See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357603438

Sustainability as a success factor for tourism destinations: a systematic

literature review

Article in Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes · January 2022

DOI: 10.1108/WHATT-10-2021-0139

CITATIONS READS

37 2,832

4 authors:

Margarida Custódio Santos Celia Veiga

Universidade do Algarve Universidade do Algarve
71 PUBLICATIONS 524 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 269 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

José António C. Santos Paulo Águas

Universidade do Algarve Universidade do Algarve
110 PUBLICATIONS 627 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 384 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by José António C. Santos on 17 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1755-4217.htm

WHATT
14,1 Sustainability as a success factor
for tourism destinations:
a systematic literature review
20 Margarida Cust
odio Santos
School of Management, Hospitality and Tourism, University of Algarve,
Received 22 October 2021
Revised 22 October 2021
Faro, Portugal and
Accepted 22 October 2021 Research Center for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs),
Faro, Portugal
C
elia Veiga
School of Management, Hospitality and Tourism, University of Algarve,
Faro, Portugal, and


Jos
e Ant
onio C. Santos and Paulo Aguas
School of Management, Hospitality and Tourism, University of Algarve,
Faro, Portugal and
Research Center for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs),
Faro, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – This study sought to assess the extent to which tourism research has considered sustainability as a
success factor for tourism destinations. It also aims to identify the relevance of the economic, environmental
and socio-cultural dimensions of sustainability for tourist destination success, identify gaps in the literature
and draw theoretical and practical implications and make recommendations.
Design/methodology/approach – The research methodology consists of a systematic literature review on
sustainability as a success factor for tourism destinations.
Findings – Research interest in the topic is recent and mostly focused on environmental sustainability.
Developing a sustainable tourism policy and performing adequate destination management are crucial for
tourism destination success. It is also acknowledged that perceiving a destination as sustainable has a
significant positive impact on tourists’ experiences, purchasing behaviour and loyalty.
Originality/value – This study’s value arises from the fact that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no
systematic literature review was yet been performed on the topic of sustainability as a success factor for
tourism destinations.
Keywords Sustainability, Systematic literature review, Success factor, Tourism destinations
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Major changes in tourism demand and supply driven by globalisation have led to a significant
increase in interest in the competitiveness of tourism destinations. The consensus of the scientific
community on the concept is, however, limited to its relevance, and there are different approaches
to its definition, scope, conceptualisation and measurement. Two distinct perspectives in
conceptualising and evaluating the concept of competitiveness can be identified. As the concept
of competitiveness is a relative concept, there has been an attempt to assess the competitiveness
of a country or destination in relation to other countries or destinations, but as a multidimensional
concept, there have been approaches aimed at developing models that include the factors that
Worldwide Hospitality and
Tourism Themes
shape and contribute to the explanation of the concept (Dwyer and Kim, 2003; March, 2004). One
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2022
pp. 20-37
© Emerald Publishing Limited Funding: This paper is financed by National Funds provided by FCT—Foundation for Science and
1755-4217
DOI 10.1108/WHATT-10-2021-0139 Technology—through project UIDB/04020/2020.
aspect that has created consensus in the scientific community is the recognition that Sustainability
competitiveness is a critical element in ensuring the success of a tourist destination (Cronj
e and and tourism
Plessis, 2020; Iglesias-S
anchez et al., 2019; Perna et al., 2018).
Ritchie and Crouch (2003) have argued that competitiveness in tourism is illusory without
destinations
the guarantee of sustainability. They emphasise that, for a tourist destination to be truly
competitive it must also be environmentally, socially, culturally and politically sustainable as
well as economically viable. They consider that the competitiveness of a destination has six
aspects: (1) increasing the spending of tourists at the destination; (2) increasing the number of 21
tourists; (3) providing tourists with satisfying and memorable experiences; (4) operating
profitably; (5) increasing the well-being of residents; and (6) preserving the natural capital of
the destination for future generations. After conducting a systematic literature review on the
competitiveness of tourism destinations, Cronj
e and Plessis (2020) stress that sustainability
should be a line of research in the context of the tourist destination competitiveness, as this
topic has only very recently become a subject of analysis.
This article therefore aims to assess the extent to which tourism research has considered
sustainability as a success factor for tourism destinations. To answer this question, a
systematic literature review was carried out and the following objectives were established:
(1) to identify the relevance of the economic, environmental and socio-cultural dimensions of
sustainability for the success of tourism destinations; and (2) to identify gaps in the literature,
to draw theoretical and practical implications and to make recommendations.

Literature review
Competitiveness of tourism destinations
The competitiveness of tourism destinations has been a research focus of the scientific
community in recent decades, following the interest that competitiveness aroused in other
sectors since the seminal work by Porter (1990). In tourism, the concept of competitiveness
has been analysed and discussed from different perspectives including economics,
management and political science. For example, economists tend to emphasise factors
such as price and other economic characteristics, with most of the analysis being carried out
from a macro perspective (Perna et al., 2018).
Research in the management field has tended to focus on models for the management and
governance of destinations and the complexity and wide scope of the concept have led to
different approaches. As mentioned above, one approach, which depends on competitiveness
being a relative concept, aims to measure the competitiveness of a given destination in
relation to competing destinations (Perna et al., 2018), and the second approach, which
conceives destination competitiveness as a multidimensional concept, focuses on developing
models that include the factors that shape and explain it. Wilde and Cox (2008) argue that the
concept of tourist destination competitiveness, as well as the understanding of the relevance
of the factors that shape it, should be related to the destination’s state of development and
evolution. This perspective is also highlighted by Dwyer and Kim (2003) and Enright and
Newton (2005), who think that researchers should provide a more specific and adapted
approach to the destination under analysis and pay particular attention to the factors that
determine the competitiveness of destinations in the different stages of development.
Mazanec et al. (2007) observe that indicators used to measure destination performance can
vary significantly; for example, maintaining a significant market share in a given segment or
market can be considered a success factor while increasing the market share in that same
segment or market can also be considered an indicator of success for another destination.
Dwyer and Kim (2003) developed a model to measure the competitiveness of tourism
destinations that, for the first time, recognises tourist demand explicitly as an important
factor in destination competitiveness. A destination can be highly competitive in one market
WHATT and very uncompetitive in another, depending on the main motivation of the market segment,
14,1 its spending structure and price sensitivity.
Multiple authors also point out that competitiveness in tourism should not be seen as an
end in itself as it is dependent on its ability to increase residents’ well-being and economic
prosperity (Dwyer and Kim, 2003). Similarly, Buhalis (2000) stresses that the concept should
not only take into account issues such as opportunity cost and profit in the medium and long
term, but should also include ensuring the sustainability of local resources as a way to
22 guarantee the long-term success of the destination while warranting an equitable distribution
to all stakeholders of the profits resulting from the use of resources. The climate emergency
has raised the importance of environmental sustainability as a relevant competitiveness
factor for tourism destinations and, consequently, their success.

