Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Case Study

Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s

wetland
Tsung Hung Lee ∗ , Hsin-Pei Hsieh
Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123, Sec. 3, University Rd., Touliu, Yunlin 640, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to identify indicators for sustainable wetland tourism. In study 1, the fuzzy Delphi method
Received 1 May 2015 was used to determine key dimensions and indicators. In study 2, the relative weights of these dimen-
Received in revised form 6 March 2016 sions and indicators were examined using the analytic hierarchy process. The empirical results revealed
Accepted 12 March 2016
141 indicators in the hierarchy for sustainable wetland tourism. At the first level, the weight of the stake-
Available online 25 April 2016
holder dimension was greater than that of the environment dimension. At the second level, the impact on
community development was the most important factor within the stakeholder dimension. Among the
Keywords:
identified indicators, the top 7.8% were respect for local traditional culture, respect for local lifestyle, com-
Environment
Indicators
pliance with destination guidelines, traffic problems, destruction of the natural environment, existence
Stakeholder of crowds at the destination, participation in cultural activities, understanding the culture, assimilation
Sustainable tourism into the local culture, overall effect of tourism, benefit–cost differential, and reduction of environmental
Wetland tourism impact. A series of management implications are drawn, including the need to use this information to
Taiwan foster stakeholder involvement and collaboration, to focus on planning for sustainable tourism develop-
ment in general, and to use these indicators for the management of wetland-based sustainable tourism
development.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One indicator represents a measurable parameter or observ-

able variable related to a latent variable or a phenomenon that
Like other forms of nature-based tourism, wetland tourism can is difficult to capture. Indicators can be derived using qualitative
be defined as a type of tourism that is directly dependent on a rela- and/or quantitative approaches, and the application of indicators
tively undisturbed natural area that contributes to the conservation can help elucidate complex realities (Holden, 2006). As an indicator,
and management of the wetland setting (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996; sustainability has become a keystone for tourism, environmental
Lee, 2009a). Because of their biodiversity, wildlife habitats, eco- management, and environmental studies.
logical environment, and fishing villages, wetlands can constitute Indeed, sustainable tourism indicators are broadly recognized
a nature-based tourism destination that offers leisure, recreation, as useful tools for planning rural or cultural tourism (Blancas et al.,
and tourism for tourists/recreationists (Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lee, 2011; Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012), managing crises (de Sausmarez,
2009a, 2011; Chiu et al., 2014). Wetland tourism provides village- 2007), managing community tourism (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006),
level and small-scale accommodations so that tourists can enjoy assessing tourism destinations (Pérez et al., 2013), measuring
the natural surroundings in a friendly manner without damaging responsible behavior and tourism practices (Blackstock et al., 2008),
the environment. Tourists visiting wetland destinations provide and selecting criteria for policy implementation and scientific
income directly to the residents and destination and provide valu- recognition (Tanguay et al., 2013).
able local support for nature conservation. According to social According to stakeholder theory, numerous stakeholders,
exchange theory, host residents who perceive more benefits than including tourists, hosts, governments, non-government organi-
costs from tourism may support the development of sustainable zations (NGOs), for-profit organizations, and other tourist-related
tourism (Lee, 2013); in this way, wetland tourism can contribute businesses may be involved in the development and implemen-
to the sustainable development of the wetland destination (Galley tation of sustainable tourism (Fennell, 1999). Sustainable tourism
and Clifton, 2004; Biggs et al., 2012). requires both an awareness of tourism activities that have rela-
tively low impact on nature and a consideration of whether all
stakeholders’ support is warranted.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 55342601. Wetland tourism typically involves nature-based tourism. This
E-mail address: [email protected] (T.H. Lee). topic has been discussed extensively in the literature in areas such

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.023
1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
780 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

