tourism and infrastructure development

If you build it, they will come: Why infrastructure is crucial to tourism growth and competitiveness

Tourism is expanding globally, but can infrastructure keep up?

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Maksim Soshkin

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Travel and Tourism is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, travel and tourism.

With international tourist arrivals reaching 1.4 billion in 2018— two years ahead of initial projections —the travel and tourism industry will continue to drive global connectivity. The World Economic Forum’s 2019 Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report shows this growth is backed by improving global travel and tourism competitiveness, which stems, in part, from growing aviation capacity, increased international openness, and declining travel costs.

However, the report also shows the need for developing infrastructure, which may not be able to keep up with the additional 400 million arrivals forecasted by 2030 . While infrastructure challenges differ for various regions and levels of economic development, failure to address these challenges may reduce competitiveness, hurting the travel and tourism industry.

Infrastructure—including air, ground, port, and tourism services like hotel rooms and car rental services—plays a vital role in travel and tourism competitiveness, serving as the arteries of the industry. And from a global perspective, infrastructure continues to improve.

Since 2017 , air transport infrastructure is one of the most improved components in the index, with strong growth in scores across most regions, subregions and economic development levels. However, much of this performance has come from growing route capacity and the number of carriers operating. Perceptions of the quality of air transport infrastructure, while better since 2017, have grown more slowly, while most recent airport density figures indicate slightly reduced airport access than before. These results potentially indicate that travel demand and airline growth may eventually outstrip hard-infrastructure capacity. By 2037, the International Air Transport Association projects the number of air passengers could double to 8.2 billion.

The report also shows that global perspectives on the quality and efficiency of ground transport infrastructure and services have remained, on average, near stagnant. Given the projected growth in travel as well as the need for infrastructure to accommodate more tourism-related needs, significant work will be required to bridge multi-trillion dollar investment deficits for airports, ports, rail and roads.

The results could be used to assess the infrastructure readiness of economies by looking at their scores for infrastructure and tourist arrival trends. The figure above compares country subregion and income-level groupings against their growth in international tourist arrivals from 2013 to 2017. It is clear tourism is growing in most subregions and among all income groups, with many above the global rate of growth.

Most of the regions on the right side of the figure above are relatively advanced countries with well-developed infrastructure. As a result, they may have more capacity to handle tourism growth. Moreover, it is also apparent that, despite market maturity, such countries are still welcoming more and more tourists each year. As the figure shows, high-income economies had the largest increase in arrivals, growing faster than the global rate. But while these economies have strong infrastructure, their share of arrivals and growth rates reveals the pressure on their infrastructure.

High-income economies analysed accounted for nearly 65% of arrivals in 2017 and 74.3% of growth in arrivals between 2013 and 2017. Subregions like Southern Europe and Eastern Asia-Pacific have seen rapid growth in arrivals, putting pressure on their more developed infrastructure. Arrivals in Western European countries, which on average, have the best infrastructure in the ranking, might seem to be below the global rate of growth but accounted for nearly one-fifth of global arrivals in 2017, and nearly 14% of the increase globally since 2013.

Northern Europe has experienced some of the fastest growth in arrivals in recent years and had the third-largest improvement in scores for air transport infrastructure since 2017. But its well-developed infrastructure may still come under strain, with this year’s report showing the region’s growth in ground, port and tourist infrastructure was below the global average.

South-East Asia has also experienced strong growth in tourism in recent years, but its near-average infrastructure scores indicate it might lack the capacity to continue accepting tourists. Countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines have recently seen a surge in tourism, but, despite improvement in scores, all rank below average for infrastructure.

The regions on the left side of the figure mostly consist of lower-income countries. While these economies do not account for the same volume of arrivals as the more developed regions and countries, they still face capacity issues because their infrastructure is less developed. Nevertheless, due to higher price competitiveness, economic growth and declining travel barriers, many of these countries have also seen some of the biggest percentage increases in arrivals.

Countries in subregions on the upper left-hand quadrant may be at greatest risk of strain due to rapid visitor growth and underdeveloped infrastructure. In particular, this is an issue for South Asia, Western Africa, South America and the Balkans and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, nations on the bottom left-hand quadrant have less tourism growth, though this might be due to their limited infrastructure capacity, among other factors.

How countries deal with their infrastructure will be a crucial factor in their long-term travel and tourism competitiveness. Even nations with developed airports and roads may face strain under growing utilization, which may lead to issues related to quality.

Have you read?

These islands are using tourists to help offset the effects of tourism, why china will soon be the world's top destination for tourists, in the age of the tourism backlash, we need 'destination stewards', tourism is damaging the ocean. here’s what we can do to protect it.

However, it is also important to note competitiveness relies on far more than just infrastructure. Emerging economies also have more work to do when it comes to improving business environments, addressing safety and security concerns and reducing travel barriers. Natural assets, which attract a significant number of visitors internationally, also need to be better protected. For example, South America and South-East Asia outscore the global average for natural resources by about 27% and 11%, respectively, but score below average for environmental sustainability. Consequently, many countries in these subregions may be at risk of damaging the very assets that make great travel destinations.

In some cases, improvements in one area of competitiveness without progress elsewhere can also lead to issues. For instance, Iceland’s improvement in air connectivity and surging visitor volumes was not matched by price competitiveness and overall tourism capacity, potentially explaining its recent slowdown .

Handling all these issues cannot be the purview of only travel and tourism stakeholders. Improving competitiveness, especially as it relates to travel and tourism, requires a holistic, multistakeholder approach.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Travel and Tourism .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

How Japan is attracting digital nomads to shape local economies and innovation

Naoko Tochibayashi and Naoko Kutty

March 28, 2024

Turning tourism into development: Mitigating risks and leveraging heritage assets

Abeer Al Akel and Maimunah Mohd Sharif

February 15, 2024

Buses are key to fuelling Indian women's economic success. Here's why

Priya Singh

February 8, 2024

These are the world’s most powerful passports to have in 2024

Thea de Gallier

January 31, 2024

These are the world’s 9 most powerful passports in 2024

South Korea is launching a special visa for K-pop lovers

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Managing the development of tourism infrastructure

• Toolkit About the Sustainable Tourism Toolkit How to use this guide? Our Objective Resource Library
• Guides Strategic foundations Guide 1: Understanding Guide 2: Strategy Guide 3: Governance Guide 4: Engagement Core Delivery Guide 5: Communication Guide 6: Infrastructure Guide 7: Value Guide 8: Behaviour Guide 9: Investment Guide 10: Monitoring
• Case Studies Guide 1: Historic Town of Vigan Guide 2: Angkor Guide 2: Ichkeul National Park Guide 3: Melaka and George Town Guide 4: Avebury Guide 4: Old and New Towns of Edinburgh Guide 4: Great Barrier Reef Guide 4: Røros mining town and the circumference Guide 5: Røros Mining Town and the Circumference Guide 6: Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape (United Kingdom) Guide 7: Røros Mining Town and the Circumference Guide 8: Wadi Al-Hitan Guide 9: Land of Frankincense

What this guide 1 will tell you

This guide 6 will tell you why infrastructure is vital to sustainable tourism and how to begin the process of developing appropriate infrastructure.

Steps to success

Why this matters.

According to the World Tourism Council, infrastructure is the single most important key to tourism growth and performance. Tourists use a tiny fraction of their overall visitor spending at the actual heritage site in most destinations; main tourism spending goes towards transport and travel , accommodation, food and drink, and retail and leisure. Understanding the tourism market is not normally the job of heritage managers , but to gain the most economic benefit from visitors they need to develop products , services, or partnerships that return more financial value. This extra revenue would, in turn, support site management and sustainability.

You should undertake destination development with an awareness of the commercial realities of your destination: how can you sustainably encourage increased spending from tourists to benefit your site and/or local community? You also need to be aware that tourism often results in massive increases in the population of some communities, especially during the peak seasons, and this raises many issues about the sustainability of the destination as a whole.

Begin a master-planning process to ensure the infrastructure is fit-for-purpose for future tourism development and does not negatively affect the OUV

Any infrastructure developments in a World Heritage property would require the completion of an independent Heritage and/or Environmental Impact Assessment to be completed before any such projects are undertaken. You can find more information on Heritage Impact Assessments from ICOMOS here and Environmental Impact Assessments from IUCN here .

Identify the key stakeholders who can influence the physical development of the destination in the future. Stages 1 and 2 should have established whether tourism growth is appropriate, manageable at your destination, and how best this might happen. This will often require a long-term approach to managing the development of infrastructure.

With some sites experiencing growth of visitor numbers at 20-40% per annum, some destinations will have to make big decisions about curtailing growth or developing the infrastructure to deal with it. You might need to involve people with expertise in water, waste, transport, and tourism trends and markets analysis, so the different elements of the destination are effectively interlinked.

Start by identifying what is needed to make the current tourism sector more sustainable, and what might also be needed for any projected or desired growth in visitor numbers. There is no point having unachievable goals , but if the current or future demand exceeds the capability of the current infrastructure, then something has to give. It may mean some form of control to manage numbers, or the need for new infrastructure.

If people cannot get to your site or have no place to stay – no matter what you do to encourage them – they simply cannot visit . Many destinations have high room occupancy in peak season and cannot (without new hotels, etc.) accommodate more visitors. If there is no spare capacity , or it is not sustainable to increase capacity, then your destination is left with two options:

• Use your World Heritage and your site’s story to attract visitors in the non-peak months, which would sustain tourism jobs for local people year-round.
• Simply do not try to increase visitor numbers. Instead, develop and implement a strategy for changing the visitor profile to higher spending, more sympathetic and more sustainable visitors, using WH Status as a driver.

Some sites with little or no hotel infrastructure have developed a system of 'home stays ', which enable visitors to stay with local people. This also means that the host community secures a greater share of visitor spending.

Making tourism more sustainable requires careful thought about the transport infrastructure in order to minimize CO2 emissions and congestion. It also demands that accommodation minim izes its ecological footprint through good management practices and strategic thinking about water, renewable technologies, and food and waste management. Provide tourism businesses with clear guidelines about the need for appropriate systems to treat, re-use, or safely release waste water or solid wastes, as well as other forms of pollution (such as light and noise pollution). You can also encourage businesses to publicize their energy reductions and sustainability commitments. If analysis of your infrastructure does not look at tourism in its widest sense, then it will be flawed and poorly developed.

Develop a spatial masterplan for the destination

Invest in a master-planning process that takes account of the constraints and responsibilities of a World Heritage site. Many destinations will experience development that has a capital cost of many hundreds of millions of dollars. Given this scale of investment, it makes good sense from both a commercial and a conservation perspective to have a masterplan that sets the parameters of growth. This often requires specialist support or at least a combined effort of specialist heritage staff and planners who can work together to develop a plan that makes it clear to everyone:

• Where things can and cannot happen
• What the requirements would be of any development
• Why these decisions have been made

It is essential that stakeholders believe the future of the destination can be shaped , influenced, and ultimately designed to be fit-for-purpose – this is how great destinations secure the outcomes they desire. It is about developing a progressive vision for tourism that protects, conserves, and respects important heritage and delivers outcomes that are desired by the host communities. The alternative is a laissez-faire approach in which conservationists will always be fighting a reactive battle against the negative effects of tourism growth.

Publish the masterplan so that tourism businesses, the community, and conservationists all know what kinds of development are appropriate in any given area of the destination. No tourism business enjoys being told its growth is potentially constrained by its location, but it is worse to invest large amounts of money in plans and ideas that are not likely to be approved because they may have a negative effect on the OUV of the site. There are times a great deal of money allows projects to go ahead. However, by damaging the heritage, you ultimately waste that money by destroying the OUV, which is the attraction of that destination to tourists.

Plan ahead for the infrastructure you need to achieve the strategic goals you desire

Location matters. The location of tourism infrastructure – airports, railways stations, bus depots, hotels, B&Bs, restaurants, bars, cafes, museums, retail outlets, etc. – usually defines where visitors will spend their money, who will benefit from it, who will not, and where the ecological footprint of the visitor is experienced. Changing the location of infrastructure can have profound positive or negative impacts on the heritage, the host community, and their culture and quality of life. If the strategic goal is to offer improved economic opportunities for local people, then it is imperative some of the tourism infrastructure where money is spent is in locations that local people can own , manage, or work. For heritage management reasons, it may be necessary to relocate infrastructure away from the heritage, or to develop new infrastructure at some distance to ensure that resources, such as water and waste can be managed effectively. Keep in mind where this happens, there is a risk of the host community being excluded from significant economic benefits.

Some sites are already serviced by infrastructure located some distance away from the site, and this has both benefits and costs – the cost being that much of the economic impact is lost as visitors stay, eat, drink, shop, and relax elsewhere. In these situations, there can be a mismatch between those who suffer the costs and constraints of the site, and those who benefit and profit. In these instances, some mechanisms to return revenue to the host community are often needed ( see Guide 9 on Fundraising and Investment). If your tourism infrastructure is in the wrong location, you need to consider either :

• Developing economic infrastructure in a more appropriate location
• Working within your infrastructure constraints
• Or creating a ‘payback’ mechanism to link the distant tourism infrastructure to the costs of the site.

Scale matters. Larger businesses are less likely to be locally owned, but they are often more efficient, productive, and return higher wages to the local community. Because of their scale, l arger businesses can deliver service to a larger numbers of visitors at lower prices, but economic sustainability suffers as profits from the business are often not retained locally, regionally, or even nationally. On the other hand, local sustainable tourism initiatives are small and lack the scale and capacity to cater to the majority of visitors to a destination. Critically, small businesses may not be able to offer the year-round, skilled employment, salary, or career progression opportunities larger businesses can.

The challenge for your site is to find the balance between the benefits of large scale businesses that can provide high quality employment and tourist services, and the smaller sustainable businesses, which are much more likely to be locally owned and managed. Support host communities to develop their businesses to have the necessary scale to maximize benefit. One solution is to explore different ownership models for hotels and other areas of infrastructure so the host community or groups of residents can develop a share in the destination.

Quality matters. Cultural and World Heritage tourists are more economically valuable , but they also have higher expectations about quality. The ability to secure the maximum benefit from tourism in a destination is inextricably tied to the quality of product , particularly the accommodation your destination offers. If your site lacks enough quality accommodation, it could significantly affect the economic profile and impact of the tourists visiting your site – the more visitors to your destination that stay in good quality accommodation, the greater their spending . You need to understand if the quality of your accommodation stock is limiting the economic potential from particular types of visitor, and then work with businesses to improve quality . Some destinations have developed quality improvement programmes with support and incentives for businesses willing to invest their own money in raising standards. Accreditation can be a powerful way to reward investors for doing the right kind of development – with incentives for those who go the extra mile, such as promoting the most sustainable businesses prominently on the World Heritage website.

Capacity matters . Your work on understanding tourism ( Guide 1 Understanding Tourism) should have revealed what the capacity curve for your destination looks like. In most cases, there is a peak period, when the existing accommodation is close to capacity, and ‘shoulder’ or off-peak seasons, when it is running well below capacity. One of the most sensible ways to improve the economic performance of a destination, and ensure local people have all-year-round employment, is to promote off-peak season visits . This requires little or no new infrastructure, and it can make a big difference to the efficiency of the destination. Simply building more peak season capacity can often be misguided and unsustainable.

Ownership matters . In many destinations the opportunities for local people are limited to low skilled and lower paid roles, so when developing plans for the future of your destination, explore whether or not some of the desired infrastructure can be developed in ways that will benefit the host community. There are a range of ownership models that enable communities to own elements of the tourism infrastructure or be shareholders in it. Some destinations have strong cooperatives of individuals or businesses that offer products, services, or experiences, and they have invested in such models to empower local people . Ownership gives local people more control and a share of the profits. However, it should also be pointed out that ownership is not always critical. Most turnover for a hotel is in wages, with the profit being only a small margin of that turnover.

Transport and routing matters. Being able to influence transport is crucial to creating a sustainable system at many World Heritage sites. It is important that destinations develop itineraries with transport providers that encourage more sustainable transport, but also influence where people stop to spend their money and where they have their environmental impact. Simple things like having a rest room break before entering a site can reduce the water usage and waste disposal issues within a site.

All growth needs to be in the context of respecting and conserving the OUV of the World Heritage site and its environs

Above all, it is the responsibility of the destination to protect the heritage from irresponsible development through planning or 'development control'. The World Heritage site, itself, and the designation are key assets for any destination – all plans for developing infrastructure need to be based on a deep respect for, and understanding of, the World Heritage site. It is crucially important that the sense of place and distinctiveness are protected. These guides are based on the assumption that sites value their World Heritage status and have planning control systems that can protect the heritage from development that is not appropriate. Work hard to retain the sense of place, distinctiveness, and authenticity of the destination. When you do have to build new infrastructure, work closely with planning control officers so they understand the need to balance heritage conservation and the demand for development.

Secure and encourage investment to make your plans a reality

Encourage the private sector to develop the infrastructure . The role of destination management is to define the parameters of growth – setting out what is appropriate (and where) in a tourism destination. This will often mean that the development that does take place will be commercial.

Develop a Community Fund to help local people and communities secure the capital needed to offer goods, services, and products to visitors. Relatively small amounts of seed capital can give local people a foothold in the marketplace ( See Guide 9 Fundraising and Investment).

Identify any public realm or free-to-access infrastructure needed and find a way to deliver it. In this case, it is critical that an effective case is researched, well-crafted, and specific to the investment sought ( See Guide 9 Fundraising and Investment).

Guide 6 PDF version

English Russian

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

How does new infrastructure impact the competitiveness of the tourism industry?——Evidence from China

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Institute of Management, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai, China

Roles Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

Roles Methodology

Roles Data curation

• Guodong Yan, 
• Lin Zou, 
• Yunan Liu, 

• Published: December 1, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274
• Reader Comments

Infrastructure construction related to the new generation of information technology and 5G technology is an important measure taken by the Chinese government to promote regional economic development. Large-scale infrastructure investment is being carried out simultaneously in China’s core and peripheral regions. The COVID-19 pandemic has dealt a severe blow to China’s tourism industry, and the application of new technologies seems to blur the spatial boundaries of the tourism industry. Therefore, it is debatable whether the zealous development of large investment projects can really improve the competitiveness of the regional tourism industry. This paper discusses this topical issue by empirically analyzing data from 31 Chinese provinces and cities from 2008–2019 and draws the following conclusions (1) The continuous expansion of new infrastructure investment in China indeed has a positive effect on improving China’s overall tourism competitiveness. However, the inverted U-shaped relationship between the two shows that China should not blindly expand the scale of infrastructure construction and make appropriate investment according to the regional industrial development level. (2) Although convergent infrastructure plays an important role in regional industrial competitiveness, the marginal effect has begun to weaken, so the problem of scale inefficiency needs to be addressed. In contrast, the input of innovation infrastructure is insufficient to enhance industrial competitiveness and can be moderately increased to achieve better results. (3) China’s core economic areas have a good driving effect on new infrastructure investment, but the original technological innovation and transformation-type facilities are still the key to limiting the improvement of industrial competitiveness. Peripheral areas are more passive recipients with strong demand. Therefore, investment in various types of infrastructure can drive regional development.

Citation: Yan G, Zou L, Liu Y, Ji R (2022) How does new infrastructure impact the competitiveness of the tourism industry?——Evidence from China. PLoS ONE 17(12): e0278274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274

Editor: Hironori Kato, The University of Tokyo, JAPAN

Received: June 7, 2022; Accepted: November 13, 2022; Published: December 1, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Yan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (17BJY148); National Natural Science Foundation of China (42101175); China Scholarship Council Postdoctoral Foundation (Grant: 202008310025).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1 Introduction

Since 2018, China has defined the construction of 5G, artificial intelligence, industrial internet and the internet of things as "new infrastructure construction". New infrastructure construction focuses on the industrial internet to provide infrastructure for the digital transformation of industry, with investment in fixed assets, advanced infrastructure and digital platforms. The development of the new infrastructure has accelerated the deployment and application of cutting-edge digital technologies in China.

