See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319300795

Reviewing integrated sustainability indicators for tourism

Article  in  Journal of Sustainable Tourism · August 2017

DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1364741

CITATIONS READS

14 630

3 authors:

Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir Rannveig Ólafsdóttir

Tourism & Sustainability research University of Iceland
2 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   731 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kristin Vala Ragnarsdottir

University of Iceland
200 PUBLICATIONS   4,579 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SIMRESS, UBA, Germany View project

SoilTrEC View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir on 08 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Reviewing integrated sustainability indicators for

tourism

Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir, Rannveig Ólafsdóttir & Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir

To cite this article: Kristín Rut Kristjánsdóttir, Rannveig Ólafsdóttir & Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir
(2017): Reviewing integrated sustainability indicators for tourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1364741

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1364741

Published online: 25 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 138

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20

Download by: [84.219.149.210] Date: 08 November 2017, At: 00:18

 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1364741

Reviewing integrated sustainability indicators for tourism

Krist
ın Rut Kristj
ansdo


ttira, Rannveig Olafsd
ttira and Krist
ın Vala Ragnarsdo
o
ttir b

a
Institute of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjav
ık, Iceland; bFaculty of Earth Sciences,
University of Iceland, Reykjav
ık, Iceland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Integrated sustainability indicators for tourism (ISIT) address tourism as an Received 9 June 2016
element of both economic and socio-ecological systems and as actively Accepted 27 July 2017
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

integrated in multi-level policy-making and planning. This paper aims to KEYWORDS

review studies of ISIT in peer-reviewed journals with a focus on Sustainability; indicator;
methodological approaches. By specifically examining ISIT, this study tourism; integrated; system;
embraces the interdisciplinary nature of both sustainability science and socio-ecological system
tourism studies. The results are based on a systematic literature review
and categorization of the studies’ academic disciplines, methods and
organization of indicators. The results reveal that despite being a relatively
young area of study, research on ISIT has developed simultaneously across
multiple academic disciplines, and is expanding. There seems to be
greater interest in developing new methodologies than applying existing
indicator frameworks. Most papers refer to indicators thematically and
thus discuss tourism separately in the contexts of environmental, social or
economic impact. However, emerging approaches analyze tourism as a
system of interconnected components and an element of multi-level
policy-making. These approaches emphasize public participation and a
continuous redefinition of sustainability challenges in response to
changes in socio-ecological systems. Current research on ISIT thus focuses
on the interconnectedness of indicators and sustainable development as a
dynamic process rather than an end goal.

Introduction
According to the United Nations (UN) (2017, para. 4), sustainable development is development that
“meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs”. Furthermore, the UN definition (2017, para. 5) includes the statement that “[f]or sustain-
able development to be achieved, it is crucial to harmonize three core elements: economic growth,
social inclusion and environmental protection. These elements are interconnected and all are crucial
for the well-being of individuals and societies”. In 2015, specific targets that include tourism were
added to three of the UN sustainable development goals (World Tourism Organization, 2017).
This demonstrates support for studies on tourism which emphasize that the complexity of socio-
ecological systems (SESs), and sustainability as a dynamic process rather than an end result, should
be integral to tourism research and development (e.g. Briassoulis, 2002; Buckley, 2012; Farrell &
Twining-Ward, 2004; Milne & Ateljevic, 2001; Moscardo & Murphy, 2014; Saarinen, 2014; Valentin &
Spangenberg, 2000). Similarly, the present paper calls for a more in-depth and integrated analysis of
the impact of tourism on livelihoods and a more holistic view of sustainability issues by viewing tour-
ism as one component in a broader system of sustainable development.

CONTACT Krist
ın Rut Kristj
ansd
ottir sustainability.tourism@gmail.com; krk1@hi.is

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

Sustainability indicators are established tools for assessing and monitoring sustainable develop-
ment strategies (Bell & Morse, 2003; UN, 2007). As such, sustainability indicators can lead to better
decisions and more effective actions by simplifying, clarifying and aggregating the information avail-
able to policy-makers while also communicating the ideas, thoughts and values of different stake-
holder groups (UN, 2007). For this purpose, sustainability indicators for all levels of decision-making
have been developed and promoted by the UN pursuant to the Agenda 21 action plan on sustain-
able development, which was adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (The Earth Summit) (UN, 2007). Since 1992, a great deal of research has been
carried out on the development of sustainability indicators, and various programmes, projects and
applications of indicator frameworks have been developed within a range of research disciplines.
Nevertheless, up until the turn of the last century, many of these efforts focused exclusively on the
interchange between the physical environment and economic growth (e.g. McKercher, 1993; Milne &
Ateljevic, 2001; Pearce, Hamilton, & Atkinson, 1996; Victor, 1991). It was not until the UN World sum-
mit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in 2002 that the social pillar was effectively inte-
grated into the definition of sustainable development, and according to H
ak, Janouskova, and
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Moldan (2016), it was not fully embraced in UN documents before the publication of the Rio +20 doc-
ument “The Future we want” in 2012. Thus, the majority of academic publications on sustainability
indicators which integrate all three dimensions of sustainability post-date the turn of the millennium.
Within tourism studies, numerous researchers emphasize that indicators are crucial for identifying
and monitoring sustainable development of tourism (e.g. Buckley, 2003; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; John-
sen, Bieger, & Scherer, 2008; Miller, 2001; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). Scholarly interest in this
subject coincided with the World Tourism Organization’s promotion of indicators of sustainable tour-
ism, starting with the publication of its first set of indicators in 1996 (WTO, 1996). These indicators
were considered the first highly developed tools for operationalization of sustainable development
in any tourism destination context (Dymond, 1997). Concurrently, there was a convergence of discus-
sions about whether sustainability indicators for tourism should address the sustainability of tourism
itself or the development of tourism in line with overall sustainable development principles
(e.g. Butler, 1999; Sharpley, 2000). This has in turn given rise to a theoretical divide and a re-conceptu-
alization of sustainable tourism, whereby some scholars go so far as to claim that there is no such
thing as sustainable tourism, but that tourism should rather be considered in terms of its potential
contributions to sustainable development (Moscardo & Murphy, 2014; Saarinen, 2014).
This paper focuses specifically on integrated sustainability indicators for tourism (ISIT). ISIT are
indicators that both (i) analyze tourism as an element of complex SESs and thereby equally serve to
monitor environmental, economic and social conditions in the surrounding SES (Miller & Twining-
Ward, 2005); and (ii) are intended to be an integrated element of overall policy-making and planning,
and not solely within tourism management (Budruk & Phillips, 2011; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000).
Such indicators are sometimes referred to as product-related indicators, which is to say indicators that
measure the effects of tourism on its SES, in contrast to market-related, which are indicators that focus
on the sustainability of tourism itself (Weaver & Lawton, 1999). The overall aim of the present paper is
to review studies of ISIT in peer-reviewed journals with a particular focus on methodological
approaches, and to critically discuss how these papers differ from papers that adopt other
approaches to sustainability indicators and tourism.

