Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

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

A European Sustainable Tourism Labels proposal using a composite indicator

Francisco Javier Blancas a,, Macarena Lozano-Oyola a, Mercedes Gonzlez b
a
Department of Economics, Quantitative Methods and Economic History, Pablo de Olavide University, Carretera de Utrera Km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain
b
Department of Applied Economics (Mathematics), Malaga University, Campus El Ejido, 29071 Mlaga, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The tourism sector in Europe faces important challenges which it must deal with to promote its future develop-
Received 5 June 2014 ment. In this context, the European Commission considers that two key issues must be addressed. On the one
Received in revised form 16 April 2015 hand, a better base of socio-economic knowledge about tourism and its relationship with the environment is
Accepted 12 May 2015
needed, and, on the other hand, it is necessary to improve the image of European areas as quality sustainable
Available online 29 May 2015
tourism destinations. In this paper we present analytical tools that cover these needs. Specically, we dene a
Keywords:
system of sustainable tourism indicators and we obtain a composite indicator incorporating weights quantied
Sustainable Tourism using a panel of experts. Employing the values of this global indicator as a basis, we dene a Sustainable Tourism
Country-Brand Country-Brand Ranking which assesses the perception of each country-brand depending on its degree of sustain-
Indicators System ability, and a system of sustainable tourism labels which reward the management carried out.
Composite Indicator 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Expert Panel

1. Introduction
The importance of tourism as an economic activity having a great
impact on economic growth and job creation is well-known. Globally,
Europe has occupied a prominent place for several years, being the
main tourist destination in the world. This prominent place of tourism
in Europe is mainly due to this area's important cultural and natural
heritage, as well as the fact that other competing countries in this mat-
ter, located in North Africa and Middle East, are immersed in situations
of political instability that discourage stays there. However, tourism is
an activity which, by denition, affects the cultural and natural heritage,
as well as the traditions and the contemporary cultures of the European
Union. This favours the need for a sustainable development of tourist
activities. This requirement is reinforced by the growing competency
framework within which European tourist destinations are involved,
due to the emergence of new tourist areas trying to achieve a competi-
tive advantage through lower prices (European Commission, 2010).
In this context, the United Nations World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO) establishes the need to manage the destinations to obtain
long-term sustainable tourism (UNWTO, 1993). The goal is the reconcil-
iation of the development of tourist activities with the protecting and
conserving of the natural and cultural resources which back this activity.
In Europe, the difculties encountered in these years of economic
crisis of the global economy since 2008 show the need for adapting
the sector to act on the factors that inuence its development. These
are an increasing competition in the market, new behaviours of tourists
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fjblaper@upo.es (F.J. Blancas), mlozoyo@upo.es (M. Lozano-Oyola),
m_gonzalez@uma.es (M. Gonzlez).
associated with demographic change, the effects of climate change and
the scarcity of resources, the consequences of information technologies
and communication for the relationship between supply and demand,
among other specic problems of European tourism (European
Commission, 2010). In this situation, the European institutions are
setting up a new framework for the sector that has the primary
objective of promoting competitiveness without forgetting that, in the
long term, competitiveness is closely related to the sustainability of
tourism activities.
To boost the sector's competitiveness and promote the development
of sustainable, responsible and quality tourism, the European Commis-
sion considers it essential to have, at a European level, a better socio-
economic knowledge base concerning tourism and its relationship
with the environment, so as to consolidate statistical data and analysis
regarding this sector (European Commission, 2010). In this sense, the
systems of sustainable tourism indicators are a tool for the evaluation
of the degree of sustainability of a destination from a multidimensional
perspective.
In a complementary manner, the new framework for European
tourism establishes the need to improve the image of Europe and its
perception as a set of sustainable and quality tourism destinations
(European Commission, 2010). The improvements achieved in this
regard will be a reinforcement of the attractiveness of the European
destinations and an increased ow of demand, not only for the greater
volume of non-European tourists, but also due to the consolidation of
a volume of internal demand within the continent. In this sense, the
image of a destination identied by a specic country-brand plays a
key role within the marketing developed in this matter, because it dif-
ferentiates its identities and underlines the uniqueness of its product,
providing information about how it is perceived by tourists.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.05.001
0195-9255/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
40 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954
One of the most internationally-used instruments to assess the
perception of the country brand is to obtain rankings using indicators
based on relevant information for demand and which determine the
choice of a certain area as a travel destination. One of the most relevant
rankings in this sense is the Country-Brand Index prepared by the
specialised consultancy Future Brand (2012). In this way, we considered
that a classication of the brand of the European destinations depending
on their degree of tourism sustainability obtained on the basis of a
composite indicator which adds information from a system of sustain-
able tourism indicators is a good instrument to improve the image
of European destinations. This classication would likewise identify
destinations with more sustainable management practices that provide
better results. It could be dened as a label for sustainable tourism for
European destinations which the better placed destinations could
access. This would create a European brand that rewards the best
management based on each country's national experience, thus increas-
ing condence in tourism products and consumers' safety. The continu-
ous updating of this classication would be a stimulus for ceaseless
improvement for individual national governments, enhancing the
exchange of experiences and cooperation between different Member
States through benchmarking practices.
With the creation of this brand, we would put into practice Action 18
of the proposal in the Communication Europe, the world's No. 1 tourist
destination a new political framework for tourism in Europe adopted
on 30 June 2010 (European Commission, 2010), in line with the Lisbon
Treaty and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy: Create a true
Europe brand in cooperation with the Member States to complement
promotional efforts at national and regional levels and enable European
destinations to distinguish themselves from other international destina-
tions (Action 18).
In this context, in the present paper we propose to full the following
objectives. First, we dene and quantify a system of sustainable tourism
indicators which are suitable for the analysis of the sustainability of
tourism in European destinations. Thus, we will respond to the recom-
mendations of the European Commission, proposing a new instrument
that will improve and strengthen the knowledge of the tourism sector
to ensure a more sustainable management leading to an improvement
of the competitiveness of these destinations.
Secondly, in response to the need to improve the image of European
destinations, we propose the dening of a Tourist Country-Brand
Ranking. Our proposal is to delineate this ranking of European destina-
tions in terms of sustainability, based on the information provided by
the indicators system previously dened. To achieve this ranking, it is
necessary to determine a composite indicator which provides an overall
assessment of the situation of each destination without having to
analyse the initial indicators separately. To obtain these composite
indicators we will use a methodology based on set goal programming
to reduce the associated subjectivity and provide synthetic indicator
values which are easy for operators in the sector to interpret (Blancas
et al., 2010a,b; Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012). Also, unlike other previous
studies that have applied this methodology, the composite indicator
proposed used a weighting system obtained via a panel of experts in
sustainable tourism.
Finally, using the composite indicator values we dene a Sustainable
Tourism Labels System that aims to incorporate sustainability as a
descriptive feature of the destination country brand. International liter-
ature has supported the brand identity and image of the destination
having an inuence on the destination selection process when tourists
perceive a positive brand image (Bign et al., 2001). The positive
perception of a destination brand by tourists is dened when brand
associations are implemented, that is, when new attributes are associated
with the destination brand (Keller, 1998). In this regard, we consider that
the incorporation of sustainability principles as a brand association is a
key issue in the present global tourist market. The Sustainable Tourism
Labels System that we dene in this paper allows potential tourists to
value the destination brand in terms of sustainability and determine
their behaviour as consumers (e.g., inuencing their choice of destina-
tion). In this manner, the improving of the image of a destination through
labels proposed is inuential in tourist behaviours. Specically, the inten-
tions to revisit the destination and to spread a positive word-of-mouth
have been the two most important behavioural consequences of destina-
tion, branding as post-consumption behaviour studies have showed (Qu
et al., 2011).
To achieve these objectives, the structure of this paper is as follows.
In the next section we dene and quantify a system of sustainable
tourism indicators. In Section 3 we present the methodology proposed
for a composite indicator that allows us to establish the aforementioned
Tourist Country-Brand ranking. In Section 4 we analyse and discuss the
main results and in the last section we consider the conclusions.
2. A sustainable tourism indicators system for European destina-
tions: denition and database
2.1. Denition
As laid down by the European Commission, to promote sustainable
tourism and stimulate the competitiveness of the tourism sector in the
European market it is necessary to have a system of sustainable tourism
indicators (European Commission, 2003, 2007). Indicators of sustain-
able tourism can be dened as the set of measures that provide the
necessary information to better understand the links between the
impact of tourism on the cultural and natural setting in which this
takes place and on which it is strongly dependent (UNWTO, 1996).
We believe that the information contained in a set of indicators of
sustainable tourism is a suitable tool in order to have a better socio-
economic knowledge of the tourism sector and its relationship with
the environment. In this sense, this panel of indicators provides infor-
mation on the many aspects that allow the evaluation of a complex
and multidimensional phenomenon and which has no denition agreed
upon at the international level. Also components of the system allow us
to identify the different aspects that inuence the sustainability of
tourism, providing an operational knowledge of it which more than
offsets the conceptual ambiguity.
In this section we dene a system of sustainable tourism indicators
that can meet the targets set by the European Commission and which
are useful from a practical point of view. To do so, our rst task is to
dene the concept evaluated by the system of indicators: sustainable
tourism.
We dene sustainable tourism as tourist activity which centres on
resource management in such a way that all economic, social and
aesthetic needs are met, while abiding by cultural integrity, essential
ecological processes, biological diversity and the life-support system
(UNWTO, 1993), using the institutional denition for a convergence
position (Clarke, 1997; Hardy et al., 2002). Hence, touristic policies
ought to be worked out to safeguard the protection of natural, social
and cultural resources that uphold the activity and their ability to full
the requirements of both present and future tourists and residents pop-
ulations. To integrate these needs into an operational framework we
followed the established guidelines of the United Nations World
Tourism Organization (2004).
This organisation provides an indicative list of issues on which action
is needed to achieve the goal of sustainable tourism, identifying those
considered as basic for their importance in assessing the sustainability
of the tourist activity. This institution also provides a set of alternative
indicators that can be used for the evaluation of each issue considered.
These indicators, proposed by the UNWTO, are purely suggestive.
Therefore, the nal decision of the analyst is what determines their
inclusion in the analysis or not, depending on the characteristics and
objectives of the study proposed, the destination type analysed, the
statistical information available, and so on.
In this context, we delineated our system by choosing from the
UNWTO guidebooks the baseline sustainability aspects and indicators
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954
which yielded a well-constructed basis for tourism planning and
decision-making at established destinations. We have also included
other indicators whether statistical means were accessible from which
to quantify the indicators or carry out more analyses. Moreover, we
have incorporated supplementary new aspects and indicators used in
sustainability indicators systems at a local level, grounded on existing
research (Gallego and Moniche, 2005; Sancho and Garca, 2006). The
incorporation of this territorial dimension in our indicators system is
justied by the need to dene sustainability programmes considering
the particular characteristics of each region, so that initiatives and
policies are dened in the actual area to which they will be applied.
Local agents are responsible for dening these policy measures, it
being fundamental for the system proposed to incorporate relevant
information so that these agents are able to develop this role.
The consideration of all these studies as a starting point ensures the
scientic validity of our system, since the indicators in our initial list
have been internationally set and agreed upon by experts in the eld
(Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Tanguay et al., 2013).
In these works mentioned, key indicators of the UNWTO are
completed with those that have been validated in other case studies
or by international experts in the eld of sustainable tourism. In this
way, while Tanguay et al. complement UNWTO indicators with selected
indicators of 11 case studies, Choi and Sirakaya used a panel of experts
that, employing a Likert scale, selected the indicators to use. In any
case, none of these works is applying the results actually achieved to a
case study nor are guidelines given for its application and interpretation.
These shortcomings are overcome in the works of Blancas et al.
(2010a,b, 2011) and Lozano-Oyola et al. (2012), in which the composite
indicators are calculated from a large number of indicators, quantied
for a large number of municipalities, giving guidelines to facilitate the
interpretation of these indicators by policy-makers. In these works
and in the present one, we consider that the concept of sustainable
tourism is composed of three dimensions: social, economic and
environmental, following previous studies on the subject (Mauerhofer,
2008; Paracchini et al., 2011; Tanguay et al., 2010). So sustainability
issues were then designated to each dimension by using denitions
which came from existing studies.
In order to make this selection of indicators, the research team has
taken into account, in addition, a number of criteria applied simulta-
neously to ensure the goals set for the system: 1) scientic validity,
incorporating indicators that are based on the scientic knowledge of
the aspect being measured and its inuence on the goal of sustainabili-
ty; 2) representativeness, prioritising the key indicators for measuring
sustainable tourism which have a closer relationship with the issue
evaluated; 3) relevance, incorporating indicators that have a high
potential to be taken into account by managers in decision-making;
4) reliability, so that the values of the indicators selected are derived
from sound sources; 5) sensitivity, so that the selected indicators can
be measured over time and reect changes in trend; 6) predictive
character, selecting indicators that reect the evolution of the
destination in the aspects evaluated; 7) being understandable, incorpo-
rating indicators that should be simple, clear and easier to interpret;
8) comparability, choosing the most commonly-used indicators to
carry out temporary and inter-regional comparative analysis;
9) cost-effectiveness and transparency, in order for all the indicators in-
cluded to be able to be quantied from existing ofcial statistics; and
10) geographical coverage, in such a way that the system indicators
allow us to evaluate all aspects of sustainability considered essential in
all the destinations analysed (Ivanova et al., 1999; Nardo et al., 2005a,
b; Zarzosa, 1996).
We have included both positive and negative indicators in the
system of indicators. We have qualied as a positive indicator that for
which a greater value shows an enhancement in sustainability and is
negative for the converse situation.
In Tables 1, 2 and 3 we present that the indicators are grouped
together according to their dimensions. As can be seen, the system is
41
made up of a total of 89 indicators, 32.58% of them corresponding to
the social dimension, 40.45% to the economic dimension and the
remaining 26.97% to the environmental dimension.
The proposed system aims to improve the existing proposals in the
eld of sustainable tourism indicators that are potentially well suited
to the purpose of this study. In this sense, our proposal is a system of
sustainable tourism indicators which is scientically valid and opera-
tional for decision-making, i.e., that provides indicators that have a
high potential to be taken into account by managers in decision-
making (Tanguay et al., 2013). Furthermore, our system provides a set
of basic core indicators that can be adopted and implemented by the
policy-makers from any destination for adopting management deci-
sions. Therefore, it is a tool that with a minimum level of consistency
evaluates to ensure a consideration of the basic principles of the sustain-
able tourism goal.
Having dened a system of sustainable tourism indicators, in the
next subsection we will describe the process used to quantify the
variables that have allowed us to calculate the indicators that make up
the system.
2.2. Database
To conduct a review of the works in this matter at the international
level, most of the indicators systems proposed evaluate the sustainabil-
ity of tourism for developing destinations (Farsari and Prastacos, 2002).
Also, many of the works present a theoretical denition of the indicators
system without ever fully quantifying it (Gudmundsson, 2003; Hezri,
2004; Nader et al., 2008). This causes these instruments to be less
operational and difcult to implement. To cover this gap, this paper
presents a system of sustainable tourism indicators designed for
mature, fully-quantied, along the lines of recent research (Blancas
et al., 2011; Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012).
For the quantication of the system it is necessary to dene a
database from the available statistical information. In this sense, the
proposed indicator system is dened with the aim of achieving a maxi-
mum benet from the ofcial statistics. We seek to propose an easily
quantiable instrument whose update can be carried out automatically
in the light of new statistical information generated by the ofcial statis-
tical services. To obtain this database it is essential to establish which
destinations will be analysed and for which system indicators will be
quantied.
In this regard, as we have noted above, our analysis focuses on
Europe as a major consolidated tourist destination worldwide. Speci-
cally, European destinations included in the study correspond to the
28 countries that are part of the European Union and Norway. These
countries represent more than 72% of the total tourism demand in
Europe (Map 1).
Most of the data which allowed the calculation of the indicators
come from the statistical ofce of the European Union (Eurostat). How-
ever, the information provided by this organisation is incomplete for
many of the countries considered in the study. Therefore, this informa-
tion has had to be completed by information provided by the services of
ofcial statistics for each of the States considered the Ministries or
Agencies of Environment of some of the countries through consulting
their annual reports or making a direct request for data. The work of the
research team for the collection of this information has been long and
arduous, lasting more than a year.
In addition, we could not include some qualitative indicators consid-
ered relevant by the UNWTO due to the absence of the necessary statis-
tical information in any of the bodies. These indicators relate to issues
such as the satisfaction of the foreign demand or local residents with
the tourism. The progressive inclusion of this information in the ofcial
statistics is essential to improve knowledge on the sustainable develop-
ment of tourism.
In this line, we believe that it would additionally be advisable in
coming years for the information collected by Eurostat to be more
42 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954