as the assessment of a behavioral theoretical framework for wet- destinations with abundant natural resources provide various
land tourism (Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lee, 2009b, 2011; Wang et al., tourist attractions such as wildlife habitats, coral reefs, intertidal
2012; Chiu et al., 2014), support for host residents in tourism devel- zones, and wetlands (Madin and Fenton, 2004; Lee, 2009a,b; Lee
opment (Zhang and Lei, 2012; Lee, 2013), and the management of et al., 2015b), all of which offer opportunities for recreational expe-
sustainable tourism (Shikida et al., 2010). However, there is a lack riences, environmental education, and entertainment, generating
of studies integrating dimensions related to various stakeholders support for environmental conservation (Ballantyne et al., 2011a,b;
and environmental management to develop indicators for sustain- Lee, 2011). Thus, the development of nature-based tourism can
able tourism that will facilitate wetland tourism management and benefit struggling local economies (Bramwell and Lane, 1993;
planning. Andersson, 2007; Lee, 2009b) and play an important role in sus-
To address this research gap, this study sought to develop indi- tainable development (Andersson, 2007; Lee, 2009b; Nyaupane
cators of sustainable wetland tourism. For this purpose, study 1 and Chhetri, 2009). Consequently, nature-based tourism is a rapid-
aimed to develop a framework for the stakeholders and natural growth sector world-wide (Fennell, 1999; Karanth and DeFries,
environment of wetland tourism and study 2 aimed to assess and 2011).
calculate the relative weights of each sustainable tourism indicator. Tourism development may nevertheless engender several nega-
tive effects, such as negative environmental (Needham and Szuster,
2. Theoretical framework 2011), economic (Wagner, 1997), social (Logar, 2010), cultural
(Logar, 2010), and seasonal income/employment (Logar, 2010)
Tourism development has typically been determined by dimen- impacts. In particular, adverse environmental effects from the
sions of economic, environmental, social, cultural, and institutional greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel, accommodations,
perspectives that facilitate sustainability (Edén et al., 2000; Yoon and recreational activities have been hotly debated (Gössling and
et al., 2001; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Bhuiyan et al., 2015). Ross Schumacher, 2010). It is thus crucial to develop sustainable tourism,
and Wall (1999a) have established a framework for sustainable increase its benefits, and minimize any harmful effects. For this pur-
tourism development by assessing the relationships among the pose, sustainable tourism indicators can facilitate the assessment
local community, tourism, and resources. This study thus applies of the sustainability of tourism development.
a framework integrating perspectives of local communities, bio- Scholars in previous studies have used social, economic, and
logical diversity, and tourism to assess sustainability indicators of environmental indicators of sustainability to assess sustainable
wetland sustainable development. tourism practices, and their findings suggest that sustainable
tourism indicators are necessary to objectively measure the degree
2.1. Stakeholder theory of such practices’ sustainability (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Lozano-
Oyola et al., 2012). Tanguay et al. (2013) have reviewed 11 case
Scholars have identified five main stakeholders in the tourism studies assessing between 9 and 768 sustainable tourism indicators
context: tourists, residents, industries, government officials (pol- to select criteria for policy implementation and scientific recogni-
icy makers), and NGOs (Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Choi and tion related to a case study of the Gaspésie region in Québec. Those
Sirakaya, 2006; Tsaur et al., 2006; Liu, 2007). According to stake- authors have identified 507 expert-recognized indicators, includ-
holder theory (Freeman, 1984), all stakeholder groups should be ing indicators related to environmental, economic, and cultural
involved in the entire tourism development process (Goeldner and aspects.
Ritchie, 2009), and the sustainability of tourism development is No consensus has been reached as to how each sustainability
determined by the perspective of the stakeholder, for example, indicator contributes to the goal of sustainable tourism. Singh et al.
by including residents, tourism entrepreneurs, governments, and (2009) have suggested that the use of equal weighting for sustaina-
tourists (Lynch et al., 2011; Hallak et al., 2012; Lee, 2013; Lee bility indicators facilitates the interpretation of each indicator. In
et al., 2015b). Stakeholder theory has been widely adopted and contrast, Choi and Sirakaya (2006) have employed a Delphi survey
debated in research on policy making and planning for local tourism in which 36 tourism experts assessed 125 indicators on a five-point
(D’Angella and Go, 2009), residents’ attitudes toward tourism (Lee, Likert scale to weight the relative importance of each indicator.
2013), attendees’ support for tourism development (Lee et al., Applying the Delphi technique, Tsaur et al. (2006) have utilized
2015a), and the management of stakeholder groups (Sautter and stakeholder perceptions to determine the sustainable tourism per-
Leisen, 1999). formance of an indigenous ecotourism destination, with the results
Previous research has shown that the application of stakeholder indicating that natural resources and the environment are the most
theory to sustainable tourism can elucidate concerns related to pro- important factors for ensuring sustainable tourism.
tected area partnerships and the assessment of sustainable tourism The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method proposed by
indicators (Sautter and Leisen, 1999). In related research, Ross Saaty (1977) is widely used to evaluate respondents’ expressed
and Wall (1999a,b) have established a framework to assess the preferences or opinions because it allows scholars to effectively
stakeholders of local communities, tourism, and biological diver- structure complex problems, such as the relative importance of sus-
sity. Furthermore, to evaluate ecotourism sustainability, Tsaur et al. tainable tourism indicators in the form of hierarchical data (Park
(2006) have used subjective measures to assess the relation among and Yoon, 2011; Day and Cai, 2012; Mikulić et al., 2015). Thus,
resources, community, and tourism in the context of a sustain- the AHP constitutes an effective approach to assessing the rela-
able approach to ecotourism, and Choi and Sirakaya (2006) have tive importance of sustainable tourism indicators (Park and Yoon,
used stakeholder participation in a community to assess indicators 2011).
of sustainable community-based tourism development. However,
indicators for wetland tourism have rare been examined in the 3. The survey
literature, necessitating further study.
3.1. Study 1
2.2. Indicators of sustainable tourism
3.1.1. Study site
Sustainable development refers to development that meets the This study was conducted in the Cigu wetland (120◦ 5 17 E,
current generation’s needs without compromising the ability of ◦
23 7 8 N), which is situated in the Southwest Coast National Scenic
future generations to meet their needs (WCED, 1987). Nature-based Area, Taiwan. This area is famous for its rich and diverse birdlife,
 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787 781