Integrated sustainability assessment and tourism

Sustainability science combines work in the field of environmental science with the findings of eco-
nomic, social and development studies in order to better understand the complex dynamic interac-
tions between environmental, social and economic systems and their long-term effects on one
another (Kasemir, J€ager, Jaeger & Gardner, 2003). Furthermore, sustainable development is viewed
by many as a dynamic process of making SESs more sustainable, adaptive and resilient (Berkes,
Colding, & Folke, 2003; Folke, 2006; Kates et al., 2001). Integrated sustainability assessment is
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 3

therefore crucial in order to manage the complex and unpredictable nature of SESs and their multiple
stakeholders (Walker et al., 2002) and acknowledge that various issues are simultaneously related to
local contexts and larger external systems (Kristj
ansdo
ttir, 2014). Although the literature to date has
mainly focused on pinpointing the value of an integrated approach to sustainability indicators, some
scholars have developed methods to accommodate such an approach (e.g. McDonald, 2009;
Plummer & Fennell, 2009; Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2010).
Ness, Urbel-Piirsalu, Anderberg, and Olsson (2007) state that the broad purpose of sustainability
assessment is to provide decision-makers with a tool with which to evaluate SESs and assistance in
integrating sustainable development into their decision-making processes. According to Bond,
Morrison-Saunders, and Pope (2012), the earliest publication on sustainability assessment dates back
to 1957, and in 1998, there were still just eight publications on the subject. Since the turn of the
millennium, the number of publications has increased nearly twenty-fold. In general, the main focus
of these studies is specific case studies, while some of the more recent publications call for a more
integrated approach (Bond et al., 2012; Ness et al., 2007; Pissourios, 2013; Schianetz & Kavanagh,
2008; Simpson, 2009). Sustainability indicators are often defined (e.g. Ness et al., 2007) as simple
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

quantitative measurements that document the state of economic, social and/or environmental devel-
opment in a specific region. However, Hamilton and Attwater (1997) emphasize that indicators can
possess a significance that considerably exceeds the properties associated with the parameter value.
Pissourios (2013) carried out an assessment of the similarities and differences between
approaches to sustainability indicators in five different scientific fields: social or quality-of-life indica-
tors; macroeconomic indicators; environmental indicators; welfare indicators of ecological econom-
ics, and; sustainability indicators. Each of these indicators contains elements that are of use when
assessing sustainability in complex SESs, but none of them provide a fully integrated assessment. It is
indeed true that the various proposed definitions of sustainability are at times contradictory, espe-
cially between different academic disciplines, but, as Mayer, Thurston, and Pawlowski (2004) point
out, no sustainability index is likely to document all interactions between humans and the environ-
ment. More recently, however, Costanza et al. (2016) have proposed a Sustainable Wellbeing Index
(SWI) with the aim of achieving the goals of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Of
particular note here is that the SWI integrates indicators of economic contribution, ecosystem serv-
ices contribution and community contribution, and is therefore likely to encourage more integrated
approaches to sustainability indicator development.
Tourism has both positive and negative impacts on all three components of sustainability and the
wider SES in which it takes place. In order to carry out an integrated sustainability assessment, these
impacts need to be studied, and the interaction between the tourism activity and the surrounding
SES understood (Liu, 2003; Miller & Twining-Ward, 2005). Accordingly, a typology of tourism indica-
tors that aim to measure progress in broader planning and sustainable development policy goals in a
national context, or as formulated by Hall (2000, p. 191) “sustainable place futures that involve tour-
ism”, would certainly seem to be much more rewarding for all tourism stakeholders, and emphasizes
that sustainability indicators for tourism need to be integrated in line with the definition of ISIT set
out in the introduction to the present paper. Hall furthermore considers the problem with imple-
menting sustainability indicators for tourism largely to revolve around an evaluation of what is meant
by “future”, how long-term is “long-term” and how short-term is “short-term”. Hall (2011) further
stresses that this kind of interpretational vacuum allows strategies that are meant to be long-term to
be reduced to political or economic short-term benefits which sometimes entail quick fixes with
respect to environmental or social issues. Stakeholders may also have differing motives for develop-
ing integrated indicators. For this reason, it is important to set a goal for assessing sustainability that
all tourism stakeholders agree on and understand (e.g. Johnsen et al., 2008), and not merely those
that benefit directly from rising visitor numbers
Above all, effective sustainability indicators should render complex SESs understandable without
oversimplifying the reality of stakeholders’ needs and the carrying capacity of the physical environ-
ment (Bossel, 1996; Hall, 2000; Liu, 2003). It is thus important to select not only the most visible and
 4

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

more easily measurable indicators, as proposed by Bossel (1999, 2001) and Miller and Twining-Ward
(2005), but that equal weight is given to social, environmental and economic indicators. Although it
was not until 2015 that targets on tourism were added to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) (World Tourism Organization, 2017), it is essential to unite the visions of integrated SDGs with
the vision of sustainable tourism. The specific SDG targets are to (i) devise and implement policies to
promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture (SDG 8, which focuses on
economic growth, Target 8.9); (ii) develop and implement tools to monitor the sustainable develop-
ment impact of sustainable tourism which creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
(SDG 12, which focuses on sustainable consumption and production, Target 12b), and (iii) increase
the economic benefits for Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries from the
sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aqua-
culture and tourism (SDG 14, which focuses on the sustainable use of marine resources, Target 14.7).
Thus, do the specific targets, taken together, exhibit that tourism takes account of all three dimen-
sions of sustainability, and of the complexity of the overall impact of tourism on SESs.
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Methods
A systematic literature review was carried out to map ISIT in publications in peer-reviewed journals.
The benefits of utilizing a systematic review in the present study are that this approach better visual-
izes the rationale behind categorizing and analyzing certain aspects of the selected papers as well as
providing an explicit and transparent presentation of the results (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006; Tranfield,
Denyer, & Smart, 2003). By focusing on ISIT specifically, the present study attempts to embrace the
interdisciplinary nature of both sustainability science and tourism studies. According to Hall (2014),
research of relevance to tourism is not exclusively published in journals of tourism studies, and many
reviews that aim to systematically analyze literature on tourism are not inclusive. Accordingly, in
order to minimize the risk of leaving out important findings, more than one combination of search
terms was employed, while a manual filtering review was used to exclude papers that did not discuss
ISIT. Additionally, given that a search for “integrated sustainability indicator tourism” produces very
few results, this was not considered a viable option.
The systematic literature review consisted of three steps: (1) search criteria, (2) filtering, and
(3) review and categorization (Figure 1). In Step 1, a total of three database searches were conducted,
in January 2015, January 2016 and January 2017, using two of the world’s largest search engines,
namely the LUB search engine at Lund University Libraries in Sweden, and Web of Science. The
search was restricted to English, since English is the predominant language in international academic
publishing, and as a consequence it is possible that the sample does not include important studies
published in other languages. The literature review only includes papers published in peer-reviewed
journal. Thus, material published elsewhere, such as conference proceedings, reports of applied
methodology and existing indicators that are either unpublished or have been applied at tourist des-
tinations fall outside of the scope of this study. Examples of such material are the International Insti-
tute of Sustainable Development’s (IISD’s) indicators, UNWTO’s Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria
(GSTC), and the work of the European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS), the ISIS Academy’s ISIS
method, and the Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles (Bellagio STAMP).
The initial search included the terms “sustainability indicator” in the title field and “tourism” in the
abstract/topic field. The second search included “sustainable tourism” in the title field and “indicator”
in the abstract/topic field. No restrictions were stipulated for year of publication. The search via LUB
resulted in a total of 66 papers, while the search via Web of Science resulted in 65 papers. After
accounting for duplicates, the total number of papers was 82.
In Step 2 (Figure 1), the selected papers were filtered by means of a manual abstract review. This
filtering excluded papers on the basis of one or more of the following criteria: (i) the paper was not
integrated, which is to say its central topics only address one dimension of sustainability, for example
economic sustainability, social or socioeconomic indicators, environmental certifications, natural
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 5

a) “sustainability indicator” in title

Step 1: + “tourism” in abstract
N= 82
Search criteria b) “sustainable tourism” in title +
“indicator” in abstract