Table 1
Sustainable tourism indicators for the social dimension.
Source: Own elaboration.

Baseline aspects Sustainability issues Notation Sign Indicator

Socio-cultural effects Capacity of health services IS1 Positive Number of hospital beds per inhabitant
of tourism on host IS2 Positive Staff employed in hospitals per inhabitant
community Capacity of transport services IS3 Positive Number of passenger transport vehicles per 1000 inhabitants
IS4 Positive Number of enterprises related to railways, taxi operations and other
scheduled passenger transports by land, renting of automobiles and air
passenger transport per 1000 inhabitants
Safety of the Level of crime IS5 Negative Number of crimes recorded by the police in the destination per 1000
destination inhabitants
Investment in local public safety IS6 Positive General government expenditure by public order and safety
(percentage of GDP)
Provision of local public safety services IS7 Positive Number of police ofcers per 1000 inhabitants
Safety of mobility of the demand IS8 Negative Percentage of air and rail accidents with respect to the total train
movements and commercial passenger air ights
IS9 Negative Number of people killed in road accidents per 1000 persons (including host
and visiting population)
Conservation of Designations which are recognised as structures, IS10 Positive Number of cultural properties inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List
cultural heritage monuments and historical sites and number of cultural practices and expressions inscribed in the UNESCO
World Intangible Heritage List
Effort of the institutions by increasing the IS11 Positive Number of cultural properties included in the Tentative List to be considered
protection of heritage for a nomination for inscription in the UNESCO World Heritage List
Effects on national Increase in the young population IS12 Positive Percentage of young people (population under 20 years old)
population Ageing of the population IS13 Negative Percentage of non-active older population (population over 65 years old)
structure Population density IS14 Negative Number of individuals per unit destination area
Sustaining population levels IS15 Negative Variation of population level
IS16 Negative Net migration rate
IS17 Negative Rate of natural increase
Social carrying Imposition of foreign culture IS18 Negative Percentage of foreign population residing in the destination
capacity of the (pressure on host culture)
destination Social carrying capacity IS19 Negative Ratio of tourists to host population
Effects on level of Effects on living conditions that affect population IS20 Positive Life expectancy at birth on average
well-being in the longevity
local population Effects on the reduction of social exclusion and IS21 Negative Percentage of population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion after social
marginalisation of disadvantaged groups transfers
Effects on the unequal distribution of income IS22 Negative Gini coefcient of equivalised disposable income
among the population
Educational levels of the resident population (host IS23 Positive Percentage of population enrolled in non-compulsory education
of the visitor population, taking advantage of the (levels 3, 4, 5 and 6)
cultural exchange)
Effects on levels of dependency of the resident IS24 Negative General demographic dependency index
community
Effects on access to housing IS25 Negative Taxes on land, buildings and other structures (percentage of GDP)
Integration and reduction of gender inequalities IS26 Positive Percentage of women with respect to the total number of jobs in the tourism
sector (hotels and restaurants)
IS27 Positive Ratio of the percentage of women employed in the tourism sector and the
percentage in other activities
IS28 Negative Percentage of women employed in the tourism sector with low-wages
IS29 Negative Ratio of the percentage of women employed in the tourism sector with
low-wages and the percentage in other activities

homogeneous among the countries of the European Union. In this way
we could include a greater number of indicators, especially in the
environmental dimension. This will depend on the degree of awareness
of the countries in relation to the provision of statistical information. We
think that if Eurostat follows up the evolution of the countries from a
social, economic and environmental point of view, and this is collected
in annual reports, countries would have a greater incentive to gather
and transmit information concerning their country.
As mentioned, in our study, we were able to fully quantify the sys-
tem of indicators for all destinations selected. After this, the next step
was to conduct a descriptive statistical analysis of each indicator. The re-
sults from this analysis, using Cronbach's alpha coefcient (equal to
0.617) permit us to conclude that the indicators measure the same un-
derlying concept and that their have a level of reliability acceptable and
weak. Also, the indicators proposed indicate a high variability among
the destinations analysed. The indicators considered presented on aver-
age a variation coefcient over 70%, thus conrming a high degree of
heterogeneity among the destinations. This high heterogeneity shows
the appropriateness of analysing sustainable tourism via the overview
provided by composite indicators.
3. Sustainable tourism composite indicator: a methodology for
ranking
The indicator system proposed and quantied in the previous
section is a key source of information concerning the socioeconomic im-
pacts of tourism and their relationship with the environment. However,
by itself the system proposed is a scantly operational tool due to the
high number of indicators which it includes. The dimension of the
system therefore hinders the obtaining of an overall assessment of the
status of each destination analysed.
To overcome this limitation, our proposal is to add the information
contained in the initial system by dening a composite indicator of
sustainable tourism. In computer terms, a composite indicator is dened
as mathematical combinations (or aggregations) of individual indica-
tors that represent the components of the concept that is being
measured (in our case the sustainable tourism) through the initial indi-
cator system, providing a multidimensional assessment of this concept
(OECD, 2008).
The international literature on composite indicators has broadly
shown that the nal results are expected to be very sensitive to the
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954 43

Table 2
Sustainable tourism indicators for the economic dimension.
Source: Own elaboration.