In 2020, China has defined that the scope of new infrastructure construction mainly includes information infrastructure, converged infrastructure and innovation infrastructure. Information infrastructure refers to the infrastructure developed and created based on the new generation of information technology, such as the infrastructure of communication networks represented by 5G, the Internet of Things, the Industrial Internet and satellite Internet, the infrastructure of new technologies represented by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and blockchain, and the infrastructure represented by data centers and intelligent data centers. Converged infrastructure refers to the transformed and modernized infrastructure through the deep application of internet, Big Data, artificial intelligence and other technologies, such as smart transport infrastructure and smart energy infrastructure. Innovation infrastructure refers to the non-profit infrastructure supporting scientific research, technological development and product research and development, such as large-scale science and technology infrastructure, science and education infrastructure and industrial technology innovation infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 has brought major changes to the tourism industry. The traditional tourism industry, which used to rely on crowd consumption, has almost come to a standstill, while emerging industries such as cloud display art and cloud tourism based on digital technology are developing rapidly in China.For the digital tourism industry, building new infrastructures does not only mean satisfying the growing demand for information processing, information transmission and storage capacity. The digital tourism industry relies on digital technology for the production, distribution and management of tourism-related content, providing digital cultural services with smarter connectivity, deeper interaction, more comprehensive integration and higher quality content, creating a variety of new platforms and formats for the digital tourism industry and opening up new development opportunities. China’s tourism industry is showing an increasingly clear digital development trend. The construction of new infrastructure has become the key promoter of the transformation and development of the digital tourism industry, which plays a key role in improving the competitiveness of regional and national tourism in the Special Period. Therefore, from the perspective of the joint development of new infrastructure construction and the tourism industry, this paper analyses the general issue of how new infrastructure construction affects the competitiveness of China’s tourism industry, and specifically attempts to discuss the diversity of the role of new infrastructure development on tourism in terms of the types of facilities, regional differences and investment differences.

This paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the relevant literature and proposes the analytical framework for the relationship between the construction of new infrastructure and the competitiveness of the tourism industry; the third section describes the data and methodology of our study; the fourth and fifth sections discuss the impact of new infrastructure on the tourism industry in China; finally, the last section provides some concluding remarks.

2 Analytical frameworks

New infrastructure construction has become a necessary condition for China’s economic development and has a catalytic effect on the high-quality development of the regional economy and the transformation and upgrading of the industrial structure [ 1 , 2 ]. The construction of new infrastructure is closely related to tourism development and can improve the quality of tourism development [ 3 – 5 ]. Tourism is associated with multiple industries and has strong industrial penetration [ 6 , 7 ]. Digitization and connectivity of new infrastructure reduces the negative benefits of travel time and provides potential economic benefits based on improving the value of travel time [ 8 ]. The construction of new infrastructure enables investment of China’s public finance, government debt funds, private investment and other funds into the internal economic circulation system [ 9 ], which plays a role in improving the income level and tourism consumption capacity of urban and rural residents and boosts demand in China’s domestic tourism market. It helps China to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID -19 pandemic to a certain extent, which is the internal economic cycle that the Chinese government has emphasized. It is worth highlighting that the Chinese government’s new infrastructure construction policy stimulates private investment in the tourism industry, creating economic spillover effects [ 10 ]. This leads to an increase in private investment and consumption, much of which comes from foreign FDI investment, linking the two-way interaction between China’s internal and international capital [ 5 ].

Infrastructure investment can promote economic cycles and growth and is subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns [ 11 ]. The marginal benefit of improving the competitiveness of the tourism industry gradually increases as the scale of investment in new infrastructure increases, but above a certain level of investment, the marginal benefit of the competitiveness of the tourism industry decreases. This is because too much investment in tourism industry infrastructure leads to conflicts in capital utilization and neglect of other development needs of the tourism industry. Therefore, the level of investment also has an impact on the competitiveness of the tourism industry.

Although infrastructure encompasses the key fields of the scientific and technological revolution and industrial change, different categories of infrastructure have different emphases in the tourism industry chain, and there are differences in how the tourism industry uses and depends on different types of new infrastructure. Information infrastructure is mainly based on a cloud computing platform to support the construction of an urban tourism database, accurately analyses tourists’ preferences, realize personalized recommendations for tourism strategies, and innovate the market segmentation and positioning of the tourism industry [ 12 ]. Convergent infrastructures focus on implementing digital transformation, such as improving tourism accessibility through smart transport infrastructures that help tourists plan the shortest travel time. Innovation infrastructure helps to integrate knowledge elements into the development and construction of tourism destinations. Due to the different ways in which new infrastructure is built, there are large differences in their impact on improving the competitiveness of the tourism industry.

The development of tourism based on information and network infrastructures can better reflect the diversity of regional conditions, and the construction of new infrastructures makes knowledge and information the main production factors of the digital economy [ 13 ]. With the development of the digital economy, tourism culture, landscape, folk customs and other local cultures become more diverse and can be more easily integrated through digitalization. With the help of smart infrastructure of destinations, digital tourist attractions can be gradually built, and the temporal and spatial boundaries of tourism culture production can be broken. There is obvious heterogeneity in the role of new infrastructure construction, especially in terms of heterogeneity in the types of infrastructure construction and regional contextual differences [ 14 ].

The regional conditions in East China, Central China and West China are very different, and the regional tourism industry is developed by different economic policies, economic levels and urban cultures in each region. There are also differences in the stage of investment, scale and impact of new infrastructure construction, leading to large differences in the dependence of the regional tourism industry on new infrastructure. For example, the five major urban agglomerations in the coastal areas of East China are the core areas of economic and social development, with advantages in policy implementation, rich tourism resources and perfect tourism infrastructure [ 15 ]; the new infrastructure can quickly interact with the development of the tourism industry. There is still a gap between investment in new urban infrastructure in central China and eastern China, as central China does not have the obvious relative advantage of political support. Western China is the peripheral area of China’s economic development. Although it is considered by planners as the most important planning area for tourism, it has weak capacity to distribute resources to the market. Due to institutional backwardness, western China has an urgent need for new infrastructure. Therefore, the impact of new infrastructure on the competitiveness of the tourism industry varies greatly due to different regional conditions. There are studies on the relationship between new infrastructure development and tourism development in China, but are the massive government investments in new infrastructure development in China really able to increase the competitiveness of the industry? Does blind expansion lead to scale economies, or how does it play in different regions? To answer this general question, a research framework for new infrastructure and the tourism industry was established ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.g001

3 Methodology

3.1 data collection.

The panel data of tourism industry and new infrastructure investment from 2008 to 2019 of 31 provinces and municipalities in China (excluding Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong) were selected as the research dataset for this paper. Data such as New infrastructure construction, Market potential, Destination accessibility, Sustainable development, Health care construction, Accommodation and catering performance, Culture construction are from China Statistical Yearbook (2009–2020) and Statistical Bulletin of National Economic and Social Development (2009–2020). Data of market performance is from China Tourism Statistical Yearbook (2009–2020). The control variables are industrial structure, population size and degree of openness. The proportion of tertiary industry represents the rationalization of the industrial structure; we use the proportion of tertiary industry in the total value of all industries to measure the regional industrial structure; Since population affects regional tourism consumption and population size has a positive effect on local tourism consumption and tourist flows [ 16 , 17 ], regional population is selected to measure population size; regional openness is of great importance in attracting international tourists and developing the international market; import and export status of each region is used to measure the openness of each region. Data of control variable is also from China Statistical Yearbook (2009–2020).

3.1.1 Infrastructure indicators.

According to existing research and the Chinese government’s policy definition [ 18 ], new infrastructure consists of information infrastructure (Infra1), convergent infrastructure (Infra2), innovation infrastructure (Infra3) and its total infrastructure ( Table 1 ), each represented by the level of investment capital of the corresponding infrastructure sectors from 2008 to 2019.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t001

Referring to the existing researches, the competitiveness index of the tourism industry mainly includes two parts: the development potential and the performance of the tourism industry [ 3 , 19 , 20 ] ( Table 2 ). Referring to the 2021 travel and tourism development index and existing researches, this paper constructs the competitiveness index of the tourism industry. The factor analysis method was used to calculate the tourism industry competitiveness of 31 provinces and cities in China from 2008 to 2019.According to the Travel and Tourism Development Index (TTDI) and existing research [ 19 , 21 – 24 ], the development potential of the tourism industry mainly includes market potential, destination accessibility, sustainable development, and health care construction. Tourism industry performance mainly includes market performance, accommodation and catering performance, culture construction, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t002

On the one hand, for indicator of tourism industry potential, tourism consumption has a long-term equilibrium relationship with residents’ income or consumption level, these factors have a certain role in promoting tourism consumption, which can represent regional market potential [ 25 ]. To realize the tourism market expansion, especially in central or western economic peripheral regions, a combination of tourism and postal service is one of the most important ways [ 26 ]. Travel destination accessibility is normally related to air transport, ground and port transport service capabilities, etc., which will influence traveler mobility and attraction accessibility [ 22 ]. Environmental sustainability is an important factor in the long-term profitability of national or regional tourism destinations [ 19 ]. Moreover, health care construction is an important condition to ensure travel safety, and China’s rapidly developing tourism industry urgently needs medical construction in high-level tourist destinations [ 21 ], which has been pronounced during the covid-19 pandemic. Based on the existing research, consider the particularity of China’s tourism industry, while ensuring the integrity of the data available. This research takes the income or consumption level of regional residents and regional post-service income as the main indicators of regional market potential. Passenger traffic volume of railways and highways, and the number of employees in railway, highway, aviation, and water transportation are considered the main indicators of regional transportation construction level. The sustainability of regional tourism is measured in terms of forest coverage rate, harmless treatment rate of domestic waste, oxygen demand in wastewater, ammonia nitrogen emission in wastewater, and sulfur dioxide emission. Indicators such as the number of health institutions, the number of health technicians per 1,000 people, and the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people are used to characterize health care construction.

On the other hand, for tourism industry performance, indicators related to domestic and foreign tourism revenue, and the number of inbound and domestic tourists can characterize the regional market performance. Tourist reception capacity, accommodation and catering-related consumption and infrastructure construction are the main indicators to measure the competitiveness of the industry. Tourist reception capacity, accommodation, catering-related consumption, and infrastructure construction level are the main aspects to measure the industry competitiveness, which are measured by indicators such as the number of accommodation and catering firms, the number of employed employees, and labor remuneration. Cultural tourism is an important part of international tourism consumption, which is usually measured by the number of libraries and museums, the number of audiences of performance groups, the number of cultural and entertainment employees, and labor remuneration [ 24 ].

Based on the regional statistical data of tourism in 31 provinces and cities in China from 2008 to 2019, the original data were tailed by 1%, and the data were normalized to eliminate the influence of extreme values. This study determines the weights through factor analysis, calculates the competitiveness of the tourism industry and provides a statistical description of the data ( Table 3 and S1 Appendix ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t003

3.2 Fixed effects regression model

In terms of data selection, panel data combines the advantages of time series and cross-section data. It has the advantages of controlling temporal and spatial heterogeneity, reducing multicollinearity and reducing data bias, and has been widely used in existing causal relationship studies [ 27 – 29 ].

Fixed effect model focuses on the change of a single object over time and can eliminate the interference of multiple fixed factors without considering the variation among different individuals. Random effect model can make better use of data information by weighted average of variation within and among individuals. However, due to the consideration of individual variation, it must be assumed that the residuals are not related to the independent variables, which is relatively inaccurate.

To clarify the model, the Hausmann test was performed in this research ( Table 4 ). In model1, the P value of the F test is 0, the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% significance level, indicating that the fixed model is better than the mixed model; The P value of the LM test is 0 in model2, and the hypothesis of "there is no individual random effect" is rejected at the 1% significance level, indicating that the random effect model is better than the mixed model; Model 3 is the Hausman test result, p value = 0, the null hypothesis is strongly rejected, and the fixed effects model is considered significantly better than the random model, so here the fixed-effects model should be used.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t004

Eq ( 2 ) verifies the differences of impact of different types of infrastructure on the competitiveness of tourism industry, where X*it denotes information infrastructure, converged infrastructure and innovation infrastructure respectively; Eq ( 3 ) verifies the effect differences in different regions, where dummy1 and dummy 2 are dummy variables which shall be 1 when the region is located in Central and West China or 01 when the region is not located in Central and West China; Eq ( 4 ) verifies the effect differences of different investment scales, where dummy 3 is a dummy variable which shall be 1 when the investment scale is greater than China’s average or 0 when not; the remaining variables have the same meaning as in Eq ( 1 ).

3.3 Regional context and infrastructure foundation

Since China unveiled its new infrastructure construction strategy in 2018, the amount of investment in new infrastructure has steadily increased. By February 2020, the Chinese government had issued RMB 231.9 billion worth of special bonds for new infrastructure-related sectors. Investment in new infrastructure construction accounts for about 20% to 25% of total infrastructure investment. In 2022, China will focus on building 425,000 5G base stations. Although the Chinese government is trying to increase investment in new infrastructure construction, according to the 2019 World Economic Forum statistics, China has an unbalanced ranking in the quality of global infrastructure construction, as the different types of infrastructure construction vary widely. Moreover, infrastructure investment in China varies greatly from region to region. In terms of communication infrastructure development, the penetration rate of mobile phones, fixed broadband and internet in East China in 2018 was 145%, 34.24% and 61.32% respectively, and 18 cities supported 5G network coverage; the penetration rate of mobile phones, fixed broadband and internet in Central China was 93.69%, 25.9% and 45.6% respectively, which is a big difference from East China, and only 6 cities supported 5G network coverage. The penetration rate of mobile phone, fixed broadband and internet in Western China was significantly lower than the Chinese average.

The regional differences in the competitiveness of the tourism industry show a trend of expansion from the core regions of East China to West China from 2008 to 2019. East China is the core region of economic development and has a more solid industrial economic base, better service facilities and higher consumption level of residents than the other regions of China. Therefore, the regional tourism industry demand is huge, the regional tourism base and demand are developed first, and undoubtedly have higher initial competitiveness than other regions. Yunnan and Sichuan in western China are rich in natural resources for tourism, but the initial competitiveness of the industry is not high due to the accessibility and regional socio-economic development level, suggesting low industrial competitiveness. With China’s industrial transfer and infrastructure development, the advantages of tourism resources in western China are gradually becoming apparent.

4.1 Impact of infrastructure on overall tourism competitiveness

According to the regression results ( Table 5 ), China’s investment in new infrastructure construction has a significant positive impact on improving regional competitiveness in tourism. In model 1, regional competitiveness in tourism increases by about 0.6642 per unit investment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t005

Adding control variables to model 1 to obtain model 2, the regression coefficient has decreased, but it still plays a positive role at the 1% significance level. In order to eliminate the influence of time and individual differences, this paper further adds time and individual fixed effects to Model 2 and obtains Model 3. The regional tourism competitiveness increased by about 0.1326 with the investment of new infrastructure units. Differences in variables such as industrial structure, population size, and openness, as well as time and individual fixed effects, explain the decline of the regression coefficient to a certain extent. Model 3 still shows the same positive trend under the full introduction of various conditions.

Model 4 introduces the quadratic term of new infrastructure investment into the regression equation. The results show that the effect of new infrastructure investment on increasing the competitiveness of the tourism industry is not linear but has an "inverted U-curve." That is, there is an inflection point between new infrastructure investment and the improvement of tourism industry competitiveness, which shows the law of diminishing marginal effect.

To a certain extent, this is related to the characteristics of the system of assessing local governments with GDP as the main indicator. Furthermore, local governments will encourage enterprises and institutions to participate in key new infrastructure projects by increasing local taxes and other means to achieve the goal of increasing GDP. This can lead to excessive infrastructure construction, overcapacity and industry inefficiency in some regions [ 32 , 33 ]. In addition, expanding infrastructure investment has a certain crowding-out effect on household consumption. The proportion of tourism consumption decreases accordingly, which cannot effectively promote the competitiveness of the tourism industry.

Models 5 and 6 show the impact of a time lag of new infrastructure investment on the competitiveness of the tourism industry. We believe that despite the increase of the coefficient, there is no obvious lag effect of new infrastructure investment and the feedback of the investment effect can be achieved in time. Therefore, the current investment stock is used as an explanatory variable in the following analysis.

4.2 Diverse impact of new infrastructure

4.2.1 impact of infrastructure type..

The analysis of the impact of different types of infrastructures on tourism competitiveness ( Table 6 ) shows that information infrastructure, convergent infrastructure has a significant impact on the competitiveness of the regional tourism industry. The impact of convergent infrastructure on the competitiveness of tourism industry is the most significant (regression coefficient 0.4337), followed by information infrastructure (0.3560).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t006

The main reason for this phenomenon is that convergent infrastructure is the profound application of new generation information technology through the construction of traditional infrastructure. The convergence of information technology and digital economy has created the development path of intelligent city, intelligent transportation and intelligent sightseeing in China. By building convergent infrastructure, the region can provide efficient basic services in accommodation, transportation, catering and medical care, improve tourists’ leisure experience and enhance the competitiveness of the tourism industry. The information infrastructure is dominated by 5G, the Internet of Things, and the Industrial Internet, such as intelligent sightseeing reservation, information-based tourism platform, and live streaming tours, which have been increasing in recent years, realize the online information collection of tourists and provide marketing, management, and service standards for attractions and hotels. Innovation infrastructure consists of the infrastructure to support technology development, scientific research and product development. It is generally dominated by the Chinese government and scientific research institutions, with relatively little private investment capacity. The development of innovation infrastructure is highly targeted, and it will take a long time for the tourism industry to receive technical support from the funds invested by governments and scientific research institutions in different regions.

It is worth noting that models 4 to 6 introduce the quadratic term of different types of infrastructure investment into the regression model, and the regression coefficient of the first term of convergent infrastructure and innovation infrastructure is positive, while the regression coefficient of the quadratic term is negative, suggesting that the effect of the two on the competitiveness of the tourism industry is an "inverted U curve" with an obvious inflection point. The insignificant effect of information infrastructure on the competitiveness of the tourism industry indicates that the marginal effect of investment in information infrastructure has not decreased significantly and the capital stock of information infrastructure needs to be built up continuously. Therefore, investment in the construction of new infrastructure in China should not be increased blindly, but should be targeted and gradual, to avoid wasting resources through a blanket approach.

4.2.2 Impact of regional context.

Regional site diversity is an important factor affecting regional industrial competitiveness. The results show that ( Table 7 ), after adding the cross term of regional dummy variables and infrastructure investment, the impact of infrastructure investment on the economic peripheral western region is higher than that in the developed east region. In order to clarify the main reasons for this phenomenon, this paper divides infrastructure into three categories to verify their effects on tourism competitiveness in different regions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t007

The promotion of information infrastructure to the tourism competitiveness of the western regions of China is higher than that of the eastern regions. Although the investment in information infrastructure in the eastern region is the best in China, it still lags behind the development level of the region’s own tourism industry, which leads to the low empowerment performance of information infrastructure. On the contrary, the level of investment in information infrastructure in the western regions is relatively low, but the marginal effect of these investments on the tourism industry in this region is significant. Convergence infrastructure has a similar effect on the competitiveness of the tourism industry, as the marginal effect of converged infrastructure on economic peripheral is high.

The difference is that the innovation infrastructure has no obvious effect on the eastern and central regions, while the western region has a significant effect.This is because the investment in innovative infrastructure in the eastern and central regions is still unable to meet the needs of tourism, so the role of economies of scale is insufficient. The innovative infrastructure in the western region will help promote regional opening up and gradually realize the transformation of the regional economic growth mode.