Studies excluded:
i) only one dimension of
Step 2: sustainability covered
ii) the word indicator was not used N= 48
Filtering in the context of sustainability
indicator
iii) bad quality of text
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Categorization of approaches represented in the papers:

Step 3: 1) what disciplinary tradition did the paper represent?;
Review and categorization 2) what was the general aim of the paper?;
3) what methodological approaches did the paper represent?;
4) are the indicators in the paper organized thematically (i.e.
environmental, social and economic) or by another approach?

Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the selection procedure and categorization of the systematic literature review.

capital or ecological footprint (a total of 24 papers were excluded on the basis of this criterion); (ii) the
paper did not include sustainability indicators at all, or included the word indicator but not in the
context of sustainability indicator (a total of 30 papers excluded); (iii) the paper was so poorly written
that it was impossible to determine its relevance (a total of 3 papers excluded). This process resulted
in the selection of 48 papers, which were then to be subjected to a full paper review and categoriza-
tion. In Step 3 (Figure 1), the diversity of the approaches that were represented in the papers was cat-
egorized by means of a systematic review. This was done by asking the following questions: (1) what
disciplinary tradition did the paper represent?; (2) what was the general aim of the paper?; (3) what
methodological approaches did the paper employ?; and (4) are the indicators presented in the paper
organized thematically (i.e. environmental, social and economic) or by means of another method?
The categorization of papers according to question 1 was based upon Saarinen (2006, 2014), while
the categorization of papers according to question 3 was based upon Tanguay, Rajaonson, and Ther-
rien (2013). Saarinen (2006, 2014) identifies three research traditions in which scholars have engaged
in research on sustainability and tourism, namely, Resource-based, Community-based and Activity-
based research. Making use of these concepts, in question 1, the aim was to categorize papers on sus-
tainability indicators for tourism according to whether or not they adhere to the research traditions of
(i) environmental management, natural resources management and geography (Resource-based);
(ii) community development studies and sustainable livelihoods studies (Community-based); and (iii)
economics and business schools (Activity-based). This was done on the basis of the academic affilia-
tion of the paper’s first author, i.e. the name of the department in which they are or were employed
and their current research topics. Tanguay et al. (2013) note three strategies in indicator develop-
ment: (1) using frameworks developed by international organizations such as the World Tourism
Organization; (2) construction of new sector-specific systems of indicators; and (3) contextualization
 6

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

of existing work on indicators. Drawing on this, the papers were, in question 3, categorized into three
groups according to their research aims and methodology: (i) use of established indicator frame-
works or indices and application of them to a case study; (ii) development of new sets of indicators
or frameworks for identifying indicators; and (iii) contextualizing literature on indicators.

Results
The selection procedure resulted in 48 papers on ISIT within the academic literature published in
English (see Appendix). All of the papers date from this millennium, with the oldest published in
2001. The number of papers published on this subject has grown steadily since 2005 and the papers
from each group are evenly distributed across the 16 years that the searches revealed (Figure 2). This
indicates that research on ISIT is increasing simultaneously in multiple disciplines despite it being a
relatively new area of research. The search for “sustainability indicator + tourism” produced 18 results,
while the search for “sustainable tourism + indicator” produced 30 results. There is only a slight differ-
ence in the level of interdisciplinarity between the two sets of results. A total of 56% of the sustain-
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

ability indicator + tourism category of papers are published in journals with the word “tourism” in
their title, while the corresponding figure for papers in the sustainable tourism + indicator category
was 47%. Altogether, 50% of the selected papers are published in journals with “tourism” in the title,
which strongly suggests that the papers selected represent an interdisciplinary sample.
The majority of the papers are categorized as Activity-based (40%), papers that aim to develop
new sets or frameworks of indicators (63%), and papers that employ a thematic approach to organiz-
ing indicators (62%) (Figure 3). The Activity-based papers are distributed equally across the years
2007–2015, and the majority of them are published in tourism journals. Over half (54%) of the Activ-
ity-based papers have the aim of developing new sets of indicators, and these papers’ most common
methodological approach is literature review. Out of all of the papers that focus on contextualizing
composite indicators, indices and indicator weighting processes, two-thirds originate in an Activity-
based research tradition (70%). It is noteworthy that emphasis on stakeholder involvement or public
participation is only represented in two of the Activity-based papers. It is in Resource-based papers,
by contrast, that stakeholder involvement and/or public participation has the highest representation
(50%). Resource-based papers represent the most diverse approaches to indicator development,
since they employ thematic approaches to organizing indicators, composite indicators and indices,
as well as spatial and systemic approaches to organizing indicators. Over half (65%) of the Resource-
based papers are dedicated to developing new sets of indicators in a case study. Resource-based
research on sustainability indicators appears to be on the rise, given that more than half of the papers
in this group were published in 2013 or later.

7
sustainable tourism +
6
indicator
5
Number of papers

sustainability
indicator + tourism
4

0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 2. Number of papers in peer-reviewed academic journals on integrated sustainability indicators for tourism.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 7
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Figure 3. An overview of integrated sustainability indicators for tourism in peer-reviewed academic journals categorized in groups
of research traditions, research aim, methodological approaches and how indicators are organized.

A total of 15% of the reviewed papers are Community-based. All were published before 2012,
which indicates that ISIT research in this group of research traditions is on the decline. Five of these
papers aim to develop new sets of indicators, while only one builds on an existing indicator frame-
work. Stakeholder involvement is a priority in the majority of the Community-based papers. Finally,
10% of the reviewed papers are Systems-based and have a different focus to the three aforemen-
tioned categories in that they are more attentive to the complexity of tourism systems, the intercon-
nectedness of indicators, and do not make use of existing indicator frameworks.
There is no significant difference between the proportion of the sample that employ the Delphi
approach or other expert panel methods (19%) and those that apply public participation or stake-
holder involvement methods (29%) (Figure 3). Only two of the papers employed a combination of
both methods, namely Mearns (2011) and Marzo-Navarro, Pedraja-Iglesias, and Vinzo
n (2015). The
results furthermore show that these two methodological approaches have been visible in indicator
development, with an even distribution throughout the sample period.
On the other hand, judging by the sample, systemic and spatial methods first started to emerge in
2007 and are gaining popularity, with half of the papers employing these methods being published
in 2013 or later. These papers account for a total of 25% of the selected papers (12 out of 48). These
are: “Analytical hierarchy process or Analytical network process” (Aminu, Matori, Yusof, & Zainol,
2014; Barzekar, Aziz, Mariapan, Ismail, & Hosseni, 2011; Tsaur & Wang, 2007); “Fuzzy logic and Fuzzy
Delphi approach” (Lee & Hsieh, 2016; Stojanovi
c, 2011; Tsaur & Wang, 2007; Wang, Lee, Chateau, &
Chang, 2016); “Systemic indicator systems method and Complex adaptive systems approach” (Schia-
netz & Kavanagh, 2008; Torres-Delgado & Palomeque, 2014); “Pairwise comparison and GIS” (Aminu
 8

