captured from it. As early as 2007, the DOT has identified the development of tourism real estates, establishment and modernization of tourist accommodation facilities as priority activities (Business World, 2007).

Republic Act (RA) 9593 also known as the Tourism Act of 2009 was enacted in May 12, 2009. The law is considered as the Omnibus Tourism Code. Its general provision stated in Section 1 is to harness its potentials “as an engine of socio-economic growth and cultural affirmation to generate investment, foreign exchange and employment and to continue to mold an enhanced sense of national pride for all Filipinos”. The state’s perspective of tourism, as with the rest of the other country’s experience and plans, is seen through the direct contributions on job creation, foreign exchange generation and stimulation of large and usually foreign investments. This policy statement reflects the government perspective on tourism that has remained largely unchanged since the creation of the DOT in 1973. The message has been consistent for almost 40 years: tourism is a powerful economic growth engine for the country with great potential to generate direct and indirect jobs, upgrade the levels of investment, and facilitate foreign exchange movements. Thus, it was not surprising that the policy framework of the 2004-2010 Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) remains “geared towards attracting more visitors, extending their length of stay, and increasing the attractiveness of tourist products to encourage travelers to spend more” (Alampay, 2009 as cited by Javier, 2010).

The Tourism chapter of the MTPDP has a product market, destination, building tourism priority zones and tourism infrastructure focus. Three priorities for product market has been identified –aggressive multichannel promotion of the short-haul beachgoer and sightseeing/shopper, and domestic market segments, related products, and destinations. These markets should receive between 60 and 70 percent of the promotional budget; Niche-based tailored promotion of the short-haul recreation travellers and ecotourists; and the strategic ‘ambassadors’ backpacker and balikbayan segments, and related products. These should receive between 20 and 30 percent of the promotional budget focusing on ‘rifle shot’ promotions aimed at specific niches such as golf, diving, among others; and long-term tactical marketing to the long-haul markets and MICE segments, and related products which should receive 20 to 30 percent of the promotion budget in the long-term, focusing on non-media based campaigns (MTPDP, 2004-2010).

The MTPDP 2004-2010 and the RA 9593 puts premium in establishing the Tourism Economic Zones (TEZs). This shall be the main vehicle for focused development at a local level within the priority destinations together with the creation of a Tourism Industrial and Economic Zone Authority (TIEZA) in place of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). The TIEZA shall designate the TEZs, upon recommendation of any LGUs or private entity or through joint venture of private and public sectors (Chapter IV, Section 60, and RA 9593).

POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE OF LGUs ROLES

The formation of institutional structures and the implementation of tourism policies and strategies require enabling legislation and regulatory framework. Below is a discussion of the policy and institutional setting that govern the tourism industry in the Philippines.

Republic Act No. 7160 of 1991- The Local Government Code

The Code (Section 17) provides for LGU’s responsibility in basic services and facilities that include tourism development and promotion programs, tourism facilities and other tourist attractions, including the acquisition of equipment, regulation and supervision of business concessions, and security services for such facilities. LGUs, as a corporate entity (Section 15) are also vested corporate powers with full autonomy (Section 22) in proprietary functions and management of their economic enterprises. However, the condition that this provision is subject to the limitations provided in this Code and other applicable laws negates the ‘full autonomy’.

The recent emphasis of the current administration towards the practice of the LGUs as corporate entities became very favourable for the tourism industry. Tourism together with agribusiness development was seen as the LGUs best bet for increasing local revenues. These two sectors were identified by the initial four pilot LGU clusters where the Local Governance Support Program-Local Economic Development (LGSP-LED) operates. The LGSP-LED is an eight-year collaborative program of the Governments of Canada and the Philippines implemented in partnership with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and geared towards reducing poverty by strengthening local governance and supporting sustainable LED (LGSP-LED, 2009).

In terms of structure, the Local Development Councils (LDCs) at the provincial, city , and municipal level (Section 109) have the mandate to formulate socioeconomic development plans and policies; public investment programs; local investment incentives to promote the inflow and direction of private investment capital. At the same time, the LDCs are the ones that appraise and prioritize socioeconomic development programs and projects. The Sanggunian approves local development plans which are submitted to the regional development council, which shall be integrated into the regional development plan for submission to the National Economic and Development Authority, in accordance with existing laws.

Also very recently, a Memorandum Circular (DILG-MC 2010-113) was issued by the DILG encouraging provinces and cities for the creation of a Local Economic and Investments Promotions Officer (LEIPO). The LEIPOs are tasked primarily to facilitate the preparation, coordination, and execution of local economic and investment promotion policies, projects, and activities of the provincial/city government. Tourism development was identified by the LEIPOs as a good investment priority as planned in the initial roll- out of the LEIPOs orientation on LED (Javier, 2010).

Republic Act No. 9593 - The Tourism Act of 2009

The Act provides for the development of a national tourism action plan for implementation by national and local governments; enlisting the participation of local communities, including indigenous peoples, non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and the private sector. It also emphasizes capability- building of LGUs, in partnership with the private sector, in the management of local tourism projects and initiatives, and the establishment of tourism enterprise zones (TEZs). Local tourism development planning

LGUs, in consultation with stakeholders, are encouraged to utilize their powers under the Local Government Code to ensure the preparation and implementation of a tourism development plan, the enforcement of standards and the collection of statistical data for tourism purposes. The plan should integrate zoning, land use, infrastructure development, the national system of standards for tourism enterprises, heritage and environmental protection imperatives in a manner that encourages sustainable tourism development (Section 37).

Institutional arrangements

The Department of Tourism (DOT) shall be the primary planning, programming, coordinating, implementing and regulatory government agency in the development and promotion of the tourism industry. It shall monitor the LGUs’ compliance to national standards in the licensing of tourism enterprises; and ensure the proper coordination, integration, prioritization and implementation of local tourism development plans. It shall provide technical assistance to LGUs in destination development, standard setting and regulatory enforcement; preparation, implementation and monitoring of local tourism development plans, gathering of statistical data, and enforcement of tourism laws and regulations.