4.2.3 Impact of investment scale.

The effect of the differences in investment scale shows that the average capital stock for new infrastructure construction in China is 0.554, and the average capital stock for information infrastructure, convergent infrastructure, and innovation infrastructure is 0.183, 0.236, and 0.134, respectively. The average value of infrastructure investment of different types is taken as the boundary for the construction of dummy variables, and after adding the cross term between the dummy variables of scale and level of infrastructure investment ( Table 8 ), model 1 represents the impact of infrastructure construction of different scales on tourism competitiveness, and models 2 to 4 analyze infrastructure construction in three main categories.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.t008

Overall, adequate new infrastructure investment has a positive effect on improving tourism competitiveness, but it should be emphasized that the marginal benefit actually declines gradually as the size of the investment increases. Combined result of the previous results (Tables 5 – 7 ), the investment effect of innovation infrastructure (model 4) can still be improved significantly. Too low investment in innovative infrastructure cannot enhance the competitiveness of the tourism industry, which needs to be improved by increasing the investment scale. However, it should be pointed out that the implementation effect of innovative infrastructure projects in western China should be emphasized, and the coordination between infrastructure projects and investment in the tourism industry should be planned to avoid the negative impact of infrastructure investment crushing the investment of the tourism industry.

The impact of integrated infrastructure (model 3) is significant, the expansion of investment scale has not brought more enabling effects. Although this is consistent with the law of diminishing marginal utility, we should be wary of the phase shift of regional differentiation. China should moderately reduce investment in traditional infrastructure in China and focus on the efficient integration of new-generation information technology and traditional infrastructure in China.

5 Discussion and conclusion

Since the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, China has increased its investment in the construction of new technologies and facilities, and the Chinese government has stimulated and vigorously promoted the construction of infrastructure related to the new generation of information technology and 5G technology, hoping to achieve economic impact on a wide range of industries through large-scale investment. Such large-scale investments are taking place not only in China’s economic core cities and eastern coastal areas but also in China’s economically marginal central and western regions. For example, the government of Guizhou Province, China’s least developed province, has launched the "Data Operation in Eastern China and Hash rate Support in Western China" project, investing RMB 17 billion in Big Data by 2022. In addition, 18 major projects related to 5G have been launched in China’s core economic cities such as Shenzhen. We cannot help but wonder if large-scale new infrastructure projects and investments are actually delivering the desired results and helping industries that otherwise lack momentum. The tourism industry was one of the fastest-growing future industries in China, but the COVID -19 pandemic led to a sudden halt in industry development in 2020. How should China seek a new breakthrough to achieve a new round of economic growth? Will government investment in infrastructure play a role in stagnant industrial competitiveness? Based on China’s new economic phenomenon and the practical issues that need to be addressed, we discuss how China’s new infrastructure construction will affect the competitiveness of the regional tourism industry. Below are our thoughts and conclusions:

China’s new infrastructure investment shows a sustained growth trend. Based on the impact model of new infrastructure investment and regional competitiveness in tourism, it is found that there is a positive relationship between the two. Consequently, regional competitiveness in tourism can be improved through the construction of new infrastructure. It should also be noted that the impact relationship is not a continuous linear relationship, but an inverted U-shaped curve and the marginal effect decreases over time. Therefore, the scale of infrastructure construction cannot be expanded blindly. Instead, it is necessary to analyze and understand the status of infrastructure investment and the development of the regional tourism industry to carry out appropriate construction, which requires comprehensive consideration of the region, infrastructure types and investment scale, and other specific factors.

Combined with the different types of infrastructure deployment and the existing level of investment (1) the deployment of convergent infrastructure represented by the Internet, Big Data, artificial intelligence, and other technologies have the greatest impact, as these technologies are widely used to provide basic tourism-related services and leisure experiences, and increased deployment in this segment can quickly improve the industry’s competitiveness. However, the impact of converged infrastructure has reached a tipping point in terms of the scale of investment. Therefore, we must pay attention to the efficiency of continued investment and avoid wasting resources. (2) The construction of innovation infrastructure in the form of scientific research, technological development, and research, and development of new products has little impact, because the research and development of new technologies and new products have a certain technical bottleneck, and the technical innovation cycle is generally long. In addition, such infrastructure investment is usually led by the government or local prestigious scientific research institutions, so the cost of time and human capital is extremely high, and regional industrial development needs more cycles. There is no obvious inflection point in the development of information infrastructure, especially 5G and IoT, which is different from the other two categories, suggesting that information infrastructure does not necessarily have a marginal effect on tourism development. Combined with the investment scale, the promotion effect of investment in innovation infrastructure has not yet been fully realized. Therefore, a moderate increase in investment in innovationinfrastructure within a certain period will have a good marginal effect on improving industrial competitiveness.

Considering the regional heterogeneity, East China has become a core economic region, and the tourism market there is very receptive and responds quickly to the application of new technologies. Therefore, investment in information and convergence infrastructure in the region can significantly improve industrial competitiveness, but there is still an insufficient response to scientific research and innovation infrastructure in the region. This shows that even in the most developed core regions of China, original innovation and technology transformation is still a problem that limits the improvement of industrial competitiveness. Western China is a relatively marginal region in terms of economic development, but precisely because of its weak base, the region is more responsive to the country’s new infrastructure, and an increase in investment and improvement in the tourism environment and conditions can quickly pull up competitiveness. Together with the rich tourism resources, the investment in infrastructure makes up for the region’s original backwardness. Central China has completed China’s industrial transfer, but it is not rich in original resources, and its economic resource advantage is far lower than that of the core economic regions. Therefore, an advantageous path to regional development has yet to be found. Infrastructure investment should not be blindly increased to drive industrial development so that the marginal effect is not extremely small. Therefore, depending on the above-mentioned regional conditions and differences in demand, precise new infrastructure investment can avoid a blanket approach and improve the competitiveness of the regional industry.

Achieving competitiveness in the regional tourism industry is in itself a difficult and complex socioeconomic issue, and the relationship between new infrastructure construction and industrial competitiveness cannot be resolved by a simple index regression. Although this is a clue to solving the problem, in our further research we will describe the mechanism of this impact through in-depth interviews and further discuss the cross-regional synergistic facilitation through inter-regional relationships.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. descriptive statistics for indicators..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.s001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278274.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The role of tourism in sustainable development.

• Robert B. Richardson Robert B. Richardson Community Sustainability, Michigan State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.387
• Published online: 25 March 2021

Sustainable development is the foundational principle for enhancing human and economic development while maintaining the functional integrity of ecological and social systems that support regional economies. Tourism has played a critical role in sustainable development in many countries and regions around the world. In developing countries, tourism development has been used as an important strategy for increasing economic growth, alleviating poverty, creating jobs, and improving food security. Many developing countries are in regions that are characterized by high levels of biological diversity, natural resources, and cultural heritage sites that attract international tourists whose local purchases generate income and support employment and economic development. Tourism has been associated with the principles of sustainable development because of its potential to support environmental protection and livelihoods. However, the relationship between tourism and the environment is multifaceted, as some types of tourism have been associated with negative environmental impacts, many of which are borne by host communities.

The concept of sustainable tourism development emerged in contrast to mass tourism, which involves the participation of large numbers of people, often in structured or packaged tours. Mass tourism has been associated with economic leakage and dependence, along with negative environmental and social impacts. Sustainable tourism development has been promoted in various ways as a framing concept in contrast to these economic, environmental, and social impacts. Some literature has acknowledged a vagueness of the concept of sustainable tourism, which has been used to advocate for fundamentally different strategies for tourism development that may exacerbate existing conflicts between conservation and development paradigms. Tourism has played an important role in sustainable development in some countries through the development of alternative tourism models, including ecotourism, community-based tourism, pro-poor tourism, slow tourism, green tourism, and heritage tourism, among others that aim to enhance livelihoods, increase local economic growth, and provide for environmental protection. Although these models have been given significant attention among researchers, the extent of their implementation in tourism planning initiatives has been limited, superficial, or incomplete in many contexts.

The sustainability of tourism as a global system is disputed among scholars. Tourism is dependent on travel, and nearly all forms of transportation require the use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels for energy. The burning of fossil fuels for transportation generates emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change, which is fundamentally unsustainable. Tourism is also vulnerable to both localized and global shocks. Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to localized shocks include the impacts of natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and civil unrest. Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to global shocks include the impacts of climate change, economic crisis, global public health pandemics, oil price shocks, and acts of terrorism. It is clear that tourism has contributed significantly to economic development globally, but its role in sustainable development is uncertain, debatable, and potentially contradictory.

• conservation
• economic development
• environmental impacts
• sustainable development
• sustainable tourism
• tourism development

Introduction

Sustainable development is the guiding principle for advancing human and economic development while maintaining the integrity of ecosystems and social systems on which the economy depends. It is also the foundation of the leading global framework for international cooperation—the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015 ). The concept of sustainable development is often associated with the publication of Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987 , p. 29), which defined it as “paths of human progress that meet the needs and aspirations of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Concerns about the environmental implications of economic development in lower income countries had been central to debates about development studies since the 1970s (Adams, 2009 ). The principles of sustainable development have come to dominate the development discourse, and the concept has become the primary development paradigm since the 1990s.

Tourism has played an increasingly important role in sustainable development since the 1990s, both globally and in particular countries and regions. For decades, tourism has been promoted as a low-impact, non-extractive option for economic development, particularly for developing countries (Gössling, 2000 ). Many developing countries have managed to increase their participation in the global economy through development of international tourism. Tourism development is increasingly viewed as an important tool in increasing economic growth, alleviating poverty, and improving food security. Tourism enables communities that are poor in material wealth, but rich in history and cultural heritage, to leverage their unique assets for economic development (Honey & Gilpin, 2009 ). More importantly, tourism offers an alternative to large-scale development projects, such as construction of dams, and to extractive industries such as mining and forestry, all of which contribute to emissions of pollutants and threaten biodiversity and the cultural values of Indigenous Peoples.

Environmental quality in destination areas is inextricably linked with tourism, as visiting natural areas and sightseeing are often the primary purpose of many leisure travels. Some forms of tourism, such as ecotourism, can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and the protection of ecosystem functions in destination areas (Fennell, 2020 ; Gössling, 1999 ). Butler ( 1991 ) suggests that there is a kind of mutual dependence between tourism and the environment that should generate mutual benefits. Many developing countries are in regions that are characterized by high levels of species diversity, natural resources, and protected areas. Such ideas imply that tourism may be well aligned with the tenets of sustainable development.

However, the relationship between tourism and the environment is complex, as some forms of tourism have been associated with negative environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, land use, and food consumption (Butler, 1991 ; Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ; Hunter & Green, 1995 ; Vitousek et al., 1997 ). Assessments of the sustainability of tourism have highlighted several themes, including (a) parks, biodiversity, and conservation; (b) pollution and climate change; (c) prosperity, economic growth, and poverty alleviation; (d) peace, security, and safety; and (e) population stabilization and reduction (Buckley, 2012 ). From a global perspective, tourism contributes to (a) changes in land cover and land use; (b) energy use, (c) biotic exchange and extinction of wild species; (d) exchange and dispersion of diseases; and (e) changes in the perception and understanding of the environment (Gössling, 2002 ).

Research on tourism and the environment spans a wide range of social and natural science disciplines, and key contributions have been disseminated across many interdisciplinary fields, including biodiversity conservation, climate science, economics, and environmental science, among others (Buckley, 2011 ; Butler, 1991 ; Gössling, 2002 ; Lenzen et al., 2018 ). Given the global significance of the tourism sector and its environmental impacts, the role of tourism in sustainable development is an important topic of research in environmental science generally and in environmental economics and management specifically. Reviews of tourism research have highlighted future research priorities for sustainable development, including the role of tourism in the designation and expansion of protected areas; improvement in environmental accounting techniques that quantify environmental impacts; and the effects of individual perceptions of responsibility in addressing climate change (Buckley, 2012 ).

Tourism is one of the world’s largest industries, and it has linkages with many of the prime sectors of the global economy (Fennell, 2020 ). As a global economic sector, tourism represents one of the largest generators of wealth, and it is an important agent of economic growth and development (Garau-Vadell et al., 2018 ). Tourism is a critical industry in many local and national economies, and it represents a large and growing share of world trade (Hunter, 1995 ). Global tourism has had an average annual increase of 6.6% over the past half century, with international tourist arrivals rising sharply from 25.2 million in 1950 to more than 950 million in 2010 . In 2019 , the number of international tourists reached 1.5 billion, up 4% from 2018 (Fennell, 2020 ; United Nations World Tourism Organization [UNWTO], 2020 ). European countries are host to more than half of international tourists, but since 1990 , growth in international arrivals has risen faster than the global average, in both the Middle East and the Asia and Pacific region (UNWTO, 2020 ).

The growth in global tourism has been accompanied by an expansion of travel markets and a diversification of tourism destinations. In 1950 , the top five travel destinations were all countries in Europe and the Americas, and these destinations held 71% of the global travel market (Fennell, 2020 ). By 2002 , these countries represented only 35%, which underscores the emergence of newly accessible travel destinations in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim, including numerous developing countries. Over the past 70 years, global tourism has grown significantly as an economic sector, and it has contributed to the economic development of dozens of nations.

Given the growth of international tourism and its emergence as one of the world’s largest export sectors, the question of its impact on economic growth for the host countries has been a topic of great interest in the tourism literature. Two hypotheses have emerged regarding the role of tourism in the economic growth process (Apergis & Payne, 2012 ). First, tourism-led growth hypothesis relies on the assumption that tourism is an engine of growth that generates spillovers and positive externalities through economic linkages that will impact the overall economy. Second, the economic-driven tourism growth hypothesis emphasizes policies oriented toward well-defined and enforceable property rights, stable political institutions, and adequate investment in both physical and human capital to facilitate the development of the tourism sector. Studies have concluded with support for both the tourism-led growth hypothesis (e.g., Durbarry, 2004 ; Katircioglu, 2010 ) and the economic-led growth hypothesis (e.g., Katircioglu, 2009 ; Oh, 2005 ), whereas other studies have found support for a bidirectional causality for tourism and economic growth (e.g., Apergis & Payne, 2012 ; Lee & Chang, 2008 ).

The growth of tourism has been marked by an increase in the competition for tourist expenditures, making it difficult for destinations to maintain their share of the international tourism market (Butler, 1991 ). Tourism development is cyclical and subject to short-term cycles and overconsumption of resources. Butler ( 1980 ) developed a tourist-area cycle of evolution that depicts the number of tourists rising sharply over time through periods of exploration, involvement, and development, before eventual consolidation and stagnation. When tourism growth exceeds the carrying capacity of the area, resource degradation can lead to the decline of tourism unless specific steps are taken to promote rejuvenation (Butler, 1980 , 1991 ).

The potential of tourism development as a tool to contribute to environmental conservation, economic growth, and poverty reduction is derived from several unique characteristics of the tourism system (UNWTO, 2002 ). First, tourism represents an opportunity for economic diversification, particularly in marginal areas with few other export options. Tourists are attracted to remote areas with high values of cultural, wildlife, and landscape assets. The cultural and natural heritage of developing countries is frequently based on such assets, and tourism represents an opportunity for income generation through the preservation of heritage values. Tourism is the only export sector where the consumer travels to the exporting country, which provides opportunities for lower-income households to become exporters through the sale of goods and services to foreign tourists. Tourism is also labor intensive; it provides small-scale employment opportunities, which also helps to promote gender equity. Finally, there are numerous indirect benefits of tourism for people living in poverty, including increased market access for remote areas through the development of roads, infrastructure, and communication networks. Nevertheless, travel is highly income elastic and carbon intensive, which has significant implications for the sustainability of the tourism sector (Lenzen et al., 2018 ).

Concerns about environmental issues appeared in tourism research just as global awareness of the environmental impacts of human activities was expanding. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm in 1972 , the same year as the publication of The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972 ), which highlighted the concerns about the implications of exponential economic and population growth in a world of finite resources. This was the same year that the famous Blue Marble photograph of Earth was taken by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft (Höhler, 2015 , p. 10), and the image captured the planet cloaked in the darkness of space and became a symbol of Earth’s fragility and vulnerability. As noted by Buckley ( 2012 ), tourism researchers turned their attention to social and environmental issues around the same time (Cohen, 1978 ; Farrell & McLellan, 1987 ; Turner & Ash, 1975 ; Young, 1973 ).

The notion of sustainable development is often associated with the publication of Our Common Future , the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987 ). The report characterized sustainable development in terms of meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987 , p. 43). Four basic principles are fundamental to the concept of sustainability: (a) the idea of holistic planning and strategy making; (b) the importance of preserving essential ecological processes; (c) the need to protect both human heritage and biodiversity; and (d) the need to develop in such a way that productivity can be sustained over the long term for future generations (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ). In addition to achieving balance between economic growth and the conservation of natural resources, there should be a balance of fairness and opportunity between the nations of the world.

Although the modern concept of sustainable development emerged with the publication of Our Common Future , sustainable development has its roots in ideas about sustainable forest management that were developed in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries (Blewitt, 2015 ; Grober, 2007 ). Sustainable forest management is concerned with the stewardship and use of forests in a way that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, and regeneration capacity as well as their potential to fulfill society’s demands for forest products and benefits. Building on these ideas, Daly ( 1990 ) offered two operational principles of sustainable development. First, sustainable development implies that harvest rates should be no greater than rates of regeneration; this concept is known as maximum sustainable yield. Second, waste emission rates should not exceed the natural assimilative capacities of the ecosystems into which the wastes are emitted. Regenerative and assimilative capacities are characterized as natural capital, and a failure to maintain these capacities is not sustainable.

Shortly after the emergence of the concept of sustainable development in academic and policy discourse, tourism researchers began referring to the notion of sustainable tourism (May, 1991 ; Nash & Butler, 1990 ), which soon became the dominant paradigm of tourism development. The concept of sustainable tourism, as with the role of tourism in sustainable development, has been interpreted in different ways, and there is a lack of consensus concerning its meaning, objectives, and indicators (Sharpley, 2000 ). Growing interest in the subject inspired the creation of a new academic journal, Journal of Sustainable Tourism , which was launched in 1993 and has become a leading tourism journal. It is described as “an international journal that publishes research on tourism and sustainable development, including economic, social, cultural and political aspects.”

The notion of sustainable tourism development emerged in contrast to mass tourism, which is characterized by the participation of large numbers of people, often provided as structured or packaged tours. Mass tourism has risen sharply in the last half century. International arrivals alone have increased by an average annual rate of more than 25% since 1950 , and many of those trips involved mass tourism activities (Fennell, 2020 ; UNWTO, 2020 ). Some examples of mass tourism include beach resorts, cruise ship tourism, gaming casinos, golf resorts, group tours, ski resorts, theme parks, and wildlife safari tourism, among others. Little data exist regarding the volume of domestic mass tourism, but nevertheless mass tourism activities dominate the global tourism sector. Mass tourism has been shown to generate benefits to host countries, such as income and employment generation, although it has also been associated with economic leakage (where revenue generated by tourism is lost to other countries’ economies) and economic dependency (where developing countries are dependent on wealthier countries for tourists, imports, and foreign investment) (Cater, 1993 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Khan, 1997 ; Peeters, 2012 ). Mass tourism has been associated with numerous negative environmental impacts and social impacts (Cater, 1993 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Fennell, 2020 ; Ghimire, 2013 ; Gursoy et al., 2010 ; Liu, 2003 ; Peeters, 2012 ; Wheeller, 2007 ). Sustainable tourism development has been promoted in various ways as a framing concept in contrast to many of these economic, environmental, and social impacts.