The concept of success relating to tourism destinations

The Oxford Online Dictionary (2021) defines success as: “The accomplishment of an aim
or purpose; The attainment of fame, wealth or social status; The good or bad outcome of
an undertaking”. It is a multi-significant concept, which may achieve a high level of
complexity when applied by different disciplines to specific contexts. Countless papers in
various disciplines use the term success in the title, abstract or keywords without defining
the concept. In management, the concept of business success frequently appears as an
opposite to business failure (Lussier and Halabi, 2010; Marom and Lussier, 2014) and
several authors link the success of a tourism destination to its competitiveness (Dwyer
and Kim, 2003; Otto and Ritchie, 1996; Ritchie and Crouch, 2003). If it is associated with
tourism destination competitiveness, the concept of success becomes highly complex and
nearly impossible to measure in absolute terms, given that hundreds of indicators of
competitiveness have been developed in the literature. The concept of success is therefore
used mostly in relative, context-specific terms. Most authors study the success of a tourist
destination based on a single aspect that contributes to destination success, such as
destination marketing (Baker and Cameron, 2008; Park and Gretzel, 2007), tourism
growth (Chingarande and Saayman, 2018), governance (Borges et al., 2013), online
reputation (Iglesias-S
anchez et al., 2019), the quality of events and tourist experience
(Dalgıç, 2020), or stakeholder collaboration (McComb et al., 2017).
It is interesting to note that few authors have presented a holistic perspective of tourist
destination success, although Ritchie and Crouch (2003) state that tourist destination success
should be measured from the perspectives of all the stakeholders involved. Bornhorst et al.
(2010) conducted a study to assess how multiple stakeholders defined the tourism success of a
destination management organisation (DMO) and the success of a destination and concluded
that “having strong input variables such as product and service, along with effective
marketing and internal stakeholder relations (the process) will ultimately lead to the success
of a tourism destination as measured by economic indicators and quality of visitor
experience” (Bornhorst et al., 2010, p. 584). Another of their conclusions was that DMO
success and destination success are positively correlated. Inversely, the main causes for
failure of tourism destinations are, according to Domareski-Ruiz et al. (2020), political
violence, crime, corruption and terrorism which all impact on the quality of the tourist
experience.
Artal-Tur et al. (2018) state that, the effective management of cultural resources and
activities is of fundamental importance to destination sustainability. On the other hand,
multiple authors consider destination sustainability as a crucial determinant of tourist
destination competitiveness (Cucculelli and Goffi, 2016; Goffi et al., 2019; Pulido-Fern
andez
et al., 2015). However, the link between destination sustainability and destination success has
not yet been properly addressed in the literature.
Destination sustainability Sustainability
The concept of sustainability was originally defined in the late 1980s by the Brundtland and tourism
Commission in its Our Common Future report: sustainable development is “development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to
destinations
meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). Since then, the theme of sustainability in the context
of tourism has been the subject of growing interest both among international organisations
(European Commission, 2000, 2017; UNEP and WMO, 2005) and the scientific community, as
well as among professionals in the tourism sector and tourists in general (Sol
ıs-Radilla et al., 23
2019). There is, however, no general consensus regarding its conceptualisation and
measurement (Buckley, 2012; Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016; Ko, 2005; Sol
ıs-Radilla et al., 2019).
This is partly due to the complexity and dynamism of the concept of sustainability, which may
vary depending on the specific characteristics of the tourist destination as well as changes that
may occur over time (Bramwell et al., 2016; Goffi et al., 2019; Lee, 2001; Liu, 2003).
According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), in guidance endorsed by many
authors, sustainable tourism development is understood as the development that “(. . .) meets
the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities
for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that
economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity,
essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems” (UNWTO, 2002).
It follows from this definition that the pillars of sustainability, also called the triple bottom
line, are the economic, environmental and socio-cultural dimensions. There is an
understanding in the scientific community that sustainability has a long-term spectrum
(Rahmoun and Baeshen, 2020; Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016) and that its
effective implementation results from the interconnections among these three pillars, which is
a relevant factor for the competitiveness and success of tourism destinations (Azzopardi and
Nash, 2016; Cucculelli and Goffi, 2016; Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016).
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNWTO,
sustainability can only be attained when the practices developed cover these three
dimensions (UNEP and UNWTO, 2005; Veiga et al., 2018).
The environmental dimension refers to the destination’s natural resources and their
capacity for regeneration (Sol
ıs-Radilla et al., 2019). Environmental sustainability was
originally associated with the concept of sustainability in the context of the tourism literature
and has received much attention from academics (Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016). This has
contributed to a sharpened focus on the impact of climate change and to the growing body of
evidence that tourism as a sector has a high ecological footprint (G€ossling and Peeters, 2015;
Veiga et al., 2018). There is in fact, ample scientific evidence showing that the practice of
uncontrolled tourism, particularly in areas of greater environmental vulnerability, can cause
irreversible damage, either through high pressure on water and energy resources, CO2
production or landscape and biodiversity changes (G€ossling and Peeters, 2015; Lenzen et al.,
2018; Mathieson et al., 1982; Zhang and Zhang, 2018).
Socio-cultural sustainability, in turn, is linked to the relationship between human beings
and the surrounding environment and to the protection of the cultural resources of the host
community (Sol
ıs-Radilla et al., 2019). The impact of overtourism can also have harmful
results at the level of the socio-cultural environment, with a loss of the tourist destination’s
cultural identity. The environmental and socio-cultural dimensions together form the
aggregate tourism resources – or in other words, they are the determining factors of the
attractiveness of the tourist destination and the basis of tourist demand (Hanafiah and
Zulkifly, 2019; Kamel, 2020).
In turn, the economic dimension refers to safeguarding the economic needs and living
standards of host populations and the economy in general (Sol
ıs-Radilla et al., 2019). They are
usually used as indicators for assessing a destination’s economic performance, contribution
WHATT to the gross domestic product and job creation, but also as indicators of tourist performance
14,1 such as the number of arrivals and overnight stays, length of stay, level of expenditure,
housing occupancy rates, tourist company profits, prices and market shares (Cucculelli and
Goffi, 2016; Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016).
Traditionally, the evaluation of the success and competitiveness of tourism destinations was
almost always carried out exclusively based on indicators of an economic nature without taking
into account negative impacts of an environmental and socio-cultural nature (Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz
24 and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016). Nevertheless, although this has recognised that economic
viability is a critical condition for ensuring long-term sustainability (Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and
Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016), the performance of tourism destinations cannot be exclusively
analysed through economic indicators (Dwyer and Kim, 2003; Kuscer et al., 2017).
There is currently a growing recognition that it is necessary to adopt a new paradigm to
ensure a more holistic view of sustainability. Yet, fears continue to prevail that the adoption of
environmental policies could compromise the profits and competitiveness of tourism
destinations and, consequently, the individual prosperity of locals and society in general
(Goffi et al., 2019; Pulido-Fern
andez et al., 2015). To correct these perceptions, multiple authors
have expressed the need for more studies with an empirical focus, as well as proposing
models that provide evidence that competitiveness without sustainability is an illusion
(Gallardo-V
asquez et al., 2019; Goffi et al., 2019). There is also a need to develop Ritchie and
Crouch (2003) statement that the different sustainability dimensions are synergistic and not
antagonistic (Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016).