There are a number of activities where LGUs have to coordinate with DOT. These include: - integration and coordination of local and national plans for tourism development - approval (by LGU resolution) of designating TEZ - designation of a permanent position and performance of functions of a tourism officer in every province, city or municipality where tourism is a significant industry - promulgation (also in consultation the private sector industries and other tourism stakeholders) of rules and regulations on the operation of all tourism enterprises, such as a national standard for licensing, accreditation and classification of tourism enterprises - establishment of tourist information and assistance centers at strategic locations (province, city or municipality where tourism is a significant industry) - provision to DOT of an inventory of all the resources available to the DOT for use in the implementation of the Act - periodic reporting to the DOT on the status of tourism plans and programs, tourist arrivals, and tourism enterprises, among others, within their jurisdictions - issuance of timely advisories on the safety or viability of travel to particular places - report to DOT of incentives provided by LGUs for tourism enterprises through, among others, reductions in applicable real estate taxes and waivers of fees and charges Rationalization of tourism areas, zones and spots

Under the Act, the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) is reorganized as the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA). The TIEZA shall be a body corporate which shall designate, regulate and supervise the TEZs as well as develop, manage and supervise tourism infrastructure projects in the country. TEZ is an area specifically defined or organized as a tourism area, zone or spot under any special or general law, decree or presidential issuance (Section 32).

With respect to tourism zones, areas or spots not organized into TEZs, the DOT, through appropriate arrangements, may transfer control over the same or portions thereof, to another agency or office of the government, or to a LGU upon DOT approval. The Department shall exercise supervisory powers over such agency, office or LGU in accordance with the terms of the transfer or the development plan of the zone, area or spot.

No TEZ shall be designated without a development plan duly approved by the TIEZA and without the approval, by resolution, of the LGU concerned. LGUs which comprise, overlap, embrace or include a TEZ in their territorial jurisdictions shall retain their basic autonomy and identity in accordance with the Local Government Code.

Under the Act, The Philippine Conventions and Visitors Corporation (PCVC) are reorganized as the Tourism Promotions Board (TPB). The Bureaus for Domestic and International Tourism Promotions, and the Office of Tourism Information of the Department, are absorbed into the Tourism Promotions Board. The DOT, the TPB and the TIEZA shall prioritize promotion and development assistance for LGUs which successfully adopt and implement their tourism development plans.

Funding schemes

The Act provides for the Tourism Development Fund to be disbursed and administered by the DOT for the development, promotion and marketing of its tourism and other projects. DOT may provide financial to LGUs for the preparation, implementation and monitoring of their tourism development plans.

Tourism enterprises registered with the TIEZA shall further be ordered to pay back taxes in the amount equivalent to the difference between the taxes that they should have paid had they not availed of the incentives under the Act and the actual amount of taxes being paid by them under the same incentive scheme. The back taxes to be collected shall be computed up to three (3) years directly preceding the date of promulgation of the decision or order finding that the tourism enterprise violated the terms of its accreditation. The proceeds of these back taxes shall be distributed as follows: one-third to the National Government; one-third to the LGUs concerned, to be shared by them equally in case of more than one such LGU; and one-third to the TIEZA.

One unique feature of the RA 9593 is the shared governance of both national and local governments in tourism development. The shared governance approach hopefully will ensure the cooperation of each agency in performing n tourism development plans.

Shared Governance

The Act is also explicit in the delineation of the shared responsibilities between national and local governments. It is the responsibility of both national local governments to prepare and implement tourism development plans, enforcement of standards and collection of data for tourism purposes. It is imperative to national governments to assist the LGUs in planning and law enforcement. This means that tourism development is both a responsibility of national and local governments.

Table 1. Summary of National-Local Roles and Tourism Shared Governance Functions National Government Shared Governance Local Government Tourism (a) Formulate tourism LGUs to ensure the Formulate Development policies, plans and projects for preparation tourism plans Planning the development of and implementation of a and programs tourism as an engine of socio- tourism development plan, the economic and cultural growth; enforcement of standards and the collection of statistical data for tourism purposes. The development plans shall integrate zoning, land use, infrastructure development, the national system of standards for tourism enterprises, heritage and environmental protection imperatives that encourage sustainable tourism development. (b) Supervise and coordinate (ix) Investment the implementation of tourism support policies, plans and project services, including access to credit financing; (n) Ensure the proper coordination, integration, prioritization and implementation of local tourism development plans with that of the National Government; Tourism (e) Provide an integrated Promotion market development program to attract people to visit The Philippines and enhance the prestige of the country and the Filipino people in the international community; (f ) Represent the government in all domestic and international conferences and fora, and in all multilateral or bilateral treaties and international agreements concerning tourism, and ensure government implementation; Tourism (i) Support, advance and The DOT shall develop and (xi) Tourism Standards promote the protection, support training programs to facilities and maintenance and preservation enhance the capability of other tourist of historical, cultural and LGUs to monitor and attractions, natural endowments, in administer tourism activities, including the cooperation with appropriate and enforce tourism laws, acquisition of government agencies and the rules and equipment, private sector, and take regulations in their respective regulation and appropriate jurisdictions. Funding for such supervision of measures against acts and programs shall be shared business omissions contrary to these equitably between the concessions, objectives; Department and the LGUs and security concerned. services for such facilities; (k) Evaluate tourism development projects for the issuance of permits and the grant of incentives by appropriate government agencies, establish a databank of tourism areas and projects for investment purposes, and encourage private sector investment and participation in tourism activities and projects; (l) Formulate and promulgate, in consultation with the LGUs, the private sector industries and other tourism stakeholders, rules and regulations governing the operation and activities of all tourism enterprises, including but not limited to a national standard for licensing, accreditation and classification of tourism enterprises, impose reasonable penalties for violation of accreditation policies and recommend to the LGUs concerned the suspension or prohibition of operation of a tourism enterprise; (m)Monitor the LGUs’ compliance to national standards in the licensing of tourism enterprises, (o) Provide technical assistance to LGUs in destination development, standard setting and regulatory enforcement; (p) Undertake continuing research studies and survey to analyze tourism economic conditions and trends and compile and integrate a statistical databank;

