ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated

perspective of resource, community and tourism
Sheng-Hshiung Tsaura,, Yu-Chiang Linb, Jo-Hui Linc
a
Graduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism and Hospitality Management, National Chiayi University, 151 Lisen E. Rd., Chiayi City, Taiwan
b
Department of Geography, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
c
Graduate Institute of Management, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Received 30 April 2004; accepted 18 February 2005

Abstract

The sustainability benchmark for ecotourism sites may vary with respect to space and time. Using subjective measures as
indicators reflect variation in these factors. In order to evaluate the sustainability of an ecotourism site, this study utilizes subjective
measures to analyze the relationships between resource, community and tourism in sustainable ecotourism. A Taiwanese indigenous
ecotourism site was taken as an example, and the Delphi technique was used to identify evaluation indicators of this tourist
destination. Local residents, tourists and resource administration were interviewed to explore each group’s perception of
relationships with the remaining two groups. After results reflect local economic, social and environmental concerns. Furthermore,
the evaluation variables identified can be reapplied to other destinations. The study provides a valuable tool for sustainable
destination management.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecotourism; Stakeholder perspective; Indicator

1. Introduction Traditionally, measurement indicators could be cate-

Ecotourism has been identified as a form of sustain-
able tourism expected to contribute to both conserva-
tion and development. Unfortunately, due to inadequate
environmental assessments and audits, many ecotourism
destinations tend to be both hazardous and self-
destructive. There have been few practical assessments
of the status of ecotourism at specific locations, partly
because standardized, evaluative criteria have yet to be
developed (Ross & Wall, 1999a). Thorough measure-
ments of all aspects and implications of ecotourism are
almost impossible to acquire given the multitude of
interrelated variables involved (Wall, 1996). Therefore,
this study tries to develop a reasonable method to
evaluate the sustainability of an ecotourism site.
Tel.: +886 5 2743111; fax: +886 5 2766264.
E-mail address: shenght@ms28.hinet.net (S.-H. Tsaur).
gorized as being ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘subjective’’. Objective
indicators generally refer to quantitative data and the
majority of them could be described through various
equations. Subjective indicators are based on personal
feeling and attitude, and are usually qualitative in
nature. Objective indicators have been widely used
because these were seen as more rigorous. However,
Schneider and Donaghy (1975, p. 308) argued, ‘‘y the
use of objective measures alone as quality of life
indicators is highly suspect’’. WTO (World Tourism
Organization, 1995, p. 7; quoted in Miller, 2001) reveals
the true position of qualitative measures, stating:
‘‘Indicators of sustainability are not always quantifiable
and may necessarily be somewhat subjective. This
limitation does not in any way detract from their utility
as management information in promoting sustainable’’
(tourism). Sustainable development is a means of
pursuing social justice and a process of seeking balance