Methods
Considering the question (To what extent has tourism research considered sustainability as a
success factor for tourism destinations?) and related objectives stated in the Introduction, the
method chosen for this study was a systematic literature review. A review protocol was then
developed and tested; this included the search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria (see
Table 1), screening procedures and quality assessment criteria. Following a rigorous protocol is

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Justification

Articles focussing on success factors of Articles not focussing on success Out of scope of the study
tourism destinations factors of tourism destinations
WEB OF SCIENCE and SCOPUS Other databases Indexing in the two main scientific
databases assures reliability because
only studies published in reliable
sources are eligible
Peer-reviewed full-papers published in Not peer-reviewed studies (opinion Peer-review validates research and
indexed journals articles, editorials, book chapters, assures its reliability
books) and other peer-reviewed studies
(e.g. theses, dissertations) when not
journal papers. Research notes and
conference proceedings have been
excluded
Language: English Papers not written in English English has become the main
language for the diffusion of scientific
papers
Only one version of the same paper Duplicates of the same paper Avoid repetitions
Only articles containing the words Papers dealing with the success of Refining the scope
sustainable, sustainability, environment tourism destinations but not with
or environmental in the title, abstract or sustainability
keywords
Table 1. Only articles linking sustainability with Articles not linking sustainability with Refining the scope
Inclusion/exclusion destination success destination success
criteria Source(s): Authors
necessary to reduce the possibility of researcher bias in data selection and analysis (Kitchenham Sustainability
and Charters, 2007; Xiao and Watson, 2019) and to increase the reliability of the review, and tourism
because it allows for the replication and verification of the study (Xiao and Watson, 2019).
In this phase, several search strings and Boolean operators were tested and fine-tuned to
destinations
ensure that the most relevant studies were harvested by the search. The literature search was
undertaken during July 2021 in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, using the following
combination: success AND (factors OR drivers) AND touris* destination*. These two
databases were chosen because they are the most reliable in terms of content quality and 25
diversity. The search output was 327 results in Scopus and 293 results in Web of Science.
Some automatic filters were then applied, limiting the search to articles written in English and
peer-reviewed research papers and review papers. Conference proceedings, editorials,
research notes, book chapters and books were excluded. By applying these filters, the search
output was reduced to 253 documents in Scopus and 214 in Web of Science. After extracting
data to an Excel spreadsheet and comparing data from the two databases, 136 duplicates
were eliminated. The full text of the remaining 331 articles were then downloaded and
subjected to a further inclusion/exclusion criterion to ensure that only papers dealing with
any aspect of sustainability were eligible. The abstracts were read, and manual filters were
applied using Mendeley to assess the context in which words related to sustainability
appeared in the title, abstract or keywords. Because the vast majority of papers did not
include sustainability-related terms in their titles, abstracts and keywords, the results were
reduced to 91. Finally, all 91 papers were read by the authors to determine whether they
discussed the link between sustainability and the success of tourism destinations. Most of the
papers did indeed focus on sustainability but not as a success factor for tourism destinations.
The 61 excluded papers identified and discussed how particular factors impact or contribute
to destination sustainability. The final number of eligible studies was limited to 30, as shown
in Figure 1, which summarises the whole process. It is worth mentioning that seven papers
focused only on environmental sustainability.

Results
Bibliometric data
The topic of sustainability as a success factor for tourism destinations is relatively new in the
literature. The first study is from 2010, and all of the other studies were published between
2015 and 2021. The year 2019 stands out as the most prolific for this topic, with eight papers.
Considering the UNWTO regions, which have been the focus of the studies, Europe stands
out with 16 studies, followed by Asia and the Pacific with 6 studies and the Americas with 4.
The papers were published by a multitude of journals, of which Sustainability (with 5 papers)
and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (with 4 papers) published more papers on the topic.
Considering the types of destinations studied, sun and sea, rural and city destinations are the
most frequent with five papers each, followed by mountain and nature destinations (two
each) and industrial, cultural and wellness destinations (one each). Concerning methods, the
vast majority of the studies (20) used quantitative methods, six studies used mixed methods
and only four papers used qualitative methods. Regarding the dimensions of sustainability,
the main focus has been on environmental sustainability (28 papers), although most of them
also take another dimension or all three dimensions of sustainability into account (see
Table 2).

Content analysis
The 30 selected papers were subjected to content analysis to identify how the three
dimensions of sustainability contribute to tourist destination success. To provide a better
understanding of this issue, this section is subdivided into three subsections, corresponding
to the triple bottom line of sustainability (i.e. economic, environmental and socio-cultural).
WHATT
14,1

26

Figure 1.
Summary of the
systematic review
search process
Source(s): Author elaboration based on Yang et al. (2017)