Much of the early research on sustainable tourism focused on defining the concept, which has been the subject of vigorous debate (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ; Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Inskeep, 1991 ; Liu, 2003 ; Sharpley, 2000 ). Early definitions of sustainable tourism development seemed to fall in one of two categories (Sharpley, 2000 ). First, the “tourism-centric” paradigm of sustainable tourism development focuses on sustaining tourism as an economic activity (Hunter, 1995 ). Second, alternative paradigms have situated sustainable tourism in the context of wider sustainable development policies (Butler, 1991 ). One of the most comprehensive definitions of sustainable tourism echoes some of the language of the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainable development (WCED, 1987 ), emphasizing opportunities for the future while also integrating social and environmental concerns:

Sustainable tourism can be thought of as meeting the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunity for the future. Sustainable tourism development is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that we can fulfill economic, social and aesthetic needs while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems. (Inskeep, 1991 , p. 461)

Hunter argued that over the short and long terms, sustainable tourism development should

“meet the needs and wants of the local host community in terms of improved living standards and quality of life;

satisfy the demands of tourists and the tourism industry, and continue to attract them in order to meet the first aim; and

safeguard the environmental resource base for tourism, encompassing natural, built and cultural components, in order to achieve both of the preceding aims.” (Hunter, 1995 , p. 156)

Numerous other definitions have been documented, and the term itself has been subject to widespread critique (Buckley, 2012 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Liu, 2003 ). Nevertheless, there have been numerous calls to move beyond debate about a definition and to consider how it may best be implemented in practice (Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Liu, 2003 ). Cater ( 1993 ) identified three key criteria for sustainable tourism: (a) meeting the needs of the host population in terms of improved living standards both in the short and long terms; (b) satisfying the demands of a growing number of tourists; and (c) safeguarding the natural environment in order to achieve both of the preceding aims.

Some literature has acknowledged a vagueness of the concept of sustainable tourism, which has been used to advocate for fundamentally different strategies for tourism development that may exacerbate existing conflicts between conservation and development paradigms (Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Liu, 2003 ; McKercher, 1993b ). Similar criticisms have been leveled at the concept of sustainable development, which has been described as an oxymoron with a wide range of meanings (Adams, 2009 ; Daly, 1990 ) and “defined in such a way as to be either morally repugnant or logically redundant” (Beckerman, 1994 , p. 192). Sharpley ( 2000 ) suggests that in the tourism literature, there has been “a consistent and fundamental failure to build a theoretical link between sustainable tourism and its parental paradigm,” sustainable development (p. 2). Hunter ( 1995 ) suggests that practical measures designed to operationalize sustainable tourism fail to address many of the critical issues that are central to the concept of sustainable development generally and may even actually counteract the fundamental requirements of sustainable development. He suggests that mainstream sustainable tourism development is concerned with protecting the immediate resource base that will sustain tourism development while ignoring concerns for the status of the wider tourism resource base, such as potential problems associated with air pollution, congestion, introduction of invasive species, and declining oil reserves. The dominant paradigm of sustainable tourism development has been described as introverted, tourism-centric, and in competition with other sectors for scarce resources (McKercher, 1993a ). Hunter ( 1995 , p. 156) proposes an alternative, “extraparochial” paradigm where sustainable tourism development is reconceptualized in terms of its contribution to overall sustainable development. Such a paradigm would reconsider the scope, scale, and sectoral context of tourism-related resource utilization issues.

“Sustainability,” “sustainable tourism,” and “sustainable development” are all well-established terms that have often been used loosely and interchangeably in the tourism literature (Liu, 2003 ). Nevertheless, the subject of sustainable tourism has been given considerable attention and has been the focus of numerous academic compilations and textbooks (Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995 ; Hall & Lew, 1998 ; Stabler, 1997 ; Swarbrooke, 1999 ), and it calls for new approaches to sustainable tourism development (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ; Garrod & Fyall, 1998 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Sharpley, 2000 ). The notion of sustainable tourism has been reconceptualized in the literature by several authors who provided alternative frameworks for tourism development (Buckley, 2012 ; Gössling, 2002 ; Hunter, 1995 ; Liu, 2003 ; McKercher, 1993b ; Sharpley, 2000 ).

Early research in sustainable tourism focused on the local environmental impacts of tourism, including energy use, water use, food consumption, and change in land use (Buckley, 2012 ; Butler, 1991 ; Gössling, 2002 ; Hunter & Green, 1995 ). Subsequent research has emphasized the global environmental impacts of tourism, such as greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity losses (Gössling, 2002 ; Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ; Lenzen et al., 2018 ). Additional research has emphasized the impacts of environmental change on tourism itself, including the impacts of climate change on tourist behavior (Gössling et al., 2012 ; Richardson & Loomis, 2004 ; Scott et al., 2012 ; Viner, 2006 ). Countries that are dependent on tourism for economic growth may be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Richardson & Witkoswki, 2010 ).

The early focus on environmental issues in sustainable tourism has been broadened to include economic, social, and cultural issues as well as questions of power and equity in society (Bramwell & Lane, 1993 ; Sharpley, 2014 ), and some of these frameworks have integrated notions of social equity, prosperity, and cultural heritage values. Sustainable tourism is dependent on critical long-term considerations of the impacts; notions of equity; an appreciation of the importance of linkages (i.e., economic, social, and environmental); and the facilitation of cooperation and collaboration between different stakeholders (Elliott & Neirotti, 2008 ).

McKercher ( 1993b ) notes that tourism resources are typically part of the public domain or are intrinsically linked to the social fabric of the host community. As a result, many commonplace tourist activities such as sightseeing may be perceived as invasive by members of the host community. Many social impacts of tourism can be linked to the overuse of the resource base, increases in traffic congestion, rising land prices, urban sprawl, and changes in the social structure of host communities. Given the importance of tourist–resident interaction, sustainable tourism development depends in part on the support of the host community (Garau-Vadell et al., 2018 ).

Tourism planning involves the dual objectives of optimizing the well-being of local residents in host communities and minimizing the costs of tourism development (Sharpley, 2014 ). Tourism researchers have paid significant attention to examining the social impacts of tourism in general and to understanding host communities’ perceptions of tourism in particular. Studies of the social impacts of tourism development have examined the perceptions of local residents and the effects of tourism on social cohesion, traditional lifestyles, and the erosion of cultural heritage, particularly among Indigenous Peoples (Butler & Hinch, 2007 ; Deery et al., 2012 ; Mathieson & Wall, 1982 ; Sharpley, 2014 ; Whitford & Ruhanen, 2016 ).

Alternative Tourism and Sustainable Development

A wide body of published research is related to the role of tourism in sustainable development, and much of the literature involves case studies of particular types of tourism. Many such studies contrast types of alternative tourism with those of mass tourism, which has received sustained criticism for decades and is widely considered to be unsustainable (Cater, 1993 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Fennell, 2020 ; Gursoy et al., 2010 ; Liu, 2003 ; Peeters, 2012 ; Zapata et al., 2011 ). Still, some tourism researchers have taken issue with the conclusion that mass tourism is inherently unsustainable (Sharpley, 2000 ; Weaver, 2007 ), and some have argued for developing pathways to “sustainable mass tourism” as “the desired and impending outcome for most destinations” (Weaver, 2012 , p. 1030). In integrating an ethical component to mass tourism development, Weaver ( 2014 , p. 131) suggests that the desirable outcome is “enlightened mass tourism.” Such suggestions have been contested in the literature and criticized for dubious assumptions about emergent norms of sustainability and support for growth, which are widely seen as contradictory (Peeters, 2012 ; Wheeller, 2007 ).

Models of responsible or alternative tourism development include ecotourism, community-based tourism, pro-poor tourism, slow tourism, green tourism, and heritage tourism, among others. Most models of alternative tourism development emphasize themes that aim to counteract the perceived negative impacts of conventional or mass tourism. As such, the objectives of these models of tourism development tend to focus on minimizing environmental impacts, supporting biodiversity conservation, empowering local communities, alleviating poverty, and engendering pleasant relationships between tourists and residents.

Approaches to alternative tourism development tend to overlap with themes of responsible tourism, and the two terms are frequently used interchangeably. Responsible tourism has been characterized in terms of numerous elements, including

ensuring that communities are involved in and benefit from tourism;

respecting local, natural, and cultural environments;

involving the local community in planning and decision-making;

using local resources sustainably;

behaving in ways that are sensitive to the host culture;

maintaining and encouraging natural, economic, and cultural diversity; and

assessing environmental, social, and economic impacts as a prerequisite to tourism development (Spenceley, 2012 ).

Hetzer ( 1965 ) identified four fundamental principles or perquisites for a more responsible form of tourism: (a) minimum environmental impact; (b) minimum impact on and maximum respect for host cultures; (c) maximum economic benefits to the host country; and (d) maximum leisure satisfaction to participating tourists.

The history of ecotourism is closely connected with the emergence of sustainable development, as it was born out of a concern for the conservation of biodiversity. Ecotourism is a form of tourism that aims to minimize local environmental impacts while bringing benefits to protected areas and the people living around those lands (Honey, 2008 ). Ecotourism represents a small segment of nature-based tourism, which is understood as tourism based on the natural attractions of an area, such as scenic areas and wildlife (Gössling, 1999 ). The ecotourism movement gained momentum in the 1990s, primarily in developing countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, and nearly all countries are now engaged in some form of ecotourism. In some communities, ecotourism is the primary economic activity and source of income and economic development.

The term “ecotourism” was coined by Hector Ceballos-Lascuráin and defined by him as “tourism that consists in travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific object of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals” (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1987 , p. 13). In discussing ecotourism resources, he also made reference to “any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in these areas” (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1987 , p. 14). The basic precepts of ecotourism had been discussed long before the actual use of the term. Twenty years earlier, Hetzer ( 1965 ) referred to a form of tourism “based principally upon natural and archaeological resources such as caves, fossil sites (and) archaeological sites.” Thus, both natural resources and cultural resources were integrated into ecotourism frameworks from the earliest manifestations.

Costa Rica is well known for having successfully integrated ecotourism in its overall strategy for sustainable development, and numerous case studies of ecotourism in Costa Rica appear in the literature (Chase et al., 1998 ; Fennell & Eagles, 1990 ; Gray & Campbell, 2007 ; Hearne & Salinas, 2002 ). Ecotourism in Costa Rica has been seen as having supported the economic development of the country while promoting biodiversity conservation in its extensive network of protected areas. Chase et al. ( 1998 ) estimated the demand for ecotourism in a study of differential pricing of entrance fees at national parks in Costa Rica. The authors estimated elasticities associated with the own-price, cross-price, and income variables and found that the elasticities of demand were significantly different between three different national park sites. The results reveal the heterogeneity characterizing tourist behavior and park attractions and amenities. Hearne and Salinas ( 2002 ) used choice experiments to examine the preferences of domestic and foreign tourists in Costa Rica in an ecotourism site. Both sets of tourists demonstrated a preference for improved infrastructure, more information, and lower entrance fees. Foreign tourists demonstrated relatively stronger preferences for the inclusion of restrictions in the access to some trails.

Ecotourism has also been studied extensively in Kenya (Southgate, 2006 ), Malaysia (Lian Chan & Baum, 2007 ), Nepal (Baral et al., 2008 ), Peru (Stronza, 2007 ), and Taiwan (Lai & Nepal, 2006 ), among many other countries. Numerous case studies have demonstrated the potential for ecotourism to contribute to sustainable development by providing support for biodiversity conservation, local livelihoods, and regional development.

Community-Based Tourism

Community-based tourism (CBT) is a model of tourism development that emphasizes the development of local communities and allows for local residents to have substantial control over its development and management, and a major proportion of the benefits remain within the community. CBT emerged during the 1970s as a response to the negative impacts of the international mass tourism development model (Cater, 1993 ; Hall & Lew, 2009 ; Turner & Ash, 1975 ; Zapata et al., 2011 ).

Community-based tourism has been examined for its potential to contribute to poverty reduction. In a study of the viability of the CBT model to support socioeconomic development and poverty alleviation in Nicaragua, tourism was perceived by participants in the study to have an impact on employment creation in their communities (Zapata et al., 2011 ). Tourism was seen to have had positive impacts on strengthening local knowledge and skills, particularly on the integration of women to new roles in the labor market. One of the main perceived gains regarding the environment was the process of raising awareness regarding the conservation of natural resources. The small scale of CBT operations and low capacity to accommodate visitors was seen as a limitation of the model.

Spenceley ( 2012 ) compiled case studies of community-based tourism in countries in southern Africa, including Botswana, Madagascar, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In this volume, authors characterize community-based and nature-based tourism development projects in the region and demonstrate how community participation in planning and decision-making has generated benefits for local residents and supported conservation initiatives. They contend that responsible tourism practices are of particular importance in the region because of the rich biological diversity, abundant charismatic wildlife, and the critical need for local economic development and livelihood strategies.

In Kenya, CBT enterprises were not perceived to have made a significant impact on poverty reduction at an individual household level, in part because the model relied heavily on donor funding, reinforcing dependency and poverty (Manyara & Jones, 2007 ). The study identified several critical success factors for CBT enterprises, namely, awareness and sensitization, community empowerment, effective leadership, and community capacity building, which can inform appropriate tourism policy formulation in Kenya. The impacts of CBT on economic development and poverty reduction would be greatly enhanced if tourism initiatives were able to emphasize independence, address local community priorities, enhance community empowerment and transparency, discourage elitism, promote effective community leadership, and develop community capacity to operate their own enterprises more efficiently.

Pro-Poor Tourism

Pro-poor tourism is a model of tourism development that brings net benefits to people living in poverty (Ashley et al., 2001 ; Harrison, 2008 ). Although its theoretical foundations and development objectives overlap to some degree with those of community-based tourism and other models of AT, the key distinctive feature of pro-poor tourism is that it places poor people and poverty at the top of the agenda. By focusing on a very simple and incontrovertibly moral idea, namely, the net benefits of tourism to impoverished people, the concept has broad appeal to donors and international aid agencies. Harnessing the economic benefits of tourism for pro-poor growth means capitalizing on the advantages while reducing negative impacts to people living in poverty (Ashley et al., 2001 ). Pro-poor approaches to tourism development include increasing access of impoverished people to economic benefits; addressing negative social and environmental impacts associated with tourism; and focusing on policies, processes, and partnerships that seek to remove barriers to participation by people living in poverty. At the local level, pro-poor tourism can play a very significant role in livelihood security and poverty reduction (Ashley & Roe, 2002 ).

Rogerson ( 2011 ) argues that the growth of pro-poor tourism initiatives in South Africa suggests that the country has become a laboratory for the testing and evolution of new approaches toward sustainable development planning that potentially will have relevance for other countries in the developing world. A study of pro-poor tourism development initiatives in Laos identified a number of favorable conditions for pro-poor tourism development, including the fact that local people are open to tourism and motivated to participate (Suntikul et al., 2009 ). The authors also noted a lack of development in the linkages that could optimize the fulfilment of the pro-poor agenda, such as training or facilitation of local people’s participation in pro-poor tourism development at the grassroots level.

Critics of the model have argued that pro-poor tourism is based on an acceptance of the status quo of existing capitalism, that it is morally indiscriminate and theoretically imprecise, and that its practitioners are academically and commercially marginal (Harrison, 2008 ). As Chok et al. ( 2007 ) indicate, the focus “on poor people in the South reflects a strong anthropocentric view . . . and . . . environmental benefits are secondary to poor peoples’” benefits (p. 153).

Harrison ( 2008 ) argues that pro-poor tourism is not a distinctive approach to tourism as a development tool and that it may be easier to discuss what pro-poor tourism is not than what it is. He concludes that it is neither anticapitalist nor inconsistent with mainstream tourism on which it relies; it is neither a theory nor a model and is not a niche form of tourism. Further, he argues that it has no distinctive method and is not only about people living in poverty.

Slow Tourism

The concept of slow tourism has emerged as a model of sustainable tourism development, and as such, it lacks an exact definition. The concept of slow tourism traces its origin back to some institutionalized social movements such as “slow food” and “slow cities” that began in Italy in the 1990s and spread rapidly around the world (Fullagar et al., 2012 ; Oh et al., 2016 , p. 205). Advocates of slow tourism tend to emphasize slowness in terms of speed, mobility, and modes of transportation that generate less environmental pollution. They propose niche marketing for alternative forms of tourism that focus on quality upgrading rather than merely increasing the quantity of visitors via the established mass-tourism infrastructure (Conway & Timms, 2010 ).

In the context of the Caribbean region, slow tourism has been promoted as more culturally sensitive and authentic, as compared to the dominant mass tourism development model that is based on all-inclusive beach resorts dependent on foreign investment (Conway & Timms, 2010 ). Recognizing its value as an alternative marketing strategy, Conway and Timms ( 2010 ) make the case for rebranding alternative tourism in the Caribbean as a means of revitalizing the sector for the changing demands of tourists in the 21st century . They suggest that slow tourism is the antithesis of mass tourism, which “relies on increasing the quantity of tourists who move through the system with little regard to either the quality of the tourists’ experience or the benefits that accrue to the localities the tourist visits” (Conway & Timms, 2010 , p. 332). The authors draw on cases from Barbados, the Grenadines, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago to characterize models of slow tourism development in remote fishing villages and communities near nature preserves and sea turtle nesting sites.

Although there is a growing interest in the concept of slow tourism in the literature, there seems to be little agreement about the exact nature of slow tourism and whether it is a niche form of special interest tourism or whether it represents a more fundamental potential shift across the industry. Conway and Timms ( 2010 ) focus on the destination, advocating for slow tourism in terms of a promotional identity for an industry in need of rebranding. Caffyn ( 2012 , p. 77) discusses the implementation of slow tourism in terms of “encouraging visitors to make slower choices when planning and enjoying their holidays.” It is not clear whether slow tourism is a marketing strategy, a mindset, or a social movement, but the literature on slow tourism nearly always equates the term with sustainable tourism (Caffyn, 2012 ; Conway & Timms, 2010 ; Oh et al., 2016 ). Caffyn ( 2012 , p. 80) suggests that slow tourism could offer a “win–win,” which she describes as “a more sustainable form of tourism; keeping more of the economic benefits within the local community and destination; and delivering a more meaningful and satisfying experience.” Research on slow tourism is nascent, and thus the contribution of slow tourism to sustainable development is not well understood.

Impacts of Tourism Development

The role of tourism in sustainable development can be examined through an understanding of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of tourism. Tourism is a global phenomenon that involves travel, recreation, the consumption of food, overnight accommodations, entertainment, sightseeing, and other activities that simultaneously intersect the lives of local residents, businesses, and communities. The impacts of tourism involve benefits and costs to all groups, and some of these impacts cannot easily be measured. Nevertheless, they have been studied extensively in the literature, which provides some context for how these benefits and costs are distributed.

Economic Impacts of Tourism

The travel and tourism sector is one of the largest components of the global economy, and global tourism has increased exponentially since the end of the Second World War (UNWTO, 2020 ). The direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of global travel accounted for 8.9 trillion U.S. dollars in contribution to the global gross domestic product (GDP), or 10.3% of global GDP. The global travel and tourism sector supports approximately 330 million jobs, or 1 in 10 jobs around the world. From an economic perspective, tourism plays a significant role in sustainable development. In many developing countries, tourism has the potential to play a unique role in income generation and distribution relative to many other industries, in part because of its high multiplier effect and consumption of local goods and services. However, research on the economic impacts of tourism has shown that this potential has rarely been fully realized (Liu, 2003 ).

Numerous studies have examined the impact of tourism expenditure on GDP, income, employment, and public sector revenue. Narayan ( 2004 ) used a computable general equilibrium model to estimate the economic impact of tourism growth on the economy of Fiji. Tourism is Fiji’s largest industry, with average annual growth of 10–12%; and as a middle-income country, tourism is critical to Fiji’s economic development. The findings indicate that an increase in tourism expenditures was associated with an increase in GDP, an improvement in the country’s balance of payments, and an increase in real consumption and national welfare. Evidence suggests that the benefits of tourism expansion outweigh any export effects caused by an appreciation of the exchange rate and an increase in domestic prices and wages.

Seetanah ( 2011 ) examined the potential contribution of tourism to economic growth and development using panel data of 19 island economies around the world from 1990 to 2007 and revealed that tourism development is an important factor in explaining economic performance in the selected island economies. The results have policy implications for improving economic growth by harnessing the contribution of the tourism sector. Pratt ( 2015 ) modeled the economic impact of tourism for seven small island developing states in the Pacific, the Caribbean, and the Indian Ocean. In most states, the transportation sector was found to have above-average linkages to other sectors of the economy. The results revealed some advantages of economies of scale for maximizing the economic contribution of tourism.