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

et al., 2013, 2014); “Data envelopment analysis and Principal component analysis” (Pe
rez, Guerrero,
Gonz
alez, P
erez, & Caballero, 2013); “Value-focused thinking framework” (Ch
avez-Cort
es & Alc
antara
Maya, 2010); and “Matrix conceptual model and Leopold matrix” (Iliopoulou-Georgudaki, Kalogeras,
Kanstatinopoulos, & Theodoropoulos, 2016; Pomering, Noble, & Johnson, 2011). Out of these 12
papers, five were published in journals with the word “tourism” in the title. The vast majority (83%) of
the papers refer to indicators thematically. Eight papers (17%) are an exception to this rule (Aminu
et al., 2013, 2014; Buckley, 2012; Iliopoulou-Georgudaki et al., 2016; Lee & Hseih, 2016; Lew, Ng, Ni, &
Wu, 2016; Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008; Tsaur & Wang, 2007). This indicates a growing interest in
developing new approaches to indicators.
Finally, 63% (30/48) of the papers are dedicated to developing new sets of indicators, with most of
these based on specific case studies. Only 10% (6 out of 48) employ existing indicator frameworks
and apply them to a case study, while the remaining 25% (12 out of 48) focus on discussing and con-
textualizing existing indicator work. The results furthermore indicate that there is no clear consensus
on one universally accepted framework of indicators.
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Discussion
This review stresses the fact that, to date, very few studies within the academic literature focus on
ISIT. Furthermore, all of the studies are very recent, with the oldest dating from the year 2001. The
fact that a greater number of studies are not integrated gives reason to believe the criticism com-
monly levelled at sustainability indicators, namely that they only to a partial extent improve our
understanding of development (e.g. Chan & Huang, 2004). This is supported by Miller and Twining-
Ward (2005, p. 81), who state that due to “a general lack of understanding about sustainability, the
tourism industry is faced with its own public awareness issues, such that at a national level, govern-
ments will almost always be more occupied with other areas of public life than tourism”. This state-
ment, written more than ten years ago, remains no less true today. Thus, interdisciplinary
involvement in tourism studies, evident in the results of this study, and efforts to move towards a sys-
tems approach to sustainable development, as emphasized by Liu (2003), remain especially
important.
Bond et al. (2012) note a lack of papers on sustainability assessment that have contributed to con-
ceptual advancement in the field. However, the results of this study demonstrate that almost all the
papers that focus on ISIT either discuss and contextualize existing indicator work or advance new
methodology or frameworks (90%). Systemic methods emerged in 2007, while systemic approaches
to organizing indicators emerged in 2008, and of the papers that utilized these methods, only a small
number were published in journals with “tourism” in their title. This further stresses the importance
of transdisciplinarity for the development of indicators for tourism, and that integrated approaches
to indicator development are on the rise.
The results of this study indicate that the social dimension is the least integrated dimension in sus-
tainability indicator development, and this is certainly the case with respect to the integration of the
social pillar into sustainable development definitions at the United Nations World Summit on sustain-
able development in the first years of this millennium (H
ak et al., 2016). This literature review presents
only a small number of Community-based studies, none of which are recent. Furthermore, across the
sample as a whole, quantitative representations of indicators are more popular than qualitative. This
is supported by Font and Harris (2004), who claim that the social dimension is the least elaborated
dimension in sustainability indicator development, as well as Gibson, Hassan, and Tansey (2013,
p. 30), who ten years later, stress that social and qualitative assessments have been inadequate and
that sustainability assessments fail to take account of “possible systemic implications of proposed
new activities”. It is further emphasized by Bossel (1999, 2001), Liu (2003) and Miller and Twining-
Ward (2005) that it is important that it is not only the visible and more easily measurable indicators
that are studied, but that equal weight is given to social, environmental and economic indicators and
a holistic understanding of the system as a whole. Thus, Gibson et al. (2013, p. 22) describe
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 9

stakeholder involvement “devoted to empower the public” as the central element of the latest
approach to advanced sustainability assessment. More and more scholars acknowledge public partic-
ipation and stakeholder involvement as cornerstones of environmental and sustainability assessment
(Sinclair, Diduck, & Vespa, 2015), and convincing arguments have been made for why participation
should be at the heart of sustainability assessment in tourism studies specifically (Byrd, C
ardenas, &


Greenwood, 2008; Card
ın-Pedrosa & Alvarez-L
pez, 2011; Ch
avez-Cort

o es & Alc
antara Maya, 2010;
Martin & Assenov, 2014; Solstrand, 2013). The results of the present study support these arguments
and demonstrate that even though existing Community-based studies are inadequate, participation
is a cornerstone of ISIT studies. This suggests a potential for making sustainability indicators for tour-
ism more integrated.
It is noteworthy that a large majority (83%) of the papers included in this study classify indicators
thematically, which demonstrates that this is the most accepted method of categorizing indicators.
According to Weaver and Lawton (1999), thematic classification is just one of several categories that
ought to be employed when presenting and evaluating indicators, and consequently can have a limiting
effect when used in isolation. There are pros and cons to the thematic approach. As pointed out by Miller
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

and Twining-Ward (2005), indicators that are introduced via a thematic approach might contribute to
reinforcing the notion that economy, environment and society are of relatively equal importance to sus-
tainable tourism development, and likewise that these themes are discrete and do not exert an influence
on one another. By contrast, there seems to be a lack of critique of a systems approach in the literature,
which may be interpreted as indicating that this approach has yet to gain acceptance as a valid element
of the scholarly debate on indicator development. Some scholars (i.e. Chan & Huang, 2004; Jamal,
Camargo, & Wilson, 2013) suggest that indicators need to focus on community-specific aspects based
upon standardized measurements of individual features of community, or adopt a systematic micro-
perspective which evaluates communities as holistic systems. However, the results of the present study
demonstrate that there is an interest in integrating these two approaches.
Much like the Sustainable Development Goals, the aims of a systems approach may appear feasi-
ble but at the same time may be difficult to grasp. As emphasized by e.g. Castellani and Sala (2010)
and Tanguay et al. (2013), indicators are supposed to include technical and scientific methods of ana-
lyzing the three dimensions of sustainability, internal and external impacts on the system as well as
incorporate both multiple stakeholder perspectives and transdisciplinary cooperation. It is therefore
understandable that the process can seem very time-consuming, complicated and expensive. More-
over, according to Tanguay et al. (2013), indicators based on purely scientific approaches tend to
ignore or underestimate the importance of the political dimension, and thereby often fail to gain
legitimacy among policy-makers. This may be the reason why studies that include systemic and inte-
grated approaches to sustainability indicators are less frequently accepted or endorsed. However,
the results of the present study demonstrate that this approach can have a positive impact on plan-
ning and decision-making processes. As an example of this, systemic approaches presented in the
sample of papers include Systemic Indicator System (SIS) framework (Schianetz & Kavanagh, 2008),
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) (Aminu et al., 2013, 2014).
All three approaches take account of the context of local development paths and how to influence
policy-making via the indicator design by embedding in it both public participation and pairwise
comparison of local sustainability goals. Schianetz and Kavanagh (2008) further take into account
global sustainability aspects.
It would appear that systemic approaches have the potential to reduce the amount of input data
needed to evaluate sustainability challenges in small communities as well as in nationwide decision-
making processes. Nevertheless, applying pre-established frameworks and adapting them to local
conditions is sometimes regarded as the only option in indicator design. This does not appear to be
the case in the academic literature, at least based on the findings of the present study. The findings
thus support Castellani and Sala’s (2010) assertion that adapting established international indicator
frameworks to specific contexts demands time and resources that in many communities are not avail-
able. At the same time, established frameworks have yet to result in a consensus on the broad appli-
cation of a specific framework, despite cross-disciplinary discussion on the matter.
 10