Economic sustainability and tourist destination success. The success and competitiveness
of tourism destinations has traditionally been evaluated through the performance of
socio-economic indicators. Economic growth is an important strategic objective of tourism
destinations (Pulido-Fern
andez et al., 2015), on which depends the prosperity of residents,
local businesses and the economy in general. However, sustained economic growth must
balance the economic interests of tourism destinations and their local communities without
jeopardising environmental and socio-cultural sustainability in the short and long term
(Azzopardi and Nash, 2016). In addition, several authors have argued that economic
sustainability involves balancing the interests of the destination with the needs and
preferences of tourists (Alves and Nogueira, 2015; Azzopardi and Nash, 2016; Cucculelli and
Goffi, 2016; Rahmoun and Baeshen, 2020). In this sense, several studies have assessed the
economic performance of destinations from the perspective of demand. Rahmoun and
Baeshen’s (2020) study on tourist preferences identified two main determining factors in
choosing a holiday destination: tourist level of income (as observed by about 68.0% of
respondents) and the exchange rate, which was the second most relevant factor in decision-
making (64.0% of responses). Another study, carried out by Balan et al. (2010), focused on
evaluating the contribution of cultural attractiveness to the tourist development of cultural
destinations. This study concluded that the three main factors supporting the choice of most
European tourists were value for money (44.0%), cultural attractiveness (31.0%) and
price (27.0%).
 OMT Destination Sustainability
Sustainability
Authors Year Journal region type Methods dimension and tourism
destinations
Bilynets et al. 2021 Journal of Europe City Quantitative Environmental,
Sustainable socio-cultural
Tourism and economic
Atsiz et al. Atsiz Journal of Europe City Quantitative Environmental,
et al., Hospitality and socio-cultural 27
2020 Tourism Insights and economic
Eichelberger 2020 Journal of Europe Mountain Mixed Environmental
et al. Hospitality and methods and sociocultural
Tourism
Management
Rahmoun and 2020 Asia–Pacific Europe Not Quantitative Environmental
Baeshen Management applicable and economic
Accounting
Journal
Dube et al. 2020 Journal of Africa Several Mixed Environmental
Outdoor methods
Recreation and
Tourism
Su et al. 2020 Journal of Asia and Nature Quantitative Environmental
Business the
Research Pacific
Goffi et al. 2019 Journal of Cleaner Americas Several Quantitative Environmental,
Production socio-cultural
and economic
Armis and 2020 Asia–Pacific Asia and Industrial Mixed Socio-cultural
Kanegae Journal of the methods
Regional Science Pacific
Gallardo- 2019 European Journal Americas Rural Qualitative Environmental,
V
azquez et al. of Tourism, socio-cultural
Hospitality and and economic
Recreation
Chan et al. 2019 International Asia and City Quantitative Environmental
Journal of the and sociocultural
Tourism Cities Pacific
Almeida- 2019 Sustainability Europe Several Quantitative Environmental
Santana and
Moreno-Gil
Muresan et al. 2019 Sustainability Europe Rural Quantitative Environmental
and sociocultural
Sol
ıs-Radilla 2019 Sustainability Americas Sea and sun Quantitative Environmental,
et al. socio-cultural
and economic
Hanafiah and 2019 Competitiveness Several Several Qualitative Economic
Zulkifly Review
Jurado-Rivas 2019 Sustainability Europe City Quantitative Environmental
and S
anchez-
Rivero
Mena– 2018 Cuadernos de Asia and City Mixed Environmental
Navarro et al. Turismo the methods
Pacific
Table 2.
(continued ) Bibliometric data
WHATT OMT Destination Sustainability
14,1 Authors Year Journal region type Methods dimension

Chin et al. 2018 Journal of Asia and Rural Quantitative Environmental

Hospitality the
Marketing and Pacific
Management
28 Chin et al. 2017 Tourism Review Asia and Rural Quantitative Environmental
the
Pacific
Kuscer et al. 2017 Journal of Europe Mountain Quantitative Environmental,
Sustainable socio-cultural
Tourism and economic
Azzopardi 2016 Current Issues in Europe Sea and sun Qualitative Environmental,
and Nash Tourism socio-cultural
and economic
Demirovi
c 2016 J. Geogr. Inst. Europe Rural Quantitative Environmental
et al. Cvijic and sociocultural
Rodr
ıguez- 2016 Sustainability Europe Sea and sun Quantitative Environmental,
D
ıaz and socio-cultural
Espino- and economic
Rodr
ıguez
Tiago et al. 2016 Island Studies Europe Nature Mixed Environmental
Journal methods
Cucculelli and 2016 Journal of Cleaner Europe Several Quantitative Environmental,
Goffi Production Socio-cultural
and Economic
Fletcher et al. 2016 Journal of Several Cultural Qualitative Environmental,
Sustainable socio-cultural
Tourism and economic
Iniesta- 2016 Journal of Europe Sea and sun Quantitative Environmental,
Bonillo et al. Business socio-cultural
Research and economic
Olya and 2015 Fresenius Europe Sea and sun Quantitative Environmental,
Alipour Environmental socio-cultural
Bulletin and economic
Alves and 2015 Pasos Americas Several Quantitative Environmental
Nogueira and economic
Pulido- 2015 Journal of Several Not Mixed Environmental,
Fern
andez Sustainable applicable methods socio-cultural
et al. Tourism and economic
Balan et al. 2010 Revista Europe Wellness Quantitative Environmental,
Economic~a socio-cultural
Table 2. and economic