lagoons, and sandbars and is the focus of wetland tourism develop- technique, a survey is conducted via a series of questionnaires. It
ment. We chose this wetland as the study area for several reasons. is then interspersed with controlled opinion feedback and used
First, this area has recently been developed into a nature-based to forecast future events by reaching a consensus (Woudenberg,
tourism site. Second, because Cigu is a popular nature-based desti- 1991). Although traditional Delphi methods have merit, ambiguity
nation, several scholars have assessed the behavior of nature-based and uncertainty remain. Fuzzy set theory can correct the short-
tourists (Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lee, 2009a, 2011) and the support comings of this method by decreasing questionnaire survey times,
of residents for tourism development in that area (Lee, 2013). Third, avoiding the distortion of individual expert opinions, clearly cap-
Cigu is in the process of transitioning from an economy based on turing the semantic structure of predicted items, and considering
traditional agriculture to an economy based on tourism. the fuzzy nature of the interview process (Kaufmann and Gupta,
1988). In previous research, Cheng and Lin (2002) successfully used
3.1.2. Identification of sustainable tourism indicator fuzzy Delphi method applications to achieve a consensus among
By conducting a literature review and considering the expert opinions using fuzzy numbers. Therefore, to assess each
recreational resources and sustainable nature-based tourism sustainable tourism indicators, this study employed a fuzzy Delphi
development (Ross and Wall, 1999a,b; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; method to obtain interspersed consensus with controlled opinion
Cottrell and Cutumisu, 2006; Tsaur et al., 2006; Van der Duim and feedback.
Van Marwijk, 2006; Roberts and Tribe, 2008; Laurila-Pant et al., Twenty-eight panel members were selected from three differ-
2015), tourism sustainability may be assessed in terms of human ent groups: academic scholars in the field of sustainable tourism
activities and the biological diversity of the environment. To make management (9), recreational areas managers in the Cigu wetland
this assessment, Ko (2005) has used two systems: the human (11), and officers in tourism-related government bureaus (8). In
system (i.e., the stakeholder) and the ecosystem (i.e., the environ- total, 28 experts were invited to participate in the survey. However,
ment) as the conceptual framework for tourism sustainability. We 12 experts refused to participate because they were not interested
thus identified two dimensions for sustainable tourism indicators: (N = 3), not convinced of the real benefit of the project (N = 3), did not
stakeholder and environment. The stakeholder dimension included have enough time to answer the questions (N = 4), or did not wish
five sub-dimensions: tourists (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Lee, 2009a), to participate in a research project (N = 2). The expert questionnaire
residents (Yoon et al., 2001), for-profit organizations (Liu, 2007), survey was conducted from December 18, 2010 to April 11, 2011, in
governments (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Liu, 2007), and NGOs (Choi two-round surveys conducted via e-mail or mail. Three question-
and Sirakaya, 2006; Tsaur et al., 2006; Liu, 2007). The environ- naires were invalid. Consequently, a total of 13 experts completed
ment dimension included six sub-dimensions: loss of renewable the expert questionnaire survey. The panel members seem likely
resources, rate of ecosystem degradation, environmental impact of to be unbiased and representative because they include scholars of
tourism activity, rate of reuse/recycling, health of the human pop- tourism management (4), recreational area managers in the Cigu
ulation, and loss of non-renewable resources (Choi and Sirakaya, wetland (5), and officers in tourism-related government bureaus
2006). In total, we identified 143 sustainable tourism indicators. (4).

3.1.3. Fuzzy Delphi survey 3.1.4. Results

The Delphi method is a useful survey technique based on a struc- The sustainable tourism indicators identified based on the
tured, typically five-round process of surveying experts. With this expert panel using the fuzzy Delphi method was evaluated after

Table 1
Indicators of sustainable wetland Tourism.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Stakeholder Visitor Recreation experience 11 (2)b

Respect for the local culture 4 (1)
Enhanced economic development 5 (1)
Sustainable tourism 5 (0)
Residenta Environmental impact 4 (4)
Cultural impact 4 (2)
Social impact 6 (2)
Economic impact 8 (1)
Integrated development impact 2 (1)
Tourism support 5 (2)
For-profit organization Tourism support service 6 (4)
Ecological conservation 8 (2)
Government Locally oriented control policy 8 (8)
Political participation 6 (6)
Local planning policya 9 (7)
Tourism support at all levels of government 7 (4)
Technology 3 (2)
Non-government organization Sustainable development 7 (0)
Industry activation 5 (0)
Community alliance 5 (0)
Environment Loss of renewable resources 4 (1)
Rate of ecosystem degradationa 3 (3)
Environmental impact of tourism activitya 3 (0)
Rate of reuse/recycle/reduction 4 (2)
Loss of non-renewable resourcesa 2 (1)
Health of the human health 6 (3)
Level of biodiversity 3 (0)
Total 143 (59)
a
The construct did not reach the threshold value of consensus in the first round.
b
The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of indicators that did not reach the threshold value of consensus in the first round.
782 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

