Comparison of Multi-Stakeholder Perception of Tourism Sustainability in Goa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being researched so widely for a considerable period of time, sustainable tourism remains a controversial issue in tourism literature with very little consensus about the understanding of the term, its practical implementations, as well as its implications. The practice of sustainability in tourism can take diverse paths as evidenced in tourism research, but recently debate is on collaboration and involvement among tourism stakeholders is gaining importance as a key to sustainable tourism development, although research in support in this issue requires further support. This study investigates the perceptions about various dimensions of sustainable tourism among four groups of tourism stakeholder's; viz.; Residents, Tourists, Entrepreneurs and Government Officials. To discover if difference exists, an ANOVA test was conducted for each dimension, followed by a Scheffes' test to determine inter-group differences of perceptions and result shows that statistically significant differences exists in perception among stakeholder groups for six out of the seven dimensions. Differences were identified between tourist and residents, entrepreneurs, government officials in the case of understanding sustainability, focus of sustainable tourism, attitude towards participation in sustainable tourism, between residents and tourists, entrepreneurs, government officials in the case of sustainable tourism management, between tourists and residents, government officials in the case of support for sustainable tourism development and between tourists, residents and entrepreneurs, government officials in the case of economic focus of sustainable tourism. In the case of tourism industry and sustainability, none were significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".