The importance of value for money and price in choosing a tourist destination was also
identified by Cucculelli and Goffi (2016). These were key competitiveness factors in a study of
small Italian “destinations of excellence”. The authors concluded that one of the main
problems faced by Italian tourism was the competitive position of price – a finding they say is
supported by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in relation to 134 of 140 countries. Hanafiah
and Zulkifly (2019) recognise the importance of these two factors in the rankings and the role
of price in tourism demand and investment attraction. They summarise the concerns of
previous studies, recommending that countries develop value-generating resources for
tourism and the economy in general, while preserving social identity and environmental Sustainability
quality. and tourism
The price-quality ratio is also explored by Azzopardi and Nash (2016) who view this as a
relevant factor to the competitiveness of tourism destinations in their study of an island
destinations
destination. They argue that a strategy focused on tourists should be followed by offering
quality products and low prices, ensuring both an economically sustainable destination and
company profits. They also emphasise that destination management entities should foster a
sustainable business environment, giving particular importance to the regulatory 29
framework, economic policies, such as competitive policy, tax and interest regimes and
incentive schemes to promote tourism investments and corporate profit. For these authors,
the determinant for economic sustainability is the maintenance of an intelligence system that
not only allows for the identification of business opportunities but also serves as a stimulus to
innovation and creativity.
Length of stay is another variable associated with tourist demand that has an economic
impact on tourism destinations. According to the study by Atsiz et al., 2020, which
investigated the impact of length of stay on cultural destinations, short-term stays generate
lower expenditure resulting in low economic benefits, particularly in terms of income
generated in industry and the creation and maintenance of jobs in tourism that contribute to
the economic prosperity of the destination and the local community.
In addition to these approaches, many of the studies (Azzopardi and Nash, 2016) have
analysed the economic sustainability of destinations in conjunction with the other
dimensions of sustainability. Analysis of the link between economic growth and
environmental sustainability is particularly relevant (Alves and Nogueira, 2015; Rahmoun
and Baeshen, 2020; Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016). Iniesta-Bonillo et al. (2016)
concluded, based on their attempt to evaluate the perception of the sustainability of tourism
destinations by tourists with the perception of the value of their holidays and level of
satisfaction that the three aspects of sustainability contribute to this perception. They point
out that it is essential for tourism organisations to foster increased value and satisfaction to
improve tourism development and its economic growth and sustainability in general. They
also recommend that those responsible for destinations develop marketing and
communication strategies that position the destination as sustainable and generate
awareness of this among target audiences, as proposed by several other authors (Bilynets
et al., 2021; Olya and Alipour, 2015).
Hanafiah and Zulkifly (2019) analysed 128 countries based on WEF indicators, including
contribution to growth domestic product (GDP), arrivals and expenditure, and concluded that
the countries with the greatest dynamism in the adoption of environmental practices did not
see their economic performance compromised. The study by Pulido-Fern
andez et al. (2015)
also showed that sustainability does not affect the main economic indicators of a destination
in the short term, nor does it constitute an obstacle to profit and competitiveness. They also
argue that sustainable tourism should not be restricted to the club of developed countries and
should not be an embarrassment to the development of the least developed countries, thus
perpetuating the cycle of poverty (Goffi et al., 2019; Olya and Alipour, 2015).
A study by Goffi et al. (2019) proposed a competitiveness model developed from the
Crouch model (2003), in which seven new socio-economic indicators were introduced, namely,
at the local level: (1) growth of the local economy; (2) economic well-being of locals; and (3)
standard of living of the poorest. Their model also proposes indicators to assess socio-
economic sustainability: (4) increasing employment opportunities; (5) the development of
local businesses; (6) improving local services; and (7) attracting investment. They conclude
that the adoption of environmental sustainability does not limit a destination’s economic
growth. They also argue that one of the biggest threats to the competitiveness of developing
countries is tourism based on low wage labour, low quality and low prices. Further, they
WHATT suggest that the integration of the poorest communities with tourism helps to develop human
14,1 and social capital, and for this, it is essential to invest in education programmes. They
highlight the importance of the effect of the tourism multiplier in the context of developing
country destinations and note that tourism has the potential to reduce income inequality.
The study by de Kuscer et al. (2017) is based on a comparative analysis of mountain
destinations located in Austria, Slovenia and Switzerland. It concludes that from the point of
view of the destination, environmental sustainability is more relevant than economic
30 sustainability, the latter being particularly important for tourist companies. Exploring a
different perspective, Olya and Alipour (2015) proposed that a climate-based recreation
management system model should be developed for a Mediterranean island destination.
While the main intention underlying the development of the model was related to reducing
the environmental impact in the most congested areas, the socio-economic consequences of
the adoption of the model were considered positive. The knowledge provided allowed for the
relocation of demand to inland areas away from the congested coast, thus providing a more
equitable distribution of the economic benefits of tourism. At the same time, they consider the
model to be an instrument that could mitigate seasonality -one of the phenomena with the
greatest economic impacts on destinations.
Environmental sustainability and the success of tourism destinations. In terms of studies
that effectively established a link between the success of the destination and environmental
sustainability (n 5 28), it is possible to conclude that 46.0% queried individuals whose
function qualified them to express an informed opinion on the issue. These experts included
different stakeholders, from managers of public and private organisations working in the
tourism sector to academics. The same percentage of studies sought to address the issue by
focussing on the perspective of demand, relying on tourists’ perceptions. It should also be
noted that about 14.0% of the studies used secondary data – mainly data published by
international organisations or data produced by georeferencing. Only 7.0% of the studies
included the perception of residents in their studies.
Regarding studies that have adopted a supply-side approach, using the opinion of
stakeholders and/or experts or secondary data, several stress the importance of destinations
prioritising sustainable management of the natural environment in the definition of their
development strategies. The empirical evidence found to support this statement is supported
by the recognition that environmental management is fundamental (Yenidogan et al., 2021),
because environmental degradation has a negative impact on the tourist experience and also
on residents’ quality of life (Azzopardi and Nash, 2016; Chin et al., 2017; Demirovi
c et al., 2016;
Gallardo-V
asquez, 2019; Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016). Additionally, today’s
tourists are increasingly aware of environmental issues, which is aggravated by the
consequences of the climate crises the world is facing (Azzopardi and Nash, 2016). The study
by Pulido-Fern
andez et al. (2015) also confirms that a focus on sustainability practices,
contrary to the erroneous viewpoint that persists, does not reduce wealth creation or
employment opportunities.
Studies conducted in different geographical contexts and in destinations at different
stages of tourist development (as well as belonging to different typologies) found empirical
evidence that pursuing a sustainable tourism policy and performing adequate destination
management are the two aspects that contribute most significantly to tourist destination
success (Cucculelli and Goffi, 2016; Goffi et al., 2019; Mena-Navarro et al., 2018). However, the
existence of studies that show the need for each destination to seek to understand the factors
associated with sustainability that have greater relevance in its success should also be
stressed, because even when analysing the same typology of destinations in different
geographical contexts, Fletcher et al. (2016) recognised that the factors explaining destination
success could be quite diverse.
 In line with studies that aim to compare the competitiveness of a destination to Sustainability
comparable destinations, Kuscer et al. (2017) used as one of the parameters of analysis the and tourism
different measures to ensure environmental sustainability, having concluded that there are
differences and that the less well-positioned destinations should adopt a benchmarking
destinations
policy in relation to competitors that present a better performance in this parameter. Another
line of research on this topic used travel agents to assess the importance of environmental
policy as a requirement for tourists’ choice of a destination, having verified that 38.6% of
respondents consider that the environmental protection policy followed by the destination is 31
an important choice factor. Still, it is not the most important criterion in the opinion of these
stakeholders in the distribution of tourist products (Rahmoun and Baeshen, 2020). More
recently, there have also been studies aimed at anticipating the impact of climate change on
destination success. A study by Dube et al. (2020) concluded that prolonged drought can have
a harmful effect on the tourism sector, so destinations should act proactively by carefully
managing their water resources.
Studies that have tried to understand how environmental sustainability influences the
success of destinations based on the perceptions of tourists, have found scientific evidence
that tourists recognise the existence of initiatives at the destination aimed at ensuring
environmental protection, even when they are less perceptible. This recognition also leads
tourists to perceive the destination as environmentally friendly and in turn, this influences
the organic environmental image of the destination (Bilynets et al., 2021; Chin et al., 2018).
A study carried out in the context of a rural destination reached similar conclusions, revealing
that tourists perceive the implementation of green marketing tools and that these perceptions
influence attitude formation. Furthermore, the existence of an eco-brand, eco-labels and
environmental advertisement positively influences tourists’ buying behaviour (Chin et al.,
2018). Another study, carried out in an insular destination with nature tourism as the main
tourist product, has revealed different tourist profiles based on sensitivity to environmental
issues, and all of the identified profiles consider the environmental certification of
accommodation as an important factor in the purchasing decision (Tiago et al., 2016).
A further line of research has empirically proven that the perception of sustainability at
the destination increases the perception of value and satisfaction with the tourist experience
(Iniesta-Bonillo et al., 2016). Su et al. (2020) corroborate the importance of sustainability in the
formation of expectations and how these positively influence the assessment that is made of
the destination experience. Additionally, when tourists perceive a destination as eco-friendly,
it influences their intention to return to or to recommend it. It was also possible to identify
studies that show, based on tourists’ perceptions, that different types of tourists, in particular
those who are interested in culture or who stay longer in the destination, are likely to
positively influence the sustainable growth of the destination (Atsiz et al., 2020; Balan et al.,
2010). Additionally, motivations and the modelling factors of nationality, age and level of
education influence the way tourists perceive the sustainable destination image (Almeida-
Santana and Moreno-Gil, 2019). Identical results, but in relation to the perception of residents
about the quality of tourism destinations, were evidenced by Muresan et al. (2019) – that is,
that modelling factors such as country of residence, gender and age determine residents’
perception of destination quality.
Regarding the predisposition of tourists to pay a higher price for tourist products or
services with greater capacity to ensure destination sustainability, a study carried out by
Jurado-Rivas and S
anchez-Rivero (2019) reveals that less than 50.0% of tourists would be
willing to pay a higher price for such tourist products. There are also studies that aim to
understand how tourists perceive smart tourism destinations and the dimensions of a smart
city, which can contribute to the sustainable development of a smart destination (Chan et al.,
2019) or how entrepreneurial ecosystems can contribute to ensuring the sustainable
development of destinations and, consequently, their success (Eichelberger et al., 2020).
WHATT Socio-cultural sustainability and success of tourism destinations. Most (63.0%) of the papers
14,1 under analysis take the socio-cultural dimension of sustainability into account, whether
separately or integrated into the triple bottom line of sustainability. Although pointing to
different reasons or using different terminology, several studies conclude that cultural
sustainability is crucial for tourism destination competitiveness and that this leads to
destination success. Further, several authors conclude that tourist activities based on cultural
attractions contribute significantly to destination competitiveness (Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz and
32 Espino-Rodr
ıguez, 2016) and thus to competitive advantage (Atsiz et al., 2020), sustainable
growth (Balan et al., 2010) and ultimately to destination success. Empirical findings by Goffi
et al. (2019) indicate that sustainable tourism is essential in preserving the ecosystem and the
socio-cultural foundation of a developing destination and improving its competitiveness.
They advocate the involvement of the main local stakeholders at the destination and the
commitment of public and private leadership at the national, provincial and local levels as key
factors in sustainable tourism planning, competitiveness and the success of tourism
destinations. If planned sustainably, tourism should generate income for local communities
and contribute to their economic, social and cultural development and well-being and in
developing countries, tourism should contribute significantly to poverty reduction. For
Kuscer et al. (2017), tourism development depends on a destination’s innovation levels and
should include stakeholder participation and be based on the attractiveness of the socio-
cultural environment and socio-cultural sustainability. Pulido-Fern
andez et al. (2015) posit
that greening tourism activities can contribute to destination sustainability and create new
opportunities for investment and growth in terms of wealth and jobs.

