Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-hospitality-
and-tourism-management

Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and

quality of life of community in tourism destinations
Paul V. Mathew*, Sreejesh S.
School of Management Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, 682 022, India

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

Article history: The primary objective of the study is to examine the impact of perceived responsible tourism on
Received 20 July 2015 perceived quality of life of communities in tourist destinations and to analyze the mediating role of
Received in revised form perceived destination sustainability. A questionnaire-based survey conducted to collect responses from a
23 July 2016
sample of 432 residents from 3 different tourism destinations in India. From the data analysis, it was
Accepted 12 October 2016
found that as the residents of the local community, perceived responsible tourism plays a pivotal role in
the formulation of perceived destination sustainability, which in turn impacts their perceived quality of
life. Thus, the study findings offer implications for the successful management of tourism businesses as
Keywords:
Tourism
well as the community sustainability and their well-being.
Responsible tourism © 2016 The Authors.
Sustainability
Quality of life
Destination management

1. Introduction suggest that despite general positive attitude towards responsible

The concept of responsible tourism has received considerable
attention from scholars in tourism domain (Mihalic, 2016).
Spenceley et al. (2002) stated that responsible tourism is a tourism
initiative to achieve good tourism business opportunities through
enhanced holiday experiences, quality of life of local residents,
socio-economic benefits, and protection of natural resources in the
tourism destinations. After identifying its importance to enhance
business opportunities in tourism sector, the concept has come to
the mainstream of tourism literature (Mohd Hafiz Hanafiah,
Azman, Jamaluddin, & Aminuddin, 2016). However, majority of
the studies were conducted taking the perspectives of tourist or the
service provider (e.g., Tearfund, 2002; Spenceley et al., 2002; Van
der Merwe and Wocke, 2007). For example, Spenceley et al.
(2002) conducted a study to capture different benefits associated
with responsible tourism initiatives. The study results revealed that
66% of tour operators claimed that the responsible tourism initia-
tives positively impacts local communities. Further, Frey and
George (2010) studied responsible tourism management in terms
of tourism business owners' perspective. The findings of the study
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: paulvmathew.hr@gmail.com (P.V. Mathew), sreejeshibs@
gmail.com (S. Sreejesh).
tourism initiatives, businesses are not investing time and money to
follow responsible tourism initiatives. The study further states that
the factors, such as the cost associated with responsible tourism
practices, competitive environment and lack of government sup-
port are the hindrances which curb active propagation of respon-
sible tourism programs in emerging economies. Even though
different studies were conducted to understand the role of
responsible tourism and its impact on different outcomes, to the
authors' knowledge no studies till date examined how responsible
tourism influences local communities' sustainability perception
and in turn their perception of quality of life. This understanding is
important, because the real benefits of responsible tourism will be
fulfilled only if the local communities in these tourist destinations
perceives that the activities concerning responsible tourism ini-
tiatives creates favourable destination sustainability and improved
quality of life (Hanafiah et al., 2016).
Thus, the current study tries to fill this gap through an investi-
gation which offers insights into how host communities perception
of responsible tourism contributes to the development of their
perception of quality of life. In particular, this research focuses on
the mechanism, such as perceived sustainability dimension, which
has been absent in the tourism literature. Thus, this research hy-
pothesized that host communities' perception of responsible
tourism positively influences their quality of life through the
development of favourably perceived sustainability. If the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.10.001
1447-6770/© 2016 The Authors.
84 P.V. Mathew, S. Sreejesh / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89
hypothesized relationships are supported, this study adds to the
current tourism literature that host community perception con-
cerning responsible tourism is important to develop their quality of
life through favourably perceived sustainability. Therefore, it is
important to consider host community perception, so as to bring
positive benefits of responsible tourism, specifically host commu-
nities' quality of life.
The organization of the paper is as follows. First, theoretical
development and hypotheses formulation of the study are pre-
sented. Then, the study provided a detailed elaboration of the
methodology adopted. Data analysis and results are presented next.
Finally, the study concludes with discussion, implications, limita-
tions and directions for future research.
2. Theoretical development and hypotheses formulation
2.1. The impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability
The concept of responsible tourism has been defined as all forms
of tourism which respect the host's natural, built, and cultural en-
vironments and the interests of all parties concerned (Smith, 1992;
Stanford, 2000). Responsible tourism initiatives of Kerala consider
it as a “tourism management strategy embracing planning, product
development, management, and marketing to bring about positive
economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts (Kerala
Tourism, 2012). DEAT (1996) defined responsible tourism as
enabling local communities to enjoy a better quality of life through
increased socio-economic benefits and improved natural resource
management (Spenceley et al., 2002).
Leslie (2012) defined responsible tourism as “a behavioral trait
… based on the basic principles of respect for others and their
environment”, and further stated that responsible tourism assumes
“acting responsibly in terms of one's own actions, and moreover, in
the management and operation of business” (p. 20). Considering
the above said definition, in this paper we define perceived
responsible tourism as an evaluation of local communities who are
residing in the tourism destinations that what extent they perceive
that the parties involved in tourism initiatives involved in envi-
ronmental and ethical responsibilities during their management
and operation of tourism business. In short, the idea of responsible
tourism has its core domain understanding of associated in-
dividuals' involvement in taking responsibility to take action, in
that different parties are involved, such as consumers, suppliers,
tourism service providers, governments, etc.
Goodwin (2011) clearly links responsible tourism to action in
favor of making tourism more sustainable. It explains that when
taking responsibility results in clear cut actions, then it is called as
sustainable actions. However, responsible tourism is not a synonym
for sustainable tourism (Mihalic, 2016). Responsible tourism ad-
dresses the aforementioned sustainable tourism discourse in
implementation and is more of an expression to describe tourism
that is sustainable because it acts sustainably. Thus, it can be
inferred that when the local communities perceives that respon-
sible tourism initiatives builds on appropriate sustainability-based
strategies and policies, then it will results in appropriate actions or
behaviours, called as sustainable actions or behaviours.
The relationship between perceived responsible tourism and
destination sustainability can be corroborated from the stated ob-
jectives of responsible tourism as a tool to minimize negative social,
economic and environmental impacts whilst maximizing the pos-
itive effects of tourism development (Frey & George, 2010). Desti-
nation Sustainability envisages a quadruple or triple bottom line
approach consists of economic, social, and environmental sector
that proposes an ideal situation where exists a balance among all
the three dimensions (Dredge, 2008). A study on the impacts of
responsible tourism in Kerala invariably stated that responsible
tourism has played a significant role in the sustainability of desti-
nation (Paul & Rupesh, 2013). Considering the positive socio-
economic impacts of responsible tourism; Michot (2010) called
this initiative ‘pro-poor tourism’. Wight (2008) opined that
responsible tourism initiatives in and adjacent to National Parks in
Ottawa produced sustainable outcomes in destinations. Spenceley
et al. (2002) reported that community based tourism enterprises
(CBTE) initiative under responsible tourism contributed to desti-
nation sustainability. Similarly, various other studies implied that
responsible tourism significantly contributes for the attainment of
economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability of
destinations (e.g., Bah, 2008; Greiner, 2010; Howse, 2008; Maelge,
2008; Saji and Narayanasamy, 2010). Cape Town (2009) stated that
responsible tourism approach is aimed at bringing positive eco-
nomic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts. Thus, we state
the hypothesis that:
Hypothesis 1. Host communities' perceived responsible tourism
has a positive impact on their perceived destination sustainability.
2.2. The impact of sustainability on perceived quality of life
Quality of life is the degree of wellbeing felt by an individual or
group of people (Delibasic, Karlsson, Lorusso, & Rodrigue, 2008).
World Health Organization (WHO) stated quality of life as in-
dividuals' perceptions of their position in life in the context of the
culture and value systems in which they live in relation to their
goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It composed of four
dimensions, such as, material wellbeing, community well-being,
emotional well-being and health and safety wellbeing (Hughes,
Addington-Hall, Aspinal, & Dunckl, 2004; Skevington, Lotfy, &
O'Connell, 2004).
Destination sustainability induced by responsible tourism can
have a multitude impact on the quality of life of people. A study
conducted among the residents in Virginia revealed that the
perception of residents about the impacts of tourism has a signif-
icant relation with their satisfaction with particular life domains
(Kim, Uysal, & Joseph Sir, 2013). Further in tourism literature,
studies stated that the impacts of tourism focused on four impor-
tant domains, such as economic, social, environmental, and cul-
tural, the influence tourism in these domains have significant
influence on quality of life of local residents (Ap, 1992; Aspinall,
2006; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Kim, 2002).
Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC-D, 2013) observed
that destination sustainability is frequently used in connection with
local community (Aspinall, 2006; Baros & David, 2007; Choi &
Sirakaya, 2006). Specifically, it revealed that sustainability has a
significant impact on lives of people (Godfrey, 1998; Hall &
Vredenburg, 2004; Kennedy, 1992; Krippendorf, 1982; Mowforth
& Munt, 1998; Romeril, 1985; Simpson, 2001). Constanta (2009)
opined that tourism enhances quality of life. Further, Faulkner
and Tideswell (1997) revealed that there exists a very strong rela-
tionship between quality of life of residents and standard of rec-
reational, shopping and service facilities. Crotts and Holland (1993)
established that tourism development is a positive function of the
rural residents' quality of life.
When residents perceive that the tourism development
happened at the cost of their resources and it outweighs the ben-
efits, they may feel resentment and irritation towards tourists that
in turn reduce community satisfaction (Faulkner &Tideswell, 1997;
Doxey, 1975; Ko & Stewart, 2002). According to Cavus and
Tanrisevdi (2003), monopolistic control of tourism development
is the primary factor in residents' negative attitudes towards
tourism. Lessons from responsible tourism initiatives inferred that
 P.V. Mathew, S. Sreejesh / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89
improved access to information and market opportunities, and
community institutions under the banner of responsible tourism
bring destination sustainability and eventually enhance the well-
being of individuals and community at large. Thus, we hypothe-
sized that:
Hypothesis 2. The host communities' perceived destination sus-
tainability has a positive impact on their quality of life.
3. Methodology
As discussed, this research attempts to establish relationship
between responsible tourism on quality of life through destination
sustainability as an intermediary mechanism. Thus, the main con-
structs in this research include perception concerning responsible
tourism, destination sustainability, quality of life and life satisfac-
tion in general of local residents. Host communities' perception on
responsible tourism was measured through a scale adapted from
the guidelines developed by Venu and Goodwin, (2008). This 14-
item scale consist of four first order dimensions, anchored on a
five point Likert type scale (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 5 ¼ “strongly
agree”). The first dimension captures economic responsibility,
which refers to the role of tourism in local economic development,
especially through sustainable livelihood opportunities. The second
dimension social responsibility, which captures the responsibility
exhibits by the destination in empowering and involving local
communities in development. The third dimension cultural re-
sponsibility covers the contribution of tourism towards preserva-
tion and promotion of local art, culture and traditions. Finally,
environmental responsibility captures the perception concerning
endeavors of tourism to ensure that negative impacts are
minimum.
The second construct perceived destination sustainability con-
sists of four first order dimensions, such as economic sustainability,
which refers to situation where generating prosperity at different
levels of society. The second dimension social sustainability means
equal opportunities for all in society and provides an equitable
distribution of benefits. The third dimension cultural sustainability
covers respondents' perception concerning the importance given
by tourism to recognize and respect different cultures and avoiding
any form of exploitation. Finally, environmental sustainability re-
fers to the situation where resource is conserved effectively and
pollution is minimized. This 25-item scale was anchored in a five
point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 5 ¼ “strongly
agree”) was adapted from the sustainability guidelines of UNEP and
WTO (2005).
The outcome variable quality of life comprises of four first order
dimensions, such as economic well-being, explains individual's
satisfaction towards economic situation due to the tourism initia-
tives. The second dimension community well-being captures the
individual's satisfaction towards the public services and recreation
facilities provided as part of tourism initiatives in the local com-
munity. The third dimension emotional well-being captures the
individual's satisfaction comes from leisure opportunities and
spiritual activities due to tourism. Finally, health and safety well-
being refers to satisfaction of an individual towards his/her health
and environment due to tourism initiatives. This 27 item scale
capturing the four dimensions of quality of life were measured in a
five point Likert type scale (1 ¼ “totally disagree” to 5 ¼ “totally
agree”) adapted from the tourism impact studies (Andrew &
Withey, 1976; Cicerchia, 1996; Cummins, 1996; Sirgy, 2001).
The study was conducted in the three international tourism
destinations in the state of Kerala, India. These tourist destinations
are Kovalam, Kumarakom and Thekkady. These three tourism
destinations were selected based on the fact that these destinations
85
were declared as the responsible tourism destinations by the
department of tourism, Government of Kerala in 2008. Therefore,
the host residents belonging to the age group of above 18 years
were considered as the sample frame of this study. A survey
questionnaire was employed to collect information concerning the
constructs of interest and respondents' demographic profiles. Sys-
tematic random sampling was used to select the study re-
spondents. As part of systematic random sampling, we first
identified the sampling interval by dividing the total number of
households in the particular destination (which we collected
through electoral voters list) by the number of sample which we
required from each destination. Then, we select a household
number between 1 and the selected sampling interval using
random number table. These selected household were approached
to collect data through direct door-to-door interviews. During the
surveys, interviews were conducted by the researchers themselves
through knocking on the doors of homes to find qualified re-
spondents. All these surveys were conducted during December
2013 to April 2014. A total of 432 respondents completed the survey
questionnaire. However, only 399 responses (81%) were usable for
the data analysis. As shown in Table 1, 63% of respondents were
male and approximately 50% of respondents have been residing in
this destination for the last 30 years. Analysis of occupation wise
classification showed that 11% of the respondents were involved in
their own business, 12% of them were working with government
departments, 23% of them were professionals in private companies
or services, and the major chunk of 54% of the respondents were
daily wage employees, tourist guides, farmers and involved in
agriculture related activities. Majority of the respondents were
aged between 30 and 50.
4. Data analysis & results
The data collected from respondents were first examined the
issues of missing values and outliers. There were no outlier and
missing value problems were reported in the collected data. Then,
univariate normality was examined through verifying skewness
and kurtosis of the study items. The results shows that there were
no item's standardized values fell outside the range of ±1.96, and
skewness of all the items were in the range of zero and kurtosis
were in the range of three, inferring that responses of all the items
used in the data analysis are reasonably free from skewness and
kurtosis (Chou & Bentler, 1995; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
1998; Norusis, 1990), which indirectly supports the assumption of
multivariate normality.
4.1. Measurement model
After the confirmation of the required assumptions of Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM), the study performed measurement
model analysis through a series of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) aimed to validate the constructs and to confirm the mea-
surement properties. As the constructs consisted of sub-dimension,
separate CFAs were performed on each sub-dimension of the
Table 1
Demographic profile.