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

Conclusion
World leaders in sustainability assessment, the United Nations and the World Tourism Organization,
emphasize the need for integrated approaches to sustainability indicators. For this reason, the pres-
ent paper focuses specifically on the development of ISIT. The results of the study show that, to date,
only a small number of studies on ISIT have been published, and these studies are relatively recent
compared to overall studies on sustainability indicators for tourism. However, since the turn of the
millennium, the number of ISIT studies has increased simultaneously across a range of disciplines,
providing new and important contributions to indicator methodology. Considering the rapid growth
of tourism worldwide, it is of vital importance to acknowledge this interdisciplinary development as
a fundamental contribution to systems thinking and a holistic understanding of tourism as an impor-
tant catalyst in sustainable development of SESs.
One factor explaining the hitherto limited use of ISIT might be that, to date, many studies of sus-
tainability indicators for tourism continue to neglect the social dimension of sustainability. In addition
to this, the results of the present study reveal that Community-based research on ISIT is not expand-
ing as a field of study, a trend which furthermore weakens the position of the social dimension com-
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

pared to the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. However, it may be

concluded that public participation is an important catalyst for ISIT studies, and this, together with an
increased emphasis on a systemic approach, has the potential to effectively include tourism in plan-
ning, decision-making and sustainable development.
Almost all existing studies of ISIT focus critically on either developing new systemic methodolo-
gies or discussing and adjusting established sustainability indicator frameworks. This paves the way
for two important conclusions. First, adjusting established indicator frameworks and developing new
systemic frameworks are both measures considered likely to provide better results than applying
established frameworks. Second, there is work to be done on developing ISIT, and there is a future
for ISIT research. The purpose of ISIT research should thus be to aid decision-makers in evaluating
the multifaceted role of tourism within complex SESs. In this way, scientists can better contribute to a
long-term understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by tourism rather than sim-
ply offering short-term solutions to sustainability issues.

Acknowledgments
Dr David Folkmann Drost and Hugh Atkinson are acknowledged for English proof reading.

Disclosure statement
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

Funding
University of Iceland Research Fund; Friends of Vatnaj€
okull Association, a non-profit NGO and funding body for research
in Vatnaj€
okull National Park.

Notes on contributors
Krist
ın Rut Kristj
ottir is a PhD student in tourism studies. Krist
ın holds a BSc in tourism studies from the University of
ansd

Iceland and an MSc in sustainability science from Lund University Centre of Sustainability Science. Krist
ın has partici-
pated in several research projects regarding sustainability in tourism development mostly in the northern periphery.
Main research interests include sustainable tourism development, public participation, spatial analysis and systems
dynamics analysis.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 11

Rannveig Olafsd
ottir is a physical geographer with her main focus on the interrelationship between tourism and the
environment. Rannveig works as a professor in tourism studies at the Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, Univer-
sity of Iceland. Her special research interests are on tourism environmental impacts, tourism and wilderness, wilderness
mapping, geotourism, tourism spatiotemporal modelling using system dynamics and GIS, public participation, and sus-
tainable tourism management.

Krist
ın Vala Ragnarsd
ottir is a professor of geology and sustainability science at the Institute of Earth Sciences and Insti-
tute for Sustainability Studies at the University of Iceland (UI). Her transdisciplinary studies include determining sustain-
ability indicators and ecosystem services for soil as well as developing frameworks, processes and indicators for
sustainable communities with food security at the centre.

ORCID
Krist
ın Vala Ragnarsd

ottir http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6958-0734

References
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Aall, C., Dodds, R., Sælensminde, I., & Brendehaug, E. (2015). Introducing the concept of environmental policy integration
into the discourse on sustainable tourism: A way to improve policy-making and implementation? Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 23(7), 977–989.
Aminu, M., Ludin, A., Matori, A-N., Yusof, K. W., Dano, L. U., & Chandio, I. (2013). A spatial decision support system (SDSS)
for sustainable tourism planning in Johor Ramsar sites, Malaysia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 70(3), 1113–1124.
Aminu, M., Matori, A-N., Yusof, K. W., & Zainol, R. B. (2014). Application of geographic information system (GIS) and ana-
lytic network process (ANP) for sustainable tourism planning in Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. Applied Mechanics &
Materials, 567, 769–774.
Amiryan, H., & Silva, G. (2013). Sustainable tourism development in Armenia. International Journal of Management Cases,
15(4), 153–169.
Barzekar, G., Aziz, A., Mariapan, M., Ismail, M. H., & Hosseni, S. M. (2011). Using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for prior-
itizing and ranking of ecological indicators for monitoring sustainability of ecotourism in Northern Forest, Iran. Ecolo-
gia Balkanica, 3(1), 59–67.
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003, March). Learning from experience in sustainability. Proceedings of international sustainable
development research conference 2003, Nottingham, UK.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems. Building resilience for complexity and
change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackstock, K. L., White, V., McCrum, G., Scott, A., & Hunter, C. (2008). Measuring responsibility: An appraisal of a Scottish
National Park’s sustainable tourism indicators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 276–297.
Blancas, F. J., Caballero, R., Gonz
alez, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., & P
erez, F. (2010). Goal programming synthetic indicators: An
application for sustainable tourism in Andalusian coastal counties. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2158–2172.
Blancas, F. J., Gonz
alez, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., & P
erez, F. (2010). The assessment of sustainable tourism: Application to
Spanish coastal destinations. Ecological Indicators, 10(2), 484–492.
Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., & Gonz
alez, M. (2015). A European sustainable tourism labels proposal using a composite
indicator. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 39–54.
Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., Gonz
alez, M., & Caballero, R. (2016). Sustainable tourism composite indicators: A dynamic
evaluation to manage changes in sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(10), 1403–1424.
Blancas, F. J., Lozano-Oyola, M., Gonz
alez, M., Guerrero, F. M., & Caballero, R. (2011). How to use sustainability indicators
for tourism planning: The case of rural tourism in Andalusia (Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 412–413, 28–45.
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 30(1), 53–62.
Bossel, H. (1996). Deriving indicators of sustainable development. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 1(4), 193–218.
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications. Winnipeg: International Institute for
Sustainable Development.
Bossel, H. (2001). Assessing viability and sustainability: A systems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator
sets. Conservation Ecology, 5(2), 12.
Briassoulis, H. (2002). Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 1065–
1085.
Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 528–546.
Buckley, R. (2003). Ecological indicators of tourist impact in parks. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 54–66.
Budruk, M., & Phillips, R. G. (Eds.). (2011). Quality-of-life community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism manage-
ment. Social indicators research series. Dordrecht: Springer.
 12

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

Burghelea, C. (2015). Analysis of sustainable tourism (ST) in Romania. Internal Auditing & Risk Management, 1(37), 31–42.
Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism geographies, 1(1), 7–25.
Byrd, E. T., C
ardenas, D. A., & Greenwood, J. B. (2008). Factors of stakeholder understanding of tourism: The case of East-
ern North Carolina. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8, 192–204.