Conclusions, implications and recommendations

This paper reviewed 30 journal articles addressing the role of sustainability as a factor in
tourist destination success. Although sustainability is a topic that has been recognised as
relevant to the competitiveness of tourism destinations and consequently to its success since
Ritchie and Crouch (2003) published their model on destination competitiveness, it is possible
to conclude that this line of research line has not been fully explored. The first identified paper
considered in our data set was from 2010, and interest in this topic increased after 2015. The
analysis of sustainability as a success factor has been applied to different types of
destinations, covering almost all existing typologies. Regarding geographical scope, most of
the studies in the review focused on European destinations where environmental
sustainability has been the most analysed dimension. This is probably because Europe is
one of the world regions where environmental issues have been extensively discussed in
public and political forums.
The research approaches used to assess sustainability as a success factor for tourism
destinations mainly follow the same methodological framework used to evaluate destination
competitiveness. Also, when analysing sustainability as a success factor, many studies have
tried to identify variables associated with sustainability that might explain or contribute
to the success of the destination or have compared the performance of a destination to
comparable destinations. The models and research methods used are the ones proposed to
assess the competitiveness of tourism destinations, namely the models developed by Ritchie
and Crouch (2003) and Dwyer and Kim (2003).
Regarding the triple bottom line of sustainability, the environmental dimension is by far
the most studied, on its own or in combination with the remaining sustainability pillars.
Although most of the studies defined their objectives as assessing the importance of
sustainability to tourist destination success, the conclusions drawn remain superficial as they
simply say that sustainability is an important factor. Although most studies used
quantitative methods, none attempted to quantify the impacts of developing a sustainable
tourism policy related to destination management performance.
 Studies assessing the importance of sustainability based on tourists’ perceptions proved Sustainability
in a very incisive way that tourists recognise a destination’s commitment to sustainability and tourism
issues. Further to this, recognising a destination as environmentally friendly tends to
positively impact the tourist experience, purchasing behaviour and willingness to return or to
destinations
recommend the destination. Concomitantly, evidence was found that adopting a
sustainability-focused tourism strategy does not compromise the economic development of
the destination and, in the long-term, may even stimulate economic development with
benefits for the local community. 33
In conclusion, it should be stressed that, due to the specific characteristics of each
destination and its life cycle, future studies should focus on the most relevant dimension of
sustainability, always keeping in mind that the three pillars should work in concert to capture
the full benefits of sustainability as a success factor for tourist destinations. Finally, it is
recognised that this review is limited to journal articles published in English and indexed in
Scopus and Web of Science. Nevertheless, the review provides a systematic and up to date
summary of research on sustainability as a success factor for tourism destinations,
underlining the relevance of this topic and presenting the shortcomings that need to be
addressed in future research.