The National Tourism Action Plan, 2004-2010

The Plan addresses:  Transportation and infrastructure - e.g., improving air/sea access to the Philippines; liberalizing civil aviation; promoting seamless travel to and from tourism gateways and satellite destinations; developing related infrastructure  Marketing and product development - enhancing the Philippines’ image as a safe, secure and tourist-friendly destination; synchronizing public and private sectors‟ marketing and promotional efforts  Environment, social, cultural concerns - to conserve and protect the national, physical, and ecological resources; research and development; advocacy and capacity building for tourism stakeholders on protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources  Investments and economics - encouraging investments in existing and new tourism enterprises through tourism enterprise/economic zones, rationalization of incentives for tourism projects and continued investment liberalization; promoting greater involvement of local communities in tourism  Institution building and human resource development - institutionalizing public- private sector partnerships in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of the NTAP

Related to the Action Plan is the Tourism Master Plan of the Philippines (1990 – 2010) which was formulated in 1990 which emphasizes tourism development on an environmentally sustainable basis and social cohesion and cultural preservation at local level. The strategies identified are: cluster development approach based on the establishment of three main international gateways and associated satellite destinations; a niche/mass market approach based on a diverse mix of special interests; a balance of development between foreign and domestic tourism. Regional Tourism Plans were envisioned to be blueprints for the development of the regional destinations and site specific tourism master plans have also been formulated.

Executive Order No. 111 and the National Ecotourism Strategy

This EO was issued on 17 June 1999 to establish the guidelines for ecotourism development in the Philippines, and thereby created a National Ecotourism Development Council to make policy along with structures to review and approve ecotourism projects. Prior to this EO, a joint DENR-DOT Memorandum Circular No. 98-02 provided the guidelines for ecotourism for development of the Philippines and created the Ecotourism Steering Committee which includes the Concerned Local Government Unit representative.

Pursuant to EO111, the National Ecotourism Strategy (NES) was completed in April 2002 to promote an integrated approach for the protection of natural resources while at the same time generating economic opportunities for local communities. Its preparation was undertaken through a series of regional stakeholders’ consultation and national planning workshops that emphasized a bottom-up and top-down approach for harnessing ideas, information and experiences in developing the country's ecotourism sites.

Republic Act No. 7916 - Special Economic Zone Act of 1995

This Act provides for the creation, operation, administration and coordination of Special Economic Zones in the Philippines, creating for this purpose, the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). PEZA is the national investment promotion agency and a government owned corporation, attached to the Department of Trade and Industry. In 2002, the DOT entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with PEZA that will grant Special Economic Zone status to tourism development zones and tourism estates upon registration with PEZA subject to the issuance of the required Presidential Proclamation. The PEZA shall consider for registration tourist-oriented enterprises to be located in PEZA-registered tourism development zones/tourism estates which are enclosed by the DOT as enterprises that will be established and operated with foreign tourists as primary clientele.

PEZA grants fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to developers of economic zones, - export producers and IT service exporters. PEZA offers ready-to-occupy locations to foreign investors who are export producers or IT service exporters in world class and environment friendly Economic Zones and IT parks/buildings. Recently, tourism has been included as a priority investment sector opening the way for the designation of tourism economic zones.

EMERGING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

There is a wide array of concerns that LGUs could address in making decisions towards developing the tourism industry (Table 1). While LGUs are in a strategic position to plan and facilitate tourism development in their areas of jurisdiction, they are also challenged by the realities of expanding roles and responsibilities, budget pressures, prioritization given a constraint in resources, as well as governance issues. LGUs must find ways to cope with these realities such as building networks, pursuing adequate funding and enhancing local organizations.

In making decisions and actions, considerations include community needs (e.g., potential for economic growth, employment, potential to increase the tax base of the LGU); structural (statutory/legal procedures, experience and skills of decision makers); inter- personal relations (e.g., community pressure and/or conservation groups). Table 1. Tourism decisions and action that could be taken by LGUs. Concern Decision/action Information Supporting economic development of local/regional tourism products Local/regional tourism promotion and operation of tourist offices Planning Supporting completion of local/regional tourism development plans and strategies Long term vision for tourism having regard for social, economic and environmental factors Local tourism development policy Controls Policies on zoning criteria, permissible development criteria, other controls for tourism development Providing guidelines and controls for facilitating tourism development possibilities Architectural and engineering designs of specific tourist facilities Safety, health and environmental integrity requirements for tourism developments Development Development applications approvals for tourism-related land uses, services and facilities Varied or waived assessment criteria or standards regarding local tourism developments Specific licenses, permits or other consents to be granted for tourism developments Assessing the commitment, compatibility and intentions of developer-operators Land use Determining future/present land use zones for incremental tourism development Determining specific suitable sites which show permissible development of land for tourism Infrastructure Infrastructure changes for enhancing the tourist experience and/or visitor management Recreational, open space and infrastructure plans in the local region Funding Establishing fees, taxes, rates etc. from tourism developments and other visitor amenities Funding consultancies, expert advice and research to address tourism issues and development problems Source: Richins (2000)

Some emerging issues are discussed below. Conditional Provisions on Autonomy of LGUs

The Local Government Code bestows corporate powers to LGUs, but this is conditional upon the limitations provided in the Code and other applicable laws, thus negating the LGUs ‘full autonomy’ power. DOT still exercises control in terms of ownership of tourism facilities. TIEZA (formerly PTA) remains responsible for infrastructure development.

DOT, being the lead agency in tourism development, laments the capability of the LGUs in its regulatory mandate (as per Local Government Code), for example in licensing of tourism businesses, generation and management of tourism-related data to guide decision making in tourism development. On the other hand, the LGU’s autonomy in tourism development is constrained with the provisions of the Tourism Act where most related activities at the local level have to be coordinated with DOT.