a two-round survey. Three levels of dimensions were obtained development (7 indicators), industry activation (5 indicators), and
(Table 1). Level 1 included two dimensions: stakeholders and the community alliance (5 indicators). In all, 141 sustainable tourism
environment. Level 2 included visitors, residents, for-profit orga- indicators were identified (Appendix A).
nizations, governments, and NGOs in the stakeholder dimension;
it also included loss of renewable resources, rate of ecosystem 3.2. Study 2
degradation, environmental impact of tourism activity, rate of
reuse/recycle/reduction, health of the human health, and level of 3.2.1. Weights for sustainable tourism indicators
biodiversity in the environment dimension. Level 3 included 20 Twenty-two panel members were selected from three groups:
dimensions: recreation experience, respect for the local culture tourism management scholars (11), tourism managers in the Cigu
enhanced economic development, sustainable tourism, environ- wetland (5), and officers in tourism-related government bureaus
mental impact, cultural impact, social impact economic impact, (6). In total, 22 experts were invited, all of whom agreed to partic-
integrated development impact, tourism support services, eco- ipate in the study. To determine the weight for each indicator, the
logical conservation, locally oriented control policy, political expert questionnaires survey was conducted between June and July
participation, local planning policy, tourism support at all levels 2011. Following the AHP methodology, we constructed a matrix by
of government, and technology. Level 4 included 141 indicators. using a proportional scale from 1 to 9 to compare pairs of weights.
At level 2, the environment dimension included loss of renew- The weights for each program were calculated by using Expert
able resources (4 indicators), rate of ecosystem degradation (3 Choice software (Expert Choice, 2004).
indicators), environmental impact of tourism/recreation activity (3 First, a hierarchical model was developed with the goal of sus-
indicators), rate of reuse/recycle/reduction (4 indicators), loss of tainable tourism development positioned at the top level. At the
non-renewable resources (2 indicators), health of the human pop- first level, the weights were determined based on two dimensions:
ulation (6 indicators), and level of biodiversity (3 indicators). Loss “stakeholder” and “environment.” At the second level, the stake-
of non-renewable resources (2 indicators) was removed because holder dimension included five sub-dimensions, i.e., tourists (4
the indicators did not reach the threshold value of consensus in the constructs, 25 indicators), residents (6 constructs, 29 indicators),
two rounds of the fuzzy Delphi survey. for-profit organizations (2 constructs, 14 indicators), governments
At level 3, the visitor dimension included the four sub- (5 constructs, 33 indicators), and NGOs (3 constructs, 17 indicators).
dimensions of recreation experience (11 indicators), respect for The environment included six sub-dimensions: loss of renewable
the local culture (4 indicators), enhanced economic development resources (4 indicators), rate of ecosystem destruction (3 indica-
(5 indicators), and sustainable tourism (5 indicators). The res- tors), environmental impact of tourism activity (3 indicators), rate
ident dimension included environmental impact (4 indicators), of reduction/reuse/recycling (4 indicators), health of residents and
cultural impact (4 indicators), social impact (3 indicators), eco- tourists (6 indicators), and level of biodiversity (3 indicators).
nomic impact (8 indicators), integrated development impact (2 Second, we determined the relative importance of the indica-
indicators), and tourism support (5 indicators). The for-profit orga- tors at each level by comparing all possible pairs of constructs and
nization dimension included tourism service (6 indicators) and indicators, beginning with the first, second, third, and fourth levels.
ecological conservation (8 indicators). The government dimension Third, the relative weights of these indicators were screened and
included locally oriented control policy (8 indicators), political determined by using consistency tests to censure the reliability of
participation (6 indicators), local planning policy (9 indicators), the results.
tourism support at all levels of government (7 indicators), and Finally, the weights of each indicator in the hierarchy structure
technology (3 indicators). The NGO dimension included sustainable were calculated using pair-wise comparisons.

Table 2
Weights of sustainable wetland tourism indicators.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Stakeholder (0.573) Visitor (0.161) Recreation experience (0.161) 11 indicators

Respect for the local culture (0.417) 4 indicators
Enhanced economic development (0.144) 5 indicators
Sustainable tourism (0.277) 5 indicators
Resident (0.360) Environmental impact (0.218) 4 indicators
Cultural impact (0.218) 4 indicators
Social impact (0.159) 6 indicators
Economic impact (0.121) 4 indicators
Integrated development impact (0.195) 4 indicators
Tourism support (0.089) 4 indicators
For-profit organization (0.088) Tourism service (0.331) 6 indicators
Ecological conservation (0.669) 8 indicators
Government (0.152) Local oriented controlled policy (0.259) 8 indicators
Political participation (0.175) 6 indicators
Local planning policy (0.261) 9 indicators
Tourism support at all levels of government (0.182) 7 indicators
Technology (0.123) 3 indicators
Non-government organization (0.173) Sustainable development (0.650) 7 indicators
Industry activation (0.202) 5 indicators
Community alliance (0.148) 5 indicators
Environment (0.427) Loss of renewable resources (0.119) 5 indicators
Rate of ecosystem degradation (0.235) 3 indicators
Environmental impact of tourism activity (0.193) 5 indicators
Rate of reuse/recycle/reduction (0.095) 4 indicators
Health of the human health (0.155) 6 indicators
Level of biodiversity (0.203) 3 indicators

Total 141 indicators

 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787 783

Stakeholder (Visitor)
0.6
Environment (Bidiversity) 0.5 Stakeholder (Resident)

0.4
Environment (Health of 0.3 Stakeholder (Profit
the populaon) 0.2 organizaon)

0.1
Level1
0
Environment (Rate of Level2
Stakeholder (Goverment)
reuse/recycle/reduce)

Environment (Tourism Stakeholder (Non-

acvity impact… government…
Environment (Rate of Environment (Local of
Ecosystem degradaon) renewable resources)

Fig. 1. The radar chart of level 1 and level 2 for the sustainable wetland tourism.