Card
ın-Pedrosa, M., & Alvarez-L
opez, C. J. (2011). Sustainability criteria and indicators for rural tourism. Spanish Journal of
Rural Development, 2(2), 81–96.
Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2010). Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tourism Management, 31,
871–880.
Cernat, L., & Gourdon, J. (2012). Paths to success: Benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourism. Tourism Management,
33(5), 1044–1056.
Ch
avez-Cort
es, M., & Alc
antara Maya, J. A. (2010). Identifying and structuring values to guide the choice of sustainability
indicators for tourism development. Sustainability, 2(9), 3074–3099.
Chan, S-L., & Huang, S-L. (2004). A systems approach for the development of a sustainable community - the application
of the sensitivity model (SM). Journal of Environmental Management, 72, 133–147.
Choi, H. S., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6),
1274–1289.
Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, L. F., ... Wilkinson, R. (2016). Modelling and
measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecological Economics,
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

130, 350–355.
de Sausmarez, N. (2007). Crisis management, tourism and sustainability: The role of indicators. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15(6), 700–714.
Dwyer, L., Jago, L., Deery, M., & Fredline, L. (2007). Corporate responsibility as essential to sustainable tourism yield. Tour-
ism Review International, 11(2), 155–166.
Dymond, S. J. (1997). Indicators of sustainable tourism in New Zealand: A local government perspective. Journal of Sus-
tainable Tourism, 5(4), 279–293.
Farrell, B., & Twining-Ward, L. (2004). Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context of new knowledge. Jour-
nal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), 109–122.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental
Change, 16, 253–267.
Font, X., & Harris, C. (2004). Rethinking standards: From green to sustainable. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 139–156.
Gibson, R. B., Hassan, S. & Tansey, J. (2013). Sustainability assessment: Criteria and processes. Oxford: Routledge.
H
ak, T., Janouskov
a, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable development goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological
Indicators, 60, 565–573.
Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M. (2011). Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first- and second-order to
third-order change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 649–671.
Hall, C. M. (2014). Development(s) in the geographies of tourism: Knowledge(s), actions and cultures. In J. Wilson & S. A.
Clav
e (Eds.), Geographies of tourism research: European research perspectives. Tourism social science series (Vol. 19).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Hamilton, C., & Attwater, R. (1997). Measuring the environment: The availability and use of environmental statistics in
Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 4(2), 72–87.
Iliopoulou-Georgudaki, J., Kalogeras, A., Kanstatinopoulos, P., & Theodoropoulos, C. (2016). Sustainable tourism manage-
ment and development of a Greek coastal municipality. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World
Ecology, 23(2), 143–153.
Jamal, T., Camargo, B. A., & Wilson, E. (2013). Critical omissions and new directions for sustainable tourism: A situated
macro–micro approach. Sustainability, 5(11), 4594–4613.
Johnsen, J., Bieger, T., & Scherer, R. (2008). Indicator-based strategies for sustainable tourism development. Mountain
Research and Development, 28(2), 116–121.
Kasemir, B., J€ager, J., Jaeger, C. C., & Gardner, M. T. (Eds.). (2003). Public participation in sustainability science. A handbook.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kates, R. W., William, C., Clark, R., Corell, J., Hall, M., Jaeger, C. C., ... Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292
(5517), 641.
Kozi
c, I., & Mikuli
c, J. (2014). Research note: Measuring tourism sustainability: An empirical comparison of different
weighting procedures used in modelling composite indicators. Tourism Economics, 20(2), 429–437.
Kristj
ansd
ottir, K. R. (2014). Work creates community: The role of tourism in sustainable development of a Northern Euro-
pean Periphery Community in Sweden. Arctic Yearbook. Retrieved from http://www.arcticyearbook.com/images/Arc
ticles_2014/Kristjansdottir_AY2014_FINAL.pdf
Lee, T. S., & Hsieh, H.-P. (2016). Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s wetland. Ecological Indica-
tors, 67, 779–787.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 13

Lew, A. A., Ng, P. T., Ni, C.-C., & Wu, T.-C. (2016). Community sustainability and resilience: Similarities, differences and indi-
cators. Tourism Geographies, 18(1), 18–27.
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(6), 459–475.
Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F. J., Gonz
alez, M., & Caballero, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in
cultural destinations. Ecological Indicators, 18, 659–675.
Martin, S. A., & Assenov, I. (2014). Investigating the importance of surf resource sustainability indicators: Stakeholder per-
spectives for surf tourism planning and development. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(2), 127–148.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Vinz
on, L. (2015). Sustainability indicators of rural tourism from the perspective
of the residents. Tourism Geographies, 17(4), 586–602.
Mayer, A. L., Thurston, H. W., & Pawlowski, C. W. (2004). The multidisciplinary influence of common sustainability indices.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(8), 419–426.
McCrum, G., Blackstock, K. L., & Hunter, C. (2009). Commentary: Association of American geographers–recreation, tourism
and sport specialty group–student paper award sustainable tourism indicators in Scotland: What should we be con-
sidering? Tourism Geographies, 11(3), 408–418.
McDonald, J. R. (2009). Complexity science: An alternative world view for understanding sustainable tourism develop-
ment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4), 455–471.
McKercher, B. (1993). The unrecognized threat to tourism. Tourism Management, 14(2), 131–136.
Mearns, K. F. (2011). Using sustainable tourism indicators to measure the sustainability of a community-based ecotourism
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