Apergis and Payne ( 2012 ) examined the causal relationship between tourism and economic growth for a panel of nine Caribbean countries. The panel of Caribbean countries includes Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. The authors use a panel error correction model to reveal bidirectional causality between tourism and economic growth in both the short run and the long run. The presence of bidirectional causality reiterates the importance of the tourism sector in the generation of foreign exchange income and in financing the production of goods and services within these countries. Likewise, stable political institutions and adequate government policies to ensure the appropriate investment in physical and human capital will enhance economic growth. In turn, stable economic growth will provide the resources needed to develop the tourism infrastructure for the success of the countries’ tourism sector. Thus, policy makers should be cognizant of the interdependent relationship between tourism and economic growth in the design and implementation of economic policy. The mixed nature of these results suggest that the relationship between tourism and economic growth depends largely on the social and economic context as well as the role of tourism in the economy.

The economic benefits and costs of tourism are frequently distributed unevenly. An analysis of the impact of wildlife conservation policies in Zambia on household welfare found that households located near national parks earn higher levels of income from wage employment and self-employment than other rural households in the country, but they were also more likely to suffer crop losses related to wildlife conflicts (Richardson et al., 2012 ). The findings suggest that tourism development and wildlife conservation can contribute to pro-poor development, but they may be sustainable only if human–wildlife conflicts are minimized or compensated.

Environmental Impacts of Tourism

The environmental impacts of tourism are significant, ranging from local effects to contributions to global environmental change (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). Tourism is both dependent on water resources and a factor in global and local freshwater use. Tourists consume water for drinking, when showering and using the toilet, when participating in activities such as winter ski tourism (i.e., snowmaking), and when using swimming pools and spas. Fresh water is also needed to maintain hotel gardens and golf courses, and water use is embedded in tourism infrastructure development (e.g., accommodations, laundry, dining) and in food and fuel production. Direct water consumption in tourism is estimated to be approximately 350 liters (L) per guest night for accommodation; when indirect water use from food, energy, and transport are considered, total water use in tourism is estimated to be approximately 6,575 L per guest night, or 27,800 L per person per trip (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). In addition, tourism contributes to the pollution of oceans as well as lakes, rivers, and other freshwater systems (Gössling, 2002 ; Gössling et al., 2011 ).

The clearing and conversion of land is central for tourism development, and in many cases, the land used for tourism includes roads, airports, railways, accommodations, trails, pedestrian walks, shopping areas, parking areas, campgrounds, vacation homes, golf courses, marinas, ski resorts, and indirect land use for food production, disposal of solid wastes, and the treatment of wastewater (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). Global land use for accommodation is estimated to be approximately 42 m 2 per bed. Total global land use for tourism is estimated to be nearly 62,000 km 2 , or 11.7 m 2 per tourist; more than half of this estimate is represented by land use for traffic infrastructure.

Tourism and hospitality have direct and indirect links to nearly all aspects of food production, preparation, and consumption because of the quantities of food consumed in tourism contexts (Gössling et al., 2011 ). Food production has significant implications for sustainable development, given the growing global demand for food. The implications include land conversion, losses to biodiversity, changes in nutrient cycling, and contributions to greenhouse emissions that are associated with global climate change (Vitousek et al., 1997 ). Global food use for tourism is estimated to be approximately 39.4 megatons 1 (Mt), about 38% than the amount of food consumed at home. This equates to approximately 1,800 grams (g) of food consumed per tourist per day.

Although tourism has been promoted as a low-impact, nonextractive option for economic development, (Gössling, 2000 ), assessments reveal that such pursuits have a significant carbon footprint, as tourism is significantly more carbon intensive than other potential areas of economic development (Lenzen et al., 2018 ). Tourism is dependent on energy, and virtually all energy use in the tourism sector is derived from fossil fuels, which contribute to global greenhouse emissions that are associated with global climate change. Energy use for tourism has been estimated to be approximately 3,575 megajoules 2 (MJ) per trip, including energy for travel and accommodations (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). A previous estimate of global carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from tourism provided values of 1.12 gigatons 3 (Gt) of CO 2 , amounting to about 3% of global CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions (Gössling & Peeters, 2015 ). However, these analyses do not cover the supply chains underpinning tourism and do not therefore represent true carbon footprints. A more complete analysis of the emissions from energy consumption necessary to sustain the tourism sector would include food and beverages, infrastructure construction and maintenance, retail, and financial services. Between 2009 and 2013 , tourism’s global carbon footprint is estimated to have increased from 3.9 to 4.5 GtCO 2 e, four times more than previously estimated, accounting for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Lenzen et al., 2018 ). The majority of this footprint is exerted by and within high-income countries. The rising global demand for tourism is outstripping efforts at decarbonization of tourism operations and as a result is accelerating global carbon emissions.

Social Impacts of Tourism

The social impacts of tourism have been widely studied, with an emphasis on residents’ perceptions in the host community (Sharpley, 2014 ). Case studies include research conducted in Australia (Faulkner & Tideswell, 1997 ; Gursoy et al., 2010 ; Tovar & Lockwood, 2008 ), Belize (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2008 ), China (Gu & Ryan, 2008 ), Fiji (King et al., 1993 ), Greece (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996 ; Tsartas, 1992 ), Hungary (Rátz, 2000 ), Thailand (Huttasin, 2008 ), Turkey (Kuvan & Akan, 2005 ), the United Kingdom (Brunt & Courtney, 1999 ; Haley et al., 2005 ), and the United States (Andereck et al., 2005 ; Milman & Pizam, 1988 ), among others. The social impacts of tourism are difficult to measure, and most published studies are mainly concerned with the social impacts on the host communities rather than the impacts on the tourists themselves.

Studies of residents’ perceptions of tourism are typically conducted using household surveys. In most cases, residents recognize the economic dependence on tourism for income, and there is substantial evidence to suggest that working in or owning a business in tourism or a related industry is associated with more positive perceptions of tourism (Andereck et al., 2007 ). The perceived nature of negative effects is complex and often conveys a dislike of crowding, traffic congestion, and higher prices for basic needs (Deery et al., 2012 ). When the number of tourists far exceeds that of the resident population, negative attitudes toward tourism may manifest (Diedrich & Garcia-Buades, 2008 ). However, residents who recognize negative impacts may not necessarily oppose tourism development (King et al., 1993 ).

In some regions, little is known about the social and cultural impacts of tourism despite its dominance as an economic sector. Tourism is a rapidly growing sector in Cuba, and it is projected to grow at rates that exceed the average projected growth rates for the Caribbean and the world overall (Salinas et al., 2018 ). Still, even though there has been rapid tourism development in Cuba, there has been little research related to the environmental and sociocultural impacts of this tourism growth (Rutty & Richardson, 2019 ).

In some international tourism contexts, studies have found that residents are generally resentful toward tourism because it fuels inequality and exacerbates racist attitudes and discrimination (Cabezas, 2004 ; Jamal & Camargo, 2014 ; Mbaiwa, 2005 ). Other studies revealed similar narratives and recorded statements of exclusion and socioeconomic stratification (Sanchez & Adams, 2008 ). Local residents often must navigate the gaps in the racialized, gendered, and sexualized structures imposed by the global tourism industry and host-country governments (Cabezas, 2004 ).

However, during times of economic crisis, residents may develop a more permissive view as their perceptions of the costs of tourism development decrease (Garau-Vadell et al., 2018 ). This increased positive attitude is not based on an increase in the perception of positive impacts of tourism, but rather on a decrease in the perception of the negative impacts.

There is a growing body of research on Indigenous and Aboriginal tourism that emphasizes justice issues such as human rights and self-empowerment, control, and participation of traditional owners in comanagement of destinations (Jamal & Camargo, 2014 ; Ryan & Huyton, 2000 ; Whyte, 2010 ).

Sustainability of Tourism

A process or system is said to be sustainable to the extent that it is robust, resilient, and adaptive (Anderies et al., 2013 ). By most measures, the global tourism system does not meet these criteria for sustainability. Tourism is not robust in that it cannot resist threats and perturbations, such as economic shocks, public health pandemics, war, and other disruptions. Tourism is not resilient in that it does not easily recover from failures, such as natural disasters or civil unrest. Furthermore, tourism is not adaptive in that it is often unable to change in response to external conditions. One example that underscores the failure to meet all three criteria is the dependence of tourism on fossil fuels for transportation and energy, which are key inputs for tourism development. This dependence itself is not sustainable (Wheeller, 2007 ), and thus the sustainability of tourism is questionable.

Liu ( 2003 ) notes that research related to the role of tourism in sustainable development has emphasized supply-side concepts such as sustaining tourism resources and ignored the demand side, which is particularly vulnerable to social and economic shocks. Tourism is vulnerable to both localized and global shocks. Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to localized shocks include disaster vulnerability in coastal Thailand (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008 ), bushfires in northeast Victoria in Australia (Cioccio & Michael, 2007 ), forest fires in British Columbia, Canada (Hystad & Keller, 2008 ); and outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom (Miller & Ritchie, 2003 ).

Like most other economic sectors, tourism is vulnerable to the impacts of earthquakes, particularly in areas where tourism infrastructure may not be resilient to such shocks. Numerous studies have examined the impacts of earthquake events on tourism, including studies of the aftermath of the 1997 earthquake in central Italy (Mazzocchi & Montini, 2001 ), the 1999 earthquake in Taiwan (Huan et al., 2004 ; Huang & Min, 2002 ), and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in western Sichuan, China (Yang et al., 2011 ), among others.

Tourism is vulnerable to extreme weather events. Regional economic strength has been found to be associated with lower vulnerability to natural disasters. Kim and Marcoullier ( 2015 ) examined the vulnerability and resilience of 10 tourism-based regional economies that included U.S. national parks or protected seashores situated on the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Ocean coastline that were affected by several hurricanes over a 26-year period. Regions with stronger economic characteristics prior to natural disasters were found to have lower disaster losses than regions with weaker economies.

Tourism is extremely sensitive to oil spills, whatever their origin, and the volume of oil released need not be large to generate significant economic losses (Cirer-Costa, 2015 ). Studies of the vulnerability of tourism to the localized shock of an oil spill include research on the impacts of oil spills in Alaska (Coddington, 2015 ), Brazil (Ribeiro et al., 2020 ), Spain (Castanedo et al., 2009 ), affected regions in the United States along the Gulf of Mexico (Pennington-Gray et al., 2011 ; Ritchie et al., 2013 ), and the Republic of Korea (Cheong, 2012 ), among others. Future research on the vulnerability of tourist destinations to oil spills should also incorporate freshwater environments, such as lakes, rivers, and streams, where the rupture of oil pipelines is more frequent.

Significant attention has been paid to assessing the vulnerability of tourist destinations to acts of terrorism and the impacts of terrorist attacks on regional tourist economies (Liu & Pratt, 2017 ). Such studies include analyses of the impacts of terrorist attacks on three European countries, Greece, Italy, and Austria (Enders et al., 1992 ); the impact of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States (Goodrich, 2002 ); terrorism and tourism in Nepal (Bhattarai et al., 2005 ); vulnerability of tourism livelihoods in Bali (Baker & Coulter, 2007 ); the impact of terrorism on tourist preferences for destinations in the Mediterranean and the Canary Islands (Arana & León, 2008 ); the 2011 massacres in Olso and Utøya, Norway (Wolff & Larsen, 2014 ); terrorism and political violence in Tunisia (Lanouar & Goaied, 2019 ); and the impact of terrorism on European tourism (Corbet et al., 2019 ), among others. Pizam and Fleischer ( 2002 ) studied the impact of acts of terrorism on tourism demand in Israel between May 1991 and May 2001 , and they confirmed that the frequency of acts of terrorism had caused a larger decline in international tourist arrivals than the severity of these acts. Most of these are ex post studies, and future assessments of the underlying conditions of destinations could reveal a deeper understanding of the vulnerability of tourism to terrorism.

Tourism is vulnerable to economic crisis, both local economic shocks (Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005 ; Stylidis & Terzidou, 2014 ) and global economic crisis (Papatheodorou et al., 2010 ; Smeral, 2010 ). Okumus and Karamustafa ( 2005 ) evaluated the impact of the February 2001 economic crisis in Turkey on tourism, and they found that the tourism industry was poorly prepared for the economic crisis despite having suffered previous impacts related to the Gulf War in the early 1990s, terrorism in Turkey in the 1990s, the civil war in former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, an internal economic crisis in 1994 , and two earthquakes in the northwest region of Turkey in 1999 . In a study of the attitudes and perceptions of citizens of Greece, Stylidis and Terzidou ( 2014 ) found that economic crisis is associated with increased support for tourism development, particularly out of self-interest. Economic crisis diminishes residents’ concern for environmental issues. In a study of the behavior of European tourists amid an economic crisis, Eugenio-Martin and Campos-Soria ( 2014 ) found that the probability of households cutting back on travel expenditures depends largely on the climate and economic conditions of tourists’ home countries, and households that do reduce travel spending engage in tourism closer to home.

Becken and Lennox ( 2012 ) studied the implications of a long-term increase in oil prices for tourism in New Zealand, and they estimate that a doubling of oil prices is associated with a 1.7% decrease in real gross national disposable income and a 9% reduction in the real value of tourism exports. Chatziantoniou et al. ( 2013 ) investigated the relationship among oil price shocks, tourism variables, and economic indicators in four European Mediterranean countries and found that aggregate demand oil price shocks generated a lagged effect on tourism-generated income and economic growth. Kisswani et al. ( 2020 ) examined the asymmetric effect of oil prices on tourism receipts and the sensitive susceptibility of tourism to oil price changes using nonlinear analysis. The findings document a long-run asymmetrical effect for most countries, after incorporating the structural breaks, suggesting that governments and tourism businesses and organizations should interpret oil price fluctuations cautiously.

Finally, the sustainability of tourism has been shown to be vulnerable to the outbreak of infectious diseases, including the impact of the Ebola virus on tourism in sub-Saharan Africa (Maphanga & Henama, 2019 ; Novelli et al., 2018 ) and in the United States (Cahyanto et al., 2016 ). The literature also includes studies of the impact of swine flu on tourism demand in Brunei (Haque & Haque, 2018 ), Mexico (Monterrubio, 2010 ), and the United Kingdom (Page et al., 2012 ), among others. In addition, rapid assessments of the impacts of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 have documented severe disruptions and cessations of tourism because of unprecedented global travel restrictions and widespread restrictions on public gatherings (Gössling et al., 2020 ; Qiu et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Nicolau, 2020 ). Hotels, airlines, cruise lines, and car rentals have all experienced a significant decrease globally because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the shock to the industry is significant enough to warrant concerns about the long-term outlook (Sharma & Nicolau, 2020 ). Qiu et al. ( 2020 ) estimated the social costs of the pandemic to tourism in three cities in China (Hong Kong, Guangzhou, and Wuhan), and they found that most respondents were willing to pay for risk reduction and action in responding to the pandemic crisis; there was no significant difference between residents’ willingness to pay in the three cities. Some research has emphasized how lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic can prepare global tourism for an economic transformation that is needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change (Brouder, 2020 ; Prideaux et al., 2020 ).

It is clear that tourism has contributed significantly to economic development globally, but its role in sustainable development is uncertain, contested, and potentially paradoxical. This is due, in part, to the contested nature of sustainable development itself. Tourism has been promoted as a low-impact, nonextractive option for economic development, particularly for developing countries (Gössling, 2000 ), and many countries have managed to increase their participation in the global economy through development of international tourism. Tourism development has been viewed as an important sector for investment to enhance economic growth, poverty alleviation, and food security, and the sector provides an alternative opportunity to large-scale development projects and extractive industries that contribute to emissions of pollutants and threaten biodiversity and cultural values. However, global evidence from research on the economic impacts of tourism has shown that this potential has rarely been realized (Liu, 2003 ).

The role of tourism in sustainable development has been studied extensively and with a variety of perspectives, including the conceptualization of alternative or responsible forms of tourism and the examination of economic, environmental, and social impacts of tourism development. The research has generally concluded that tourism development has contributed to sustainable development in some cases where it is demonstrated to have provided support for biodiversity conservation initiatives and livelihood development strategies. As an economic sector, tourism is considered to be labor intensive, providing opportunities for poor households to enhance their livelihood through the sale of goods and services to foreign tourists.

Nature-based tourism approaches such as ecotourism and community-based tourism have been successful at attracting tourists to parks and protected areas, and their spending provides financial support for biodiversity conservation, livelihoods, and economic growth in developing countries. Nevertheless, studies of the impacts of tourism development have documented negative environmental impacts locally in terms of land use, food and water consumption, and congestion, and globally in terms of the contribution of tourism to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases related to transportation and other tourist activities. Studies of the social impacts of tourism have documented experiences of discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, race, sex, and national identity.

The sustainability of tourism as an economic sector has been examined in terms of its vulnerability to civil conflict, economic shocks, natural disasters, and public health pandemics. Most studies conclude that tourism may have positive impacts for regional development and environmental conservation, but there is evidence that tourism inherently generates negative environmental impacts, primarily through pollutions stemming from transportation. The regional benefits of tourism development must be considered alongside the global impacts of increased transportation and tourism participation. Global tourism has also been shown to be vulnerable to economic crises, oil price shocks, and global outbreaks of infectious diseases. Given that tourism is dependent on energy, the movement of people, and the consumption of resources, virtually all tourism activities have significant economic, environmental, and sustainable impacts. As such, the role of tourism in sustainable development is highly questionable. Future research on the role of tourism in sustainable development should focus on reducing the negative impacts of tourism development, both regionally and globally.