References
Almeida-Santana, A. and Moreno-Gil, S. (2019), “Perceived sustainable destination image: implications
for marketing strategies in Europe”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 22, p. 6466, doi: 10.3390/
su11226466.
Alves, S. and Nogueira, A.R.R. (2015), “Towards a sustainable tourism competitiveness measurement
model for municipalities: Brazilian empirical evidence”, Pasos, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 1337-1353.
Armis, R. and Kanegae, H. (2020), “The attractiveness of a post-mining city as a tourist destination
from the perspective of visitors: a study of Sawahlunto old coal-mining town in Indonesia”,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 4, pp. 443-461, doi: 10.1007/s41685-019-00137-4.
nalver, A.J. and Villena-Navarro, M. (2018), “Tourism, cultural activities and
Artal-Tur, A., Briones-Pe~
sustainability in the Spanish Mediterranean regions: a probit approach”, Tourism and
Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-18, doi: 10.18089/tms.2018.14101.
Atsiz, O., Leoni, V. and Akova, O. (2020), “Determinants of tourists’ length of stay in cultural
destination: one-night vs longer stays”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, ahead-of-
print, doi: 10.1108/JHTI-07-2020-0126.
Azzopardi, E. and Nash, R. (2016), “A framework for island destination competitiveness - perspectives
from the island of Malta”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 253-281, doi: 10.1080/
13683500.2015.1025723.
Baker, M.J. and Cameron, E. (2008), “Critical success factors in destination marketing”, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 79-97.
Balan, D., Popescu, I.C. and Veghes, C. (2010), “Cultural attractiveness as a determinant of the tourist
destinations competitiveness in the European Union countries”, Revista Economica, Vol. 1 No. 5,
pp. 23-28.
Bilynets, L., Cvelbar, K. and Dolnicar, S. (2021), “Can publicly visible pro-environmental initiatives
improve the organic environmental image of destinations?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1926469.
Borges, M.R., Eus
ebio, C. and Carvalho, N. (2013), “Governance for sustainable tourism: a review and
directions for future research”, European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 7, pp. 45-56.
Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J.R.B. and Sheehan, L. (2010), “Determinants of tourism success for DMOs and
destinations: an empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 31, pp. 572-589, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.008.
WHATT Bramwell, B., Higham, J., Lane, B. and Miller, G. (2016), “Twenty-five years of sustainable tourism and
the Journal of Sustainable Tourism: looking back and moving forward”, Journal of Sustainable
14,1 Tourism. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1251689.
Buckley, R. (2012), “Sustainable tourism: research and reality”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39,
pp. 528-546.
Buhalis, D. (2000), “Marketing the competitive destination of the future”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 21, pp. 97-116.
34
Chan, C.-S., Peters, M. and Pikkemaat, B. (2019), “Investigating visitors’ perception of smart city
dimensions for city branding in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 620-638.
Chin, C.H., Thian, S.S.-Z. and Lo, M.C. (2017), “Community’s experiential knowledge on the
development of rural tourism competitive advantage: a study on Kampung Semadang – Borneo
Heights, Sarawak”, Tourism Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 238-260.
Chin, C.-H., Chin, C.-L. and Wong, W.P.-M. (2018), “The implementation of green marketing tools in
rural tourism: the readiness of tourists?”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 261-280, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2017.1359723.
Chingarande, A. and Saayman, A. (2018), “Critical success factors for tourism-led growth”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 20, pp. 800-818, doi: 10.1002/jtr.2233.
Cronj
e, D.I.F. and du Plessis, E. (2020), “A review on tourism destination competitiveness”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 45, pp. 256-265, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.012.
Cucculelli, M. and Goffi, G. (2016), “Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness?
Evidence from Italian Destinations of Excellence”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 111
No. Part B, pp. 370-382, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.069.
Dalgıç, A. and Birdir, K. (2020), “Key success factors on loyalty of festival visitors: the mediating effect
of festival experience and festival image”, Tourism and Management Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 28-38, doi: 10.18089/tms.2020.160103.
Demirovi
c, D., Petrovi, M.D., Neto Monteiro, L.C. and Stjepanov, S. (2016), “An examination of
competitiveness of rural tourism destinations from the supply side perspective-case of
Vojvodina (Serbia)”, Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cviji
c SASA, Vol. 66,
pp. 387-400.
Domareski-Ruiz, T.C., Chim-Miki, A.F., A~ na, E. and Anjos, F.A. (2020), “Impacts of mega-events on
na~
destination competitiveness and corruption perception in South American countries”, Tourism
and Management Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 7-15, doi: 10.18089/tms.2020.160201.
Dube, K., Nhamo, G. and Chikodzi, D. (2020), “Climate change-induced droughts and tourism: impacts
and responses of Western Cape Province, South Africa”, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, p. 100319, doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2020.100319.
Dwyer, L. and Kim, C. (2003), “Destination competitiveness: a model and determinants”, Current Issues
in Tourism, Vol. 6, pp. 369-414.
Eichelberger, S., Peters, M., Pikkemaat, B. and Chan, C.-S. (2020), “Entrepreneurial ecosystems in
smart cities for tourism development: from stakeholder perceptions to regional tourism policy
implications”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 45, pp. 319-329.
Enright, M.J. and Newton, J. (2005), “Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in
Asia Pacific: comprehensiveness and Universality”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43,
pp. 339-350.
European Commission (2000), Towards Quality Coastal Tourism – Integrated Quality Management
(IQM) of Coastal Tourist Destinations, Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2017), Special Eurobarometer 468: Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the
Environment, doi: 10.2779/84809.
Fletcher, C., Pforr, C. and Brueckner, M. (2016), “Factors influencing Indigenous engagement in Sustainability
tourism development: an international perspective”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 24 Nos
8-9, pp. 1100-1120, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2016.1173045. and tourism
Gallardo-V
asquez, D., Hern
andez-Ponce, O.E. and Valdez-Ju
arez, L.E. (2019), “Impact factors for the
destinations
development of a competitive and sustainable tourist destination. Case: Southern Sonora
Region”, EJTHR, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 3-14, doi: 10.2478/ejthr-2019-0008.
G€ossling, S. and Peeters, P. (2015), “Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900-2050”,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 639-659. 35
Goffi, G., Cucculelli, M. and Masiero, L. (2019), “Fostering tourism destination competitiveness in
developing countries: the role of sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 209,
pp. 101-115, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.208.
Hanafiah, M.H. and Zulkifly, M.I. (2019), “Tourism destination competitiveness and tourism
performance: a secondary data approach”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 592-621,
doi: 10.1108/CR-07-2018-0045.
Iglesias-S
anchez, P.P., Correia, M.B. and Jambrino-Maldonado, C. (2019), “Challenges in linking
destinations’ online reputation with competitiveness”, Tourism and Management Studies,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 35-43, doi: 10.18089/tms.2019.150103.
Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., S
anchez-Fern
andez, R. and Jim
enez-Castillho, D. (2016), “Sustainability, value,
and satisfaction: model testing and cross-validation in tourist destinations”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 5002-5007, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.071.
Jurado-Rivas, C. and S
anchez-Rivero, M. (2019), “Willingness to pay for more sustainable tourism
destinations in world heritage cities: the case of Caceres, Spain”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 21, p.
5880, doi: 10.3390/su11215880.
Kamel, N. (2020), “Examining the mediating role of celebrity endorsement in green advertisements to
improve the intention of Egyptian Millennials towards environmental behaviours in tourist
destinations”, Tourism and Management Studies, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 7-21, doi: 10.18089/tms.2020.
160401.
Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007), “Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in
software engineering”, EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University, available at:
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf.
Ko, T.G. (2005), “Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a conceptual
approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 431-445.
Kuscer, K., Mihalic, T. and Pechlaner, H. (2017), “Innovation, sustainable tourism and environments in
mountain destination development: a comparative analysis of Austria, Slovenia and
Switzerland”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 489-504, doi: 10.1080/
09669582.2016.1223086.
Lee, K. (2001), “Sustainable tourism destinations: the importance of cleaner production”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 313-323.
Lenzen, M., Sun, Y.-Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y.-P., Genscke, A. and Malik, A. (2018), “The carbon footprint
of global tourism”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 8, pp. 522-528.
Liu, Z. (2003), “Sustainable tourism development: a critique”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 11
No. 6, pp. 459-475, doi: 10.1080/09669580308667216.
Lussier, R.N. and Halabi, C.E. (2010), “A three-country comparison of the business success versus
failure prediction model”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 360-377, doi:
10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00298.x.
March, R. (2004), A Marketing-Oriented Tool to Assess Destination Competitiveness, Cooperative
Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.
Marom, S. and Lussier, R.N. (2014), “A business success versus failure prediction model for small
businesses in Israel”, Business and Economic Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 63-81.
WHATT Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982), Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, Longman, Harlow.
14,1 Mazanec, J.A., W€ober, K. and Zins, A.H. (2007), “Tourism destination competitiveness: from definition
to explanation?”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, pp. 86-95.
McComb, E.J., Boyd, S. and Boluk, K. (2017), “Stakeholder collaboration: a means to the success of
rural tourism destinations? A critical evaluation of the existence of stakeholder collaboration
within the Mournes, Northern Ireland”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 286-297, doi: 10.1177/1467358415583738.
36
Mena-Navarro, A., Almeida-G
arc
ıa, F. and Cort
es-Mac
ıas, R. (2018), “Evolution of Singapore tourist
policy (1965-2015)”, Cuadernos de Turismo, Vol. 41, pp. 703-706.
Muresan, I.C., Harun, R., Arion, F.H., Oroian, C.F., Dumitras, D.E., Mihai, V.C., Ilea, M., Chiciudean, D.I.,
Gliga, I.D. and Chiciudean, G.O. (2019), “Residents’ perception of destination quality: key factors
for sustainable rural development”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 9, p. 2594, doi: 10.3390/
su11092594.
Olya, H. and Alipour, H. (2015), “Developing a climate-based recreation management system for a
Mediterranean island”, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1-24.
Otto, J.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1996), “The service experience in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 165-174.
Oxford Online Dictionary (2021), “Success”, available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/success.
Park, Y.A. and Gretzel, U. (2007), “Success factors for destination marketing web sites: a qualitative
meta-analysis”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 46-63, doi: 10.1177/
0047287507302381.
Perna, F., Cust
odio, M.J. and Oliveira, V. (2018), “Tourism Destination Competitiveness: an application
model for the south of Portugal versus the Mediterranean region of Spain:
COMPETITIVTOUR”, Tourism and Management Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 19-29, doi: 10.
18089/tms.2018.14102.
Porter, M. (1990), Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press, New York.
Pulido-Fern
andez, J.I., Andrades-Caldito, L. and S
anchez-Rivero, M. (2015), “Is sustainable tourism an
obstacle to the economic performance of the tourism industry? Evidence from an international
empirical study”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 47-64, doi: 10.1080/09669582.
2014.909447.
Rahmoun, M. and Baeshen, Y. (2020), “Marketing tourism in the digital era and determinants of
success factors influencing tourist destinations preferences”, Asia-Pacific Management
Accounting Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 163-181.
Ritchie, J.R.B. and Crouch, G.I. (2003), The Competitive Destination – A Sustainable Tourism
Perspective, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Rodr
ıguez-D
ıaz, M. and Espino-Rodr
ıguez, T. (2016), “Determining the sustainability factors and
performance of a tourism destination from the stakeholders’ perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 8
No. 9, p. 951, doi: 10.3390/su8090951.
Sol
ıs-Radilla, M.M., Hern
andez-Lobato, L. and Pastor-Dur
an, H. (2019), “The importance of
sustainability in the loyalty to a tourist destination through the management of expectations
and experiences”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 15, p. 4132, doi: 10.3390/su11154132.
Su, L., Maxwell, K., Hsu, M.K. and Boostrom, R.E. (2020), “From recreation to responsibility: increasing
environmentally responsible behavior in tourism”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109,
pp. 557-573, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.055.
Tiago, T., Faria, S.D., Cogumbeiro, J.L., Couto, J.P. and Tiago, F. (2016), “Different shades of green in
small islands”, Island Studies Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 601-618.
UNEP and UNWTO (2005), Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers, UNEP and
UNWTO, Paris.
UNWTO (2002), Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism, WTO, Madrid.


