Sustainable tourism in practice: synthesizing sustainability assessment of global tourism destinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the sustainability characteristics of 12 tourist destinations from around the world to determine whether these destinations have made concrete efforts in balancing the four pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic, social-cultural, and institutional. The paper identifies areas of improvement to abet these destinations facilitate their progress towards achieving sustainability. A three-step approach to destination sustainability assessment was employed: i) development of a sustainability assessment matrix; ii) selecting case studies to illustrate current on the ground sustainability practices; and iii) sustainability performance assessment of the selected destinations. Based on secondary information, the assessment developed and applied a six-scale sustainability performance rating, ranging between −1 to + 1 with − 0.75 to −1 indicating an unsatisfactory, and +0.75 to + 1 indicating a satisfactory performance. Results indicate to the presence of a broad range of sustainability characteristics across geographically diverse locations. Based on the results, six main implications are discussed: i) necessary trade-offs on sustainability considerations; ii) conditionality of sustainability; iii) importance of grassroots engagement and community-led tourism activities; iv) significance of participatory and effective policy preparation and implementation; v) insights on opportunities of active learning and sharing for meeting sustainability objectives; and vi) lessons for mass tourism experiences. We emphasize the need for strategic efforts in balancing sustainability approaches in tourism practices.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".