Why Tourism Eludes the Grasp of Stakeholders? Some Reflections on Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paradoxical attributes of tourism for being good and bad at a time makes it open for criticism. This paper questions whether this dualism is inherent in its character or is circumstantial. No stakeholder wants tourism to elude his grasp, why then it goes awry in many cases. To explain this phenomenon the paper takes a back view of the industry and underpins shortfalls that are responsible for its downturn. Barring nature catastrophes, spread of epidemics and war, etc., in most cases, tourism stakeholders were found at fault for ignoring essential tenets of sustainable development; they fall prey to avarice and compromise with short-term market forces resulting in negative consequences in physical and socio-cultural settings. The environment suffers often irreversibly. Mass tourism, weak community resilience, poor knowledge-equipment of stakeholders, aspect of seasonality, unskilled workforce, limited knowledge of ecological systems, policy failure and lack of governance and community inertia are some of the features that weaken tourism industry. Only a few but important features will be discussed in this paper. By comparing stakeholders' good and bad practices at two mountain destinations, Whistler resort in Canada and Manali in the Indian Himalayas, the paper concludes that paradox in tourism is a myth; tourism is neither good nor bad, it is what stakeholders make of their recreational resources. Keywords: sustainability; tourism industry; stakeholders; resilience; Manali; Whistler.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".