Further Reading

• Bramwell, B. , & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 1 (1), 1–5.
• Buckley, R. (2012). Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research , 39 (2), 528–546.
• Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation , 18 (3), 201–209.
• Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Tourism Geographies , 1 (1), 7–25.
• Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 5 (3), 224–233.
• Fennell, D. A. (2020). Ecotourism (5th ed.). Routledge.
• Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change , 12 (4), 283–302.
• Honey, M. (2008). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? (2nd ed.). Island Press.
• Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach . Routledge.
• Jamal, T. , & Camargo, B. A. (2014). Sustainable tourism, justice and an ethic of care: Toward the just destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 22 (1), 11–30.
• Liburd, J. J. , & Edwards, D. (Eds.). (2010). Understanding the sustainable development of tourism . Oxford.
• Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 11 (6), 459–475.
• Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 28 (11), 1932–1946.
• Adams, W. M. (2009). Green development: Environment and sustainability in a developing world (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Andereck, K. L. , Valentine, K. M. , Knopf, R. A. , & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (4), 1056–1076.
• Andereck, K. , Valentine, K. , Vogt, C. , & Knopf, R. (2007). A cross-cultural analysis of tourism and quality of life perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (5), 483–502.
• Anderies, J. M. , Folke, C. , Walker, B. , & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: Robustness, resilience, and sustainability . Ecology and Society , 18 (2), 8.
• Apergis, N. , & Payne, J. E. (2012). Tourism and growth in the Caribbean–evidence from a panel error correction model. Tourism Economics , 18 (2), 449–456.
• Arana, J. E. , & León, C. J. (2008). The impact of terrorism on tourism demand. Annals of Tourism Research , 35 (2), 299–315.
• Ashley, C. , & Roe, D. (2002). Making tourism work for the poor: Strategies and challenges in southern Africa. Development Southern Africa , 19 (1), 61–82.
• Ashley, C. , Roe, D. , & Goodwin, H. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor: A review of experience (No. 1). Overseas Development Institute.
• Baker, K. , & Coulter, A. (2007). Terrorism and tourism: The vulnerability of beach vendors’ livelihoods in Bali. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (3), 249–266.
• Baral, N. , Stern, M. J. , & Bhattarai, R. (2008). Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecological Economics , 66 (2–3), 218–227.
• Becken, S. , & Lennox, J. (2012). Implications of a long-term increase in oil prices for tourism. Tourism Management , 33 (1), 133–142.
• Beckerman, W. (1994). “Sustainable development”: Is it a useful concept? Environmental Values , 3 (3), 191–209.
• Bhattarai, K. , Conway, D. , & Shrestha, N. (2005). Tourism, terrorism and turmoil in Nepal. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (3), 669–688.
• Blewitt, J. (2015). Understanding sustainable development (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Brouder, P. (2020). Reset redux: Possible evolutionary pathways towards the transformation of tourism in a COVID-19 world. Tourism Geographies , 22 (3), 484–490.
• Brunt, P. , & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annals of Tourism Research , 26 (3), 493–515.
• Buckley, R. (2011). Tourism and environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 36 , 397–416.
• Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien , 24 (1), 5–12.
• Butler, R. , & Hinch, T. (Eds.). (2007). Tourism and indigenous peoples: Issues and implications . Routledge.
• Cabezas, A. L. (2004). Between love and money: Sex, tourism, and citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 29 (4), 987–1015.
• Caffyn, A. (2012). Advocating and implementing slow tourism. Tourism Recreation Research , 37 (1), 77–80.
• Cahyanto, I. , Wiblishauser, M. , Pennington-Gray, L. , & Schroeder, A. (2016). The dynamics of travel avoidance: The case of Ebola in the US. Tourism Management Perspectives , 20 , 195–203.
• Calgaro, E. , & Lloyd, K. (2008). Sun, sea, sand and tsunami: Examining disaster vulnerability in the tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography , 29 (3), 288–306.
• Castanedo, S. , Juanes, J. A. , Medina, R. , Puente, A. , Fernandez, F. , Olabarrieta, M. , & Pombo, C. (2009). Oil spill vulnerability assessment integrating physical, biological and socio-economical aspects: Application to the Cantabrian coast (Bay of Biscay, Spain). Journal of Environmental Management , 91 (1), 149–159.
• Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the Third World: Problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management , 14 (2), 85–90.
• Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1987, January). The future of “ecotourism.” Mexico Journal , 17 , 13–14.
• Chase, L. C. , Lee, D. R. , Schulze, W. D. , & Anderson, D. J. (1998). Ecotourism demand and differential pricing of national park access in Costa Rica. Land Economics , 74 (4), 466–482.
• Chatziantoniou, I. , Filis, G. , Eeckels, B. , & Apostolakis, A. (2013). Oil prices, tourism income and economic growth: A structural VAR approach for European Mediterranean countries. Tourism Management , 36 (C), 331–341.
• Cheong, S. M. (2012). Fishing and tourism impacts in the aftermath of the Hebei-Spirit oil spill. Journal of Coastal Research , 28 (6), 1648–1653.
• Chok, S. , Macbeth, J. , & Warren, C. (2007). Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of “pro-poor tourism” and implications for sustainability. Current Issues in Tourism , 10 (2–3), 144–165.
• Cioccio, L. , & Michael, E. J. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tourism management for the inevitable in Northeast Victoria. Tourism Management , 28 (1), 1–11.
• Cirer-Costa, J. C. (2015). Tourism and its hypersensitivity to oil spills. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 91 (1), 65–72.
• Coccossis, H. , & Nijkamp, P. (1995). Sustainable tourism development . Ashgate.
• Coddington, K. (2015). The “entrepreneurial spirit”: Exxon Valdez and nature tourism development in Seward, Alaska. Tourism Geographies , 17 (3), 482–497.
• Cohen, E. (1978). The impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals of Tourism Research , 5 (2), 215–237.
• Conway, D. , & Timms, B. F. (2010). Re-branding alternative tourism in the Caribbean: The case for “slow tourism.” Tourism and Hospitality Research , 10 (4), 329–344.
• Corbet, S. , O’Connell, J. F. , Efthymiou, M. , Guiomard, C. , & Lucey, B. (2019). The impact of terrorism on European tourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 75 , 1–17.
• Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics , 2 (1), 1–6.
• Deery, M. , Jago, L. , & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management , 33 (1), 64–73.
• Diedrich, A. , & Garcia-Buades, E. (2008). Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline. Tourism Management , 41 , 623–632.
• Durbarry, R. (2004). Tourism and economic growth: The case of Mauritius. Tourism Economics , 10 , 389–401.
• Elliott, S. M. , & Neirotti, L. D. (2008). Challenges of tourism in a dynamic island destination: The case of Cuba. Tourism Geographies , 10 (4), 375–402.
• Enders, W. , Sandler, T. , & Parise, G. F. (1992). An econometric analysis of the impact of terrorism on tourism. Kyklos , 45 (4), 531–554.
• Eugenio-Martin, J. L. , & Campos-Soria, J. A. (2014). Economic crisis and tourism expenditure cutback decision. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 53–73.
• Farrell, B. , & McLellan, R. (1987). Tourism and physical environment research. Annals of Tourism Research , 14 (1), 1–16.
• Faulkner, B. , & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community impacts of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 5 (1), 3–28.
• Fennell, D. A. , & Eagles, P. F. (1990). Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual framework. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration , 8 (1), 23–34.
• Fullagar, S. , Markwell, K. , & Wilson, E. (Eds.). (2012). Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities . Channel View.
• Garau-Vadell, J. B. , Gutierrez-Taño, D. , & Diaz-Armas, R. (2018). Economic crisis and residents’ perception of the impacts of tourism in mass tourism destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management , 7 , 68–75.
• Garrod, B. , & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Management , 19 (3), 199–212.
• Ghimire, K. B. (Ed.). (2013). The native tourist: Mass tourism within developing countries . Routledge.
• Goodrich, J. N. (2002). September 11, 2001 attack on America: A record of the immediate impacts and reactions in the USA travel and tourism industry. Tourism Management , 23 (6), 573–580.
• Gössling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: A means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics , 29 , 303–320.
• Gössling, S. (2000). Tourism–sustainable development option? Environmental Conservation , 27 (3), 223–224.
• Gössling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change , 12 , 283–302.
• Gössling, S. , & Peeters, P. (2015). Assessing tourism’s global environmental impact 1900–2050. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 23 (5), 639–659.
• Gössling, S. , Peeters, P. , Hall, C. M. , Ceron, J.‑P. , Dubois, G. , Lehman, L. V. , & Scott, D. (2011). Tourism and water use: Supply, demand and security, and international review. Tourism Management , 33 (1), 16–28.
• Gössling, S. , Scott, D. , & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 29 (1), 1–20.
• Gössling, S. , Scott, D. , Hall, C. M. , Ceron, J. P. , & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research , 39 (1), 36–58.
• Gray, N. J. , & Campbell, L. M. (2007). A decommodified experience? Exploring aesthetic, economic and ethical values for volunteer ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (5), 463–482.
• Grober, U. (2007). Deep roots—a conceptual history of “sustainable development” (Nachhaltigkeit) . Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
• Gu, H. , & Ryan, C. (2008). Place attachment, identity and community impacts of tourism—the case of a Beijing hutong. Tourism Management , 29 (4), 637–647.
• Gursoy, D. , Chi, C. G. , & Dyer, P. (2010). Locals’ attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research , 49 (3), 381–394.
• Haley, A. J. , Snaith, T. , & Miller, G. (2005). The social impacts of tourism a case study of Bath, UK. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (3), 647–668.
• Hall, C. M. , & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach . Routledge.
• Hall, C. M. , & Lew, A. A. (Eds.). (1998). Sustainable tourism: A geographical perspective . Longman.
• Haque, T. H. , & Haque, M. O. (2018). The swine flu and its impacts on tourism in Brunei. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 36 , 92–101.
• Haralambopoulos, N. , & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research , 23 (3), 503–526.
• Harrison, D. (2008). Pro-poor tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly , 29 (5), 851–868.
• Hearne, R. R. , & Salinas, Z. M. (2002). The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management , 65 (2), 153–163.
• Hetzer, N. D. (1965). Environment, tourism, culture. Links , 1 (2), 1–3.
• Höhler, S. (2015). Spaceship earth in the environmental age, 1960–1990 . Routledge.
• Honey, M. , & Gilpin, R. (2009). Tourism in the developing world: Promoting peace and reducing poverty . United States Institute for Peace.
• Huan, T. C. , Beaman, J. , & Shelby, L. (2004). No-escape natural disaster: Mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 31 (2), 255–273.
• Huang, J. H. , & Min, J. C. (2002). Earthquake devastation and recovery in tourism: The Taiwan case. Tourism Management , 23 (2), 145–154.
• Hunter, C. (1995). On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 3 (3), 155–165.
• Hunter, C. , & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment. A sustainable relationship? Routledge.
• Huttasin, N. (2008). Perceived social impacts of tourism by residents in the OTOP tourism village, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research , 13 (2), 175–191.
• Hystad, P. W. , & Keller, P. C. (2008). Towards a destination tourism disaster management framework: Long-term lessons from a forest fire disaster. Tourism Management , 29 (1), 151–162.
• Katircioglu, S. (2009). Tourism, trade and growth: The case of Cyprus. Applied Economics , 41 (21), 2741–2750.
• Katircioglu, S. (2010). Testing the tourism-led growth hypothesis for Singapore: An empirical investigation from bounds test to cointegration and Granger causality tests. Tourism Economics , 16 (4), 1095–1101.
• Khan, M. M. (1997). Tourism development and dependency theory: Mass tourism vs. ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research , 24 (4), 988–991.
• Kim, H. , & Marcouiller, D. W. (2015). Considering disaster vulnerability and resiliency: The case of hurricane effects on tourism-based economies. The Annals of Regional Science , 54 (3), 945–971.
• King, B. , Pizam, A. , & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research , 20 (4), 650–665.
• Kisswani, K. M. , Zaitouni, M. , & Moufakkir, O. (2020). An examination of the asymmetric effect of oil prices on tourism receipts. Current Issues in Tourism , 23 (4), 500–522.
• Kuvan, Y. , & Akan, P. (2005). Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management , 26 (5), 691–706.
• Lai, P. H. , & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Local perspectives of ecotourism development in Tawushan Nature Reserve, Taiwan. Tourism Management , 27 (6), 1117–1129.
• Lanouar, C. , & Goaied, M. (2019). Tourism, terrorism and political violence in Tunisia: Evidence from Markov-switching models. Tourism Management , 70 , 404–418.
• Lee, C. C. , & Chang, C. P. (2008). Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at panels. Tourism Management , 29 , 180–192.
• Lenzen, M. , Sun, Y. Y. , Faturay, F. , Ting, Y. P. , Geschke, A. , & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nature Climate Change , 8 (6), 522–528.
• Lian Chan, J. K. , & Baum, T. (2007). Ecotourists’ perception of ecotourism experience in lower Kinabatangan, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (5), 574–590.
• Liu, A. , & Pratt, S. (2017). Tourism’s vulnerability and resilience to terrorism. Tourism Management , 60 , 404–417.
• Manyara, G. , & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 (6), 628–644.
• Maphanga, P. M. , & Henama, U. S. (2019). The tourism impact of Ebola in Africa: Lessons on crisis management. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure , 8 (3), 1–13.
• Mathieson, A. , & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts . Longman.
• May, V. (1991). Tourism, environment and development—values, sustainability and stewardship. Tourism Management , 12 (2), 112–124.
• Mazzocchi, M. , & Montini, A. (2001). Earthquake effects on tourism in central Italy. Annals of Tourism Research , 28 (4), 1031–1046.
• Mbaiwa, J. E. (2005). The socio-cultural impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change , 2 (3), 163–185.
• McKercher, B. (1993a). Some fundamental truths about tourism: Understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts, Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 1 (1), 6–16.
• McKercher, B. (1993b). The unrecognized threat to tourism: Can tourism survive “sustainability”? Tourism Management , 14 (2), 131–136.
• Meadows, D. H. , Meadows, D. L. , Randers, J. , & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth . Universe Books.
• Miller, G. A. , & Ritchie, B. W. (2003). A farming crisis or a tourism disaster? An analysis of the foot and mouth disease in the UK. Current Issues in Tourism , 6 (2), 150–171.
• Milman, A. , & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on central Florida. Annals of Tourism Research , 15 (2), 191–204.
• Monterrubio, J. C. (2010). Short-term economic impacts of influenza A (H1N1) and government reaction on the Mexican tourism industry: An analysis of the media. International Journal of Tourism Policy , 3 (1), 1–15.
• Narayan, P. K. (2004). Economic impact of tourism on Fiji’s economy: Empirical evidence from the computable general equilibrium model. Tourism Economics , 10 (4), 419–433.
• Nash, D. , & Butler, R. (1990). Towards sustainable tourism. Tourism Management , 11 (3), 263–264.
• Novelli, M. , Burgess, L. G. , Jones, A. , & Ritchie, B. W. (2018). “No Ebola . . . still doomed”—the Ebola-induced tourism crisis. Annals of Tourism Research , 70 , 76–87.
• Oh, C. (2005). The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tourism Management , 26 , 39–44.
• Oh, H. , Assaf, A. G. , & Baloglu, S. (2016). Motivations and goals of slow tourism. Journal of Travel Research , 55 (2), 205–219.
• Okumus, F. , & Karamustafa, K. (2005). Impact of an economic crisis evidence from Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research , 32 (4), 942–961.
• Page, S. , Song, H. , & Wu, D. C. (2012). Assessing the impacts of the global economic crisis and swine flu on inbound tourism demand in the United Kingdom. Journal of Travel Research , 51 (2), 142–153.
• Papatheodorou, A. , Rosselló, J. , & Xiao, H. (2010). Global economic crisis and tourism: Consequences and perspectives. Journal of Travel Research , 49 (1), 39–45.
• Peeters, P. (2012). A clear path towards sustainable mass tourism? Rejoinder to the paper “Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence” by David B. Weaver. Tourism Management , 33 (5), 1038–1041.
• Pennington-Gray, L. , London, B. , Cahyanto, I. , & Klages, W. (2011). Expanding the tourism crisis management planning framework to include social media: Lessons from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 2010. International Journal of Tourism Anthropology , 1 (3–4), 239–253.
• Pizam, A. , & Fleischer, A. (2002). Severity versus frequency of acts of terrorism: Which has a larger impact on tourism demand? Journal of Travel Research , 40 (3), 337–339.
• Pratt, S. (2015). The economic impact of tourism in SIDS. Annals of Tourism Research , 52 , 148–160.
• Prideaux, B. , Thompson, M. , & Pabel, A. (2020). Lessons from COVID-19 can prepare global tourism for the economic transformation needed to combat climate change. Tourism Geographies , 22 (3), 667–678.
• Qiu, R. T. , Park, J. , Li, S. , & Song, H. (2020). Social costs of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic . Annals of Tourism Research , 84 , 102994.
• Rátz, T. (2000). Residents’ perceptions of the socio-cultural impacts of tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary. Tourism and Sustainable Community Development , 7 , 36.
• Ribeiro, L. C. D. S. , Souza, K. B. D. , Domingues, E. P. , & Magalhães, A. S. (2020). Blue water turns black: Economic impact of oil spill on tourism and fishing in Brazilian Northeast . Current Issues in Tourism , 1–6.
• Richardson, R. B. , Fernandez, A. , Tschirley, D. , & Tembo, G. (2012). Wildlife conservation in Zambia: Impacts on rural household welfare. World Development , 40 (5), 1068–1081.
• Richardson, R. B. , & Loomis, J. B. (2004). Adaptive recreation planning and climate change: A contingent visitation approach. Ecological Economics , 50 (1), 83–99.
• Richardson, R. B. , & Witkowski, K. (2010). Economic vulnerability to climate change for tourism-dependent nations. Tourism Analysis , 15 (3), 315–330.
• Ritchie, B. W. , Crotts, J. C. , Zehrer, A. , & Volsky, G. T. (2013). Understanding the effects of a tourism crisis: The impact of the BP oil spill on regional lodging demand. Journal of Travel Research , 53 (1), 12–25.
• Rogerson, C. M. (2011). Urban tourism and regional tourists: Shopping in Johannesburg, South Africa. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie , 102 (3), 316–330.
• Rutty, M. , & Richardson, R. (2019). Tourism research in Cuba: Gaps in knowledge and challenges for sustainable tourism. Sustainability , 11 (12), 3340–3346.
• Ryan, C. , & Huyton, J. (2000). Who is interested in Aboriginal tourism in the Northern Territory, Australia? A cluster analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 8 (1), 53–88.
• Salinas, E. , Mundet, L. , & Salinas, E. (2018). Historical evolution and spatial development of tourism in Cuba, 1919–2017: What is next? Tourism Planning & Development , 15 (3), 216–238.
• Sanchez, P. M. , & Adams, K. M. (2008). The Janus-faced character of tourism in Cuba. Annals of Tourism Research , 35 , 27–46.
• Scott, D. , Hall, C. M. , & Gössling, S. (2012). Tourism and climate change: Impacts, adaptation and mitigation . Routledge.
• Seetanah, B. (2011). Assessing the dynamic economic impact of tourism for island economies. Annals of Tourism Research , 38 (1), 291–308.
• Sharma, A. , & Nicolau, J. L. (2020). An open market valuation of the effects of COVID-19 on the travel and tourism industry . Annals of Tourism Research , 83 , 102990.
• Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 8 (1), 1–19.
• Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism Management , 42 , 37–49.
• Smeral, E. (2010). Impacts of the world recession and economic crisis on tourism: Forecasts and potential risks. Journal of Travel Research , 49 (1), 31–38.
• Southgate, C. R. (2006). Ecotourism in Kenya: The vulnerability of communities. Journal of Ecotourism , 5 (1–2), 80–96.
• Spenceley, A. (Ed.). (2012). Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development . Routledge.
• Stabler, M. (Ed.). (1997). Tourism and sustainability: Principles to practice . Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International.
• Stronza, A. (2007). The economic promise of ecotourism for conservation. Journal of Ecotourism , 6 (3), 210–230.
• Stylidis, D. , & Terzidou, M. (2014). Tourism and the economic crisis in Kavala, Greece. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 210–226.
• Suntikul, W. , Bauer, T. , & Song, H. (2009). Pro-poor tourism development in Viengxay, Laos: Current state and future prospects. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research , 14 (2), 153–168.
• Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management . CABI.
• Tovar, C. , & Lockwood, M. (2008). Social impacts of tourism: An Australian regional case study. International Journal of Tourism Research , 10 (4), 365–378.
• Tsartas, P. (1992). Socioeconomic impacts of tourism on two Greek isles. Annals of Tourism Research , 19 (3), 516–533.
• Turner, L. , & Ash, J. (1975). The golden hordes: International tourism and the pleasure periphery . Constable.
• United Nations . (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . Division for Sustainable Development Goals.
• United Nations World Tourism Organization . (2002). Tourism and poverty alleviation . United Nations World Tourism Organization.
• United Nations World Tourism Organization . (2020). UNWTO world tourism barometer . United Nations World Tourism Organization.
• Viner, D. (2006). Tourism and its interactions with climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 14 (4), 317–322.
• Vitousek, P. M. , Mooney, H. A. , Lubchenco, J. , & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science , 277 (5325), 494–499.
• World Commission on Environment and Development . (1987). Our common future . Oxford University Press.
• Weaver, D. (2007). Towards sustainable mass tourism: Paradigm shift or paradigm nudge? Tourism Recreation Research , 32 (3), 65–69.
• Weaver, D. B. (2012). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass tourism convergence. Tourism Management , 33 (5), 1030–1037.
• Weaver, D. B. (2014). Asymmetrical dialectics of sustainable tourism: Toward enlightened mass tourism. Journal of Travel Research , 53 (2), 131–140.
• Wheeller, B. (2007). Sustainable mass tourism: More smudge than nudge the canard continues. Tourism Recreation Research , 32 (3), 73–75.
• Whitford, M. , & Ruhanen, L. (2016). Indigenous tourism research, past and present: Where to from here? Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 24 (8–9), 1080–1099.
• Whyte, K. P. (2010). An environmental justice framework for indigenous tourism. Environmental Philosophy , 7 (2), 75–92.
• Wolff, K. , & Larsen, S. (2014). Can terrorism make us feel safer? Risk perceptions and worries before and after the July 22nd attacks. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 200–209.
• Yang, W. , Wang, D. , & Chen, G. (2011). Reconstruction strategies after the Wenchuan earthquake in Sichuan, China. Tourism Management , 32 (4), 949–956.
• Young, G. (1973). Tourism—blessing or blight? Penguin.
• Zapata, M. J. , Hall, C. M. , Lindo, P. , & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2011). Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism , 14 (8), 725–749.