Baseline aspects Sustainability issues Notation Sign Indicator

Economic benets of tourism for Volume of tourism demand
the host community and
destination
Sustaining tourist satisfaction Measuring the impact of satisfaction
Development control
Tourist offers providing a
variety of experiences to
visitors
Seasonality of tourism activity
Tourism employment
Tourism-related transport
Destination competitiveness
IE1 Positive Total number of tourist arrivals
Length of stay IE2 Positive Average length of stay
Tourism revenues IE3 Positive Tourist expenditure
Employment generated by the IE4 Positive Percentage of employees in the service sector with respect to total employment
service sector
Quality of employment generated in IE5 Positive Percentage of full-time employees in the service sector
the service sector (temporary
contracts)
Inuence of tourism activity on IE6 Positive Quarterly unemployment rate in high season with regard to the unemployment
unemployment rate registered in low season
Information technologies in the IE7 Positive Information technology expenditure (percentage with respect to GDP)
economic system
Online communications IE8 Positive Percentage of tourism enterprises with internet access
Available income per inhabitant IE9 Positive Net national available income per inhabitant
Contribution of tourism to GDP IE10 Positive Percentage of GDP attributable to the activities of Hotels and Restaurants
IE11 Positive Rating average obtained by the destinations of the country, including in the
levels in the sector and in the international ranking of National Geographic Traveler associated with the
destination stewardship index for well-known destinations
Evaluation of the prices of tourism IE12 Positive Ratio for the tourist service harmonised price index and the harmonised price
services index (all products)
The land-use planning, including for IE13 Positive Percentage of soil surface intended for services and residential uses
tourism
Ofcial tourism accommodation on IE14 Positive Vacancies in ofcial tourism accommodation establishments per inhabitant
offer
Quality of ofcial tourism IE15 Positive Percentage of high quality vacancies of ofcial tourism accommodation
accommodation on offer establishments (hotels) with respect to the total of the ofcial accommodation
offer
Using ofcial tourism IE16 Positive Percentage of tourist trips in which the visitor uses ofcial accommodation
accommodation by demand establishments
Restaurant services on offer IE17 Positive Number of companies dedicated to restoration activities per 1000 inhabitants
(restaurant and mobile food services)
Range of variety of tourism IE18 Positive Number of different attractions in a destination (activities classied as tourist
experiences attractions in the world of tourism guides: The Green Guide Michelin Travel)
Seasonality of tourist demand IE19 Positive Ratio of low-season tourists to peak-season tourists
Seasonality of tourism employment IE20 Positive Ratio of low-season tourism employment (hotels and restaurants) to
peak-season tourism employment
Reinforcement of the tourism in IE21 Positive Number of tourist events held in mid-low season
lowmedium season
Volume of direct tourism IE22 Positive Total number of individuals employed in the tourism sector employment (hotels
employment and restaurants)
Contribution of tourism IE23 Positive Percentage of employees in the tourism sector with respect to the total volume
employment to total employment in of employment
the country
Quality of tourism employment IE24 Positive Percentage of tourist employees hired full-time
(temporary)
Job security IE25 Negative Incidence rate of accidents at work in the tourism sector (hotels and
restaurants)
Durability of the employment IE26 Positive Average length of service of the tourism employees with the same employer
Economic payment IE27 Positive Average annual gross income in tourism jobs
IE28 Positive Ratio of average annual gross income in tourism jobs regarding the average for
other economic activities
Capacity of passenger transport IE29 Positive Number of seats for passenger transport (motor coaches, buses and
services by road and rail trolleybuses) road and rail per 1000 inhabitants
Capacity of passenger transport IE30 Positive Total volume of the eet of aircraft for the air transport of passengers per 1000
services by air inhabitants
Infrastructure for road and rail IE31 Positive Density of the network of roads and railways (extension of the network in use in
passenger transport comparison to destination surface)
Infrastructure for passenger IE32 Positive Number of public use airports
transport by air
Access to the destination by airport IE33 Positive Percentage of tourism trips in which the visitor uses air transport
Access to the destination by railway IE34 Positive Percentage of tourism trips in which the visitor uses rail transport
Access to the destination by road IE35 Positive Percentage of tourism trips in which the visitor uses road transport
Occupancy rates for ofcial IE36 Positive Average occupancy rate for ofcial tourism accommodation establishments
accommodation establishments

methodology applied (OECD, 2008; Nardo et al., 2005a,b). This sensitiv-
ity of the results is even greater in the case of methodologies that apply
weighting criteria and/or aggregation that are opposed. This limitation
associated with the construction of a composite indicator can be
counteracted by being based on the choice of methodology.
The nal choice should be based on the purpose for dening the
composite indicator and the requirements for compliance with it (Esty
et al., 2005). In our case, we have dened a composite indicator with
the aim of providing a tool that yields aggregate information of the de-
gree of sustainability of the tourist activity of each destination. Our pro-
posal is to use this global vision in the terms of sustainability which the
composite measure provides to assess the perception of the brand asso-
ciated with each destination. We therefore consider that the degree of
sustainability is a relevant information for a demand that is increasingly
44 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954

Table 3
Sustainable tourism indicators for the environmental dimension.
Source: Own elaboration.

Baseline aspects Sustainability issues Notation Sign Indicator

Protection of the natural
ecosystems
Energy management
Water management
Wastewater management
Management of solid urban waste
Atmospheric pollution
Management of the visual impact
of facilities and infrastructure
Intensity of tourist use
Public administrations'
expenditure on environmental
protection
Use of resources
Protection of valuable natural assets IEN1 Positive Percentage of the destination's surface considered to be a protected natural
area
Energy IEN2 Negative Final energy consumption attributable to tourism
Renewable energy IEN3 Positive Percentage of renewable energy consumption with respect to the total
attributable to tourism
Energy intensity IEN4 Negative Energy intensity attributable to tourism
Water consumption IEN5 Negative Water consumption attributed to tourism
Treatment installations IEN6 Positive Number of urban wastewater treatment plants per 1000 inhabitants
Population connected to wastewater IEN7 Positive Percentage of population connected to wastewater treatment systems
treatment systems
Volume of waste generated IEN8 Negative Volume of waste generated
Volume of waste treated IEN9 Positive Volume of waste treated
Waste managed by recovery with IEN10 Positive Percentage of waste managed by recovery with respect to waste managed
respect to waste managed
Waste managed by energy recovery IEN11 Positive Percentage of waste managed by energy recovery with respect to waste
with respect to waste managed managed
Waste managed by incineration with IEN12 Positive Percentage of waste managed by incineration with respect to waste
respect to waste managed managed
Waste managed by disposal with IEN13 Positive Percentage of waste managed by disposal with respect to waste managed
respect to waste managed
Volume of recycled packaging waste IEN14 Positive Volume of recycled packaging waste
Percentage of recycled packaging IEN15 Positive Percentage of recycled packaging waste with respect to what is recovered
waste with respect to what is
recovered
Noise pollution IEN16 Negative Percentage of total population affected by noise from neighbours or from
the street
Total air pollution IEN17 Negative Annual emissions of air pollution (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
ammonia, non-methane volatile organic compounds) per person and day
Air pollution by CO2 IEN18 Negative CO2 emissions per inhabitant
Impact of construction IEN19 Negative Built area
Landscape conservation IEN20 Positive Total area of natural landscape
Impact of the road network IEN21 Negative Road network density
Intensity of tourist use IEN22 Negative Total tourists per unit area
Total general government expenditure IEN23 Positive Government expenditure on environmental protection per inhabitant
on environmental protection
Use of resources IEN24 Negative Domestic material consumption