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.02.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
between resource preservation and development. For a
tourism destination, the balancing point differs with
each destination’s tourism development stage. There-
fore, a single set of consistent criteria may not be
applicable to the assessment of sustainability in every
destination. On the other hand, some destinations may
not be able to conveniently offer a comprehensive set of
indicator data. Miller (2001) noted that resident attitude
surveys might facilitate indicators to cope with loca-
tional differences and enable local input to a standar-
dized set of indicators. Based on the above viewpoints,
this paper attempts to use subjective measures to directly
investigate stakeholders’ perceptions, thus forming the
basis for evaluating sustainability.
1.1. Sustainable development of ecotourism sites
Ecotourism is usually considered to be more than just
nature-based tourism. The World Conservation Union’s
(IUCN) Commission on National Parks and Protected
Areas defined it as ‘‘environmentally responsible travel
and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in
order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accom-
panying cultural features-both past and present) that
promotes conservation, has low visitor negative impact
and provides for beneficially active socio-economic
involvement of local populations’’ (Ceballos-Lascurain,
1996). The above definition indicates that ecotourism
development involves the integration of many factors
including tourists, residents, and managers (Ceballos-
Lascurain, 1993). It also suggests that natural areas and
local populations are united in a symbiotic relationship
through the introduction of tourism (Ross & Wall,
1999a).
Ecotourism is seen as a tool for conservation and
sustainable development (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998,
p. 8). So, how to maintain sustainable development for
an ecotourism site has become a critical issue. Sustain-
able development is often associated with sustainable
agriculture, sustainable forestry, sustainable tourism
and sustainable community developments. Although
professional viewpoints differ among different domains
and the implications of sustainable development are not
exactly the same, Young (1992) has agreed that
complete sustainable developments should take into
consideration the environmental, economic and social
dimensions, and that the ultimate objective of sustain-
able development is the healthy state in which the above
three dimensions preserved. McCool (1995) noted that
the environmental dimension of sustainability implies
that composition of environmental factors in tourism
resource and their interactive effects do not suffer from
substantial changes; the social dimension of sustain-
ability indicates the stability of a regional community’s
traditional culture, social order and social structure; and
the economic dimension of sustainability denotes
641
reasonable employment income, stability of commodity
prices and equality of working opportunities in the
community. These three dimensions are intricately
connected to and influenced by each other.
1.2. Sustainable development indicators
In less than two decades, since the idea of sustainable
development became established in policy and academic
circles, the number of indicators produced has become
daunting. International, national, local, public and
private organizations have all embarked on efforts to
provide measures of nature’s and society’s long-term
ability to survive and prosper together, as well as to
guide planning and policy making. Indicators have been
identified as desirable instruments and/or measuring
rods to assess and monitor progress towards sustainable
development (Selman, 1999).
Briassoulis (2001) organized indicators of sustainable
development into four groups. A first drawing from the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-
ment’s (OECD’s) Pressure-State-Response framework,
which specifies indicators of pressures on environmental
receptors, and of impacts on the environment and
responses. A second grouping classifies indicators,
according to spatial scale, as global, national and local.
A third grouping concerns the environmental medium to
which indicators refer, i.e. air, water, land, etc. A fourth
grouping classifies indicators, according to the main
dimensions of sustainability, as environmental, econom-
ic, social and integrated. In tourism, Ap and Crompton
(1998) mainly categorized perceived impacts into three
domains, i.e., economic, social and environmental, while
developing scales of tourism impacts. Similarly, this
paper attempts to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions
to evaluate sustainability of an ecotourism site based on
an indicator system that covers economic, social and
environmental dimensions.
1.3. Evaluating sustainability from integrated perspective
Future tourism must be concerned with more than
sustainability. Perhaps, after three decades of academic
and planning literature on sustainability, we must
change our horizons and speak of sustained value
creation for each of the tourist, the tourist industry
and communities (Ryan, 2002). In order to efficiently
examine the sustainable development of tourism desti-
nations, some scholars have proposed the notion of
sustainable tourism indicators. But sustainable tourism
indicators are still in incipient stages and practical case
studies are hard to come by (Twining-Ward & Butler,
2002).
Wallace and Pierce (1996) utilized related indicators
to evaluate the existing relationships among stake-
holders and future developments of an Amazonian
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
642 S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
community and local resources and tourists. Ross and
Wall (1999a, b) established a structure of indicators
concerning local community, tourism and resource, and
studied the developing conditions of ecotourism through
a measurement of the relationships among these
stakeholders. Their work further confirmed the use of
indicator structure derived from perspectives of ecotour-
ism stakeholders. However, the indicators exploring the
inter-relationships among stakeholders were measured
mainly from the viewpoints of researchers.
This study investigated the sustainability of a
Taiwanese indigenous ecotourism site. Local residents,
tourists and resource administration (RA) were inter-
viewed to explore each group’s perception of its
relationships with the other two groups–so as to form
the evaluation basis associated with the sustainability of
an ecotourism site. First, through analyzing the inter-
relationships among community, tourism and resource,
variables influencing sustainability was empirically
collected and further categorized into environmental,
social and economic dimensions. Then the Delphi
technique was utilized to identify feasible evaluation
indicators and their priority weights. The Sustainable
Ecotourism Indicators System (SEIS) was then devel-
oped.
2. The evaluating framework for ecotourism
Resources, communities, and tourists serve very
important roles in tourism development. Theoretically,
a successful ecotourism paradigm is central to the
dynamics among these three stakeholders such that
each makes positive contributions to the others (Ross &
Wall, 1999a). Also, many scholars noted that changes in
economic, social and environmental dimensions are the
main factors influencing sustainability, and that these
Fig. 1. The evaluation framework for sustainable ecotourism. Source:
Adapted from Ross and Wall (1999a, b) Note: Residents, tourists, and
RA are interviewed separately to represent the roles of Community,
Tourism and Resource.
three dimensions influence each other (McCool, 1995;
Briassoulis, 2001; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002).
Resource administration, local residents and tourists
are stakeholder representatives of resources, community
and tourism in this study. Ross and Wall’s (1999a, b)
evaluation framework (Fig. 1) was adapted to explore
the perception of symbiotic relationships among stake-
holders in association with the development of an
ecotourism destination. Each stakeholder’s interests in
ecotourism from economic, social and environment
dimensions were collected. Based on the above data,
inter-relationships were measured between stakeholders
from economic, social and environmental dimensions.
Initial sustainable ecotourism indicators were subse-
quently proposed. Additionally, sustainable tourism
development indicators need to reflect the space and
time specific context of the locality (Twining-Ward &
Butler, 2002). This paper selected a Taiwanese indigen-
ous eco-travel destination as the subject for empirical
research. The local characteristics with respect to tourist
development of this destination were also considered
when choosing sustainability indicators.
2.1. The influence of resource on community
The tourism resource of a destination is an important
symbol and sign to attract tourists. Resources and
community residents in general maintain a symbiotic
relationship. Generally speaking, a tourist destination
must establish resource administration to administer
resource conservation, utilization and management. As
for the environmental dimension, the administration
protects local resources such as water and forestry.
Through appropriate conservation measures, resource
administration provides residents with sustainable agri-
cultural and fishery utilization, as well as effective
monitoring of pollutant emissions. Thus quality of life
would be enhanced through environmental protection.
These administrative strategies positively influence the
sustainable development of tourism areas. From the
standpoint of economics, residents directly participate
in tour guiding or environmental conservation work.
Residents’ employment opportunities are therefore
safeguarded. As for the social dimension of an ecotour-
ism destination, suitable education and training not
only raises residents’ resources and cultural identity,
but also elevates their awareness of environmental
protection–which further stimulates their supports
for resource conservation. Peterson (1997, p. 12) stated,
‘‘It’s possibleythat a greater environmental awareness
will stimulate the public into taking a more active
role in reducing environmental pressures arising from
their own individual actions’’. In addition, whether
or not RA and residents can co-exist harmoniously
is a critical factor for tourism development. Residents
do not wish tourism development to negatively affect
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
their daily lives but they are expectant of the benefits
and added income generated by it. Therefore, adminis-
trative bodies must maintain a good relationship with
residents.
2.2. Influence of community on resource
The local community mainly influences resources
in terms of the environmental and social dimensions.
In the former, residents could act as stewards of
natural resources to effectively care for and conserve
local resources (Ross & Wall, 1999a). Excessive deple-
tion of resources not only damages residents’ living
environment but also lowers tourists’ willingness to
revisit. It is therefore advisable for eco-travel destina-
tions with a goal for sustainable development to
preserve the natural status by minimizing artificial
development and destruction. On the other hand,
excessive reliance on resources, such as hunting and
logging, not only damages the sustainable utilization of
resources (Ross & Wall, 1999a, b), but also opposes
tourism development and resource conservation (Cater,
1994).
In social terms, Ryan (2002) noted the importance of
community participation in the process of sustainable
tourism development. In order to foster positive links
with conservation initiatives, local residents must be
able to feel a sense of control and ownership over the
planning process that involves resource use and nature
tourism development (Brandon, 1993). Tourism relies
heavily upon the goodwill of local residents; their
support is necessary for the development, successful
operation and sustainability of tourism (Yoon, Gursoy
& Chen, 2001).
2.3. Influence of resources on tourism
In environmental terms, tourism resources should
possess sufficient attractiveness to appeal to tourists. By
charging for entrance, parking, guiding services, etc.,
this in turn boosts resource management and conserva-
tion funding. In social terms, many people who travel to
natural/cultural areas do so to specifically indulge in
experiences with nature/culture. It is the responsibility
of the managers of a protected area (PA) to ensure
the quality of the available natural experiences and to
work towards instilling ‘‘transformative values’’, which,
through a learning experience with nature, yields greater
environmental awareness, appreciation and respect for
nature (Norton, 1987). Furthermore, people who enjoy
a high-quality experience in nature will be more willing
to pay fees, which can be used to maintain the PA (Ross
& Wall, 1999a). Also, it is more likely that tourists
enjoying high-quality experience will offer donations to
environmental protection plans and participate in
resource conservation (Miller, 2001).
643
2.4. Influence of tourism on resource
In environmental terms, the WTO (1996) listed
recreational stress (number of tourists in recreation