The powers of the LGUs under the Local Government Code pertaining to the issuance of business permits, licenses and the like will not be diminished. However, accreditation by DOT is required in the issuance of these licenses by LGUs. When an enterprise fails to obtain or loses accreditation, the DOT shall notify the LGU concerned so that it may take appropriate action in relation to an enterprise’s licenses and permits to operate.

The new law maybe a wake-up call for the LGUs as far as exercising autonomy is concerned but is a challenge in national-local coordination. In addition, it will be an exercise in anticipatory local tourism planning.

Ecotourism Research and Information

Tourism knowledge base will help guide and facilitate the expansion of the sector. This will help in identifying sites for tourism development; developing research agendas, programmes and partnerships; and, improving the supply of data and information to all partners and stakeholders. Community profiling of resources and skills will be necessary if tourism is identified as a job creator.

Reliable research and statistics are a major weakness of the tourism industry. Although there are actions to improve the quantity and quality of data collected by the DOT and LGUs, there is still the need to develop a consistent and reliable database. LGUs have an important role in generating this database which should include characteristics of tourists from the different source markets (e.g., what they do, length of stay, how much they spend); inventory of resources (e.g., how many hotels, rooms, location, standards); utilization of resources (e.g., occupancy rates, bed nights sold in different forms of paid accommodation by source market); profiles of main international source markets (e.g., size of markets, motivations, travel patterns); more comprehensive profile of domestic market. Research-related activities that may be done at the local level include generation of statistics on tourism, cost and benefit analysis, economic impact analysis as well as analysis of impacts of policies (Figure 2).

In the Philippines, the most-often cited problems by tourists include garbage, peace and order, heavy traffic, lack of information, and poverty (DOT in Cruz, 2000).

Other concerns include frequent occurrences of natural calamities and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights to ancestral domains. These indicators are monitored at the level of the tourist site or municipality, but the practicality of these indicators will be contingent on primary data collection.

Figure 2. Research-related activities essential for tourism development.

Source: DOT-JICA 2007

Certification and Accreditation

Certification is a valid instrument to motivate local stakeholders to develop structures to encourage and support improvement of business units, working to a standard that will give them peer recognition, staff morale, and other aspects which make firms more competitive. The label of this certification is considered as added value that leads to acceptance in the marketplace. The Philippines has only around 338 hotel and resort establishments with 27,466 rooms available for tourists nationwide. Around 37% is concentrated in Metro Manila. Of the better quality hotels and resorts accredited by the DOT, 20% are internationally managed. In terms of the total number of hotels and resorts recognized by the DOT, this percentage is only 5% (Pantig and Smith 2005).

The DOT accredits establishments (using de luxe, first class, standard and economy ratings) on a voluntary basis in order to assure quality services. The monitoring system of DOT’s accreditation needs to be enforced as tourists complain of the inability of establishments to meet accreditation level.

With the new Tourism Act, primary tourism enterprises shall be periodically required to obtain accreditation from the Department as to the quality of their facilities and standard of services. These include travel and tour services; land, sea and air transport services exclusively for tourist use; accommodation establishments; convention and exhibition organizers; tourism estate management services). For secondary tourism enterprises (those not mentioned above), accreditation shall be voluntary. The DOT may delegate the enforcement of the system of accreditation to LGUs that have adopted and successfully implemented their tourism development plans. The system of accreditation is based primarily on levels of operating quality and efficiency. Tourism facilities or establishments can already secure their licenses from the local government units but prior accreditation from the DOT is required. This again reinforces the regulatory role of DOT.

Other challenges in certification and accreditation relate to the process and costs involved in application, implementation by tourism firms, and operation of a program (Font, nd). Although certification, e.g. of quality in hotels has started to include environmental concerns, consideration of socio-cultural issues remains to be addressed.

LGU funding and exercise of corporate powers

To address budget pressures, LGUs need to improve capability for income generation, e.g., revenue-earning businesses. The context of public entrepreneurship has to be embedded in LED approach for tourism development. Legitimately vested with corporate powers, the challenge therefore, for LGUs and local chief executives (LCE) is how to establish a business climate and harness local entrepreneurial competencies.

EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

LGUs should build its commitment to tourism in terms of awareness raising, planning and relationships. Host communities must be among the primary beneficiaries of tourism activity at the local level. Local people should develop a strong sense of ownership of tourism resources in their area. Strategies or models adopted by various localities could be examined to learn lessons from these experiences and help in designing options appropriate to specific situations or circumstances. Some of these are discussed below:

Central Philippines – An illustration of institutional set-up for tourism

The Central Philippines tourism program adopts an institutional mechanism as shown in Figure 3. Governed by elected officials, LGUs are the direct interface between the local residents and government. LGUs can initiate tourism-related development projects. Provincial Tourism Offices (PTOs) and Municipal Tourism Offices (MTOs) are LGU units that have direct involvement in tourism. The local government tourism office (TO) primarily functions as a tourism promotion unit that coordinates or organizes events, represents the area at tourism road shows/fairs, and produces relevant materials. However, as tourism is a new industry for many LGUs, few have established tourism units with appropriately qualified personnel.

Private sector participation is through the Provincial/Municipal/Barangay Tourism Councils. Provincial or municipal/city tourism councils are private entities, the memberships of which usually comprise 60% private entities and 40% government representatives. These councils help organize the local tourism industry into a cohesive organization that promotes the growth of the sector and the area. Barangay Tourism Councils, with the same set-up as provincial or municipal tourism councils, focus on the tourism affairs and concerns of the barangay or village. Tourism councils are composed of influential people in the locality such as local politicians, relatives of politicians, civic organizations, and businessmen.

Figure 3. Local government institutional arrangements for tourism, Central Philippines Legend: ------liaison arrangement; ______hierarchical arrangement Source: DPT-JBIC 2007

There are other tourism associations with homogenous organization or varied representations organized in the different areas of Central Philippines. However, the levels of involvement and organizational sophistication vary greatly between areas.

PCCI Biztour5 Program

Another notable practice is the tourism program called Biztour5 launched by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) in 2006 to augment the government’s efforts in promoting tourism development. The Biztour5 Program aims to achieve “Five As” through the development of business and investment opportunities along the 5As. The 5As forming the tourism supply chain refer to: arrival (pre arrival marketing, air/sea/land transport, air/sea ports); access (roads, terminals, & related ‐ infrastructure); accommodation (hotels, lodging, & restaurants); attractions (natural & man made), and activities (rest, recreation, & education). The scheme allows LGUs to work in cooperation with their neighbouring areas to cover whichever component, or “A”, ‐ a particular place is lacking (Alvia and Libosada, 2009).

Tourism Award

The Philippines has instituted tourism industry awards, which are cooperative projects of government and the tourism industry. For instance, the Kalakbay Award, given every two years, recognizes the best hotels, resorts, travel agencies, tour operators, tourism frontline workers, local tourism councils and ecotourism products. Environmental practices form part of the criteria for selection of best hotels and resorts, but the weights assigned to them are quite low.

New Zealand’s Postcards from Home’

The local government tourism strategy of New Zealand could also be considered. Referred to as ‘Postcards from Home’, the strategy recognizes the role for local authorities in ensuring that their communities benefit from tourism. Local government leads, enables and works in partnership with other stakeholders to ensure a successful and sustainable tourism sector. Options reflect local needs for structuring Regional Tourism Organisations and other local marketing activities. “Postcards from Home” noted the very wide range of roles which local authorities can play in tourism including: owner of tourism facilities/services, operator of tourism facilities/services, funder of tourism marketing/services, community facilitator, planners of infrastructure, services and facilities, regulator, and/or providers of infrastructure, services and facilities. Local government will lead, enable and work in partnership with other stakeholders to ensure a successful and sustainable tourism sector.” Public-private partnership

Tourism should be integrated with the local economy, participation of communities from the planning to implementation and management should be encouraged. Public- private partnership and external investments should be promoted. Examples of strong private-public partnership in tourism development should be emulated as in the case of Olango Bay in Cebu, and Panglao Craft Village at Panglao Island Tourism Estate in Bohol. To enhance revenue generation from tourism, LGUs should consider environmental costs equitably through direct and indirect contributions, fees, and charges. The Mt. Pinatubo Tourism Project for example, helped establish a cooperative that serve guided tours to Mt. Pinatubo's Crater Lake. Tourists pay user fees, which are used for conservation of the trekking route and maintenance of public facilities and created livelihood for the cultural community.

The foregoing discussion provided us the big picture on opportunities and challenges of stakeholders roles in tourism development particularly the national and local actors and institutions.

Internal to the LGU is the challenge of what the key offices enabling roles will be considering the relationship with national government. This is particularly evident in what the local legislative council policies and the executive offices programs will be in support of tourism businesses and balancing call for sustainable development. These are in the areas of leading investments in the local tourism areas, developing strategies based on a better understanding of tourism needs, the need for increase dialogue with business, evidence based decisions, specially on the negative impacts of tourism, shift in ad-hoc to anticipatory management, and last is the thinking of a “whole of government approach” to tourism development in general or harnessing governmental and private bodies towards local tourism goals.

Internal to national government is the challenge of what key offices enabling roles will be in considering its relationship with the LGUs. This is particularly evident in what coordination mechanisms is to be adopted specially in enforcement and compliance to tourism standards and in building competencies in tourism development planning. These are in the areas of making sure that tourism development plans are translated in major local policies and embedded in LGU budgets, coordination in marketing local tourism areas at various promotional levels, and assistance in aftercare services for tourism business retention, expansion and diversification. This brings us to a conclusion that both national and local roles in tourism development are anchored on its enabling (planning, promotions, research and business assistance) and regulatory (enforcement, compliance and conservation) roles and its delicate balance. References

Alvia, Eric and Carlos Libosada, Jr. 2009. Guide for Assessing LGU Potential and Enhancing Local Competitiveness in Tourism. Draft for Discussion | February 2009. The Private Sector Promotion Program, SMEDSEP.

Das, Dillip Kumar, Dr. V.Devadas, Dr. Najjamuddin, nd. Integrated tourism planning for sustainable development, Department of Architecture and Planning, Roorkee, India.

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Memorandum Circular 2010-113. Enjoining All Provincial Governors and Municipal Mayors to Designate a Local Economic and Investments Promotions Officer.

Department of Tourism (DOT) - Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). 2007. Sustainable Management Tourism Plan for Central Philippines. Final Report.

Department of Tourism - Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). 2007. Tourism Statistics Manual for Local Government Units

Dredge, Dianne. Role of Local Government in Tourism, PowerPoint presentation, Griffith University, Australia.

Font, Xavier. nd. Critical review of certification and accreditation in sustainable tourism governance, Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom.

Gutierrez, Elsie C. 2008. Policy Advisory No. 2008-03, Congressional Planning and Budget Department. House of Representatives.

Javier, Aser B. 2010. The Local Economic Development Framework for Local Government Units in the Philippines. Local Governance Support Program for Local Economic Development (LGSP-LED) - Department of Interior and Local Government.

Local Government New Zealand. 2004. Recommended Good practice for Governance of Regional Tourism Organisations, Catalyst Management Services Limited, New Zealand

Pantig, Evelyn B and Stephen L. J. Smith. 2005. Tourism Statistics and International Trade Statistics: Challenges and Research Needs. Paper presented during the WTO Conference entitled “The Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA): Understanding Tourism and Designing Strategies” at Iguazu Falls Argentina/Brazil/Paraguay, October 3-6, 2005. Richins, Harold 2000. Influences On Local Government Tourism Decision-Making: A study of authoritative opinion, the journal of tourism studies Vol. 11, No. 2, December 2000, pp2-14.

Richter, L (1989). The Philippines: The Politicization of Tourism. The Politics of Tourism in Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Shikida, Asami 2009. Tourism relationship model and intermediary for sustainable tourism management: Case study of the Kiritappu Wetland Trust in Hamanaka, Hokkaido, Center for Advanced Tourism Research, Hokkaido University, Sapporo , Japan

Trousdale, William 1999 Governance in Context Boracay Island, Philippines, Annals of Tourism Research. 26(4). 1999. pp 840-867 For Published Version, Contact Annals of Tourism Elsevier Ltd.

Department of Tourism (1991). Tourism Master Plan (1991-2010). Manila: Philippines

South Australian Tourism Commission, 2006, Local Government’s Engagement in Tourism: Final Report, Adelaide, South Australia”

Insights on Sustainable Tourism, Resilience, and Quality of Life Notions

• First Online: 30 August 2024

Cite this chapter

• Deepak Chhabra 4  

This chapter first scrutinizes the dynamic notion of sustainable tourism. This is followed by insights on the significance of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals for the tourism system. SDG roadmap by the G20 Tourism Working Group is featured with insights on sustainable pathways adopted by several green tourism case studies. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the significance of the resilience concept. The chapter closes with a discussion of the critical association between the notions of resilience, SDGs, and well-being.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Adie, B. A., Amore, A., & Hall, C. M. (2022). Just because it seems impossible, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try: The need for longitudinal perspectives on tourism partnerships and the SDGs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30 (10), 2282–2297.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adler, A., & Seligman, M. (2016). Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6 (1), 1–35.

Ali, A., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Cobanoglu, C. (2020). Editorial. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 11 (2), 177–181.

Amore, A., Prayag, G., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Conceptualizing destination resilience from a multilevel perspective. Tourism Review International, 22 (3–4), 235–250.

Azmat, F., Lim, W. M., Moyeen, A., Voola, R., & Gupta, G. (2023). Convergence of business, innovation, and sustainability at the tipping point of the sustainable development goals. Journal of Business Research, 167 , 114170.

Berbekova, A., Uysal, M., & Assaf, A. (2021). Toward an assessment of quality of life indicators as measures of destination performance. Journal of Travel Research, 61 (6), 1424–1436.

Bertella, G. (2022). Discussing tourism during a crisis: Resilient reactions and learning paths towards sustainable futures. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 22 (2), 144–160.

Google Scholar  

Bertella, G. (2023). Care-full academic activism for sustainable transformations in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 26 (2), 212–223.

Boluk, K. A., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2022). Introduction to the special issue on “Deepening our understandings of the roles and responsibilities of the tourism industry towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”. Tourism Management Perspectives, 41 , 100944.

Boluk, K., Cavaliere, C., & Higgins-despoilees, F. (2019). A crtical framework for interrogating the United Nations sustainable development goals 2030 agenda in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 (7), 847–864.

Bramwell, B. (2015). Theoretical activity in sustainable tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 54 , 204–218.

Bramwell, B., Higham, J., Lane, B., & Miller, G. (2017). Twenty-five years of sustainable tourism and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism: Looking back and moving forward. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25 (1), 1–9.

Bricker, K., Black, R., & Cottrell, S. (2013). Sustainable tourism & the millennium development goals: Effecting positive change . Jones and Bartlett.

Butler, R. W. (1998). Sustainable tourism: Looking backwards in order to progress? In C. M. Hall & A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective (pp. 25–34). Addison Wesley Longman.

Butler, R. W., & Dodds, R. (2022). Overcoming overtourism: a review of failure. Tourism Review, 77 (1), 35–53.

Costanza, R., Fioramonti, L., & Kubiszewski, I. (2016). The UN sustainable development goals and the dynamics of well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14 (2), 20–22.

Costanza, R., Erickson, J. D., Farley, J., & Kubiszewski, I. (Eds.). (2020). Sustainable wellbeing futures: A research and action agenda for ecological economics . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Crouch, I. G., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (2012). Destination competitiveness and its implications for host-community QOL. In M. Uysal, R. Perdue, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research: Enhancing the lives of tourists and residents of host communities (pp. 491–514). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Doppell, B. (2003). Overcoming the seven sustainability blunders. The Systems Thinker, 14 (5), 2–7.

Dwyer, L. (2018). Saluting while the ship sinks: The necessity for tourism paradigm change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26 (1), 29–48.

Dwyer, L. (2020). Tourism development and sustainable well-being: A beyond GDP perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28 , 1–18.

Dwyer, L. (2022). Tourism contribution to the SDGs: Applying a well-being lens. European Journal of Tourism Research, 32 , 3212–3212.

Espiner, S., Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. (2017). Resilience and sustainability: A complementary relationship? Towards a practical conceptual model for the sustainability–resilience nexus in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25 (10), 1385–1400.

Fennell, D. A. (2018). Tourism ethics . Channel View.

Fennell, D. A., & Cooper, C. (2020). Sustainable tourism: Principles, context and practices . Channel View.

Book   Google Scholar  

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), 253–267.

G20 (2023). Goa roadmap for tourism as a vehicle for achieving the sustainable development goals: https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@sector/documents/genericdocument/wcms_887681.pdf . Accessed January 2024.

G€ossling, 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.

G€ossling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29 (1), 1–20.

Glyptou, K. (2022). Operationalising tourism sustainability at the destination level: A systems thinking approach along the SDGs. Tourism Planning & Development, 21 , 1–27.

Hall, C. M. (2018). Resilience theory and tourism. In Resilient destinations and tourism (pp. 34–47). Routledge.

Hall, C. M. (2019). Constructing STD: The 2030 Agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 (7), 1044–1060.

Hartwell, H., Fyall, A., Willis, C., Page, S., Ladkin, A., & Hemingway, A. (2018). Progress in tourism and destination wellbeing research. Current Issues in Tourism, 21 (16), 1830–1892.

Holden, A. (2005). Achieving a sustainable relationship between common pool resources and tourism: The role of environmental ethics. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13 (4), 339–352.

Holladay, P. J., & Powell, R. B. (2013). Resident perceptions of social–ecological resilience and the sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth of Dominica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21 (8), 1188–1211.

Holland, K. K., Larson, L. R., Powell, R. B., Holland, W. H., Allen, L., Nabaala, M., et al. (2022). Impacts of tourism on support for conservation, local livelihoods, and community resilience around Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30 (11), 2526–2548.

Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4 , 390–405.

Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Resilience and adaptive cycles. In Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems (pp. 25–62). Island Press.

Kanbur, R., Patel, E., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2018). Sustainable development goals and the measurement of economic and social progress. In J. E. Stiglitz, J.-P. Fitoussi, & M. Durand (Eds.), For good measure: Advancing research on well-being metrics beyond GDP (pp. 33–48). OECD Publishing.

Kaygalak-Celebi, S., Ozeren, E., & Aydin, E. (2022). The missing link of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in tourism: A qualitative research on Amsterdam Pride. Tourism Management Perspectives, 41 , 100937.

Laimer, P. (2017). Tourism indicators for monitoring the SDGs. In Sixth UNWTO international conference on tourism statistics, measuring sustainable tourism (pp. 1–33).

Liburd, J., Duedahl, E., & Heape, C. (2022). Co-designing tourism for sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30 (10), 2298–2317.

Mathew, P., & Nimmi, P. (2021). Sustainable tourism development: Discerning the impact of responsible tourism on community well-being. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 5 (5), 987–1001.

McBride, J., Siripurapu, A., & Berman, N. (2023). What does the G20 do? https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-g20-do . Accessed in December 2023.

Mihalic, T. (2016). Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse—Towards ‘responsustable’ tourism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111 , 461–470.

Movono, A., & Hughes, E. (2022). Tourism partnerships: Localizing the SDG agenda in Fiji. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30 (10), 2318–2332.

Nunkoo, R., Sharma, A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Sunnassee, V. A. (2023). Advancing sustainable development goals through interdisciplinarity in sustainable tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31 (3), 735–759.

Prayag, G. (2023). Tourism resilience in the ‘new normal’: Beyond jingle and jangle fallacies? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 54 , 513–520.

Qasim, M. (2017). Sustainability and wellbeing: a scientometric and bibliometric review of the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31 (4), 1035–1061.

Rios, L. A., Rachinskii, D., & Cross, R. (2017). A model of hysteresis arising from social interaction within a firm. Journal of Physics: IOP: Conference Series, 811 (1), 012011.

Roy, M. J. (2021). Towards a ‘Wellbeing Economy’: What can we learn from social enterprise? In The new social and impact economy: An international perspective (p. 269). Springer.

Ruhanen, L., Weiler, B., Moyle, B. D., & McLennan, C. L. J. (2015). Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23 (4), 517–535.

Scheyvens, R. (2018). Linking tourism to the sustainable development goals: A geographical perspective. Tourism Geographies, 20 (2), 341–342.

Scheyvens, R., & Cheer, J. M. (2022). Tourism, the SDGs and partnerships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30 (10), 2271–2281.

Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28 (11), 1932–1946.

Singh, H., & Aggarwal, N. (2013). Achieving sustainable development goals through elevating socio-economic status. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 23 (4/5), 398–407.

Smith, M. K., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research, 66 , 1–13.

Sterk, M., van de Leemput, I. A., & Peeters, E. T. (2017). How to conceptualize and operationalize resilience in socio-ecological systems? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28 , 108–113.

Stone, M. T., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2018). Protected areas, wildlife-based community tourism and community livelihoods dynamics: Spiraling up and down of community capitals. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26 (2), 307–324.

Tahiri, A., Kovaçi, I., & Trajkovska Petkoska, A. (2022). Sustainable tourism as a potential for promotion of regional heritage, local food, traditions, and diversity—case of Kosovo. Sustainability, 14 (19), 12326.

Tan, G., Nunkoo, R., & Farmaki, A. (2023). Tourism 2030 and the contribution to the sustainable development goals: The tourism review viewpoint. Tourism Review, 78 (2), 293–231.

United Nations (UN). (2016). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf

United Nations (2020). Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Retrieved from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/

UNWTO (2018). Tourism and the sustainable development goals: journey to 2030. Retrieved from: https://www.eunwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284419401

UNWTO. (2023a). Sustainable development . Retrieved on December 2023: https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development

UNWTO. (2023b). G20 tourism and SDGs dashboard . Retrieved December 2023: https://tourism4sdgs.org/g20india/

UNWTO. (2024). UNWTO becomes “UN Tourism” to Mark A New Era for global sector . Retrieved January 24 from: https://www.unwto.org/news/unwto-becomes-un-tourism-to-mark-a-new-era-for-global-sector?utm_source=news&utm_medium=crm

Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2023). Prologue: Tourism and quality of life (QoL) research II. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research II: Enhancing the lives of tourists, residents of host communities and service providers (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing.

Valera, D. (2021). ADAPTUR: Mainstreaming Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in the tourism sector as a strategy for NDC implementation in Mexico . Retrieved in November 2023 from: https://panorama.solutions/en/solution/adaptur-mainstreaming-ecosystem-based-adaptation-eba-tourism-sector-strategy-ndc

Voola, R., Carlson, J., Azmat, F., Viet Ngo, L., Porter, K., & Sinha, A. (2022). Re-imagining marketing scholarship in the era of the UN sustainable development goals. Australasian Marketing Journal, 30 (2), 97–106.

Walker, J., Pekmezovic, A., & Walker, G. (2019). Sustainable development goals: Harnessing business to achieve the SDGs through finance, technology and law reform . Wiley.

Wall, G. (2020). From carrying capacity to overtourism: A perspective article. Tourism Review, 75 (1), 212–215.

Walmsley, A., Koens, K., & Milano, C. (2022). Overtourism and employment outcomes for the tourism worker: Impacts to labour markets. Tourism Review, 77 (1), 1–15.

Weaver, D. (2009). Reflections on sustainable tourism and paradigm change. In S. G€ossling, M. Hall, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourism futures: Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations (pp. 33–40). Routledge.

Westman, W. E. (1978). Measuring the inertia and resilience of ecosystems. Bioscience, 28 (11), 705–710.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Community Resources and Development, Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Deepak Chhabra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepak Chhabra .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Community Resources and Development, Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Department of Internal Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, Delhi, India

Amity Institute of Travel and Tourism, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Alka Maheshwari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Chhabra, D. (2024). Insights on Sustainable Tourism, Resilience, and Quality of Life Notions. In: Chhabra, D., Atal, N., Maheshwari, A. (eds) Sustainable Development and Resilience of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63145-0_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63145-0_1

Published : 30 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-63144-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-63145-0

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

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Asheville leaders push for change on how tourism funds are used. Will locals get a bigger cut?

ASHEVILLE - After a 2022 bill altered the way Asheville and Buncombe County's more than $35 million occupancy tax revenues are divided, local leaders continue to push for even greater change. They have called for more of the Tourism Development Authority's millions to be dedicated to addressing the needs of residents rather than going into marketing.

Sen. Julie Mayfield, a former City Council member and former city representative on the Tourism Development Authority board, said she's been advocating for reform for eight years.

“We have a real inequity here that needs addressing and I think putting more of that money to use for the benefit of the residents of Asheville, including and most specifically people who work in the tourism industry, is critical," Mayfield told the Citizen Times on April 4.

“And to me it’s an easy call.”

Mayfield was among the sponsors of the 2022 legislation.

Now, she looks toward the N.C. General Assembly's upcoming short session in late April where she is preparing a bill to change the language of the Legacy Investment From Tourism Fund, or LIFT, the TDA's newest fund created by the recent legislative changes. Her bill would clarify the fund's use to support "the tourism industry more broadly," including money for affordable housing, child care and parking.

The LIFT Fund broadened the scope of potential projects and while many have interpreted it to encompass affordable housing, it's uncharted territory.

City and county weigh in

Further reforms to the local occupancy tax — derived from the lodging tax paid by visitors who stay overnight in Buncombe County's hotels, vacation rentals and bed-and-breakfasts — were supported in both the city and county's recently adopted legislative agendas.

The city advocated for "a more equitable distribution of funds," requesting consideration be given to amending the committee guidelines for a 50%-50% split between marketing and projects.

Currently one-third can be used for community capital projects and the remainder toward marketing. Before the  local bill 's 2022 passage, the occupancy tax dollars, which go to the Buncombe County TDA, were split 75%-25%, favoring tourism promotion.

Mayor Esther Manheimer said the city has "been maintaining pressure" for more reform over the last several years. They'd wanted more in 2022, but the 66%-33% split is where the line was drawn.

“We just continue to try to manage that challenge,” she said. “I think even for folks who have had skepticism in the past, they are looking at (revenues) saying, ‘OK, where is the balance between marketing and investment in a community that is managing this number of tourists and is this now lopsided completely?’”

Of potential investments locally that could benefit from more funding, "the list is endless," she said. Even within the confines of capital projects related to tourism, she pointed to several high-cost projects, including the $11.3 million needed to repair downtown's parking garages or greenway expansion.

The county's legislative agenda prioritized "(continuing) to evaluate methods to modernize N.C. House Occupancy Tax guidelines to meet the evolving visitation and infrastructure needs of Buncombe County."

County lobbyists Whitney Campbell Christensen and Trafton Dinwiddie, from the law firm Ward and Smith, said Buncombe County stands to be the "poster child" for the issue.

“This continues to be a conversation that we’re at the epicenter of that I think is productive, that I think is healthy, not just for you all but for the state," Christensen said.

What about the LIFT Fund?

Since 2001, occupancy tax revenue for local projects was doled out only through the Tourism Product Development Fund, focused on major tourism investments that bring visitors to the city. Now it's divided between both the Tourism Product Development Fund and the Legacy Investment From Tourism Fund.

In its more than two decades, the TPDF has invested $86 million in 41 projects.

The  LIFT Fund, while intended to "increase patronage" of lodging, meeting and convention facilities by attracting tourists and other travelers, also includes projects that "benefit community at large" in Buncombe County.

This includes restoration or rehab of existing locations, maintenance and design of tourism-related capital projects, enhancement of natural resources, expansion of necessary infrastructure and construction of a new location, entirely, according to a TDA guide.

The TDA board will make its first grant awards from LIFT at its April 24 meeting, with about $9.5 million available this cycle, said spokesperson Ashley Greenstein.

The LIFT committee is reviewing 15 "phase II" applications, for a combined ask of $14.25 million. Applications include three housing projects: Project Aspire; Mountain Housing Opportunities' Star Point Affordable Apartments; and Ferry Road, a Buncombe County development that contains affordable housing.

"The LIFT Fund was just established by the Buncombe County occupancy tax legislation changes made in 2022 to increase the amount of occupancy tax funds invested in community capital projects to the maximum one-third allowable by state guidelines," Greenstein said in an emailed statement. "The team at Explore Asheville and the authority is prepared to put these important changes into action on behalf of Asheville and Buncombe County for years to come."

She did not directly respond to questions about the TDA's stance on additional reform.

Mayfield said if the affordable housing projects are funded, she likely wouldn't feel the need to introduce her new legislation.

But if they aren't, “No way. No. I’m not interested in that," she said.

“I think the LIFT Fund should explicitly fund affordable housing and if they don’t feel like the language allows them to do that, I would like to change the language to make it clear that it can be.”

More: Buncombe pursues federal funds for acquisition of Deaverview Mountain as a public park

More: Asheville, Buncombe to make 1st asks of new TDA fund. Is affordable housing on the table?

Sarah Honosky is the city government reporter for the Asheville Citizen Times, part of the USA TODAY Network. News Tips? Email [email protected] or message on Twitter at @slhonosky. Please support local, daily journalism with a  subscription  to the Citizen Times .