venture: Malealea Lodge & Pony Trek Centre, Lesotho. Tourism Review International, 15(1–2), 135–147.
Mikuli
c, J., Kozi
c, I., & Kresi
c, D. (2015). Weighting indicators of tourism sustainability: A critical note. Ecological Indicators,
48, 312–314.
Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers.
Tourism Management, 22, 351–362.
Miller, G., & Twining-Ward, L. (2005). Monitoring for a sustainable tourism transition. The challenge of developing and using
indicators. Oxfordshire, UK/Cambridge, MA: CAB International.
Milne, S., & Ateljevic, I. (2001). Tourism, economic development and the global-local nexus: Theory embracing complex-
ity. Tourism Geographies, 3(4), 369–393.
Moscardo, G. (2008). Sustainable tourism innovation: Challenging basic assumptions. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8
(1), 4–13.
Moscardo, G., & Murphy, L. (2014). There is no such thing as sustainable tourism: Re-conceptualizing tourism as a tool for
sustainability. Sustainability, 6, 2538–2561.
Murali, J., & Poyyamoli, G. (2010). Developing indicators for monitoring tourism and sustainability in Rameswaram, a
buffer area in the Gulf of Mannar marine biosphere reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism
(De Gruyter Open), 1(2), 155–165.
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorizing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological
Economics, 60(3), 498–508.
O’Mahony, C., Ferreira, M., Fernandez-Palacios, Y., Cummins, V., & Haroun, R. (2009). Data availability and accessibility for
sustainable tourism: An assessment involving different European coastal tourism destinations. Journal of Coastal
Research, 2, 1135–1139.
Park, D.-B., & Yoon, Y.-S. (2011). Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indicators. International Journal of Tour-
ism Research, 13(5), 401–415.
Parkins, J. R., Stedman, R. C., & Varghese, J. (2001). Moving towards local-level indicators of sustainability in forest-based
communities: A mixed-method approach. Social Indicators Research, 56(1), 43–72.
Pearce, D., Hamilton, K., & Atkinson, G. (1996). Measuring sustainable development: Progress on indicators. Environment
and Development Economics, 1(1), 85–101.
Petticrew, M. A., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.
P

erez, V., Guerrero, F., Gonz
alez, M., P
erez, F., & Caballero, R. (2013). Composite indicator for the assessment of sustain-
ability: The case of Cuban nature-based tourism destinations. Ecological Indicators, 29, 316–324.
Pissourios, I. A. (2013). An interdisciplinary study on indicators: A comparative review of quality-of-life, macroeconomic,
environmental, welfare and sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 34, 420–427.
Plummer, R., & Fennell, D. A. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-man-
agement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 149–168.
Pomering, A., Noble, G., & Johnson, L. W. (2011). Conceptualising a contemporary marketing mix for sustainable tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(8), 953–969.
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together. Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods
in practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ramos, T. B., & Caeiro, S. (2010). Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10(2),
157–166.
Roberts, S., & Tribe, J. (2008). Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises - an exploratory perspective. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 575–594.
 14

K. R. KRISTJANSD

OTTIR ET AL.

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33, 1121–1140.
Saarinen, J. (2014). Critical sustainability: Setting the limits to growth and responsibility in tourism. Sustainability, 6, 1–17.
Schianetz, K., & Kavanagh, L. (2008). Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A complex adaptive systems
approach using systemic indicator system. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6), 601–628.
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tour-
ism, 8(1), 1–19.
Simpson, M. C. (2009). An integrated approach to assess the impacts of tourism on community development and sustain-
able livelihoods. Community Development Journal, 44(2), 186–208.
Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A. P., & Vespa, M. (2015). Public participation in sustainability assessment: Essential elements, practi-
cal challenges and emerging directions. In Angus Morrison-Saunders, Jenny Pope, & Alan Bond (Eds.). Handbook of
sustainability assessment. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Solstrand, M. V. (2013). Marine angling tourism in Norway and Iceland: Finding balance in management policy for sus-
tainability. Natural Resources Forum, 37(2), 113–126.
Stojanovi
c, N. (2011). Mathematical modeling with fuzzy sets of sustainable development. Interdisciplinary Description of
Complex Systems, 9(2), 134–160.
Tanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., & Therrien, M.-C. (2013). Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection criteria for policy imple-
mentation and scientific recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(6), 862–879.
Torres-Delgado, A., & Polomeque, F. L. (2014). Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Annals of Tourism
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Research, 49, 122–137.

Torres-Delgado, A., & Saarinen, J. (2014). Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: A review. Tourism
Geographies, 16(1), 31–47.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management
knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Tsaur, S.-H., & Wang, C.-H. (2007). The evaluation of sustainable tourism development by analytic hierarchy process and
fuzzy set theory: An empirical study on the Green Island in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(2), 127–
145.
United Nations. (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Author.
United Nations. (2017). Sustainable development agenda. Retrieved .January 5, 2017, from http://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/
Valentin, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2000). A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review, 20(3), 381–392.
Victor, P. A. (1991). Indicators of sustainable development: Some lessons from capital theory. Ecological Economics, 4(3),
191–213.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., … Pritchard, R. (2002). Resilience management in
socio-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1). http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art14/?ref=Sex%C5%9Ehop.Com
Wang, S.-H., Lee, M.-S., Chateau, P.-A., & Chang, Y.-C. (2016). Performance indicator framework for evaluation of sustain-
able tourism in the Taiwan Coastal Zone. Sustainability, 8(7), 652.
Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A critical analysis. Research report 1. Cooperative Research Centre for
Sustainable Tourism, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/bookshop/Sus
tainableTourism.pdf
World Tourism Organization. (1996). What tourism managers need to know: A practical guide to the development and use
of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid: Author.
World Tourism Organization. (2017). Tourism and the SDGs. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from http:/Icr.unwto.org/content/
tourism-and-sdgs
Zuzana, J., & Zuzana, L. (2015). Monitoring system of sustainable development in cultural and mountain tourism destina-
tions. Journal of Competitiveness, 7(1), 35–52.
 Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

Appendix. Papers in in peer-reviewed academic English journals, listed in order of publication year in each of the two search
criteria

Author(s) and year of Organization of

Search criteria publication Journal Research tradition Research aim Methodology indicators
Sustainability 1. Lew et al. (2016) Tourism Geographies Resource based Develop a conceptual framework for identifying Public participation Systemic
indicator + sustainability and resilience indicators for
tourism tourism
2. Marzo-Navarro et al. (2015) Tourism Geographies Activity based Develop measurement models of the Expert panel, public participation Thematic
sustainability concepts associated with rural
tourism from the residents’ perspective
3. Mikuli
c, Kozi
c, and Kresi
c Ecological Indicators Activity based Review indicator weighting procedures Literature review Composite
(2015) indicators/index,
thematic
4. Martin and Assenov (2014) Tourism Planning & Resource based Apply established index to case study Public participation/tourism stakeholder Composite
Development involvement indicators/index,
thematic
5. Kozi
c and Mikuli
c (2014) Tourism Economics Activity based Compare indicator weighting procedures Factor analysis, expert panel survey, equal Composite
weights technique indicators/index,
thematic
6. P
erez et al. (2013) Ecological Indicators Activity based Develop indicators and index Data Envelopment Analysis, Principal Composite
Component Analysis indicators/index,
thematic
7. Blancas, Lozano-Oyola, Science of the Total Activity based Develop indicators in case study Method for obtaining sustainability Composite
Gonz
alez, Guerrero, and Environment indexes by aggregation indicators/index,
Caballero (2011) thematic
8. Barzekar et al. (2011) Ecologia Balkanica Resource based Develop indicators in case study Analytical hierarchy process, expert panel Thematic
by Delphi approach