1. One megatonne (Mt) is equal to 1 million (10 6 ) metric tons.

2. One megajoule (MJ) is equal to 1 million (10 6 ) joules, or approximately the kinetic energy of a 1-megagram (tonne) vehicle moving at 161 km/h.

3. One gigatonne (Gt) is equal to 1 billion (10 9 ) metric tons.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Character limit 500 /500

• Have any questions ?
• +971 552272114
• [email protected]

• Links with the Industry
• Our Partners
• Online Executive MBA - CMU
• MBA – Strategic Management & Leadership - CMU
• MBA International - CCCU
• MBA International (Top- up)
• MBA - University of Gloucestershire (GLOS)
• MBA with Global Business Administration (GLOS)
• MBA with Global Business Administration with Marketing Intelligence and Big Data (GLOS)
• MBA with Global Business Administration with Cyber Governance and Digital Transformation (GLOS)
• MBA with Global Business Administration with Financial Services Management (GLOS)
• MBA with Global Business Administration with Applied Entrepreneurship, Design Thinking and Innovation (GLOS)
• MBA in Global Business Administration with International Tourism and Hospitality Management (GLOS)
• MBA with Supply Chain Management - Abertay University
• MBA with Healthcare Management - Abertay University
• MBA with HR and Organizational Psychology - Abertay University
• MBA with Finance and Risk Management - Abertay University
• MBA with Engineering Management - Abertay University
• MBA with Information Technology - Abertay University
• MBA with Educational Leadership - Abertay University
• MBA with Health and Safety Leadership - Abertay University
• MBA with Management of Public Health
• MBA with Cyber Governance and Law - Abertay University
• MBA with Entrepreneurship & Innovation - Abertay University
• MBA with Business Analytics - Abertay University
• MBA with Operations and Project Management - Abertay University
• MBA with Market Intelligence & Big data - Abertay University
• Executive MBA in HR Management and Analytics - UCAM
• MBA with Sales and Marketing - Abertay University
• Executive MBA in Logistics and Supply Chain Leadership - UCAM
• Executive MBA in Global Business Management - UCAM
• Executive MBA in Engineering Management - UCAM
• Executive MBA in Healthcare Leadership - UCAM
• Executive MBA in Information Technology Leadership - UCAM
• MBA with Sales & Marketing - UCAM
• MBA with Specialization - Girne American University
• CMI L7 Strategic Management and Leadership Practice
• MSc Digital Marketing and e-Business
• MSc Accounting and Finance (CIMA Gateway)
• MSc. Construction and Project Management
• Masters in Data Science and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• BSc (Hons) Business with International Business Management (LJMU)
• BSc (Hons) Business with Finance (LJMU)
• BSc (Hons) Business with Digital Marketing (LJMU)
• BSc (Hons) Computer Science - LJMU
• BSc (Hons) Business Psychology with Human Resource Management - LJMU
• BA (Hons) in Fashion: Design and Communication - LJMU
• BA (Hons) Media, Culture and Communication - LJMU
• BA (Hons) Sports Business - LJMU
• BSc (Hons) Business Management - CCCU
• BA (Hons) Accounting and Finance - GLOS
• BA (Hons ) Business Management - ABERTAY
• BA (Hons) Business Management with Business Analytics - ABERTAY
• BA (Hons) Business Management- Marketing - Abertay University
• BA (Hons) in Business with Finance - Abertay University

• Doctorate of Business Administration
• Postgraduate Diploma in Procurement & Contract Management
• Postgraduate Diploma in Sales & Marketing Management
• Postgraduate Diploma in Supply Chain Management and Logistics
• Postgraduate Diploma in Healthcare Management and Leadership
• Postgraduate Diploma in Tourism and Hospitality Management
• Postgraduate Diploma in Human Resource Management | HRM
• Postgraduate Diploma in Finance & Risk Management
• Postgraduate Diploma in Engineering Management
• Postgraduate Diploma in Project Management
• Certificate in Strategic Management and Leadership Practice
• CMI Programs
• Diploma in Business Psychology
• Diploma in Fashion Illustration
• Diploma in Supply Chain and Logistics Management
• Diploma in Business Analytics
• Diploma in Information Technology
• Diploma in Finance and Risk Management
• Diploma in Business Management
• Diploma in Fashion Design
• Diploma in Healthcare Management and Leadership
• Diploma in Business Finance 
• Diploma in Digital Marketing ​
• Diploma in Operations and Project Management
• Diploma in Engineering Management
• Diploma in Human Resources & Organizational Culture ​
• Diploma in Computing
• Diploma in Film and Media
• Diploma in Sports Management
• ACCA – Association Chartered Certified Accountants
• Higher National Diploma in Art and Design (Fashion)
• Higher National Diploma in Computing
• Higher National Diploma In Business
• Higher National Diploma in Sport
• BTEC Level 3 National Foundation Diploma in Business
• Master of Arts in Leadership in Education
• Master of Arts in Education
• Postgraduate Certificate in Education (International) - LJMU

• Postgraduate Certificate in Education International (PGCEi)
• Notable Westford Alumni
• Student Interview
• DBA Candidates
• Research Journals
• Humans Of Westford
• MBA Decoded
• Mentorship program
• International Immersion Program
• Toastmaster Club
• Accommodation Partner- Nest
• International Student Research Conference (ISRC)
• Westford for Business
• April 6, 2016
• Tourism & Hospitality Management
• 2 Minutes Read

Importance of Tourism Infrastructure Development

Visits by a tourist create additional development of the place such as parks, gardens, and museums. Additional facilities include roads, water systems, public toilets, signage, etc. Because all of these infrastructure developments are important for the tourism sector. While there are many programs organized by Government at the top level it is the governance by the local government that supports the system uniform.

Every development with regard to a place is dependent on the need of the visitors. Visitors use a variety of facilities depending upon the priority. By proper analysis of the opportunities plan, necessary facilities that need to be implemented can be identified. Facilities generally include,

• Transportation Facilities
• Healthcare Facilities
• Water Management Facilities
• Waste Management Facilities
• Recreational Facilities

Accessibility to the above facilities is the important thing in creating an impression among tourists. The satisfaction of the tour program is measured by these facilities.

The population of a place and the tourists visiting that place can have a significant effect on infrastructure development (Tourism development) . Foreseeing the demand that may occur during seasons is crucial in determining how much money should be invested in developing the destination.

The development of a place for tourism can also help in boosting the economy of the locality. Even though this kind of development is not noticed easily the factor of contribution by tourism sector on the economy is higher. A well-developed infrastructure not only enhances the overall tourism experience but also contributes significantly to the economic, social, and environmental aspects of a destination.

For interested people, Westford University College provided a Diploma program in Tourism Management . This program helps students to gain an in-depth understanding of managing projects in the industry and build their strategic planning capabilities internationally.

get in touch

Phone Number

Latest Blogs

Data-Driven Decision-Making in Higher Education: Trends and Insights for 2024

Westford University College Shines as Venue Partner for MEMORIAD 2024: A Triumph of Intellectual Prowess

Doctoral Research in the Digital Age: Harnessing Technology for Innovation

Westford recognized as the Outstanding B- School with Innovation in Placements

Exploring Trends in Fashion Marketing and Merchandising

Established in 2009, The Westford University College  is the most trusted executive educational institution in UAE, providing flexible learning and affordable programs for regular students and working professionals (Perfect ‘Work-Life-Study’ Balance). We provide top rated MBA Programs, Bachelors Courses, Professional Programs and corporate training. 13300+ students, 80+ Courses, 130+ Nationalities, 20+ Academic Partners, 14+ years in the market.

Our Student Base

Mba programs.

• Cardiff Met MBA (Advanced Entry)
• MBA – Cardiff Metropolitan University
• MBA – Healthcare Management
• MBA – Supply Chain and Logistics Management
• MBA – Engineering Management
• MBA – Information Technology
• MBA – HR & Organizational Psychology
• MBA – Project Management
• MBA – International
• MBA - University of Gloucestershire
• MBA with Specialization - GAU
• MBA – Education Leadership
• UCAM MBA Executive

Bachelors Programs

• BSc (Hons) in Business with Finance
• BSc (Hons) in Business with Digital Marketing
• BSc (Hons) in Business with International Business
• BA (Hons) in Media, Culture and Communication
• BSc (Hons) in Business Psychology with Human Resource Management

Diploma Coures

• Diploma in Business Finance
• Diploma in Human Resources & Organizational Culture
• PG Diploma in Engineering Management
• PG Diploma in Retail Management
• PG Diploma in Sales & Marketing Management
• HND in Art and Design
• HND in Computing

Other Programs

• Teacher Training

Ready to get started ? Talk to us today

Al Taawun Campus Tejara 3, Al Taawun, Sharjah, UAE

Westford University College | Masters Degree | Under Graduate Degree | Diploma Courses | Certificate Courses | Corporate Training | Management Programs

• Privacy Policy
• Anti-Bribery & Corruption Policy
• Data Protection Policy
• Equality & Diversity Policy
• Environmental Policy
• Refund Policy

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

Investment in tourism infrastructure includes investment in components such as transport and communications infrastructure, the hotel and restaurant industry, and recreation facilities... Investment in tourism infrastructure development to make destinations and services increasingly attractive is considered a key measure in developing a country’s tourist destinations. It has a strong and positive impact on visitor attraction. 

1. Introduction

2. the role of transport infrastructure and communications infrastructure, 3. the role of the hotel and restaurant industry, 4. the role of recreation facilities, 5. the influence of uncertain factors.

• Sinclair, M. Thea. 1998. Tourism and economic development: A survey. Journal of Development Studies 34: 1–51.
• Boers, Bas, and Stuart Cottrell. 2007. Sustainable tourism infrastructure planning: A GIS-supported approach. Tourism Geographies 9: 1–21.
• Dujmovic, Mauro, and Aljoša Vitasovic. 2014. Tourism product and destination positioning. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5: 570–79.
• Matias, Alvaro, Peter Nijkamp, and Paulo Neto. 2007. Advances in Modern Tourism Research: Economic Perspectives. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
• Tribe, John. 2004. Knowing about tourism: Epistemological issues. In Qualitative Research in Tourism, 1st ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge, ISBN 9780203642986.
• Naudé, Willem A., and Andrea Saayman. 2005. Determinants of tourist arrivals in Africa: A panel data regression analysis. Tourism Economics 11: 365–91.
• Seetanah, Boopen, Thanika Devi Juwaheer, Matthew John Lamport, Sawkut Rojid, Raja Vinesh Sannassee, and Ushad Subadar Agathee. 2011. Does infrastructure matter in Tourism Development? University of Mauritius Research Journal 17: 89–108.
• Mamirkulova, Gulnara, Jianing Mi, Jaffar Abbas, Shahid Mahmood, Riaqa Mubeen, and Arash Ziapour. 2020. New Silk Road Infrastructure Opportunities in Developing Tourism Environment for Residents Better Quality of Life. Global Ecology and Conservation 20: e01194.
• Prideaux, Bruce. 2000. The role of the transport system in destination development. Tourism Management 21: 53–63.
• Jovanović, Sonja, and Ivana Ilić. 2016. Infrastructure as important determinant of tourism development in the countries of Southeast Europe. Ecoforum Journal 5: 288–94.
• Yu, Min. 2016. Research on the impact of infrastructure construction on tourism industry: Evidence from the “Wuhan-Guangzhou high speed rail”. Open Journal of Social Sciences 4: 126–31.
• Suleiman, Najat Nassor, and Masoud Mohamed Albiman. 2014. Dynamic relationship between tourism, trade, infrastructure and economic growth: Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Journal of African Studies and Development 6: 49–55.
• Mandić, Ante, Željko Mrnjavac, and Lana Kordić. 2018. Tourism infrastructure, recreational facilities and tourism development. Tourism and Hospitality Management 24: 41–62.
• Khadaroo, Ahmad Jameel, and Boopen Seetanah. 2007a. Research Note: Does Transport Infrastructure Matter in Overall Tourism Development? Evidence from a Sample of Island Economies. Tourism Economics 13: 675–87.
• Khadaroo, Ahmad Jameel, and Boopen Seetanah. 2007b. Transport infrastructure and tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 34: 1021–32.
• Khadaroo, Jameel, and Boopen Seetanah. 2008. The role of transport infrastructure in international tourism development: A gravity model approach. Tourism Management 29: 831–40.
• Seetanah, Boopen, and Jameel Khadaroo. 2009. An Analysis of the Relationship between Transport Capital and Tourism Development in a Dynamic Framework. Tourism Economics 15: 785–802.
• Ouariti, Ouafae Zerouali, and El Mehdi Jebrane. 2020. The impact of transport infrastructure on tourism destination attractiveness: A case study of Marrakesh City, Morocco. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 9: 1–18.
• Lim, Christine, Liang Zhu, and Tay TR Koo. 2019. Urban redevelopment and tourism growth: Relationship between tourism infrastructure and international visitor flows. International Journal of Tourism Research 21: 187–96.
• Selvanathan, Saroja, E. Antony Selvanathan, and Brinda Viswanathan. 2012. Causality Between Foreign Direct Investment and Tourism: Empirical Evidence from India. Tourism Analysis 17: 91–98.
• Khoshnevis Yazidi, Soheila, Khadijeh Homa Salehi, and Mahshid Soheilzad. 2015. The relationship between tourism, foreign direct investment and economic growth: Evidence from Iran. Current Issues in Tourism 20: 15–26.
• Samimi, Ahmad Jafiri, Somaye Sadeghi, and Soraya Sadeghi. 2017. The Relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and Tourism Development: Evidence from Developing Countries. Institutions and Economies 5: 59–68. Available online: https://ijie.um.edu.my/article/view/4884 (accessed on 20 July 2020).
• Vietnam National Administration of Tourism. 2020. Vietnam Tourism Annual Report 2019. Hanoi: Labor Publishing House, ISBN 978-604-301-333-7.
• Kaul, Raghu Nath. 1985. Dynamics of Tourism: A Trilogy. Transportation and Marketing. New York: Sterling Publishers, vol. 3.
• Pearce, Philip L., and Mao-Ying Wu. 2015. Soft infrastructure at tourism sites: Identifying key issues for Asian tourism from case studies. Tourism Recreation Research 40: 120–32.
• Raina, Abhinav kamal. 2005. Ecology, Wildlife and Tourism Development: Principes, Practices and Strategies. Delhi: Sarup & Sons.
• Ghaderi, Zahed, Pezhman Hatamifar, and Jalayer Khalilzadeh. 2018. Analysis of tourist satisfaction in tourism supply chain management. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 29: 433–44.
• Tang, Rui. 2020. Does trade facilitation promote the efficiency of inbound tourism?—The empirical test based on Japan. International Journal of Tourism Research 23: 39–55.
• Tourism and Transport Forum. 2012. Tourism Infrastructure Policy and Priorities. Available online: http://www.ttf.org.au/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
• UNWTO. 2007. A Practical Guide to Tourism Destination Management. Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284412433 (accessed on 20 July 2020).
• Sharpley, Richard. 2009. Tourism Development and the Environment: Beyond Sustainability? Earthscan. Available online: http://www.istta.ir/upload/file/sustainableTourismBook2.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2020).
• Jafari, Jafar, and Honggen Xiao. 2016. Encyclopaedia of Tourism. New York: Springer.
• Vanegas Sr, Manuel, and Robertico R. Croes. 2000. Evaluation of demand: US tourist to Aruba. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 946–63.
• Lin, Vera Shanshan, Anyu Liu, and Haiyan Song. 2015. Modelling and Forecasting Chinese Outbound Tourism: An Econometric Approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32: 34–49.
• Greene, William H. 2008. Econometric Analysis. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Song, Haiyan, and Gang Li. 2008. Tourism demand modelling and forecasting: A review of recent research. Tourism Management 29: 203–20.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

Assembly President calls for massive investment in sustainable infrastructure

Facebook Twitter Print Email

The President of the UN General Assembly on Thursday underscored the critical need for resilient infrastructure if the world is to reach the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the 2030 deadline.

In a special meeting dedicated to building resilience and promoting sustainable development through infrastructure connectivity, Dennis Francis emphasised the importance of quality and endurance.

“ Quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure – including regional and transborder infrastructure – is important to sustain trade and commerce, facilitate effective transportation, connect us to virtual grids, maintain energy flows and make populations safer against natural hazards,” the Assembly President said.

Highlighting recent shocking failures such as the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, Mr. Francis pointed out the extensive economic impact of such disasters, affecting national and global supply chains.

He stressed the urgency of adapting transport infrastructure to withstand both human-induced and natural disasters exacerbated by climate change.

Special cases

In particular, he cited the impact on countries grappling through no fault of their own with acute challenges – the least developed countries ( LDCs ), landlocked developing countries ( LLDCs ) and the small island developing States ( SIDS ).

They are faced with unique geographical and economic conditions making them particularly vulnerable to infrastructure damage from natural hazards.

“ The SIDS, in particular, often confront more intense and frequent natural hazards, making their infrastructure susceptible to damage and destruction . In some instances, the annual cost of damage amounts to almost 10 per cent of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP),” Mr. Francis said.

In his address, the Assembly President also cited the opportunities presented by the upcoming fourth International Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS4) and third UN Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries ( LLDC3 ).

LLDC3 was due to take place in June, but will now be rescheduled to a later date, organisers said on Thursday.

“There is an increasing urgency to reflect on and indeed to address these regional and global challenges,” he said.

Assembly’s sustainability week

The high-level event on sustainable infrastructure, part of the General Assembly’s first ever Sustainability Week , followed Monday’s deliberations on debt sustainability, sustainable tourism on Tuesday and transport on Wednesday.

On Friday, the General Assembly will mark the completion of the UN Decade of Sustainable Energy for All. Discussions will focus on efforts to further accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda 's Sustainable Development Goal 7 on affordable, reliable and sustainable energy.

• General Assembly
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

share this content

• Share this article on facebook
• Share this article on twitter
• Share this article on linkedin

UN General Assembly Hosts Tourism for Sustainable Development Event

• All Regions
• 17 Apr 2024

The United Nations General Assembly has held a second thematic event focused on tourism and the sector’s critical role in critical role of tourism in advancing sustainable development and resilience.

Organized by the President of the General Assembly in collaboration with UN Tourism , the event was held at the UN Headquarters within the framework of Sustainability Week. The presence of Member States, Observers, civil society organizations, and UN agencies reflected a growing collective commitment to harnessing the transformative power of tourism for inclusive and sustainable development .

The growing significance of the tourism sector for our societies and our economies brings with it extra responsibility. We cannot allow the lifeline of tourism to be cut again. Resilience in the tourism is not just a matter of planning or reacting to crises.

Addressing the General Assembly, UN Tourism Secretary-General Zurab Pololikashvili said: “The growing significance of the tourism sector for our societies and our economies brings with it extra responsibility. We cannot allow the lifeline of tourism to be cut again. Resilience in the tourism is not just a matter of planning or reacting to crises. It is also about proactively addressing the underlying factors of those crises. Unsustainable consumption is leading to biodiversity loss, climate change and the emergence of pandemics. It's vital that we adopt policies that accelerate transformative change.”