3.2.2. Results will experience a moral obligation to protect the environment

The weights of each sustainable tourism indicator were deter- (Schwartz, 1970). Biospheric values may explain human behavior
mined using the AHP with 28 participants (Table 2). The relative in the face of environmental problems (De Groot and Steg, 2007).
weights of three levels of dimensions and 141 indicators were cal- Thus, to foster sustainable tourism, it is important to consider
culated. At the first level, the weight of the stakeholder dimension egoistic and social-altruistic values related to environmentalism
(0.537) was higher than that of the environment dimension (0.472). to ensure that the benefits to stakeholders are greater than the
At the second level, for the stakeholder dimension, the resident costs of environment protection.
sub-dimension (0.360) had the highest weight, and the for-profit Achieving sustainable tourism is difficult without the support
organization sub-dimension (0.088) had the lowest weight. For and participation of local residents (Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004;
the environment dimension, the rate of ecosystem degradation Nicholas et al., 2009). Indeed, the analytical findings show that the
sub-dimension (0.235) had the highest weight, and the rate of residents’ dimension is highly weighted, indicating that the resi-
reuse/recycle/reduction sub-dimension had the lowest weight dents’ support is a critical factor in the ongoing development of
(0.095). The radar chart is illustrated in Fig. 1. sustainable tourism.
At the third level, for the visitor dimension, respect for the local This study identified six categories, including 25 indicators, in
culture (0.417), followed by sustainable tourism (0.277), had the line with Choi and Sirakaya’s (2006) environmental dimension. The
highest weight; for the resident dimension, environmental impact panel members rated ecosystem degradation as the most impor-
(0.218) and cultural impact (0.218), followed by integrated devel- tant indicator related to the environment dimension. This finding
opment impact (0.195), had the highest weight. For the for-profit indicates that the world is facing a historically unprecedented
organization dimension, ecological conservation had a weight of ecological crisis that will severely diminish opportunities for the
0.669, and tourism service had a weight of 0.331. For the govern- success of future generations (Foley et al., 2005). Thus, to achieve
ment dimension, locally oriented control policy (0.259), followed sustainable tourism it is crucial to reduce the rate of ecosystem
by local planning policy (0.261), had the highest weight. For the degradation.
NGOs dimension, sustainable development (0.650), followed by Respect for the local culture was the highest in the visitor
industrial activities (0.202), had the highest weight. dimension. Thus, as with ecotourism or nature-based tourism, sus-
At the fourth level, the indicators with weights greater than tainable tourism requires that tourists have maximum respect
0.010 were as follows: respect for local traditional culture (0.0107), for the local culture. Environmental and cultural impacts had the
respect for local lifestyle (0.0167), compliance with destination highest weights in the resident dimension, implying that host resi-
guidelines (0.0128), traffic problems (0.0142), destruction of the dents perceive that the environmental and cultural costs of tourism
natural environment (0.0129), crowds at the destination (0.0101), development will be considerably more important in the future
participation in cultural activities (0.0103), understanding of the than they would be if they existed in the present.
culture (0.0110), assimilation into the local culture (0.0137), over- Within the for-profit organization and NGOs dimensions, eco-
all effect of tourism (0.0269), benefit–cost differential (0.0126), and logical conservation and sustainable development, respectively, are
reduction of environmental impact (0.0139). These indicators com- highly weighted, implying that pro-environment and sustainability
posed the top 7.8% of the 141 indicators. approaches are critical for sustainable tourism.
At the fourth level, the top-weighed 7.8% of the 141 identified
4. Discussion indicators were respect for local traditional culture, respect for local
lifestyle, compliance with destination guidelines, traffic problems,
Factors related to both the environment and stakeholders are destruction of the natural environment, existence of crowds at the
important for sustainable development. However, this study’s destination, participation in cultural activities, understanding the
findings indicate that the stakeholder dimension is relatively more culture, assimilation into the local culture, overall effect of tourism,
important than the environment dimension. This study represents benefit–cost differential, and reduction of environmental impact
the first attempt to assess the relative importance of these two (0.0139). We thus recommend that wetland tourism managers
factors. Previous scholars have identified three types of human have the capacity to assess tourists’ cultural impact. For example,
values related to environmentalism: egoistic, social-altruistic, to reduce the tourists’ cultural impact of tourists, wetland tourism
and biospheric values (Stern and Dietz, 1994). Egoism causes a managers could create a cultural-awareness course to increase
person to act in opposition to environmental protection when that understanding of different cultural norms and values. Wetland
individual determines that the personal costs of acting are greater tourism marketers could also develop environmental education
than the benefits. An individual with greater social-altruistic values activities focusing on wetland themes, biodiversity conservation,
784 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