9. Card
ın-Pedrosa and Alvarez- Spanish Journal of Rural Community based Develop indicators in case study Public participation/tourism stakeholder Thematic
L
opez (2011) Development involvement
10. Mearns (2011) Tourism Review International Community based Apply established index to case study Mixed methods Thematic
11. Murali and Poyyamoli Journal of Environmental Resource based Develop indicators in case study Pressure-state-response (PSR) model Thematic
(2010) Management & Tourism
12. Ch
avez-Cort
es and Sustainability Community based Develop indicators in case study Public participation/tourism stakeholder Thematic
Alc
antara Maya (2010) involvement
Value-Focused Thinking framework
13. Ramos and Caeiro (2010) Ecological Indicators Systems based Develop a conceptual framework to design and Literature review, public participation/ Thematic
assess the effectiveness of established tourism stakeholders
indicators
14. Schianetz and Kavanagh Journal of Sustainable Tourism Systems based Develop indicators in case study Public participation/tourism stakeholders, Systemic
(2008) Systemic indicator system, Complex
adaptive systems approach
15. Roberts and Tribe (2008) Journal of Sustainable Tourism Activity based Assessing small tourism enterprises progress Literature review, Review of established Thematic
towards a destination’s long-term indicator frameworks
sustainability goals
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

16. de Sausmarez (2007) Journal of Sustainable Tourism Resource based Evaluate the role of crisis indicators in Literature review Thematic
sustainable tourism development Public participation/tourism
stakeholder involvement

(continued)
15
 Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017

16

Author(s) and year of Organization of

Search criteria publication Journal Research tradition Research aim Methodology indicators
17. Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Tourism Management Community based Develop indicators Expert panel by Delphi approach Thematic
18. Parkins, Stedman, and Social Indicators Research Community based Develop indicators in case study Public participation/tourism stakeholder Thematic
Varghese (2001) involvement, quality-of-life framework,
mixed methods
Sustainable 19. Lee and Hsieh (2016) Ecological Indicators Resource based Develop indicators for sustainable wetland Fuzzy Delphi method Systemic and

tourism + tourism thematic

K. R. KRISTJANSD

indicator

20. Wang et al. (2016) Sustainability Resource based Develop indicators for an indicator framework Fuzzy Delphi method Thematic
for coastal tourism sustainability
OTTIR

21. Iliopoulou-Georgudaki International Journal of Resource based Develop indicators in case study Leopold matrix Systemic
et al. (2016) Sustainable Development
ET AL.

and World Ecology

22. Blancas, Lozano-Oyola,
Gonz
alez, and Caballero
(2016)
23. Blancas, Lozano-Oyola, and Environmental Impact
Gonz
alez (2015)
24. Zuzana and Zuzana (2015)
25. Burghelea (2015)
26. Aall, Dodds, Sælensminde,
and Brendehaug (2015)
27. Torres-Delgado and
Palomeque (2014)
28. Aminu et al. (2014)
29. Torres-Delgado and
Saarinen (2014)
30. Amiryan and Silva (2013)
31. Aminu, Ludin, Matori,
Yusof, Dano, and Chandio
(2013)
32. Tanguay et al. (2013)
33. Cernat and Gourdon (2012)
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Assessment Review
Journal of Competitiveness
Internal Auditing & Risk
Management
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Annals of Tourism Research
Applied Mechanics & Materials
Tourism Geographies
International Journal of
Management Cases
Environmental Earth Sciences
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Tourism Management
Activity based Develop indicators in case study Goal programming technique Composite
indicators/index,
thematic
Activity based Defining a system of sustainable tourism Expert panel Composite
indicators and obtaining a composite indicators/index,
indicator thematic
Activity based Propose a monitoring system for sustainable Literature review Thematic
development of cultural and mountain
destinations
Community based Systematically identify and showcase Literature review Thematic
comparative indicators of sustainable tourism
Activity based Evaluate how concept of environmental policy Literature review, indicators review Thematic
integration (EPI) could improve sustainable
tourism policy implementation
Resource based Develop indicators in case study Expert panel by Delphi approach, Indicator Thematic
system method
Resource based Develop indicators in case study GIS, Analytic Network Process, Pairwise Spatial
comparison
Resource based Examine the role of indicators in the transition Literature review Composite
to sustainability in tourism development indicators/index,
thematic
Resource based Address the process of sustainable tourism Literature review Thematic
assessment and indicators in developing
countries
Resource based Develop indicators in case study GIS, Multi-criteria decision evaluation, Spatial
Spatial decision support system,
Pairwise comparison
Resource based Combine established indicators with developing Public participation/tourism stakeholder Thematic
case specific indicators involvement
Activity based Apply indicators based on framework Literature review Thematic
Framework: Sustainable Tourism
Benchmarking Tool e STBT

(continued)

Author(s) and year of
Search criteria publication
34. Lozano-Oyola, Blancas,
View publication stats
Gonz
alez, and Caballero
(2012)
35. Buckley (2012)
36. Stojanovi
c (2011)
37. Park and Yoon (2011)
38. Pomering et al. (2011)
39. Blancas, Caballero,
Gonz
alez, Lozano-Oyola, and
P
erez (2010)
40. Blancas, Gonz
alez, Lozano- Ecological Indicators
Oyola, and P
erez (2010)
41. Castellani and Sala (2010) Tourism Management
42. McCrum, Blackstock, and
Hunter (2009)
43. O’Mahony, Ferreira,
Fernandez-Palacios,
Cummins, and Haroun
(2009)
44. Blackstock, White, McCrum,
Scott, and Hunter (2008)
45. Moscardo (2008)
46. Dwyer, Jago, Deery, and
Fredline (2007)
47. Tsaur and Wang (2007)
48. Miller (2001)
Downloaded by [84.219.149.210] at 00:18 08 November 2017
Organization of
Journal Research tradition Research aim Methodology indicators
Ecological Indicators Community based Develop indicators Method based on goal programming Composite
indicators/index,
thematic
Annals of Tourism Research Systems based Review sustainability measures for tourism Literature review Thematic and
systemic
Interdisciplinary Description of Systems based Develop indicators Fuzzy logic Thematic
Complex Systems
International Journal of Activity based Develop indicators Delphi technique, Analytical hierarchy Thematic
Tourism Research process method
Journal of Sustainable Tourism Activity based Develop indicators for management and Matrix conceptual model Thematic
marketing
Ecological Economics Activity based Develop synthetic indicators for decision- Synthetic indicator by a goal- Thematic
making processes in case study programming approach
Activity based Develop indicators in case study by applying Synthetic indicator Thematic
WTO recommendations
Resource based Applying methodology of European Charter for Public participation Systemic
Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas to
develop indicators
Tourism Geographies Activity based Review established sustainable tourism Stakeholder involvement Thematic
indicators
Journal of Coastal Research Resource based Develop indicators for evaluating European Stakeholder involvement Thematic
coastal sites’ capacity to assess sustainable
tourism in QualityCoast programme
Journal of Sustainable Tourism Resource based Develop indicators in case study by reviewing Public participation/tourism stakeholders, Thematic
strategy documents Responsible tourism framework
Tourism & Hospitality Research Activity based Develop indicators Examples from cases, criteria selection Thematic
Tourism Review International Activity based Develop indicators in case study by reviewing Indicators of tourism yield Composite
consistency with CSR reporting indicators/index,
thematic
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Systems based Evaluate procedures of sustainable tourism and Expert panel by Delphi approach, Analytic Systemic and
Research apply to develop indicators in case study hierarchy process, Fuzzy logic thematic
Tourism Management Activity based Develop indicators, resort level Expert panel by Delphi approach Thematic
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
17