Veiga, C., Santos, M.C., Aguas, P. and Santos, J.A.C. (2018), “Sustainability as a key driver to address Sustainability
challenges”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 662-673, doi: 10.
1108/WHATT-08-2018-0054. and tourism
WCED (1987), “Our Common future. World commission of environment and development (WCED)
destinations
United Nations”, available at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf.
Wilde, S. and Cox, C. (2008), “Linking destination competitiveness and destination development:
findings from a mature Australian tourism destination”, Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism
Research Association (TTRA) European Chapter Conference - CompeTravel and Tourism 37
Research Association (TTRA) European Chapter Conference - Competition in Tourism: Business
and Destination Perspectives, Helsinki, pp. 467-478.
Xiao, Y. and Watson, M. (2019), “Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review”, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 93-112, doi: 10.1177/0739456X17723971.
Yang, E.C.L., Khoo-Lattimore, C. and Arcodia, C. (2017), “A systematic literature review of risk and
gender research in tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 58, pp. 89-100, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.
2016.10.011.
Yenidogan, A., Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan, T. and Tetik, N. (2021), “Environmental management and hotel
profitability: operating performance matters”, Tourism and Management Studies, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 7-19, doi: 10.18089/tms.2021.170301.
Zhang, J. and Zhang, Y. (2018), “Carbon tax, tourism CO2 emissions and economic welfare”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 69, pp. 18-30.

Further reading
UNWTO, UNEP and WMO (2008), “Climate change and tourism: responding to global challenges”,
available at: https://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/climate2008.pdf.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats