How Urban Sustainable Development Can Improve Tourism Attractiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the role of sustainable development in city tourism attractiveness. A tripartite theoretical model of tourism attractiveness was tested to verify the relevance of the economic, environmental, social and cultural aspects of urban sustainable development. The comparative analysis of Québec City and Bordeaux was based on visitors’ perceptions established through a questionnaire survey conducted with 499 tourists in summer 2014. This analysis produced three main findings. First, four levels of city tourism attractiveness were revealed (context, belt, complementary attractions and nucleus) and variables related to the urban living environment stood out in importance. Second, visitors recognized four sustainable development dimensions, and proved most sensitive to cultural aspects, followed by environmental concerns. Third, the correlations between tourism attractiveness and sustainable development were stronger within the broader spheres of attractiveness. The study reveals that sustainability notions are most strongly internalized by tourists when tangibly reflected in the public space. By offering visitors new perspectives on urban living, sustainable development brings smart solutions to perpetuate the urban tourism industry while improving quality of life for residents.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it