destinations during peak months) and usage intensity
(number of tourists/hectares during peak seasons) as
components of its sustainable tourism development
indicators. This implies that most resource administra-
tions have concerns about the impact on the ecological
environment arising from the influx of tourists into eco-
travel destinations.
Turning to the social dimensions, high-quality envir-
onmental education can add to the visitors’ experience,
direct people towards appropriate behaviors and en-
courage appreciation of natural areas, which can result
in environmental advocacy (Orams, 1995; Bottrill &
Pearce, 1995). From the economic standpoint, if there
were no tourism income to support conservation, then
resource would be unprotected and the destination
would be unable to provide adequate recreational
opportunities to tourists (More & Stevens, 2000).
2.5. Influence of local community on tourism
The local community mainly influences tourists
through social interaction: for example providing
tourists adequate interaction opportunities with resi-
dents in some specific regions, tourists are able to
experience different cultures, in ways that reduce the
disturbance of residents’ daily life as far as possible
(Ross & Wall, 1999a). In addition to enriching tourists’
spiritual feelings, the interaction process could also
allow tourists to cherish local culture resources, which
would in turn raise their willingness to revisit or
recommend the destination to others.
2.6. Influence of tourism on local community
In environmental terms, some tourists disregard
residents and communities’ benefits and perform dama-
ging acts to the environment. Consequently residents
may have negative perceptions toward tourism and as
such their negative perceptions are a ‘‘barrier to
sustainability’’. Locals must be convinced therefore of
the benefits from tourism before any progress can be
made towards a more sustainable position (Miller,
2001). In social terms, tourism income could help the
local government improve social welfare, transportation
and facilities (Cater, 1994; Ross & Wall, 1999b).
However, a massive influx of tourists could lead to
traffic inconvenience and congestion (WTO, 1996).
Similarly, tourism development can cause an increase
in local crime, corruption of social ethos and a loss of
traditional culture and regional language (Miller, 2001).
From the economic standpoint, tourist spending in
eco-travel destinations helps boost residents’ employment
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
644 S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
opportunities and income, and further improves resi-
dents’ quality of life. However, tourism development
could also attract foreign workers and greatly reduce
local employment opportunities (Miller, 2001). This
phenomenon could cause residents to be unsupportive
of tourism development.
3. Taiwan’s Saviki
Taiwan Alishan is a famous eco-travel destination to
Chinese. Saviki, located in this hilly county. Alishan, in
the southwest of Taiwan, is an indigenous Tsou village.
In 2003, the village, with rich cultural artifacts and
ecological resources, had a population of 637. The
Danayigu River, a habitat for the rare fish, Scaphesthes
alticorpus, flows through the village. Because of the
fish’s delicious flesh, many visitors traveled here to
poison and electrocute the fish. This jeopardized the
residents’ drinking water and damaged the river’s
ecology. In 1989, residents reached a consensus about
a need for ecological conservation and began to prohibit
hunting activities. They also captured fish larvae in
‘‘deep’’ mountains and released them to rivers to
revitalize the breed.
In 1992, Saviki was awarded a Natural Ecology
Preservation Exemplary Prize by the Taiwanese govern-
ment. The Saviki Regional Development Association
was formed in July of 1994 to manage the area’s tourism
development and resource conservation, with the
objective of using the community to manage the village’s
tourism activities. The association’s rules clearly stipu-
lated that no foreign institutions could intervene with
association operations. The association also sought to
return resource utilization to villagers for local econom-
ics development.
In 1995, the association opened the Danayigu
Ecological Park to visitors, providing activities such as
fish appreciation, indigenous singing and dancing,
traditional dishes, and arts and craft display. Entrance
fees were also collected. In order to support and
complement local residents’ livelihoods, the Danayigu
Park also offered employment opportunities. The
promise existed that the ecological park could really
achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Most ecological parks in Taiwan were established by
governments, but Danayigu Ecological Park was
planned and established by the locals. It ensured locals’
authority and that economic benefits were all returned
to them. Saviki people use to make their living by
farming but since the Danayigu Ecological Park was
established in 1995, tourism has become another
important economic resource. Furthermore, most of
the expenses associated with the necessary infrastructure
were supported by the Park’s revenues. Therefore, the
Saviki have increasingly become more dependent on
tourism overtime.
The ecological park was famous for the conservation
of rare fish. However, according to the park adminis-
tration, the number of visitors grew from 10,492 in 1995
to 147,049 in 2003. Also, the number of visitors once
reached 2000 for a one-day holiday, causing traffic
congestion and recreational facility overload. This
phenomenon not only reduced tourists’ recreational
quality but also damaged the local environment and
natural resources. The tourism destination life cycle
model postulates that destinations go through well-
ordered stages of tourism development (Johnson &
Snepenger, 1993). These stages include exploration,
involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation,
and then, a series of choice ranging from rejuvenation to
decline. With reference to Saviki, the site may now be in
the stagnation stage. Any failure to evaluate the
destination’s tourism development situation would
probably negatively affect its sustainability and let
Saviki step into further decline.
4. The sustainable ecotourism indicators system
Like the canary in the mine, indicators are used to
warn about areas of concern so that actions can be
taken in time (WTO, 1993). Lacking warning indicators,
retrieval attempts are made mostly after the environ-
ment has been seriously impacted upon and fragile
ecosystems are lost (Li, 2004).
Indicators have been proposed to date to meet the
criteria of policy relevance, analytical soundness and
measurability (Briassoulis, 2001). Furthermore, indicators
can quantify changes, provide a framework for setting
targets, and then monitor performance (Hunter & Green,
1995; Crabtree & Bayfield, 1998). Monitoring will improve
manager awareness of resource and social conditions, help
guide and evaluate management actions, help anticipate
emerging problems, and provide a mechanism for com-
municating changes in resource and social conditions in a
protected area (National Park Service, 1997).
In constructing any assessment the establishment of
priorities is important (Coccossis & Mexa, 2002).
Additionally, the concept of thresholds as the minimum
acceptable condition for indicators to forewarn com-
munities to take action must also be considered
(National Park Service, 1997). Such action is easier
when incorporated within existing administrative re-
sponsibilities, functions and activities. However instead
of thresholds, this study uses the Barometer of Sustain-
ability (Prescott-Allen, 1997), to determine whether
an ecotourism site is being sustainably developed. To
collect information on the mutual relationships among
resources, community and tourists this study used 68
sustainable evaluation indicators derived from the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
literature on sustainable development. These indicators
were then tailored to become ecotourism indicators
that measure inter-relationships among stakeholders.
Each stakeholder’s relationships with the other two
groups are collected creating six relationship aspects as
modeled in the evaluation framework. Fig. 1 and Table
2 details six relationship aspects and analysis across the
economic, social and environmental dimensions. Then
using the Delphi technique, expert opinions on the
indicators were explored to identify the feasible indica-
tors and to derive the indicators’ priority weights.
The Delphi technique is described by Kaynak and
Macauley (1984, p. 90) as ‘‘a unique method of eliciting
and refining group judgment based on the rationale that
a group of experts is better than (one) expert when exact
knowledge is not available’’. The Delphi technique is
traditionally used as a forecasting tool, whose closely
adaptive approach has the benefits of being able to
generate opinions and move toward consensus on any
issue (Miller, 2001). Green, Hunter, and Moore (1990),
who used the Delphi technique as a way to assess the
environmental impact of future developments, proposed
that iterations of three rounds is sufficient to achieve
group consensus and they suggest that any extra stages
would incur diminishing returns of increased conver-
gence against declining response rates.
The most important step of Delphi technique is
selecting the respondents. Wheeller, Hart, and Whysall
(1990) cited the needs for a ‘‘balanced’’ panel and
accepted that there must be an element of judgment in
achieving such a panel across a spread of experts from
different backgrounds. Twelve ecotourism experts were
recommended by Taiwan Ecotourism Association, the
only NGO relevant to the ecotourism sector in Taiwan.
Experts including scholars, government officials, and
representatives from the industry and NGOs were
invited to participate in an expert survey. These experts
were asked about their opinions on the 68 indicators in
accordance with the Delphi survey method. Anchors of
the 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly agree,’’
‘‘Agree,’’ ‘‘Neutral,’’ ‘‘Disagree,’’ and ‘‘Strongly dis-
agree’’ were used to explore the ‘‘comprehensibility,’’
‘‘importance,’’ and ‘‘suitability’’ of each indicator.
‘‘Comprehensibility’’ indicates whether such indicators
could be easily understood; ‘‘importance’’ indicates
whether such indicators were deemed important for the
destination’s sustainable development; ‘‘suitability’’ in-
dicates whether such indicators were suitable to evaluate
the sustainable development conditions of the destina-
tion. Finally, a group consensus was reached through
two rounds of survey and the SEIS was established.
4.1. Delphi survey results
The first round began in December 2002 and 12
questionnaires were returned. Based on the recommen-
645
dation by Taylor and Judd (1989), items on openness
were added in order to collect more information deemed
beneficial to clarifying the problems at hand. Incom-
prehensible and repetitive indictors were eliminated
and new indicators were added according to experts’
recommendations. The final system of indicators totaled
53 items.
The second round of survey began in January
2003. The questionnaire contents were the same except
for the number of indicators. The result for the first
round was also provided to participants. Ten ques-
tionnaires were returned and a t-test was utilized to
determine whether or not experts’ opinions on the
first and second round were similar. Results demon-
strated a significance level of a ¼ 0:05 was reached,
and the p-value of all indicators exceeded 0.05. The
research showed a very slight increase in the conver-
gence in round two from round one although no
significant movement in the mean scores was found.
Thus it was felt that continuing the research for further
rounds would not produce any extra convergence of
opinions. Participants had reached a consensus on all
indicators.
‘‘Suitability’’ was adopted as the basis for indicator
selection. For an indicator, median within the range of
‘‘Agree’’ to ‘‘Strongly agree’’ indicated that over 50% of
participants agreed to choose it. Six indicators were
eliminated, resulting in a final system composing of 47
indicators.
4.2. Calculation of indicator weights
At this stage, the SEIS was established. Weights based
on the importance of each indicator were then calculated
by
p qij
wij ¼ P6 i Pk , (1)
i¼1 pi j¼1 qij
where wij is the jth indicator weight of the ith relation-
ship aspect; pi the mean score of importance in the
ith relationship aspect; qij the mean score of importance
for the jth indicator in the ith relationship aspect;
and k the number of indicators in the ith relationship
aspect
According to Table 1, weights totaled 100. Within
these relationships, the influence of tourism on resource
had the highest weight (20.88), followed by community
on resource (19.74), tourism on community (17.6),
resource on community (16.38), community on tourism
(12.74) and resource on tourism (12.66). These results
were compatible with the principle of sustainable
tourism–tourism development should be based on the
sustainable utilization of resource. If tourism activities
were detrimental to resources, not only residents’
lives would be directly affected, but the destination’s
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
646 S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653

Table 1
Sustainable ecotourism indicators system and weighs

Relationship aspect Weight Dimension Weight Indicator Weight

Resource community 16.38 Society 9.75 Disturbing daily living 1.84

Providing educational opportunities 1.95
Improving environmental conscious 2.06
Good interaction between RA and residents 1.95
Providing economical benefits to community 1.95
Environment 6.63 Conserving natural resources 2.34
Providing sustainable harvest 2.12
Improving living environment and quality 2.17
Community resource 19.74 Society 8.19 Supporting resource conservation 2.75
Participating in resource management and planning 2.75
Participating in interpretation service 2.69
Environment 11.55 Interfering with natural resource 2.37
Pressure from resource exploitation 2.12
Pressure from surrounding development 2.00
Polluting PA environment 2.50
Livelihoods threat to PA ecosystem 2.56
Resource tourism 12.66 Society 10.59 Providing educational opportunities 1.20
Adequate interpretative facilities 1.20
Providing understandable interpretative facilities 1.14
Satisfying interpretative facilities 1.02
Satisfying interpreter service 1.11
Increasing tourists’ environmental awareness 1.23
Providing excellent natural and humanistic experiences 1.20
Providing environmental education experiences 1.23
Satisfying recreational quality 1.26
Environment 2.07 Providing exceptional sense of appreciation 1.05
Attracting visitors’ attention 1.02
Tourism resource 20.88 Economy 5.09 Making economic contribution for conservation 5.09
Society 5.61 Participating in conservative activities. 5.61
Environment 10.18 Overloading capacity in peak periods 4.83
Destroying environmental quality 5.35
Community tourism 12.74 Society 12.74 Providing experiential opportunities 3.27
Providing diverse cultural experiences 3.10
Providing cultural exchange opportunities 3.02
Good interaction between residents and tourists 3.35

Tourism community 17.60 Economy 7.34 Distribution of tourism revenue 1.28

Improving regional construction 1.48
Creating acceptable incomes 1.57
Creating employable opportunities 1.61
Employing local residents 1.40
Society 8.53 Promoting social welfare 1.36
Increasing congestion in peak periods 1.40
Causing traffic jam in peak periods 1.44
Destroying public security 1.32
Causing loss of traditional culture 1.44
Satisfying tourism development 1.57
Environment 1.73 Destroying local environment 1.73

Note: 1. The above values indicate weights; total weights ¼ 100.

2. Descriptions of indicators show in Appendix A.

attractiveness would also be lowered. This would lessen
tourists’ willingness to revisit and further affect the
region’s economic development. In addition, residents’
participation and support of resource conservation
could also influence the destination’s sustainability.
Residents could act the role of resource manager and
share a coexisting relationship with resources (Ross &
Wall, 1999b). Therefore, resource conservation and
maintenance require continuous efforts, through mon-
itoring and managing from the administration.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
5. Empirical evaluation of tourism sustainability
5.1. Survey method
According to the relationships framework of resource,
community and tourism, this paper attempts to evaluate
Saviki’s tourism sustainability from the perception of
stakeholders. In other words, RA was used as subject to
evaluate the effect of community and tourism on
resource; residents were used as subject to evaluate the
effect of resource and tourism on community; and
tourists were used as subject to evaluate the effect of
resource and community on tourism. Sustainable tour-
ism indicators were used as instrument items, which was
measured by a 5-point Likert scale. The three types of
surveys were implemented in April 2003.
The study of residents targeted local opinion leaders,
who participated in community planning and were
familiar with community affairs. The sample included
members of the Saviki Regional Development Associa-
tion, members of the local authority, local police officers
and teachers of the elementary school. A total of 46
usable responses were obtained from an effective
population of 58. The study of resource administrator
targeted employees of the local ecological park admin-
istration station. A total of 8 usable responses were
obtained from the population of 9. In order to under-
stand how the tourists traveling during peak season
impact on the sustainability of Saviki, a tourist-survey
was undertaken on weekends. Convenience sampling
was adopted at the exit of Danayigu Ecological Park. A
total of 261 usable responses were obtained from the
effective sample of 265.
The authors visited Saviki many times to collect
background information, making contacts and inspect-
ing case study locations. More intensive field work and
execution of the survey was conducted in April 2003.
Finally, the study compared the evaluation results with
actual local status derived from field work to test the
feasibility of indicators system.
5.2. Evaluation results
This study adopted the Barometer of Sustainability
proposed by Prescott-Allen (1997). Evaluation results of
a destination’s sustainable development were divided
into sustainable and unsustainable along the neutral
interval. According to the degree of sustainability, four
levels were derived. Interval scales were used to denote
indicator scores between 1 and 5, where 1.0–2.0 denoted
un-sustainability, 2.1–3.0 denoted potential un-sustain-
ability, 3.1–4.0 denoted potential sustainability, and
4.1–5.0 denoted sustainability.
The evaluation results are presented in Fig. 2; values
denote the degree of sustainability of all indicators
within the relationship aspect. ‘‘Influence of resource on
647
Fig. 2. Score of Saviki’s sustainable tourism development. Note:
Values denote the degree of sustainability between tourism, local
community, and resources.
community’’ was the best performer. The mean of 4.02
fell within the ‘‘sustainable interval’’, indicating that
resource and resident exhibited a sustainable relation-
ship. Performance was poorest for ‘‘Influence of tourism
on resource.’’ The mean of 2.94 fell within the ‘‘potential
un-sustainability’’ interval. The destination’s environ-
ment and resource were negatively affected perhaps
because the administration currently does not have the
authority to restrict access and maintain carrying
capacity. A further discussion of all relationships is
presented below.
5.2.1. Influence of resource on community
The nature of the resource had a positive influence on
community development and ‘‘sustainability’’ scored the
highest at 4.02. According to Table 2, resource and
community demonstrated a good inter-relationship. For
example, RA would recycle the benefits derived from
recreational use to regional construction, including
social welfare, infrastructure and cultural preservation.
In addition, the administration would also be very
concerned with resource protection such as the water
source and disposal of litter. These actions would also
contribute to a more comfortable living environment for
residents.
5.2.2. Influence of community on resource
‘‘Influence of community on resource’’ scored 3.31,
indicating ‘‘potential sustainability’’. According to
Table 2, a score of 3.80 for the social dimension
represented almost an outstanding level: residents were
willing to support resource conservation and participate
in resource administration activities. Also, the ‘‘envir-
onmental dimension’’ scored 3.03, indicating that
residents’ care for the resource environment had only
reached a medium level. Therefore, residents should
reduce land development and utilization and pay more
attention to environmental pollution. As the number of
tourists is continuously rising, the administration has
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
648 S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653

Table 2
Weighted score of Saviki’s sustainable tourism development

Relationship aspect Dimension Score Indicator Score Weighted scorea

Resource community Society 4.04 Disturbing daily living 2.83 0.84

Providing educational opportunities 4.10 1.51
Improving environmental conscious 4.39 1.75
Good interaction between RA and residents 4.21 1.56
Providing economical benefits to community 4.67 1.79
Environment 3.99 Conserving natural resources 4.44 2.01
Providing sustainable harvest 3.73 1.45
Improving living environment and quality 3.80 1.52
Community resource Society 3.80 Supporting resource conservation 3.88 1.98
Participating in resource management and planning 3.88 1.98
Participating in interpretation service 3.63 1.77
Environment 3.03 Interfering with natural resource 3.25 1.33
Pressure from resource exploitation 2.75 0.93
Pressure from surrounding development 2.75 0.88
Polluting PA environment 3.25 1.41
Livelihoods threat to PA ecosystem 3.13 1.36
Resource tourism Society 3.41 Providing educational opportunities 3.64 0.79
Adequate interpretative facilities 3.05 0.62
Providing understandable interpretative facilities 3.20 0.63
Satisfying interpretative facilities 3.04 0.52
Satisfying interpreter service 2.88 0.52
Increasing tourists’ environmental awareness 3.69 0.83
Providing excellent natural and humanistic experiences 3.85 0.86
Providing environmental education experiences 3.77 0.85
Satisfying recreational quality 3.58 0.81
Environment 3.82 Providing exceptional sense of appreciation 3.91 0.76
Attracting visitors’ attention 3.72 0.69
Tourism resource Economy 3.50 Making economic contribution for conservation 3.50 3.18
Society 3.13 Participating in conservative activities. 3.13 2.99
Environment 2.57 Overloading capacity in peak periods 2.38 1.67
Destroying environmental quality 2.75 2.34
Community tourism Society 3.64 Providing experiential opportunities 3.76 2.26
Providing diverse cultural experiences 3.75 2.13
Providing cultural exchange opportunities 3.58 1.95
Good interaction between residents and tourists 3.49 2.09

Tourism community Economy 4.07 Distribution of tourism revenue 3.95 0.94

Improving regional construction 3.90 1.07
Creating acceptable incomes 4.07 1.20
Creating employable opportunities 4.10 1.25
Employing local residents 4.34 1.17
Society 2.88 Promoting social welfare 3.73 0.93
Increasing congestion in peak periods 1.70 0.25
Causing traffic jam in peak periods 1.80 0.29
Destroying public security. 2.85 0.61
Causing loss of traditional culture 3.38 0.86
Satisfying tourism development 3.81 1.10
Environment 1.72 Destroying local environment 1.72 0.31
Total 60.52
a
Weighted scores ¼ (Scores–1)/4
Indicator weight.

stated that facilities have to be increased to safeguard
tourists or trails have to be established to provide
recreational space. However, these developments may
cause resource overload in the absence of any restriction
on incoming numbers of tourists.
5.2.3. Influence of resource on tourism
‘‘Influence of resource on tourism’’ scored 3.49,
indicating potential sustainability. Table 2 revealed that
the ‘‘environmental dimension’’ scored 3.82. This
implied that the resource characteristics were able to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
maintain visitors’ attention and provide an exceptional
sense of appreciation. The interpretative facility had a
relatively low score, indicating that tourists were not
satisfied with the quality of interpretation. Because the
interpretative service is currently on the basis of a
reserved booking made in advance, the majority of
tourists do not receive such a service.
5.2.4. Influence of tourism on resource
Fig. 2 indicated that the influence of tourism on
resource was lowest in ‘‘all interaction relationships’’
(2.94). According to the Barometer of Sustainability,
this represented ‘‘potential un-sustainability’’. In other
words, an apparent excessive number of tourists
had already caused a negative impact on resources.
From Table 2, the poor score of ‘‘the environment’’
was especially important for the administration. A
significant influx of tourists during vacations exerted
serious pressure on the use of facilities and at the
same time destroyed environmental quality. Because
the garbage left behind by tourists was frequently
not dealt with immediately, the recreational quality
was also influenced. This implied an environmental
warning.
5.2.5. Influence of community on tourism
The score of ‘‘Influence of community on tourism’’
was 3.64, indicating that residents conveyed goodwill
and positive communication and interaction to tourists.
Table 2 revealed that all indicators scored between 3.49
and 3.76. Indigenous dance performances provided
interactive opportunities for tourists and residents. In
addition, tasting traditional foods and seeing arts and
crafts also allowed tourist to experience local traditional
culture.
5.2.6. Influence of tourism on community
The score of ‘‘Influence of tourism on community’’
was 3.28. This indicated that influence of tourism on
community was perceived very positively. According
to Table 2, the score of 4.07 for the economic dimension
demonstrated that tourism had successfully brought
economic benefits. From the viewpoint of residents,
tourism development actually provided employment
opportunities and additional income. On the other
hand, the poor performance in social and environmental
dimensions implied that tourism was at the same
time causing negative impacts. Excessive number of
tourists during holidays caused residents to perceive
a stronger sense of crowding. A large number and
variety of vehicles also congested the streets, signifi-
cantly lowering residents’ living quality. In addition,
inappropriate behaviors from tourists also triggered
pollution of the environment and concerns over public
safety.
649
5.2.7. Overall evaluation of tourism sustainability
In Saviki’s tourism development case, an actual
evaluation of its sustainability was conducted from the
stakeholders’ perceptions of symbiotic relationships
among them. In order to determine the sustainability
of the entire tourism system, we normalized and
summarized sustainability scores from these six relation-
ship aspects as shown in the following equations.
rij  1
gij ¼ wij , (2)
4
where gij is the weighted score of the jth indicator in the
ith aspect; rij the score of the jth indicator in the ith
aspect; wij the weight of the jth indicator in the ith
aspect.
X
k
gi ¼ gij , (3)
j¼1
where gi is the sum of weighted scores for the ith aspect;
k the number of indicators included in the ith aspect.
X
6
g¼ gi , (4)
i¼1
where g is the sum of weighted scores for the tourism
development system
According to the above equations and Table 2,
Saviki’s tourism development sustainability scored
60.52. With the range of scores being between 0 and
100, this system utilized 50 as the median, based on
the Barometer of Sustainability. Scores were divided
into 4 intervals, where 0pyo25 was classified as
‘‘unsustainable,’’ 25pyo50 was classified ‘‘potentially
unsustainable,’’ 50pyo75 was classified ‘‘potentially
sustainable,’’ and 75pyp100 was classified ‘‘sustain-
able.’’ Results demonstrated that Saviki was classified as
‘‘potential sustainable.’’
To determine the contribution to sustainability from a
relationship aspect, the achievement scores were ob-
tained by Eq. (5) and tabled in Table 3. The ideal
achievement of sustainability for each relationship
aspect was 100%. Fig. 3 revealed that the influence of
resource on community reached 75.89%, followed by
‘‘influence of community on tourist’’ at 66.10%. The
aspect with the poorest sustainability was ‘‘influence of
tourism on resource’’ at 48.73%. This indicated that
tourists’ behavior was perceived as negatively impacting
on the preservation of natural resources. While addi-
tionally an excessively high volume of tourists also
negatively impacted tourism. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that management adopt the use of environ-
mental education to raise tourists’ environmental
awareness or implement carrying capacity strategies to
ensure the sustained utilization of local resources.
g
Di ¼ i
100%, (5)
wi
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
650 S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653

Table 3
Sustainability achievement of saviki in inter-relationship aspects

Relationship aspect Weight (wi ) Weighted score (gi ) Achievement percentage (gi/
wi
100%) (%)

Resource community 16.38 12.43 75.89

Community resource 19.74 11.63 58.93
Resources tourism 12.66 7.88 62.24
Tourism resource 20.88 10.18 48.73
Community tourism 12.74 8.42 66.10
Tourism community 17.60 9.98 56.71
Total 100.0 60.52 60.52

(1) The main concern for ecotourism development is the

Fig 3. Sustainability achievement of Saviki in inter-relationship
aspects.
where Di is the achievement percentage of the ith aspect;
gi the sum of indicator weighted scores for the ith aspect;
and wi the sum of indicator weight for the ith aspect.
6. Conclusion and suggestions
6.1. Conclusion
From the perspective of resource, community and
tourism, we utilized stakeholder perceptions to evaluate
the destination’s tourism sustainability. By doing so, we
could avoid researchers’ subjective judgment and lower
interviewees’ biases by means of suitable evaluation
indictors and a large number of samples. According to
the results, the influence of tourism and community was
most significant on the natural and cultural resource.
Also, experts in the Delphi method were most concerned
about the environmental issues. This implied that
resources and environment are the most important
factors in ensuring the sustainability of tourism devel-
opment. We propose the following strategies for the
management:
negative impact on the environment and its degra-
dation and destruction. From the standpoint of RA,
resource utilization must be based on the considera-
tions of sustainable development. Management
strategies include implementing recreation carrying
capacity, restricting the scope of recreational use and
diminishing unnecessary developments. The first
priority of the administration is to address the issue
of inappropriate resource usage through resource
protection and conservation strategies.
(2) For community and residents, the main concern is
protecting residents’ livelihoods so as to maintain
an attractive living environment. Ryan (2002)
stated that for sustainable tourism it is necessary
to add values through involving community in
an equitable process. Therefore, in the resource
development process, the administration should
initiate efforts to invite and ask for resident
participation in planning and providing recommen-
dations. In addition to establishing infrastructures,
the administration can also provide tourism related
job opportunities for residents, such as interpretative
services and traditional culture and crafts perform-
ing opportunities.
(3) For tourists, in addition to letting tourists enjoy
high-quality travel activities, the administra-
tion should provide tourists with an interpretative
service based on environmental education. This
measure could raise the quality of experience for
tourists at the spiritual level and help them develop
more awareness in conserving and protecting re-
sources.
In the ‘‘21st Century Taiwan Tourism Development
Plan’’ drafted by the Taiwan Tourism Bureau, ecotour-
ism was identified as an important direction for future
tourism developments. Activities such as whale watch-
ing, bird watching, natural hiking trails, wetlands, and
indigeneous destinations are becoming increasingly
popular. Although more people are beginning to pay
attention to ecotourism development, the corresponding
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653 651