The President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Dennis Francis, said: "We need a global tourism sector that is sustainable – one with deep local value chains that expand demand for locally made products and services in ways that also directly and positively benefit local communities; a sector that serves as a positive force for biodiversity conservation, heritage protection and climate friendly livelihoods."

High-level platform for statistics-led strategy

The thematic event provided a platform for Member States to share best practices, strategies, and innovative approaches to promote sustainable and resilient tourism, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Key highlights included:

• Fireside Chat: The Future of Tourism - Leaders from the tourism industry, academia, and civil society engaged in a dynamic discussion on the future of tourism and the need for innovative solutions to address emerging challenges and opportunities.
• Ministerial Roundtables : Discussions were held on the launch of the Statistical Framework for Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism and strategies for fostering resilient tourism in the face of global challenges. Ministers and high-level officials shared insights and commitments to advance sustainable tourism practices and policies.

In closing, the President of the General Assembly reiterated the importance of collaboration and partnership to address the complex challenges facing the tourism sector and reaffirmed the UN's commitment to supporting sustainable tourism as a catalyst for positive change.

In February, the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution to declare 2027 as the International Year of Sustainable and Resilient Tourism . The resolution invites UN Tourism to work with Governments, UN agencies and international organizations to on the implementation of the themed year.

New York, U.S.A.

Credit un photo/loey felipe.

Related links:

• Download News Release on PDF
• Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism (MST)
• Sustainable tourism development
• Video: High-Level Thematic Event on Tourism - General Assembly
• Tourism 4SDGs

Related Content

UN Tourism International Forum – Quintana Roo “Tourism ...

UN Tourism and Hotelschool The Hague to Drive Innovatio...

European Committee of the Regions and UN Tourism break ...

UN Tourism and Croatia to Establish Research Centre for...

Encyclopedia of Tourism pp 1–2 Cite as

Infrastructure, tourism

• Jameel Khadaroo 3 &
• Boopen Seetanah 4  
• Living reference work entry
• Later version available View entry history
• First Online: 01 January 2015

997 Accesses

2 Citations

Sound infrastructure is indispensable for the development of tourism as an economic pillar in any country. In a broad sense, infrastructure includes physical, legal, environmental, and mental amenities which contribute to making the tourism product enjoyable, reliable, and sustainable. Physical infrastructure of direct relevance to tourism comprises the airport, seaport, inland road network , mass transport system, hotels, bungalows, and recreational facilities. The airport provides a first critical impression of the destination while adequate air connectivity is necessary for expanding arrivals and diversifying tourist sources. Efficient road network and transport system improve inland mobility and experience.

Hotels, bungalows, spas, restaurants, and recreational facilities constitute the main tourism infrastructure. Destinations typically cater to different classes of tourists by having facilities that appeal to both average and high spenders. Given the seasonal nature of demand,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Khadaroo, J., and B. Seetanah 2007 Transport and Tourism Development. Annals of Tourism Research 34:1021-1032.

Article   Google Scholar  

Khadaroo, J., and B. Seetanah 2008 Transport Infrastructure and Tourism Development: A Dynamic Gravity Model Approach. Tourism Management 29:831-840.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius

Jameel Khadaroo

Department of Finance and Accounting, Faculty of Law and Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius

Boopen Seetanah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jameel Khadaroo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Hospitality Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA

Jafar Jafari

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

Honggen Xiao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Khadaroo, J., Seetanah, B. (2014). Infrastructure, tourism. In: Jafari, J., Xiao, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_447-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_447-1

Received : 25 April 2014

Accepted : 25 April 2014

Published : 18 September 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-01669-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_447-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_447-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Tourism Web Portal

About the portal.

A technological tool for effective communication between the leading players in the Moscow tourism market and representatives of the foreign/regional tourism industry through online events. OBJECTIVES: • Building long-term cooperation with foreign/regional representatives • Raising awareness among foreign/regional representatives of the tourism industry of the tourism opportunities, measures and attractiveness of the city of Moscow in the field of tourist infrastructure development

Moscow City Tourism Committee

The Tourism Committee, or Mostourism, is the executive body of the Moscow City Government that oversees tourist activities in the capital. The Committee is responsible for legislative initiatives, congress and exhibition activities, and event and image projects. As the brand manager for an attractive tourism image for Moscow, Mostourism constantly analyses global trends, offers Russian and foreign tourists what they want, and also uncovers new opportunities for the capital in terms of interesting and rewarding leisure activities.

ANO «Project Office for the Development of Tourism and Hospitality of Moscow»

Syundyukova Yulia [email protected] Mezhiev Magomed [email protected]

Video materials about Moscow

City Innovation

Sergey Semyonovich Sobyanin

12,640,000 (2019)

Alexei Fursin

Improve service delivery

Simplify administrative procedures for firms and residents

Engage residents and other stakeholders

Focus on measurement

Human resource support

Spotlight on innovation in Moscow

The Integrated Medical Information and Analytical System (IMIAS) improves the quality of healthcare delivery in Moscow by centralizing the electronic medical records of Muscovites. IMIAS not only facilitates easy access to healthcare services online such as locating the nearest medical institutions, scheduling an appointment, or accessing medical e-records, but also reduces the administrative burden on medical personnel. By continuously updating non-sensitive data from patients in real time, the system provides the authorities with key performance metrics like the number of patients, waiting times, length of visits and estimated cost savings, which can be used to improve Moscow’s healthcare system.

Vision and approach to innovation capacity

Along with 50% of cities surveyed, Moscow does not have an explicit innovation strategy . Similar to more than half of cities surveyed, Moscow approaches innovation capacity both from a holistic/macro level, as well as in specific policy areas.

Policy areas that Moscow is focused on

Development of innovation infrastructure and innovative businesses : The Moscow Innovation Cluster is a platform for introducing innovations and developing cooperation between large corporations, industry, SMEs, educational and scientific organizations, development institutions and the city. The cluster IT platform unites the entire innovation ecosystem of Moscow and provides new and unique opportunities for interaction between its actors. The platform provides companies with tools to build cooperation chains and create projects that can gain direct access to all government support measures; tools to promote their products and services; tools to interact with authorities, development institutions and state corporations; opportunities for concluding deals by means of a smart contract system.

Human capital : The Profliner system allows to build individual educational and professional trajectories from school to professional implementation. Among the main features of the system are: identifying talents, providing access to modern tools for career guidance; development of individual recommendations in accordance with the list of relevant and promising professions in Moscow, the possibility of selecting additional education, conducting specialized events and internships; providing direct communication with the employer, as well as providing opportunities for students to prove themselves and participate in exclusive events from leading employers.

Moscow utilizes 10 different innovation skills or roles

Moscow has several organizations dedicated to innovation, including the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Development Department, IT Department, Moscow Agency of Innovation and Moscow Innovation Cluster.

Terms Moscow most associates with innovation

Moscow's most common innovation activities.

Taking risks or testing new ideas

Data-driven analytics/public data management

Engaging residents in new ways

Developing new solutions based on digital technologies

Organizational change within the municipality

Human-centered design

Rethinking your city’s approach to financing partnerships

How is innovation funded here?

Like 81% of cities surveyed, Moscow has dedicated funding to support innovation capacity.

Top sources of funding

Activities being funded.

Similar to 61% of participating cities in the 2020 survey, Moscow's funding for innovation capacity is also directed towards training staff and building capacity*.

*"Training staff and building capacity" is not an option in the 2018 survey, while "Launching or sustaining a project" is not an option in the 2020 survey.

How is innovation measured?

Moscow has developed partnerships to promote innovation capacity with other public agencies, private firms and city residents/resident associations.

To improve data use, the city has also developed data partnerships with the private sector, academia and think tanks, to collect and analyze data, as well as with other cities.

Data availability by policy area

Sufficient data.

Transport/Mobility

Economic Development

Policing and law enforcement

Government finance

Waste and sewage

Social welfare/social services

Social inclusion and equity

Labour market and skills

Built environment

Digital governance

Public works

Environment and climate change

No Response

We have updated our terms and conditions and privacy policy Click "Continue" to accept and continue with ET TravelWorld

We use cookies to ensure best experience for you

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalize content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. You can also read our privacy policy , We use cookies to ensure the best experience for you on our website.

By choosing I accept, or by continuing being on the website, you consent to our use of Cookies and Terms & Conditions .

• Leaders Speak
• Brand Solutions
• India's travel and tourism sector poised for growth: Projected revenue to reach USD 23.72 bn by 2024

The total FDI inflows in India for the fiscal year 2023-2024 stand at a USD 17.96 billion, with USD 11.54 billion attributed to FDI equity. This announcement comes as the nation charts a course towards bolstering its tourism industry, positioning it as a major contributor to economic growth and job creation.

• Updated On Apr 16, 2024 at 01:37 PM IST

New York City expects 65 million visitors this year with over 3.8 lakh visitors from India

New York City is home to the world’s busiest airport system and the number one port of entry for US international travellers. New York City welcomed a total 61.8 million travellers in 2023, marking a recovery of 93 per cent of the City’s record 2019 visitation levels. New York City welcomed 336,000 India travellers – marking full recovery of the market’s pre-pandemic visitation levels.

• Published On Apr 16, 2024 at 01:36 PM IST

All Comments

By commenting, you agree to the Prohibited Content Policy

Find this Comment Offensive?

• Foul Language
• Inciting hatred against a certain community
• Out of Context / Spam

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals

Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis., download ettravelworld app.

• Get Realtime updates
• Save your favourite articles

• tourism sector growth
• India travel market
• FDI in tourism
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi
• tourism industry projections
• package holidays market
• tourism infrastructure development
• global tourism destination
• tourism initiatives
• India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF)

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION AWARDS $23.6 MILLION TO HELP 112 COMMUNITIES DELIVER TRANSFORMATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Thriving Communities Program provides technical assistance to disadvantaged communities, helping them better access funding and deliver meaningful project through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced funding through the Thriving Communities Program (TCP) to help 112 communities nationwide access federal funding and resources provided by the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). When added to the inaugural cohort announced in April 2023, this announcement brings the total number of communities supported by this program to 176. DOT is awarding grants totaling $23.6 million to three national and six regional Thriving Communities Capacity Builders to support the 112 communities, which includes 12 Tribal Nations. 

The program provides two years of no-cost, intensive technical assistance to under-resourced and disadvantaged communities to help them identify, develop, and deliver transportation projects to achieve locally-driven economic development, health, environment, mobility, and access goals. Three national TCP teams will provide support to 52 communities located across the United States and selected by DOT. In addition, six regional TCP teams were selected to support 60 communities that were identified in their states or regions. 

Of the 64 communities selected last year, 37 have now won federal funding for their communities through DOT discretionary grant programs such as Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A), Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), and the Rural and Tribal Assistance Pilot Program.   

"President Biden’s infrastructure law has created a once-in-a-generation opportunity through which communities are reimagining and delivering safe, reliable transportation,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg . “Our Department is proud to help another 112 under-resourced communities with hands-on assistance to secure federal infrastructure funding, and then deliver those projects well.”   

DOT received 229 Letters of Interest to receive technical assistance from this year’s National Thriving Communities program. The TCP prioritized the selection of disadvantaged and under-resourced communities that are working to advance transportation projects to improve health and safety outcomes, reduce housing and transportation cost burdens, preserve or expand job opportunities, and increase reliable mobility options to better access health care, food, education, and other essential destinations. According to the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, of the 52 communities selected for the National program, 87 percent are in disadvantaged census tracts. Over half of communities selected have either never applied for a DOT grant before or had applied but were unsuccessful. 

“Under President Biden, DOT has undertaken an unprecedented effort to help build local capacity to access federal resources that improve their quality of life and build a stronger economic future,” said  Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Christopher Coes . 

In the last year through TCP, DOT has helped urban, rural, and Tribal communities identify and develop grant applications for critical infrastructure projects. For example, Kearns Metro Township in Utah has leveraged their TCP-funded technical assistance to apply for funding for safety improvement strategies on 5400 South, one of the most dangerous roadways in the state. TCP is also supporting lower capacity communities that have received DOT funding to effectively deliver projects, like the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe in Washington, which received a $25 million Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 RAISE grant to relocate the Tribe because of increased flooding and climate threats. 

“The Thriving Communities participants have proven that this technical assistance model can tremendously impact their success rate not only in competing for federal grants, but also in better utilizing innovative solutions to deliver their projects more efficiently and cost-effectively,” said  Build America Bureau Executive Director Morteza Farajian . 

TCP selected three new National TCP Capacity Builders, who will each receive $4.25 to $5 million, to collectively support communities assigned by DOT into one of three "Communities of Practice" based on their common technical assistance needs. Capacity builders will provide project-level technical assistance and planning support on issues such as preparing grant application materials, undertaking pre-development and project delivery activities, designing and deploying more inclusive community engagement strategies, and fostering small business and workforce development.

The FY 2023 National TCP Capacity Builders are: 

• Rural Community Assistance Partnership Incorporated , in partnership with Community Engineering Corps, Communities Unlimited, Great Lakes Community Action Partnership, Midwest Assistance Program, National Association of Development Organizations, RCAP Solutions, and Rural Community Assistance Corporation. - awarded $4,250,000 to support 16 Main Street Communities 
• Abt Associates Inc. , in partnership with EPR, P.C., Equitable Cities, Morgan State University, Nelson\Nygaard, Safe Routes Partnership, and Smart Growth America.  - awarded $4,957,180 to support 20 Complete Neighborhoods Communities 
• Conference of Minority Transportation Officials , in partnership with AECOM, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Accelerator for America, Two Degrees, ReConnect Rondo, and MWDBE Training Academy, Inc. - awarded $4,250,000 to support 16 Networked Communities.  

The Communities of Practice are:  

• Main Streets  – Focused on Tribal, rural, and small-town communities and the interconnected transportation, community, and economic development issues they face. 
• Complete Neighborhoods  – Focused on urban and suburban communities located within Metropolitan Planning Organization planning areas working to better advance complete streets policies and coordinate transportation with land use, housing, and economic development. 
• Networked Communities  – Focused on communities located near ports, airports, freight, and rail facilities to address mobility, access, housing, environmental justice, and economic issues. 

New for FY 2023, DOT added a TCP Regional Pilot Program, which allows participants to provide TCP activities to communities within their jurisdictions at a state or regional scale. DOT funded six pilots at approximately $1-2 million each that collectively are supporting 60 communities in these states and regions:  

• Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska, $2,000,000); Partnering with Alaska Municipal League to support 18 communities, 4 of which are Tribes: Aleknagik, Bristol Bay Borough, Chevak, Chignik Lagoon, Copper Valley, Cordova, Deltana, Eklutna, Fort Yukon, Gustavus, Iliamna, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Manokotak, Metlakatla, Nunapitchuk, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat. 
• State of Colorado Governor’s Office of Economic Recovery (Colorado, $2,000,000); Partnering with Southeast Colorado Enterprise Development to support six counties in its Southeast Transportation Planning Region: Baca, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, Otero, and Prowers Counties. 
• Louisiana Division of Administration Planning Office (Louisiana, $1,921,000); Partnering with Center for Planning Excellence, Louisiana Main Street, Division of Historic Preservation; Grey Engineering, LLC, Place + Main Advisors, LLC, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, and Louisiana Economic Development to support six communities: Franklin, Homer, New Roads, Opelousas, St. Martinville, and Winnsboro. 
• Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (New Hampshire/Vermont, $1,188,443); Partnering with Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission to support 14 communities: Acworth, Charlestown, Enfield, Goshen, Lebanon, Lempster, Orford and Plainfield in New Hampshire; and Bethel, Granville, Hancock, Hartford, Hartland, and Royalton in Vermont. 
• New York State Department of Transportation (New York, $1,040,779); Partnering with New York State Department of State and ICF Incorporated to support five communities: the Town and Village of Alfred, the Village of Dolgeville, the Village of Margaretville, the Town and Village of Massena, and Wyoming County. 
• Fayette-Raleigh Metropolitan Planning Organization (West Virginia, $2,000,000); Partnering with Regional Planning & Development Councils for Regions I, IV, & VII, West Virginia University, Brad & Alys Smith Outdoor Economic Development Collaborative, and the Mon Forest Towns Partnership to support 11 “Appalachian Heartland” communities. 

More information is available on the Thriving Communities Program webpage . 

The Thriving Communities Program (TCP) is part of the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to ensuring that all communities have equal opportunity and access to federal transportation infrastructure funding and financing. TCP is also part of the Justice40 Initiative and the interagency Thriving Communities Network . Additional technical assistance resources can be found on the DOT Navigator . 

Umzimvubu Municipality gets a R26.5m informal trade investment

A R26.5m eMaxesibeni Informal Trade Infrastructure project that will benefit 150 informal traders was officially launched on Thursday, 18 April 2024, at eMaxesibini (Mount Ayliff) in the Umzimvubu Local Municipality in the Eastern Cape.

At the launch of the project, the MEC for Finance, Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mlungisi Mvoko said 84 informal traders have already been allocated trading space at the new eMaxesibeni Hawkers Centre. The informal trade infrastructure includes 24 formal lockup units, 36 semi-formal stands, 84 semi-informal spaces, vehicle repair facility, carwash facility, an ablution facility, a guard house as well as sanitation, water and electrical supply for these facilities.

“The Informal Trade Infrastructure is meant to promote economic and social benefits and to provide work opportunities to the community of eMaxesibeni. This is being achieved by providing dedicated and permanent infrastructure for informal traders and small businesses to conduct their business activities in a clean and safe environment. We appointed the Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC), which is the infrastructure delivery arm of government, to implement the project on behalf of the Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) for the benefit of the Umzimvubu Local Municipality.”

Job creation

“I am delighted that during the construction phase of this infrastructure, six local small businesses received contracts worth R2,4m for brickwork, plastering, paving and fencing in order to boost local economic development. A total of 57 jobs were created during construction, which included 23 youth and 30 women jobs. Materials such as sabhunga and sand worth R1 million were also sourced from eMaxesibini,” said Mvoko.

Mvoko said the facility will be owned and managed by the Umzimvubu Local Municipality. It is envisaged that this facility will become fully operational from today onwards.

“I am confident that government interventions such as this one will energise local economies especially those in rural and township localities. The intention is to create sustainable jobs and livelihoods, improved revenue generation as well as the alleviation of poverty in our communities,” Mvoko said.

Addressing infrastructural challenges

ECDC executive manager for enterprise finance and business support, Darwin Nkonki said construction on the project began in July 2021 and it was completed on 15 December 2023. The project attracted initial funding of R2m from the Eastern Cape Provincial Treasury in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years and additional funding of R24,4m was secured from the Provincial Economic Stimulus Fund.

The Umzimvubu Local Municipality also contributed R1m towards the completion of the project. The Informal Trade Infrastructure will be managed by the Umzimvubu Local Municipality.

“The informal traders’ infrastructure at eMaxesibeni will go a long way to addressing infrastructural challenges. The provision of this economic infrastructure is an important mechanism for stimulating the economic potential of informal traders.”

“This is because we know the informal economy is one of the main pillars of economic growth in towns such as eMaxesibeni. This facility therefore aims to enhance economic and social benefits while also creating job opportunities for the local community. The dedicated and permanent infrastructure will also allow the informal traders to operate in a hygienic and secure environment. The facility has the capacity to accommodate up to 150 informal traders, thereby contributing significantly to the town's informal economy,” Nkonki said.

The acting mayor of the Umzimvubu Local Municipality for the day, Councillor Inga Nodali said the informal trade infrastructure is a fruition of months of hard work, dedication, and collaboration.

“These hawker stalls provide a platform for our local artisans, craftsmen, and entrepreneurs to showcase their skills, share their stories, and contribute to the overall economic life of the region. I therefore extend our sincerest thanks to the department for their steadfast support and tireless efforts in overseeing the construction of these new hawker stalls. This investment in our community's economic development has not only created tangible opportunities for local entrepreneurs, but has also helped to enhance the vibrancy and vitality of EmaXesibeni as a whole,” said Nodali.