concerned with the environment and which may determine the choice
of an area as a travel destination.
Using the values of the composite indicator and in line with interna-
tional practice in this eld, we offer an assessment tool for the demand
dened by a ranking of the country-brand of European destinations de-
pending on their degree of sustainability of tourism. In this way, we re-
spond to the need to improve the image of Europe as a set of sustainable
and quality tourism destinations, thus increasing the attractiveness of
these areas and attracting a higher volume of demand (both external
and internal), hence shaping a more consolidated activity for the sector.
Taking into account the objectives proposed, the methodology nal-
ly selected must quantify a composite indicator that fulls the following
requirements:
1) The values of the composite indicator should be easy to interpret by
non-experts in the eld.
2) The composite indicator should have a high discriminating power
between the different country-brands analysed, in order for it to be
possible to obtain a total ranking or ordering of the countries.
3) Given the size of the initial indicator system, the methodology
should allow the number of indicators to exceed the number of
alternatives used.
4) The overall assessment of the state of sustainability in each destina-
tion must be obtained considering a different relative importance of
each aspect assessed, since not all affect the process towards sustain-
able development in the same way.
5) Composite indicator values should be comparable with other
synthetic measures created for the evaluation of the country-brand
of each destination.
In this context, after carrying out a thorough analysis in terms of the
comparison between the different methodologies available, in this
study we determine the synthetic measure of sustainable tourism
using the methodology of the Net Goal Programming Composite Indica-
tor (GPIN). In general terms, this is a process based on the goal program-
ming technique that is intended to provide synthetic indicators which
are easily interpreted by users.
The goal programming methodology we use in this paper was tested
in the work of Blancas et al. (2010a) and Lozano-Oyola et al. (2012),
which applied to coastal and cultural tourism respectively, in southern
Europe. The improvements presented in this paper are summarized in
three points. Firstly, from a methodological point of view, we use a
panel of international experts on sustainable tourism to shed light on
the weights of indicators. Secondly, we conducted a new empirical
application of the methodology to show its potential for tourism sus-
tainability analysis at the country level, establishing new practical
rules to set aspiration levels that will facilitate the interpretation of
the results. In this way, in this work we have expanded the scope of
study with an empirical application that allows the obtaining of an over-
view of the European tourist destinations that can serve as a reference
for testing the current situation of the sector in Europe.
Thirdly, this paper proposes a greater integration of information
provided by the evaluation indicators of sustainable tourism in
decision-making and the planning sector. Specically, to this end, we
propose the creation of a system of Sustainable Tourism Labels from
the information on the indicators of sustainable tourism, which encour-
ages redening public policies to improve the sustainability (and, there-
fore, the competitiveness) of national destinations against their major
competitors.
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954
Map 1. Countries included in the study.
Source: Own elaboration from a map from the University of Alabamas Cartographic Research Laboratory. http://geopress.educa.aragon.es/Mapas_mudos/Mapas_mudos_index.htm
(accessed 01.07.13)
To show the methodological improvements proposed, we must
answer a fundamental question: How is information aggregated accord-
ing to this methodology? Our goal in relation to this issue is not to make
an exhaustive presentation of the methodology selected, but to clarify
its basic operation and determine how we can aggregate information
into our study to meet the requirements set.
To do so, we assume that we start from an initial system consisting of
m indicators to assess the situation of n units or destinations. Depending
on its direction of variability, we distinguish between positive and
negative indicators. We denote as Iij the value taken by the ith unit in
the jth indicator. This notation will be marked with a superscript +
when the indicator is positive and with a if it is negative.
Then, the procedure requires two previous decisions to obtain the
composite indicator: to set the weights given to each indicator of the
system (where wj is the weight attached to the jth indicator) and to
dene an aspiration level for each indicator: uj.
In this context, the aspiration level is a value representing an accept-
able grade of achievement for the sustainability aspect evaluated by the
indicator considered. The interpretation of this level of achievement
depends on the variability direction xed for the indicator. In the case
of positive indicators, the aspiration level indicates the minimum level
at which a unit is considered to show a good situation regarding the
aspect evaluated by the indicator. In the case of negative indicators,
the aspiration level sets the maximum level until a unit indicates a
favourable situation regarding the aspect analysed.
At this point, the value each unit presents in each indicator of the
system is compared with xed aspiration levels. To do this, we dene
45
a goal for each indicator using deviation variables that measure the
difference between the two values (which we denote by n and p).
Thus, for the ith unit the goals are represented as follows (Lozano-
Oyola et al., 2012):
Ii j ni j pi j u j with ni j ; pi j 0 ni j  pi j 0
where nij is the under-achievement or negative deviation variable,
and pij the over-achievement or positive deviation variable associated
with the jth indicator. If this indicator is positive we will have a
superscript + in all the variables, while if it is negative we will have a
superscript .
After dening the goals, we quantify the value of the composite
indicator using the information provided by deviation variables. On
the one hand, these variables allow us to quantify the strengths
shown by each unit indicating the degree to which it fulls the
xed levels of aspiration. To do this, we aggregate the deviation
variables for which a higher value shows a better relative position:
p+
ij and n ik . This aggregation is obtained by a weighted sum of the
normalised values of the deviation variables which are obtained
by dividing them by its aspiration level, expressing its value in a
dimensionless scale. We thus obtain the so-called indicator GPI +
whose formulation for the ith unit is as follows:
X w j p X wk n
GPI
ij
i if1; 2; ; ng:
ik
uj u
j J kK k
46 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954
On the other hand, a second composite indicator's component
evaluates the weaknesses shown by each unit, quantifying the degree
to which the units do not meet the xed aspiration levels. Similar to
the above, we dene the GPI whose formulation for a unit i is given by:
X w j n X wk p
GPI
ij
i if1; 2; ; ng:
ik
j J
uj kK
u
k
Using this information, we dene the net composite indicator as
follows:
GPI Ni GPI
i GPI i :
Thus, the value of the composite indicator is obtained by the differ-
ence between the strengths and weaknesses of each unit, ensuring the
ready availability and interpretation of the nal results by non-experts
in the eld.
The indicator proposed is a weighted linear sum and therefore
always assumes full compensability between the strengths and
weaknesses registered in the starting set of indicators (Martinez-Alier
et al., 1998; Munda and Nardo, 2005). A unit can have a better relative
situation but have signicant decits (and therefore weakness) in
some aspects, provided that they are compensated by the levels obtain-
ed in the other indicators.
We may also use the two components of the composite indicator for
a non-compensatory measure. With this in mind, and employing the
practical judgments that dene the aspiration levels, we set out a
condition that the units must full to be considered as more sustainable.
The basis of this condition is the notion of differentiating the units that
full all aspiration levels from those which do not. We acquire the
Restrictive Goal Programming Indicator (GPIRi ) (Blancas et al., 2010a),
that is dened for a unit i by:
 dividual must assign a higher score to the indicators with a greater
GPI
i if GPI i 0
GPI Ri
GPIi if GPI
i 0:
For units that full all aspiration levels, we take the rst component
of the vector indicator (its strength). For units that are considered to be
weak in some aspect, we take the value of the second component,
preceded by a negative sign in order to differentiate it. We hence get a
total order on the set of the units.
However, given the general objective set for the composite indicator,
we focus our interest in obtaining a global vision in the terms of sustain-
ability to assess the perception of the brand associated with each desti-
nation. The use of the net indicator is the most appropriate to achieve
the objectives of this study.
In our study, to apply the methodology of GPIN i we must decide two
fundamental issues: how to set the aspiration levels of each initial
indicator and how to determine the set of weights.
Regarding aspiration levels, there are cases in which it is possible to
use as a reference any treaty or international agreement, the scientic
literature, expert opinion, political agreements, and so on to determine
a value for the level of aspiration (Moldan et al., 2012). In the case of
sustainable tourism, there is no external source of reference to dene
and quantify these values in an objective and unambiguous manner,
given the complexity of this concept. In this situation, an alternative is
the denition of common aspiration levels for the units analysed,
using a practical rule to quantify their values based on the information
provided by the initial system (Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012). It is obvious
that such aspiration levels do not reect the performance required for
achieving sustainable tourism, but their values provide a sense of
which destinations are doing best in terms of attaining common
sustainability targets. This type of rule is especially useful in cases in
which there is not enough knowledge about the concept evaluated to
clearly establish the characteristics of the situation desired.
Specically, in this study we propose using as aspiration levels the
value of each indicator for the whole of the European Union, employing
the aggregated information provided by Eurostat, whenever the indicator
is relative. In the case of indicators that provide assessments in absolute
terms, we take the average values of each indicator as aspiration levels.
As for the weights, taking into account the requirements of the com-
posite indicator, in this study we used an expert's panel to determine
their values. Through value judgments expressed by a group of qualied
persons, we have introduced in the analysis the relative contribution of
the different areas or aspects that determine the degree of sustainability
of tourism (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Miller, 2001; Orsi et al., 2011).
The weighting using a panel of experts is a widely-used procedure to
quantify the relative contribution of the indicators of the initial system
(Tsaur et al., 2006; Ugwu et al., 2006). To apply it, there are two impor-
tant issues to consider: the conguration of the panel of experts and the
procedure for showing the experts' opinions.
In terms of conguration, the panel of experts used must be com-
posed of individuals whose knowledge, experience and values are suf-
cient to ensure a set of weights which is suitable for the study proposed
(Von Winterfeld and Ward, 1986). This selection largely determines the
reliability of the weights obtained, because the different backgrounds of
each individual makes them tackle the assessment presented from a dif-
ferent perspective. Therefore, to ensure the consistency and reliability of
the assessment of the experts, our proposal is to consider as potential
panellists scientic researchers (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006) who have
published at least one peer-reviewed paper on sustainable tourism
development or sustainability indicators in journals included in the
Journal Citation Reports.
To enable the experts to show their views to assess the indicators
considered, the two most commonly used tools are: the Budget Alloca-
tion Process (BAP) and the scale of preference.
In the case of the BAP, each expert has a budget of N points to distrib-
ute among the aspects or indicators evaluated. In this distribution, the in-
contribution and a lower mark to aspects or indicators of minor inuence
(Jesinghaus, 1997). The allocation of the scoring should be performed
independently by each expert to avoid inuencing the results. Once all
assignments for each member of the panel have been performed, it is
necessary to obtain the value of the consensus scoring provided by the
expert group. In virtually all of the studies in the eld, this consensus
score is obtained by taking the average score for each indicator or aspect
assigned (Hermans et al., 2008). Having acquired the consensus scoring,
the weight of the indicator according to this method is quantied as the
quotient between the average score of the indicator and the sum of the
average scores of all the indicators included in the same group.
However, the use of this procedure to obtain the views of experts has
a major drawback: the allocation of the punctuation should be carried out
among a small number of elements in order for the valuations to be con-
sistent. Specically, studies have shown that it is impossible to simulta-
neously assign scores to a group with more than 10 elements without
affecting the consistency of the opinions shown (Sajeva et al., 2005).
A second method to obtain expert valuations is known as preference
scales. In this procedure each expert estimates a preference factor for
each sustainability indicator by following a scale from 1 (unimportant)
to 5 (highly important). Having made all the individual assessments, an
assessment of the consensus for the indicator is obtained by using the
score given to the indicator by the expert group (Zhou et al., 2012). In
this case, the weight indicator is quantied as the quotient between
the score of the indicator and the total sum of the scores of all the indi-
cators in the same group. The main advantage of this method of valua-
tion is its transparency and ease of application by the expert panel,
even in cases in which a system composed of a large number of indica-
tors is valued. However, the use of this procedure should be performed
with caution considering that the Likert scale is ordinal. In this sense,
quantifying the weights using a quantitative transformation of values
from the Likert scale is not valid.
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954
In this context, to facilitate the response of the experts, we propose
applying the judgement of experts by establishing three consecutive
levels of weighting. The denition of these levels is determined by the
structure of the initial system of indicators. Our indicators are organised
into three dimensions of sustainability. Within each dimension, the
system covers all the aspects of sustainability assessed and, on a
third level, we include the indicators that quantify the sustainability
aspects. The number of indicators used to quantify each aspect is
different according to the generality with which the aspect of sus-
tainability is dened, and also depends on the available statistical
information.
According to this structure, weight levels are dened as follows:
Dimensional weights. In this rst level, the expert panel should
show their views on the relative contribution of each dimension of
sustainability. Our proposal is to use the BAP employing a total of
100 points. The weighting value for a dimension h is given by the fol-
lowing expression:
p of their tourism.
wh X3 h
ps
s1
where:
ph is the average score given to the dimension h
ps is the average score given to the dimension s (social, econom-
ic and environmental).
Factorial weights. At a second level the expert panel assigns weights
to the sustainability aspects or factors included in each dimension.
As in the previous case, using the BAP method with a total of 100
points, the weight assigned to an aspect k within a dimension h com-
posed of r aspects is obtained as follows:
q monotony, uniqueness, invariance, transitivity, completeness and
whk Xr hk
qh j
j1
where:
qhk is the average score given to the aspect k of the dimension h
qhj is the average score given to the aspect j of the dimension h.
Weights of quantication. A third level is dedicated to the assess-
ment of the relative contribution of each indicator used to quantify
each of the sustainability issues. In this case, given the large number
of indicators that make up the system, we use the BAP method with
a total of 100 points within of each aspect.
Thus, the weight of the indicator i included in the group of n indica-
tors that measure the aspect k of the dimension h is obtained by the
following expression:
X
whki Xn hki
X
t1 hkt
where:
Xhki is the sum of the scores assigned to the indicator i of the
aspect k of the dimension h by the group of individuals
Xhkt is the sum of the scores assigned to the indicator t of the
aspect k of the dimension h by the group of individuals.
Having obtained the weights at three levels, the value of the nal
weight assigned to each indicator of the initial system that will be
used to calculate the indicator values GPIN is given by the following
product:
W iF wh  whk  whki :
47
To facilitate the interpretation of the nal weights, we obtain their
normalised value by the following ratio:
WF
NW iF Xm i F
Wi
i1
where m is the total number of indicators of the start-up system.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the application of the
methodology of the indicator GPIN proposed, allows the fullling of
the requirements for the composite indicator discussed above.
First, the aggregation based on the quantication of strengths and
weaknesses provides composite indicator values which are easy to
interpret by non-experts in sustainability and can inuence the percep-
tion of the country-brand destinations considered. Also, the synthetic
indicator values can be used to obtain a ranking of destinations, fully
discriminating between them according to the degree of sustainability
From an operational standpoint, this methodology can be applied
when the number of units exceeds the number of indicators of the
start-up system. Therefore it is not necessary to give up part of the
information of the system or fragment analysis to perform aggregation.
Furthermore, this method does not require the applying of a prior
standardisation procedure since it expresses the values of the composite
indicator on a dimensionless scale dened on the basis of the value of
the aspiration levels.
As for the weights, the use of expert opinions on three levels allows
the obtaining of a value for the weights which shows a different relative
contribution for each aspect of sustainability evaluated.
Finally, the indicator proposed veries general properties which a
good composite indicator should full: existence and determination,
symmetry (Blancas et al., 2010a). This ensures the comparability of
the composite indicator values with other synthetic measures created
for the evaluation of the country-brand of each destination. In this
way, all the predetermined criteria which decided the choice of the
aggregation methodology are fullled.
Given the characteristics of the methodology used, the classication
dened based on the values of the composite indicator would allow the
identifying of the destinations with more sustainable management
practices and better outcomes. This could be dened as a label for sus-
tainable tourism to which better positioned European destinations
could access, creating a European brand that rewards the best manage-
ment based on each country's national experience. This would increase
condence in tourism products and consumers' safety. The following
section deals with the denition of this tourism label and the study of
its practical implications.
4. Results and discussion
In this section we present the results obtained in the empirical study
proposed in this paper. We set out from the information provided by the
sustainable tourism indicators system proposed. This is fully quantied
for our study area. This information allows us to separately quantify the
different aspects that determine the sustainability level of each country
as tourist destination.
In order to obtain a global vision of each destination in terms of
sustainability, we apply the aggregation methodology presented in the
previous section. We thus obtain the sustainable tourism composite
indicators' values to assess each country considered. Our proposal is to
use the aggregate valuation provided by the composite indicator to as-
sess the country-brand perception of each destination in sustainability
terms. To obtain the values of the composite indicator two essential
concepts should be previously quantied: the weighting of each initial
indicator and the aspiration levels necessary to dene targets.
48 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954

The weights were obtained using information provided by a panel of
experts. To select this panel's members, we set out from an initial list of
potential candidates. Finally, 57 investigators were surveyed. This
selection was made taking into account the availability of each respon-
dent to answer different questions and the relevance of their research in
tourism. Also, the research team's goal was to select a number of
researchers which would ensure the viability of the enquiry.
The experts consulted who make up the nal panel worked in
different elds related to tourism: universities (66.67%), public
administrations (24.56%), scientic institutions (5.26%) and private
enterprises (3.51%). This diversity allows us to guarantee the reliability
of the experts' estimations. We have counted on representatives from
26 countries, in such a way that the cultural diversity characteristic
of the European destinations has been considered to quantify the
weights.
This consultation of the panel of experts was carried out between
April and June 2013, through a closed computerised questionnaire.
The questionnaire requested the assessment of experts by setting up
three consecutive weighting levels, following the structure of the initial
system of indicators in dimensions, sustainability aspects and indica-
tors. The experts replied on the basis of the indicator as a concept.
Thus, as we discussed in the previous section, three different weightings
were quantied with the information obtained at each level: dimen-
sional, factorial and quantication. The values obtained in each dimen-
sion are those that appear in Tables 4, 5 and 6. In addition, these
tables show the value of the standardised nal weights.
When we analyse the weights together, we can draw the following
conclusions. In the rst weighting level, though the case of the environ-
mental dimension with a dimensional weight of the 34.53% is slightly
higher, the relative contribution which the experts granted to each
dimension has been very similar.
In the case of the social dimension, the results show that the aspect
of social sustainability which has a greater weight in the evaluation of
progress towards a more sustainable tourism is the socio-cultural ef-
fects of tourism on the host community (factorial weight of 0.21583).
The second social aspect is the conservation of the cultural heritage
(with a factorial weight of 0.20542). Finally, we emphasise the aspect
of sustainability which refers to the social carrying capacity, measured
by the ratio of tourists to the host population.
From an economic point of view, the factorial weights are more con-
centrated and show a greater difference between the distinct sustainabil-
ity aspects. The economic benets of tourism for the host community and
destination are clearly considered by the experts as the degree of
sustainability's most decisive economic aspect. The factorial weight of
this sustainability aspect is 0.24406, exceeding by at least six points the
weight of the rest of the economic aspects. Within this aspect, the tourism
demand, the inuence of the tourism activity on the employment level
registered in other economic sectors and the sector's contribution to the
economic activity in the destination are more important.
Though they have more secondary role, the indicators relating to
tourism employment (with a factorial weight of 0.16375) and sustain-
ing the tourist satisfaction (with 0.13125 as its factorial weight) stand
out in importance.
In the case of the environmental aspects of sustainability, the highest
factorial weight is assigned to the protection of valuable natural assets:
0.17969. Also the information provided by the panel of experts grants a
prominent role to sustainability issues related to the management
carried out by the managers of the destinations in terms of resources
and waste generated. In particular, indicators which receive a greater
weight within this group refer to the management of energy resources,
the management of wastewater, as well as the treatment and recovery
of waste.
This set of weights based on expert knowledge concerning the
assessment of the objective of sustainable tourism provides the
composite indicator obtained with greater reliability and practicality.
We thus consider the valuation of each destination is made giving to
each aspect evaluated a different relative contribution, hence taking
into account their different inuences in terms of achieving the objec-
tive of the sustainability of tourist activities.
Once this information has been obtained, we calculate the value of
the necessary levels of aspiration to dene the goals associated with
the composite indicator values. In the absence of an external source of

Table 4
Social dimension: dimensional, factorial, quantication and nal weights values and aspiration levels.
Source: Own elaboration.

Dimensional weight Sustainability issue Factorial weight Indicator Quantication weight Normalised nal weight Aspiration level

0.3267 Socio-cultural effects of tourism on host community 0.21583 IS1 0.355343065 0.027143551 0.005515502
IS2 0.355343065 0.027143551 0.017604425
IS3 0.356389603 0.027223493 473
IS4 0.288267332 0.022019844 0.744150455
Safety of the destination 0.14583 IS5 0.229497472 0.011844998 55.6749618
IS6 0.208091534 0.010740179 2
IS7 0.188805378 0.009744767 3.375674954
IS8 0.173290581 0.008944006 0.05309241
IS9 0.200315035 0.010338812 0.035264385
Conservation of cultural heritage 0.20542 IS10 0.527539626 0.038352269 16.55555556
IS11 0.472460374 0.034347993 11.40740741
Effect on national population structure 0.09417 IS12 0.167638454 0.005586903 22.7920069
IS13 0.167174031 0.005571425 17.20260081
IS14 0.159545355 0.005317184 115.5196235
IS15 0.167274114 0.005574761 1.745031831
IS16 0.16713687 0.005570187 45,686.2963
IS17 0.171231175 0.005706638 43,369.74074
Social carrying capacity 0.17438 IS18 0.447839506 0.02763802 4.103017506
IS19 0.552160494 0.034076097 0.0340226
Effects on level of well-being in the local population 0.16438 IS20 0.147215731 0.008564269 79.7
IS21 0.165628703 0.009635443 16.3
IS22 0.138417948 0.008052458 30.4
IS23 0.13196185 0.007676875 8.550772732
IS24 0.13520485 0.007865536 48.89870453
IS25 0.134942638 0.007850282 1.1
IS26 0.14662828 0.008530094 55.22848034
IS27 0.14662828 0.008530094 1.23370133
IS28 0.14662828 0.008530094 36.96363287
IS29 0.14662828 0.008530094 1.186111833
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954 49

Table 5
Economic dimension: dimensional, factorial, quantication and nal weights values and aspiration levels.
Source: Own elaboration.

Dimensional weight Sustainability issue Factorial weight Indicator Quantication weight Normalised nal weight Aspiration level

0.3279 Economic benets of tourism for the host 0.24406 IE1 0.102511389 0.008888052 24,676,766.44
community and destination IE2 0.107503865 0.009320915 9.320240425
IE3 0.118480522 0.010272625 12,490,355.59
IE4 0.113256456 0.009819682 67.24373891
IE5 0.107923847 0.009357329 77.64665493
IE6 0.100931052 0.008751032 1.034090909
IE7 0.082783106 0.007177549 2.5
IE8 0.089643602 0.007772375 96
IE9 0.085780447 0.007437428 19,700
IE10 0.091185714 0.007906081 3.149950974
Sustaining tourist satisfaction 0.13125 IE11 0.537574405 0.025065208 35.21358025
IE12 0.462425595 0.021561283 1.0040135
Development control 0.10844 IE13 0.45625 0.017575828 7.512878314
Tourist offers providing a variety of 0.08500 IE14 0.196713053 0.005939987 0.056188172
experiences to visitors IE15 0.207890229 0.006277496 43.79642257
IE16 0.18083328 0.005460479 75.63390383
IE17 0.197557302 0.005965481 1.64098287
IE18 0.217006137 0.006552761 782.1851852
Seasonality of tourism activity 0.10563 IE19 0.343640994 0.012894518 0.573026219
IE20 0.353809992 0.013276091 0.907973527
IE21 0.302549013 0.011352614 164.6296296
Tourism employment 0.16375 IE22 0.157438306 0.009158517 348.5185185
IE23 0.153610045 0.008935819 4.327351992
IE24 0.148505993 0.008638905 70.81827843
IE25 0.117964011 0.006862214 1415.300921
IE26 0.12361811 0.007191125 66.18518519
IE27 0.148613329 0.008645149 18,615.72481
IE28 0.150250207 0.00874037 0.688907444
Tourism-related transport 0.07531 IE29 0.14600331 0.003906278 83.24496054
IE30 0.148066966 0.003961491 0.013139742
IE31 0.143490881 0.003839059 1.126904659
IE32 0.141355626 0.003781931 14.51851852
IE33 0.139766093 0.003739403 25.30953969
IE34 0.138772728 0.003712826 8.684523901
IE35 0.142544396 0.003813736 71.88591885
Destination competitiveness 0.08656 IE36 0.5375 0.016528813 36.39188272

reference, we dene the levels of aspiration using the practical rule in Tables 4, 5 and 6. The main advantage offered by these aspiration
proposed, taking into account the relative or absolute character of levels is that their values provide a sense of which destinations are
each indicator. The aspiration levels obtained in our study are shown doing best in terms of attaining common sustainability targets.

Table 6
Environmental dimension: dimensional, factorial, quantication and nal weights values and aspiration levels.
Source: Own elaboration.

Dimensional weight Sustainability issue Factorial weight Indicator Quantication weight Normalised nal weight Aspiration level

0.3453 Protection of the natural ecosystems 0.17969 IEN1 0.53125 0.03570932 14

Energy management 0.10172 IEN2 0.321951704 0.012250576 1,556,586.448
IEN3 0.345851997 0.013160006 6.30123259
IEN4 0.332196298 0.012640393 119.9149581
Water management 0.11859 IEN5 0.40625 0.018022704 61.100.39
Wastewater management 0.09891 IEN6 0.486175115 0.017987932 0.1468085
IEN7 0.513824885 0.019010942 73.51851852
Management of solid urban waste 0.09672 IEN8 0.118821044 0.004299013 3,202,980.132
IEN9 0.125627796 0.004545286 2,979,860.975
IEN10 0.132336362 0.004788005 0.456661687
IEN11 0.127797973 0.004623804 0.034978347
IEN12 0.119014247 0.004306004 0.020001531
IEN13 0.123082592 0.004453199 0.488358435
IEN14 0.122745999 0.004441021 71,637.62084
IEN15 0.130573987 0.004724242 0.837317144
Atmospheric pollution 0.08719 IEN16 0.336599243 0.010978225 0.222
IEN17 0.326328689 0.01064325 0.054504615
IEN18 0.337072068 0.010993646 7.5
Management of the visual impact of 0.07656 IEN19 0.324329971 0.009288979 0.06646953
facilities and infrastructure IEN20 0.362922024 0.010394275 0.906619319
IEN21 0.312748005 0.008957265 1.56315871
Intensity of tourist use 0.07156 IEN22 0.475 0.012715806 0.034472322
Public administrations' expenditure on 0.07094 IEN23 0.48125 0.012770603 216.8291562
environmental protection
Use of resources 0.09813 IEN24 0.5875 0.021565141 0.014471273
50 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954

Once the normalised weights and the aspiration levels of each initial shows the level of stability for each destination under different sets of
indicator have been calculated, we obtained the values of the GPIN indi- weights. In Fig. 1 we observe that the composite indicator proposed is
cator for each of the countries included in the study. These values were relatively stable in most destinations.
put into order to obtain the ranking (Table 7). This sensitivity analysis is completed by analysing the differences in
In this simple way, we have obtained an instrument that can be used the rankings obtained with each set of weights. We calculate the Spear-
to assess the perception of each country-brand according to the degree man Rho coefcient to quantify the degree of association and stability
of sustainability of the tourist activity of each destination. This ranking, between each pair of ordinations. On average, this coefcient attains a
and its continuous updating, would improve the image of European value of 0.70023. Being a positive value and greater than 0.7 shows
destinations as sustainable and quality destinations to attract a greater that it is a direct correlation (the ordinations compared tend to be
volume of demand. This increased demand could also discriminate paired) and has a strong association.
and select between the different European destinations based on their Having veried the stability of the ranking of sustainability, the com-
classication in this ranking of sustainability. posite indicator information could be used to create a Sustainable Tour-
In this sense, we nd countries with a strong tourist tradition at the ism Labels System which would be assigned to the destinations in a
top of the ranking. In the lower part of the table there are countries with better position to reward the appropriate management carried out at
a relatively recent opening to tourism, such as Estonia, Latvia and a national level. These labels could also increase the condence in
Romania, along with others which are very small, such as Malta, European tourism products and consumer safety. The question that
Cyprus and Luxembourg. arises here is: How can the information provided by the composite indi-
Futhermore, this classication allows us to identify the destinations cator be used to dene Sustainable Tourism Labels?
that have implemented a more efcient management, with better There is not only one answer to this question. The one presented
results in terms of sustainability. here is only an initial proposal, upgradable in the future. As we have
However, we must say that this ranking may vary based on different commented, the composite indicator is obtained by the difference be-
sets of weights used in the calculation of the composite indicator. This is tween the strengths and weaknesses which each destination presents
why we have carried out a sensibility analysis in order to increase the in terms of sustainability. We consider that a tourist area carried out a
transparency of the process for obtaining the composite indicator. This proper management provided that the GPIN indicator has a positive
analysis aims to show how the composite indicator values vary and value. Thus, we propose that the Sustainable Tourism Labels be assigned
the ranking obtained when the weight of each indicator is modied. to destinations showing a positive net value.
Specically, we propose to use the results of the query to the panel of To discriminate and provide more information about the type of
experts to carry out the sensitivity analysis. Although the weights management carried out in each destination at a national level, we
were calculated using international expert knowledge, the individual propose the creation of three types of Sustainable Tourism Labels: the
responses of each expert reect different views of the relative contribu- Global Key Sustainability Label (Label A), the Partial Key Sustainability
tion of each sustainability issue. Thus, we use the weights associated Label (Label B) and the Secondary Sustainability Label (Label C) (Table 8).
with each individual response of the experts to study the sensitivity of We carry out the assignment of each type of label to a particular des-
the values of the composite indicator regarding the weights. tination by analysing the net contribution of each initial indicator to the
With the individual weights of each expert, we calculate the range of value of the composite indicator. In this analysis, we pay special attention
variation (represented by bars) for the values of the composite indicator to so-called key indicators. Within each dimension, we consider as key in-
in each country (Fig. 1). The difference in the length of the interval dicators those which present a higher standard weight (Tables 4, 5 and 6)
on the basis of the knowledge provided by the expert panel.
Table 7
In the case of the social dimension, the key indicators refer to the ca-
Country-Brand Ranking based on GPIN values. pacity to transport services, the social carrying capacity and the heritage
Source: Own elaboration. conservation. From an economic point of view, tourism expenditure,
Country-Brand GPIN
tourist satisfaction and direct employment generation are selected key
issues. In the environmental dimension, the expert panel believes that
France 0.214775352
key information is provided by the indicators that assess the protection
Italy 0.1912593
Norway 0.106461733 of the natural ecosystems, the contribution of renewable energy sources
Portugal 0.094102183 and the water consumption in the sector.
Greece 0.081971188 Based on the above analysis, the requirements for each country to
Spain 0.078745688 obtain each type of label are shown in Table 8.
Belgium 0.070755356
Germany 0.063799451
As we can observe in the previous table, we therefore propose to de-
United Kingdom 0.040864693 ne subcategories within each type of label. This subcategorisation is
Netherlands 0.037044556 based on the following reasoning. Given the compensatory nature of
Austria 0.035843657 the aggregation methodology used, the net composite indicator value
Bulgaria 0.001306334
of a particular destination can be based exclusively on economic, social
Sweden 0.004490381
Slovenia 0.01760393 or environmental issues. In this sense, a destination that manages to bal-
Czech Republic 0.026211593 ance its net position without being biased towards a single dimension
Denmark 0.038166714 will be carrying out a more efcient management, although the volume
Hungary 0.059090838 of their strengths does not allow it to be in a better position in the sus-
Croatia 0.059440375
Lithuania 0.076304334
tainability ranking.
Poland 0.080204818 To identify the subcategory to which each destination is assigned, it
Slovakia 0.091361969 is necessary to break down the net value of the composite indicator by
Ireland 0.092838532 calculating the normalised value of the deviation variables associated
Finland 0.093341248
with each initial indicator. In the case of Label B, the subcategories are
Romania 0.097201308
Cyprus 0.150050114 dened by counting the number of key indicators for each dimension
Estonia 0.151809075 which has a net positive contribution. The label on these subcategories
Latvia 0.1691222 is assigned if all the key indicators of the same dimension have a net
Malta 0.192166513 positive contribution. By contrast, in the case of Label C subcategories,
Luxembourg 0.344573404
we group the indicators by dimensions and calculate the amount of
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954 51

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8
France
Italy
Norway
Portugal
Greece
Spain
Belgium
Germany
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Austria
Bulgaria
Sweden
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Croatia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
Ireland
Finland
Romania
Cyprus
Estonia
Latvia
Malta
Luxembourg
Fig. 1. Sensibility analysis: variation intervals in the composite indicator values.
Source: Own elaboration.

the total net value corresponding to each dimension. Then, we deter- the short and medium-term aim should be to increase their strengths
mine the percentage of net value that corresponds to each dimension and reduce their weaknesses.
of sustainability, using the value of the GPIN as a basis for the calculation. Furthermore, analysis of the decomposition of the composite indicator
The assignment of a destination within each subcategory is performed, allows the establishing of a strategy for action for those destinations that
in this case, depending on the contribution of each dimension in the do not get sustainability labels, so that they can have access to them in the
percentage distribution of the net positive situation, using the thresh- future. To do this, we calculate the total net value corresponding to each
olds dened in Table 8. dimension and the number of key indicators for each dimension which
In our case, the European countries that obtain a Sustainable Tour- have a net positive contribution (Table 10). The objective of these strate-
ism Label are shown in Map 2. The results of the process of assigning la- gies is for the destination to get a positive value of its composite indicator,
bels are shown in Table 9. increasing its strengths and reducing its weaknesses, achieving results
With this information, each country knows in which areas it has that exceed the average behaviour for the whole of the European Union.
strengths and in which dimensions it should work to improve its posi- When working out these types of strategies, it is necessary to recog-
tion in the ranking, rising in positions within their category in the nise the aspects which require the most urgent action. In line with this,
short term and/or changing their category in the medium and long the net position of each destination, permits the immediate identica-
term. In brief, once each country is included in one of these categories, tion of the dimensions in which an improvement action is more needed.
These dimensions will be the ones whose net position shows a value
which is very close to zero or a negative value.
Table 8 In this work we have relied on GPIN which has a compensatory na-
European Sustainable Tourism Labels: denition. ture, to assign labels.
Source: Own elaboration. We could also have assigned them based on the values of the GPIR,
Labels Requirements which has a non-compensatory nature. In this case, after checking that
no country has strengths in all indicators, we are left only with the
Type A Destinations with a positive net composite indicator value
Global Key and in which the net contribution of all the key indicators are
weaknesses, leading to an allocation of different labels that provide
Sustainability positive. countries with information on the aspects that need improvement.
Type B Destinations with a positive net composite indicator value In any case, we can conclude that with the Sustainable Tourism Label
Partial Key and in which the net contribution of all the key indicators, System dened we offer an instrument to assess the country-brand of
Sustainability within one or two dimensions, are positive.
each destination which provides a richer information in terms of the
Subcategory B.2. Destinations that show a net positive contribution in all the
key indicators of two dimensions. sustainability degree of the tourist activity. We believe that this tool
Subcategory B.1. Destinations that show a net positive contribution in all the can be a relevant instrument in improving the image of the European
key indicators of one dimension. tourist destinations. By creating European Labels that recognise the
Type C Destinations show a positive net composite indicator value. best management practices of tourism as a sustainable activity, coun-
Secondary
Sustainability
tries receive an incentive to maintain and improve their position in
Subcategory C.3. Net positive value based on three dimensions. Requirement: the ranking, at the same time favouring sharing experiences and estab-
each dimension has a contribution between 30% and 45%. lishing practices for benchmarking. Also, as we have already mentioned,
Subcategory C.2. Net positive value based on two dimensions. Requirement: a with the creation of this European Labels System we would be meeting
dimension has a contribution to the net positive situation of
the need expressed by the European Commission in June 2010.
less than 20% and the remaining two contribute at least 30%
each.
Subcategory C.1. Net positive value based on one dimension. Requirement: 5. Conclusions
one dimension represents 50% or more in the distribution of
net positive situation and the remaining two contribute less The aim of this paper is to propose instruments to meet the need of
than 30% each.
the European tourism sector to face future challenges according to the
52 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954

Map 2. European Sustainable Tourism Labels.

Source: Own elaboration.

European Commission. Specically, there are two main requirements to
be met in the tourism sector.
On the one hand, the European Commission considered that
obtaining a better base of socio-economic knowledge concerning
tourism and its relationship with the environment is essential. The im-
provement of this information is needed to foster the competitiveness
of the sector and promote the development of a quality, diversied
and sustainable tourism in a responsible manner.
In response to this request, we have dened a sustainable tourism
indicators system suitable for the analysis of the tourism sustainability
of European destinations. This system has been fully quantied and
this allows us to take a maximum advantage of the statistical informa-
tion available in European government agencies. The work of collecting
statistical information has enabled us to establish guidelines which
show how to use the statistical information available, as well as the
actions required in order to improve and increase this information.

Table 9
Assignment of Sustainable Tourism Labels based on the study of the breakdown of the composite indicator's net value.
Source: Own elaboration.

Country GPIN Label Key indicators with positive net contribution Percentage distribution of net composite indicator
value

Social Economic Environmental Social Economic Environmental

France 0.2147754 B.1 2 3 1 17.56% 82.44% 0%

Italy 0.1912593 B.2 3 3 1 47.17% 52.83% 0%
Norway 0.1064617 C.2 1 1 2 0% 50.82% 49.18%
Portugal 0.0941022 B.1 1 1 3 35.32% 0% 64.68%
Greece 0.0819712 C.2 2 1 2 59.61% 39.86% 0.53%
Spain 0.0787457 B.1 2 3 1 6.54% 93.46% 0%
Belgium 0.0707554 B.1 3 1 1 36.04% 63.96% 0%
Germany 0.0637995 B.1 2 3 0 0% 100% 0%
United Kingdom 0.0408647 B.1 1 3 0 0% 100% 0%
Netherlands 0.0370446 C.1 1 2 1 0% 99.38% 0.62%
Austria 0.0358437 C.2 1 1 2 0% 65.87% 34.13%
Bulgaria 0.0013063 B.1 1 0 3 64.84% 0% 35.16%
 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954 53

Table 10
Breaking down the net value of the composite indicator: analysis for destinations without Sustainable Tourism Labels.
Source: Own elaboration.

Country GPIN Key indicators with positive net contribution Dimensional distribution of net composite indicator values

Social Economic Environmental Social Economic Environmental

Sweden 0.0044904 0 0 3 0.0205326 0.0267127 0.0016897

Slovenia 0.0176039 2 1 3 0.0414082 0.0321101 0.0559144
Czech Republic 0.0262116 1 1 2 0.0326694 0.0231959 0.0356852
Denmark 0.0381667 1 1 2 0.0492016 0.0140980 0.0030631
Hungary 0.0590908 1 0 2 0.0114229 0.0698747 0.0006390
Croatia 0.0594404 2 1 2 0.0344846 0.0265386 0.0015828
Lithuania 0.0763043 2 0 3 0.0186754 0.1091921 0.0515631
Poland 0.0802048 1 0 2 0.0336439 0.0829619 0.0308869
Slovakia 0.0913620 1 0 1 0.0106147 0.0836297 0.0183469
Ireland 0.0928385 0 1 1 0.1171446 0.0397651 0.0154590
Finland 0.0933412 1 0 2 0.0011379 0.0475245 0.0446789
Romania 0.0972013 1 0 2 0.0083420 0.1133925 0.0078492
Cyprus 0.1500501 1 0 1 0.0429597 0.0499688 0.0571217
Estonia 0.1518091 1 0 3 0.1079554 0.0907320 0.0468783
Latvia 0.1691222 1 0 2 0.1324360 0.1029913 0.0663051
Malta 0.1921665 1 0 1 0.0586833 0.0026685 0.1308147
Luxembourg 0.3445734 1 0 2 0.3593082 0.0151285 0.0298633

One of the main conclusions is the need to improve the statistical infor-
mation necessary to analyse the degree of sustainable tourism in the
destinations, especially in environmental issues since there are few
variables quantied in ofcial statistics. In addition, the inclusion of in-
dicators on qualitative aspects should be promoted by the European
government agencies in a coordinated manner.
Therefore, our recommendation is that supranational institutions
make an effort in order for country members to be aware of the impor-
tance of knowing the real situation in each country. They will then be
able to implement policies based on real data.
The information panel presented is also a fundamental tool to assess
the sustainability degree of a destination from a multidimensional per-
spective and to identify effective management procedures, with which
benchmarking practices aimed at establishing cooperative relationships
and joint improvement strategies between the destinations considered
can be dened.
On the other hand, the European Commission points out the need to
improve Europe's image and its perception as a set of quality and sus-
tainable tourist destinations. The improvements achieved in this sense
are considered fundamental to strengthen the attractiveness of destina-
tions and improve the ow of demand, not only attracting more non-
European visitors but consolidating the domestic demand.
In order to address this need, in this paper we have proposed a Sus-
tainable Tourism Country-Brand Ranking which allows the assessing of
the perception of the brand of each destination in terms of sustainabil-
ity. To dene this ranking we have taken as a basis a composite indicator
obtained from the sustainable tourism indicators system previously de-
ned. This composite indicator has been obtained using the methodol-
ogy of the net goal programming composite indicator. Unlike the
empirical applications which have used this methodology until now,
the research team has focused on using information provided by a
panel of 57 experts in sustainable tourism to determine the value of
the weights. The relevance of the contributions of the panel members
and their different areas of work and geographic diversity has allowed
us to guarantee the reliability of the experts' valuations.
In the absence of an external source of reference, the research team
used a practical rule to quantify the aspiration levels. These values provide
a sense of which destinations are doing best in terms of attaining common
sustainability targets. The continued use of the indicators system proposed
could contribute to a consensus at an European level of objective values for
each indicator that can be used in the future as aspiration levels. These are
associated with the achievement of the objective of sustainable tourism.
The Sustainable Tourism Country-Brand Ranking proposed and its con-
tinuous updating would improve the image of European areas as quality
and sustainable destinations to attract a greater volume of tourism
demand. This tourism demand could also discriminate between the differ-
ent European destinations on the basis of its classication in this sustain-
ability ranking. Our proposal is to use this information to create a
Sustainable Tourism Labels System which would implement Action 18 of
the proposal of the European Commission in its communication of 30
June 2010.
The award of the Sustainable Tourism Label is subject to the application
of suitable management in the destination. In order to discriminate and
provide more information about the type of management carried out at
each national level, we specically propose creating three types of labels
of tourism sustainability. In addition, we dene subcategories within each
type of label which allow the calibrating of the kinds of management.
Along with the improvement of the image of each destination, this
type of labelling system recognises the better management of tourism
as a sustainable activity. Countries receive an incentive to maintain and
improve their position in the ranking. This concurrently favours the shar-
ing of experiences and the establishing of practices for benchmarking. As
the effects of the policies put into practice to encourage sustainable tour-
ism may not appear in the short term, we propose awarding the label
every three years. In this way, countries have enough time to implement
practical actions whose results allow the improvement of sustainable
tourism from a social, economical and/or environmental point of view.
The analysis presented in this paper is the beginning of the study of a
key issue for the sustainable development of European tourism. This
should be further developed to improve the labelling system and assess
its implications and the improvements that the use of labels has on the
destination activity.
Also, although the labelling system proposed is dened to manage
destination branding at a national level, destination branding can be
carried out at different, minor territorial levels. Small urban, rural and
coastal cities, resorts, regions and other territories that share a group
of common tourist resources can develop a sustainable tourism brand
evaluation which considers the disparity within the country. The avail-
ability of statistical information to quantify the initial indicators system
is a key issue for the success of this type of analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the referees for their
valuable and helpful comments, which have contributed to improve
the quality of the paper. This research has been partially funded by the
research projects of Pablo de Olavide University by Grants [number
APP2D06058 and number APPB813070] and the Andalusian Regional
Government (Spain) by Grant [number SEJ-6728].
54 F.J. Blancas et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54 (2015) 3954
References
Bign, J.E., Snchez, M.I., Snchez, J., 2001. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behavior: inter-relationship. Tour. Manag. 22 (6), 607616.
Blancas, F.J., Caballero, R., Gonzlez, M., Lozano, M., Prez, F., 2010a. Goal programming
synthetic indicators: an application for sustainable tourism in Andalusian coastal
counties. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11), 21582172.
Blancas, F.J., Gonzlez, M., Lozano, M., Prez, F., 2010b. The assessment of sustainable
tourism: application to Spanish coastal destinations. Ecol. Indic. 10, 484492.
Blancas, F.J., Lozano, M., Gonzlez, M., Guerrero, F.M., Caballero, R., 2011. How to use sus-
tainability indicators for tourism planning: the case of rural tourism in Andalusia
(Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 412413, 2845.
Choi, H.C., Sirakaya, E., 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism.
Tour. Manag. 27, 12741289.
Clarke, J., 1997. A framework of approach to sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 5 (3),
224233.
Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., Sherbinin, A., 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index:
Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. Yale Center of Environmental
Law and Policy, New Haven, Conn.
European Commission, 2003. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Com-
mittee of the Regions. Basic Orientations for the Sustainability of European Tourism.
Commission of the European Communities, COM, Brussels (716 nal).
European Commission, 2007. Communication from the Commission: Agenda for a
Sustainable and Competitive European Tourism. Commission of the European
Communities, COM, Brussels (621 nal).
European Commission, 2010. Europe, the world's no 1 tourist destination a new polit-
ical framework for tourism in Europe. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions (Brussels, 30.6.2010. COM (2010) 352 nal).
Farsari, Y., Prastacos, P., 2002. Sustainable tourism indicators. Case-study for the munici-
pality of Hersonissos. Paper presented at the International Scientic Conference on
Tourism on islands and specic destinations, Chios.
Future Brand, 2012. The FutureBrand Country Brand Index. http://www.futurebrand.
com/foresight/cbi (accessed 03.09.13).
Gallego, I., Moniche, A., 2005. Sistema de Indicadores Territoriales para un Destino Turstico.
Paper presented at Conferencia de la OMT Iguaz, Argentina/Brasil/Paraguay: La Cuenta
Satlite de Turismo (CST): Comprender el Turismo y Disear Estrategias.
Gudmundsson, H., 2003. Making concepts matter: sustainable mobility and indicators
systems in transport policy. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 55, 199217.
Hardy, A., Beeton, R.J.S., Pearson, L., 2002. Sustainable tourism: an overview of the concept and
its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 10 (6), 475496.
Hermans, E., Van den Bossche, F., Wets, G., 2008. Impact of methodological choices on
road safety ranking. Proceedings of the International Conference on Sensitivity
Analysis of Model Output Budapest, Hungary, 1822 June 2007.
Hezri, A.A., 2004. Sustainability indicator system and policy issues in Malaysia: a
framework for utilisation and learning. J. Environ. Manag. 73, 357371.
Ivanova, I., Arcelus, F.J., Srinivasan, F., 1999. An assessment of the measurement properties
of the Human Development Index. Soc. Indic. Res. 46 (2), 157179.
Jesinghaus, J., 1997. Sustainability indicators. In: Moldan, B., Billharz, S. (Eds.), Sustainabil-
ity Indicators. Report on the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Keller, K.L., 1998. Strategies Brand Management: Building Measuring and Managing
Brand Equity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F.J., Gonzlez, M., Caballero, R., 2012. Sustainable tourism indi-
cators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 18, 659675.
Martnez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a founda-
tion for ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 26, 277286.
Mauerhofer, V., 2008. 3-D sustainability: an approach for priority setting in situation of
conicting interests towards a Sustainable Development. Ecol. Econ. 64, 496506.
Miller, G., 2001. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a Delphi
survey of tourism researchers. Tour. Manag. 22, 351362.
Moldan, B., Janouskova, S., Hak, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environmental
sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic. 17, 413.
Munda, G., Nardo, M., 2005. Constructing Consistent Composite Indicators: The Issue of
Weights. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. European Commis-
sion, Luxembourg.
Nader, M.R., Salloum, B.A., Karam, N., 2008. Environment and sustainable development
indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecol. Indic. 8, 771777.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E., 2005a.
Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide.
OECD Statistics Working Papers.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., 2005b. Tools for Composite Indicators Build-
ing. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, European Commission.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2008. Handbook on
constructing composite indicators. Methodology and User Guide. Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
Orsi, F., Geneletti, D., Newton, A.C., 2011. Towards a common set of criteria and indicators
to identify forest restoration priorities: an expert panel-based approach. Ecol. Indic.
11, 337347.
Paracchini, M.L., Pacini, C., Jones, M.L.M., Prez-Soba, M., 2011. An aggregation framework
to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evalu-
ation of policy options. Ecol. Indic. 11, 7180.
Qu, H., Kim, L.H., Im, H.H., 2011. A model of destination branding: integrating the concepts
of the branding and destination image. Tour. Manag. 32, 465476.
Sajeva, M., Gatelli, D., Tarantola, S., Hollanders, H., 2005. Methodology report on European
Innovation Scoreboard 2005. A discussion Paper from the Innovation/SMEs
Programme. European Commission.
Sancho, A., Garca, G., 2006. Qu indica un Indicador? Anlisis Comparativo en los
Destinos Tursticos. Rev. Anl. Turstico 2, 6985.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.F., Lanoie, P., 2010. Measuring the sustainability of
cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 10, 407418.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Therrien, M.-C., 2013. Sustainable tourism indicators:
selection criteria for policy implementation and scientic recognition. J. Sustain.
Tour. 21 (6), 862879.
Tsaur, H.S., Lin, Y.C., Lin, J.H., 2006. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrat-
ed perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tour. Manag. 27, 640653.
Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A., Ng, S.T., 2006. Sustainability appraisal in in-
frastructure projects (SUSAIP) part 1. Development of indicators and computational
methods. Autom. Constr. 15, 239251.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), 1993. Tourism: the year 2000
and beyond qualitative aspects. Discussion Paper. World Tourism Organization.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), 1996. What Tourism Managers
Need to Know: A practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of
Sustainable Tourism. World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), 2004. Indicators of sustainable
development for tourism destinations. In: World Tourism Organization (Ed.), A
Guidebook. Madrid (Madrid).
Von Winterfeld, D., Ward, E., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research.
Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Zarzosa, M.P., 1996. Aproximacin a la medicin del bienestar social. Idoneidad del
indicador sinttico Distancia-P2. Cuad. Econ. 24, 139163.
Zhou, L., Tokos, H., Krajnc, D., 2012. Sustainability performance evaluation in industry by
composite sustainability index. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 14, 789803.
Dr. Francisco J. Blancas is an Assistant Professor in the De-
partment of Economics, Quantitative Methods and Economic
History at Pablo de Olavide University (Seville, Spain) since
2003. His research focuses on sustainable tourism, sustainabil-
ity indicators and constructing composite indicators methods.
He has published on these topics in several well-known inter-
national journals such as Ecological Indicators, Ecological Eco-
nomics, Social Indicator Research, Journal of Gender Studies or
Science of the Total Environment. In addition, his research in-
terests are related to wellbeing, social indicators and other
elds where indicators are used as measurement tools.
Dr. Macarena Lozano-Oyola is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Economics, Quantitative Methods and Eco-
nomic History at Pablo de Olavide University (Seville, Spain)
since 2011. She has published research papers in scientic
journals (such as Journal of Environmental Management, Eco-
logical Indicators, Ecological Economics, Science of the Total
Environment). She has involved in seven nanced research
contracts. She is a referee in scientic journals as Tourism
Management, Journal of Environmental Management, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, International
Journal of Hospitality Management. Her main research
interests are in sustainable development, environmental
management system and sustainable tourism indicators.
Dr. Mercedes Gonzlez is an Associate Professor in the De-
partment of Applied Economics (Mathematics), at University
of Malaga (Spain) since 2000. Currently she teaches the ofcial
subjects of Mathematics in the School of Business Administra-
tion and Economics. She has published several research papers
in scientic journals (such as European Journal of Operational
Research, TOP, Ecological Economics, Ecological Indicators),
three books, sixteen book chapters and forty-nine conference
proceedings. She has participated in sixteen research con-
tracts. Her main research interests are in economic applica-
tions of optimization methods, multicriteria decision analysis
and constructing composite indicators.