and wetland ecotourism and establish an ecological webpage to fur- 5. Conclusion

ther enhance pro-environment and sustainable wetlands tourism.
This study offers a theoretical framework for researchers, man- The assessment of sustainable tourism indicators can be
agers, and stakeholders in the field of sustainable tourism and regarded as a useful tool for achieving sustainable wetland tourism.
wetland development, thus contributing to the literature. Although it appears paradoxical to develop indicators for sustain-
Despite this study’s contributions, it is not without limitations. able tourism, few satisfactory definitions for sustainable wetland
First, because this study focuses on assessing sustainable tourism tourism exist. To fill the gap in current tourism research, this study
indicators for wetland tourism, the findings are limited to a specific examined indicators for sustainable tourism based stakeholder the-
demographic group in Taiwan. Achieving sustainable tourism in ory and environmental impact theory to integrate the roles of
different countries may require the use of different developmental stakeholders into the assessment of sustainable tourism. This study
models with respect to tourism policy and the natural environment. used two empirical studies to effectively determine the relatively
Thus, future studies should conduct similar surveys on the sustain- weights of three levels of dimensions and 141 indicators. Thus, by
able development of various nature-based tourism destinations in assessing the relative importance of these indicators, we can effec-
various countries to capture international and multicultural per- tively determine the significance of each indicator for focusing on
spectives. Next, to actually monitor the sustainability of tourism, planning, managing, and monitoring sustainable wetland tourism,
future studies should develop a practical procedure that can be potentially contributing to the academic literature.
effectively implemented based on this study’s findings. The devel-
opment of a long-term monitoring system to assess sustainable Appendix A.
tourism is necessary to monitor the early effects of tourism on the
environment and to adopt management strategies and action plans. Dimensions and indicators of sustainable wetland tourism.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Stakeholder Visitor Recreation experience Nature and landscape experience

Wetland biodiversity experience
Wildlife watching
Lagoon’s recreation experience
Sandbar’s recreation experience
Service quality
Ecological guides
Number of encounters with other tourists
Safety equipment
Ecotourism program
Travel cost
Respect for local culture Respect for residents’ traditional culture
Respect for residents’ life-style
Compliance with tourist guidelines
Increase cultural exchange
Enhanced economic development Purchase souvenir
Employ guide
Local traffic service
Stay at bed and breakfast
Donate to local conservation funds
Sustainable tourism Overall satisfaction
Identity for sustainability
Support for sustainable tourism
Willingness to revisit
Positive word-of-mouth to others
Resident Environmental impact Traffic congestion, noise, and pollution
Damage the natural environment
Destination crowding
Access to recreational facilities
Cultural impact Participate cultural activities
Increase cultural exchange
Understand the culture and society
Identify the culture
Social impact Affect residents’ way of life
Change precious traditional culture
Disturb residents’ daily life
Improving tourist facilities is a waste of tax-payer money
Destroy community culture
Increase the crime rate
Economic impact Increase job opportunities
Attract more investment
Lead to more spending in the community
Increase standard of living
Increase service quality
Give economic benefits to local people and small business
Tourism revenues are beneficial to local government
Develop public tourist facilities
Integrated development impact Overall impacts of tourism development
Benefits of tourism are greater than costs to the people
Tourism support Development of nature-based tourism
Attractions designed for nature-based tourists
 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787 785

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Cultural or historic-based attractions

Outdoor recreational programs
Supporting development of the service industry
For-profit organization Tourism support services Provide travel information
Provide interpretive services
Provide medicine and emergency information system
Provide educational training programs
Satisfaction survey
Provide a visitor center
Ecological conservation Formulate ethics in Tourism
Management of ecological carrying capacity
Maintenance of local specialties
Support for resource recycle
Energy-saving carbon reduction program
Support for sustainable tourism related research
Support for environmental monitoring
Provide the environmental conservation course
Government Locally oriented control policy Development of control policy
Formulate legal compliance
Establish tourism planning
Create a local advisory group
Percentage of external ownership of tourism industry
Implementation of local public opinion
Intersectoral linkage at local-national level
NGOs
Political participation Resident participation in planning process
Stakeholder collaboration
Level of cooperation among stakeholders
Stakeholder partnership
Resident advisory board
Awareness and implications of sustainability
Local planning policy Environmental management and policy
Land policy
Tourism planning
Community-based planning
Assessment of sustainable tourism
Political feasibility of tourism
Existence of tourism plan
Permits issued
Ethical regulation
Tourism support at all levels of Management and administration of community-based tourism
government Attitude toward development and conservation
Two-way communication between residents and government
Projects for conservation and development
Incentive programs
Development projects at national level
Affordable funding resources

Technology Tourism information update

New and low-impact technologies
Generic and competitive
Non-government organization Sustainable development Reduce environment impact
Promote environmental conservation
Survey of tourism resources
Survey of tourism impact
Assessment of environmental monitors
Promote natural destination experience
Assessing carrying capacity
Industry activation Level of development satisfaction
Formulate developmental mechanism
Regular educational training program
Regular interpretation service training
Promote environmental conservation program
Community alliance Increase community identity
Promote economic development
Community-based tourism industry to employ residents
Promote cultural conservation
Public participation and community empowerment
Environment Loss of renewable resources Assessment of air quality
Percentage of good air-quality days
Frequency of environmental accidents
Number of contaminated sites
Rate of ecosystem degradation Level of protection
Energy consumption data
Environmentally managed
Environmental impact of tourism Environmental impact assessment
activity Life-cycle analysis
Number of protected species
786 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Rate of reuse/recycle/reduction Availability, size, and condition of urban forest

Adopting regeneration resources used
Recycling rate
Agriculture/fishery utilization
Health of the human health Control site development
Amount of environmental education training
Use intensity of the sites
Wastewater discharge
Group size at sites
Discharge of solid waste
Level of biodiversity Animal biodiversity
Plant biodiversity
Population stability of the indicator species

References Hallak, R., Brown, G., Lindsay, N.J., 2012. The place identity–performance relation-
ship among tourism entrepreneurs: a structural equation modelling analysis.
Andersson, J.E., 2007. The recreational cost of coral bleaching – a stated and revealed Tour. Manage. 33 (1), 143–154.
preference study of international tourists. Ecol. Econ. 62, 704–715. Holden, M., 2006. Urban indicators and the integrative ideals of cities. Cities 23 (3),
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Falk, J., 2011a. Visitors’ learning for environmental sus- 170–183.
tainability: testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R., 2011. Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas: new
using structural equation modeling. Tour. Manage. 32 (6), 1243–1252. challenges for park management. Conserv. Lett. 4 (2), 137–149.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Sutherland, L.A., 2011b. Visitors’ memories of wildlife Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M., 1988. Fuzzy Mathematical Model in Engineering and
tourism: implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tour. Management Science. North-Holland Inc., New York.
Manage. 32 (4), 770–779. Kerstetter, D.L., Hou, J.S., Lin, C.H., 2004. Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a
Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Siwar, C., Ismail, S.M., 2015. Sustainability measurement for eco- behavioral approach. Tour. Manage. 25, 491–498.
tourism destination in Malaysia: a study on Lake Kenyir, Terengganu. Soc. Indic. Ko, T.G., 2005. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a
Res., 1–17. conceptual approach. Tour. Manage. 26 (3), 431–445.
Biggs, D., Ban, N.C., Hall, C.M., 2012. Lifestyle values, resilience, and nature-based Laurila-Pant, M., Lehikoinen, A., Uusitalo, L., Venesjärvi, R., 2015. How to value bio-
tourism’s contribution to conservation on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Environ. diversity in environmental management? Ecol. Indic. 55, 1–11.
Conserv. 39 (4), 370–379. Lee, T.H., 2009a. A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and
Blackstock, K.L., White, V., McCrum, G., Scott, A., Hunter, C., 2008. Measuring respon- motivation affect the future behavior of tourists. Leis. Sci. 31 (3), 215–236.
sibility: an appraisal of a Scottish National Park’s sustainable tourism indicators. Lee, T.H., 2009b. A structural model for examining how destination image and
J. Sustain. Tour. 16 (3), 276–297. interpretation service affect future behavior: a case study of Taiwan’s Taomi
Blancas, F.J., Lozano-Oyola, M., González, M., Guerrero, F.M., Caballero, R., 2011. How eco-village. J. Sustain Tour. 17 (6), 727–745.
to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: the case of rural tourism Lee, T.H., 2011. How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation
in Andalusia (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 412, 28–45. commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 19
Bramwell, B., Lane, B., 1993. Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach. J. (7), 895–915.
Sustain. Tour. 1 (1), 1–5. Lee, T.H., 2013. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H., 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, tourism development. Tour. Manage. 34 (1), 37–46.
Switzerland. Lee, T.H., Fu, C.J., Chang, P.S., 2015a. The support of attendees for tourism develop-
Cheng, C.H., Lin, Y., 2002. Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision ment: evidence from religious festivals, Taiwan. Tour. Geogr. 17 (2), 223–243.
theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 142 (1), 174–186. Lee, T.H., Jan, F.H., Huang, G.W., 2015b. The influence of recreation experiences
Chiu, Y.T.H., Lee, W.I., Chen, T.H., 2014. Environmentally responsible behavior in on environmentally responsible behavior: the case of Liuqiu Island, Taiwan. J.
ecotourism: antecedents and implications. Tour. Manage. 40, 321–329. Sustain. Tour. 23 (6), 947–967.
Choi, H.C., Sirakaya, E., 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community Liu, C.R., 2007. A study on sustainable development evaluation indictors in Alishan’s
tourism. Tour. Manage. 27, 1274–1289. Dabang ecotourism destination. J. Tour. Leis. Stud. 13 (3), 235–264 (in Chinese
Cottrell, S.P., Cutumisu, N., 2006. Sustainable tourism development strategy in WWF with English summary).
Pan Parks: case of a Swedish and Romanian national park. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. Logar, I., 2010. Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: an assess-
6 (2), 150–167. ment of policy instruments. Tour. Manage. 31, 125–135.
D’Angella, F., Go, F.M., 2009. Tale of two cities’ collaborative tourism marketing: Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F.J., González, M., Caballero, R., 2012. Sustainable tourism
towards a theory of destination stakeholder assessment. Tour. Manage. 30 (3), indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 18, 659–675.
429–440. Lynch, M.F., Duinker, P.N., Sheehan, L.R., Chute, J.E., 2011. The demand for Mi’kmaw
Day, J., Cai, L., 2012. Environmental and energy-related challenges to sustainable cultural tourism: tourist perspectives. Tour. Manage. 32, 977–986.
tourism in the United States and China. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 19 (5), Madin, E.M., Fenton, D.M., 2004. Environmental interpretation in the Great Barrier
379–388. Reef Marine Park: an assessment of programme effectiveness. J. Sustain. Tour.
De Groot, J.I., Steg, L., 2007. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five 12 (2), 121–137.
countries validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric Mikulić, J., Kožić, I., Krešić, D., 2015. Weighting indicators of tourism sustainability:
value orientations. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 38 (3), 318–332. a critical note. Ecol. Indic. 48, 312–314.
de Sausmarez, N., 2007. Crisis management, tourism and sustainability: the role of Miller, G., Twining-Ward, L., 2005. Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition:
indicators. J. Sustain. Tour. 15 (6), 700–714. The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators. CABI Publishing, Wallingford,
Edén, M., Falkheden, L., Malbert, B., 2000. The built environment and sustainable UK.
development: research meets practice in a Scandinavian context. Plan. Theory Needham, M.D., Szuster, B.W., 2011. Situational influences on normative evalua-
Pract. 1 (2), 260–272. tions of coastal tourism and recreation management strategies in Hawai’i. Tour.
Expert Choice, 2004. Expert Choice Software and Manual. Expert Choice, Inc., Pitts- Manage. 32 (4), 732–740.
burgh, PA. Nicholas, L., Thapa, B., Ko, Y., 2009. Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site
Fennell, D.A., 1999. Ecotourism: An Introduction. Routledge, London. – the Pitons management area, St. Lucia. Ann. Tour. Res. 36 (3), 390–412.
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Nyaupane, G.P., Chhetri, N., 2009. Vulnerability to climate change of nature-based
Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., tourism in the Nepalese Himalayas. Tour. Geogr. 11 (1), 95–119.
Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K., Park, D.B., Yoon, Y.S., 2011. Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indica-
2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309 (5734), 570–574. tors. Int. J. Tour. Res. 13 (5), 401–415.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Pub- Pérez, V., Guerrero, F., González, M., Pérez, F., Caballero, R., 2013. Composite indicator
lishing Inc., Boston. for the assessment of sustainability: the case of Cuban nature-based tourism
Galley, G., Clifton, J., 2004. The motivational and demographic characteristics of destinations. Ecol. Indic. 29, 316–324.
research ecotourists: operation Wallacea volunteers in Southeast Sulawesi, Roberts, S., Tribe, J., 2008. Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises: an
Indonesia. J. Ecotour. 3 (1), 69–82. exploratory perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 16 (5), 575–594.
Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B., 2009. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 11th Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999a. Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi,
edition. Wiley, London. Indonesia. Tour. Manage. 20 (6), 673–682.
Gössling, S., Schumacher, K.P., 2010. Implementing carbon neutral destination poli- Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999b. Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and
cies: issues from the Seychelles. J. Sustain. Tour. 18 (3), 377–391. practice. Tour. Manage. 20 (1), 123–132.
Gursoy, D., Rutherford, D.G., 2004. Host attitudes toward tourism – an improved Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
structural model. Ann. Tour. Res. 31 (3), 495–516. Psychol. 15, 234–281.
 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787 787

Sautter, E.T., Leisen, B., 1999. Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model. Van der Duim, R., Van Marwijk, R., 2006. The implementation of an environmental
Ann. Tour. Res. 26 (2), 312–328. management system for Dutch tour operators: an actor-network perspective. J.
Schwartz, S.H., 1970. Moral decision making and behavior. In: Macauley, J., Sustain. Tour. 14 (5), 449–472.
Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior. Academic Press, New York, Wagner, J.E., 1997. Estimating the economic impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 24
pp. 127–141. (3), 592–608.
Shikida, A., Yoda, M., Kino, A., Morishige, M., 2010. Tourism relationship model and Wang, W., Chen, J.S., Fan, L., Lu, J., 2012. Tourist experience and wetland parks: a
intermediary for sustainable tourism management: case study of the Kiritappu case of Zhejiang, China. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 (4), 1763–1778.
Wetland Trust in Hamanaka, Hokkaido. Tour. Hosp. Res. 10 (2), 105–115. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. Our Com-
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2009. An overview of sustainability mon Future (Report by United Nations World Commission on Environment and
assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 9, 189–212. Development [Chaired by GroBrundtland]). Oxford University Press, London.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues Woudenberg, F., 1991. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 40
50 (3), 65–84. (2), 131–150.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Therrien, M.C., 2013. Sustainable tourism indicators: Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., Chen, J.S., 2001. Validating a tourism development theory with
selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. J. Sustain. structural equation modeling. Tour. Manage. 22 (4), 363–372.
Tour. 21 (6), 862–879. Zhang, H., Lei, S.L., 2012. A structural model of residents’ intention to partici-
Tsaur, S.H., Lin, Y.C., Lin, J.H., 2006. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the pate in ecotourism: the case of a wetland community. Tour. Manage. 33 (4),
integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tour. Manage. 27, 916–925.
640–653.