systems and supporting measures are still immature. by using the Barometer of Sustainability. A long-term
Many destinations are suffering from the phenomenon monitoring system is also required to allow the early
of ‘‘honoring the name of ecotourism on the surface but identification of impacts on the ecosystem from tourism
destroying the environment in reality.’’ For example, development and the consequences of any management
some travel plans package old scenic spots. Although action.
there is an emphasis on an ecological interpretative We still do not really know how robust these numbers
service as well as foods and cultural experiences, the are, or the overall index, but as long as the methodology
objective of these packages is only to attract more remained constant over time, then subsequent changes
tourists. The issues of whether good interactions with in these numbers and in the index would be a good
local residents could be maintained, whether the indication of whether the situation in the destination is
environment could be overloaded, or whether sustain- improving or deteriorating with respect to sustainable
ability of natural resources could be maintained are not tourism.
considered. From the practical viewpoint, management The characteristic of sustainability indicators is to
of ecological resources, community residents and illustrate whether destinations’ tourism development has
tourists are all confronting urgent problems that need deviated from sustainability. Therefore, the SEIS can
to be addressed. illustrate the phenomenon but is sometimes unable to
This paper effectively utilizes SEIS exploring the provide adequate information for management. There-
inter-relationships among resources, community and fore, practical studies should be supported by methods
tourism to examine a destination’s sustainability. The like participant observation and interviews to help
indicators system, as an evaluation tool for sustainable managers identify the proper actions to sustain or
ecotourism development, can fully reflect local econom- improve destinations.
ic, social and environmental concerns. Empirical find-
ings can be used for suggestions in Saviki’s tourism
development and management strategy. For ecotourism Appendix A. Descriptions of indicators
sites, the demand for sustainability is more stringent
than general destinations. The fine interaction among
resources, community and tourism is a critical compo-
nent for destinations that aim for sustainability. The Relationship Dimension Indicator description
administration should regularly monitor the interaction aspect
among stakeholders and avoid incorrect decisions that
Resource Society Residents’ daily living was
may lead to imbalance between these stakeholders and
community disturbing by the setting
their relationships.
up of PA
PA provides residents for
6.2. Suggestions and future research
environmental education
opportunities
Although the paper focuses on one destination as a
PA improves residents’
basis for empirical research, the content of evaluation
environmental conscious
variables can be applied to other destinations. If certain
Good interaction between
types of destinations such as historic or coast destina-
RA and residents
tions were the focus of study, other corresponding
PA providing economical
indicators should be included in order to conduct a
benefits (compensation) to
proper assessment. Results of this study demonstrated
community
that the environment is significantly influenced by
Environment Conserving natural
tourism and community. However, the environment
resources (water,
indicators chosen for this study may be insufficient. It is
forestryy)
suggested that future studies can increase the number of
Providing sustainable
indicators. In addition, in order to enhance the accuracy
harvest (farming, fishing,
of indicator definitions, future research can provide
huntingy)
secondary information to help Delphi experts better
Improving residents’ living
understand the actual situations.
environment and quality
The SEIS provides a subjective and quantitative
measurement to evaluate ecotourism development, in Community Society Residents support
which each indicator within the evaluation structure has Resource resource conservation
its own priority weight to reveal the relative importance Residents participate in
among indicators. Moreover, the development status resource management and
of destinations could be categorised into four levels planning
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
652 S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
Residents participate in
interpretation service in
PA
Environment Local residents are
interfering with Resources
in PA
Pressure from resource
exploitation by residents
Pressure from surrounding
development by residents
Polluting PA environment
Activities of residents’
livelihoods threat to PA
ecosystem
Resource Society PA provides tourists
Tourism educational opportunities
PA provides adequate
interpretative facilities
PA provides
understandable
interpretative facilities
Tourists satisfaction of
interpretative facilities
Tourists satisfaction of
interpreter service
Increasing tourists’
environmental awareness
Providing excellent
natural and humanistic
experiences
PA provides excellent
environmental education
experiences
Tourists Satisfy the whole
recreational quality
Environment Attractions in PA provide
exceptional sense of
appreciation
Attractions in PA attract
visitors’ attention
Tourism Economy Making economic
resource contribution for
conservation
Society Tourists participate in
conservative activities
Environment Overloading capacity in
peak periods
Destroying environmental
quality
Community Society Local community provides
tourism experiential opportunities
for tourist
Providing diverse cultural
experiences
Providing cultural
exchange opportunities
Good interaction between
residents and tourists
Tourism Economy Community shares in the
Community distribution of tourism
revenue
Improving regional
construction
Creating acceptable
incomes
Creating employable
opportunities
Most of tourism-related
employment are local
people
Society Promoting social welfare
(health and education
levely)
Increasing congestion
sense of residents’ daily
living in peak periods
Causing traffic jam in
peak periods
Destroying public security
Causing loss of traditional
culture
Residents’ satisfaction for
tourism development
Environment Polluting local
environment
PA ¼ Protected Area.
Reference
Ap, J., & Crompton, J. L. (1998). Developing and testing a tourism
impact scale. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 120–130.
Bottrill, C., & Pearce, D. (1995). Ecotourism: Towards a key elements
approach to operationalising the concept. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 3(1), 45–54.
Brandon, K. (1993). Basic steps toward encouraging local participa-
tion in nature tourism projects. In K. Lindberg, & D. Hawkings
(Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers (pp.
134–151). North Bennington: The ecotourism Society.
Briassoulis, H. (2001). Sustainable development and its indicators:
Through a glass darkly. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 44(3), 409–427.
Cater, E. (1994). Ecotourism in the third world: problems and
prospects for sustainability. In E. Cater, & G. Lowman (Eds.),
Ecotourism: A sustainable option? (pp. 69–86). Chichester: Wiley.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1993). Ecotourism as a worldwide phenom-
enon. In K. Lindberg, & D. Hawkins (Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide
for planners and managers (pp. 12–14). North Bennington: The
Ecotourism Society.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected
areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.-H. Tsaur et al. / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 640–653
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1998). Introduction. In K. Lindberg, M. E.
Wood, & D. Engeldrum (Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide for planners
and managers (pp. 7–10). North Bennington: The Ecotourism
Society.
Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (2002). Defining, measuring and evaluating
carrying capacity in European tourism destination. Athens, Greece:
Environmental Planning Laboratory of the University of the
Aegean.
Crabtree, B., & Bayfield, N. (1998). Developing sustainability
indicators for mountain ecosystems: A study of the Cairgorms,
Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 52(1), 1–14.
Green, H., Hunter, C., & Moore, B. (1990). Assessing the environ-
mental impact of tourism development: Using the Delphi
technique. Tourism Management, 11(2), 111–120.
Hunter, H., & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment: A
sustainable relationship?. London and New York: Routle dge.
Johnson, J. D., & Snepenger, D. J. (1993). Application of the tourism
life cycle concept in the greater Yellowstone Region. Society and
Natural Resources, 6(2), 127–148.
Kaynak, E., & Macauley, J. A. (1984). The Delphi technique in the
measurement of tourism market potential: The case of Nova
Scotia. Tourism Management, 5(2), 87–101.
Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism
in China’s nature reserves: a case study in Tianmushan Nature
Reserve. Tourism Management, 25(5), 559–564.
McCool, S. F. (1995). Linking tourism, the environmental, and
concepts of sustainability: Setting the stage. In S. F. McCool, & A.
E. Watson (Eds.), Comps. Linking tourism, the environmental, and
sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. INNNT -GTR-323. Ogden, UT:
USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable
tourism: results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism
Management, 22(4), 351–362.
More, T., & Stevens, T. (2000). Do user fees exclude low-income
people from resource-based recreation? Journal of Leisure
Research, 32(3), 341–357.
National Park Service. (1997). Visitor experience and resource
protection (VERP) framework: A handbook for planners and
managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center.
Norton, B. (1987). Why preserve natural variety?. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Orams, M. B. (1995). Using interpretation to manage nature-based
tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(2), 81–94.
Peterson, P. J. (1997). Indicators of sustainable development in
industrializing countries: From concepts to actions, Vol. 2. Malaysia:
653
Institute for environment and development (LESTARI), University
Kebangsaan.
Prescott-Allen, A. (1997). Barometer of sustainability: Measuring and
communicating wellbeing and sustainable development. An approach
to assessing progress toward sustainability: Tools and training series.
Gland, Switzerland: The International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources.
Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999a). Evaluating ecotourism: The case
of North Sulawasi, Indonesia. Tourism Management, 20(6),
673–682.
Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999b). Ecotourism: Towards congruence
between theory and practice. Tourism Management, 20(1), 123–132.
Ryan, C. (2002). Equity, management, power sharing and sustainabil-
ity–issues of the ‘new tourism’. Tourism Management, 23(1), 17–26.
Schneider, A. E., & Donaghy, W. C. (1975). Organizational commu-
nication. London: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, R. E., & Judd, L. L. (1989). Delphi method applied to tourism.
In S. Witt, & L. Moutinho (Eds.), Tourism marketing and
management handbook (pp. 95–99). New York: Prentice Hall.
Twining-Ward, L., & Butler, R. (2002). Implementing STD on Small
Island: Development and use of sustainable tourism development
indicators in Samon. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(5),
363–387.
Wall, G. (1996). Ecotourism: Change, impacts and opportunities. In E.
Malek- Zadeh (Ed.), The ecotourism equation: Measuring the
impact (pp. 206–216). Bulletin Series 99, New Haven: Yale School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Wallace, G. N., & Pierce, S. M. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in
Amazonas Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 843–873.
Wheeller, B., Hart, T., & Whysall, P. (1990). Application of the Delphi
technique: A reply to Green, Hunter and Moore. Tourism
Management, 11(2), 121–122.
WTO (World Tourism Organization). (1993). Indicators for the
sustainable management of tourism. Report of the international
working group on indicators of sustainable tourism to the Environ-
ment Committee. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.
WTO (The World Tourism Organization). (1996). What tourism
managers need to know: a practical guide to the development and use
of indicators of sustainable tourism. Madrid, Spain: The World
Tourism Organization.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Validating a tourism
development theory with structural equation modeling. Tourism
Management, 22(4), 363–372.
Young, M. D. (1992). Sustainable Investment and Resource Use. Great
Britain: The Parthenon Publishing Group.