Age 18e30 30e50 Above 50
27% 58% 15%
Gender Male Female
63% 37%
Years of Residency 1e10 10e20 20e30 Above 30
8% 14% 32% 46%
Occupation Business Govt. Job Professionals Others
11% 12% 23% 54%
86 P.V. Mathew, S. Sreejesh / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89
constructs to check the reliability and validity. To examine the
goodness of fit of the measurement model, in addition to the usual
Chi-square values, we have used the suggested goodness of fit
indices, such as CFI, IFI, RMSEA and SRMR. A measurement model
on responsible tourism dimension showed that data fit to the
model very well, and supported that the higher order responsible
tourism dimension consist of four first order dimensions
(c2 ¼ 218.22, df ¼ 229; CFI ¼ 0.97; IFI ¼ 0.96; SRMR ¼ 0.04,
RMSEA ¼ 0.042). Similarly, a measurement model on sustainability
also supported adequate fit, showed that the second order sus-
tainability dimension consist of four first order constructs
(c2 ¼ 229.22, df ¼ 229; CFI ¼ 0.96; IFI ¼ 0.97; SRMR ¼ 0.04,
RMSEA ¼ 0.045). Finally, a measurement model on quality of life
supported the second order factor structure composed of four first
order dimensions (c2 ¼ 222.18, df ¼ 219; CFI ¼ 0.97; IFI ¼ 0.96;
SRMR ¼ 0.04, RMSEA ¼ 0.052). Further, the study examined the
validity and reliability of the first order dimensions following
Netemeyer et al. (2003). As shown in Table 2, the Composite Reli-
ability (CR) values for all the first order dimensions were greater
than the suggested threshold of 0.80. In addition to this, in all the
cases the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were greater
than the suggested threshold of 0.50. These findings supported
convergent validity and reliability of the measured constructs.
Further, we have examined the discriminant validity of the study
constructs through examining square of all the pairs of correlations
with AVE values. The results supported that in all the cases the AVE
values were greater than correlation square between the pairs, thus
supported discriminant validity.
4.2. Hypotheses testing
After confirmation of the measurement model, the study
focused on testing the proposed set of hypotheses through SEM.
The structural model results suggest that the model fits the data
very well (c2 ¼ 344.55, df ¼ 259; CFI ¼ 0.98; IFI ¼ 0.98;
SRMR ¼ 0.07, RMSEA ¼ 0.052). It was found that perceived
responsible tourism explained 49% of the variance on perceived
destination sustainability; it in turn explained 62% variance on their
perception of quality of life. From the examination of path co-
efficients, it was found that people's favourable perception of
responsible tourism significantly influences their perception
destination sustainability (b ¼ 0.38, p < 0.05). Furthermore, results
also supported that the favourable perception of destination sus-
tainability significantly influences their favourable evaluation of
quality of life (b ¼ 0.24, p < 0.05). The indirect effect of perceived
responsible tourism on perceived quality of life through perceived
destination sustainability found to be significant (indirect
effect ¼ 0.09, p < 0.05). The examination of the direct effect of
perceived responsible tourism on perceived quality of life was
found to be insignificant (b ¼ 0.04, p > 0.05). This study finding
supports that perceived destination sustainability fully mediates
between perceived responsible tourism and perceived quality of
life of host community.
5. Discussion & implications
This study was an endeavour to develop a perceived sustainable
destination management model for tourism destinations aiming at
improving the quality of life of community. The major findings of
the study is that host communities' perceived responsible tourism
consist of four first order dimensions, such as community engage-
ment, employment opportunities, skill development programs and
public awareness. All these four dimensions reflect responsible
tourism perception of host community and this in turn direct the
individuals in the community to develop their perceptions
regarding destination sustainability, which reflects through four
different sub-dimensions such as economic, social, cultural and
environmental sustainability.
The first objective of the study was to check the relationship
between responsible tourism and destination sustainability as
perceived by the local community. It was found that individual's
perceptions regarding responsible tourism has a significant impact
on their perception of sustainability of the tourism destination. The
findings of the study also revealed that people's perception con-
cerning responsible tourism is a key predictor to influence their
perceptions of destination sustainability. These study findings
reiterated the relevance of creation of favourable perception of
responsibility among local community regarding all tourism ini-
tiatives in an environmentally and ethically responsible manner.
This responsibility consciousness among local residents direct to
create a perception that the actions are happening as part of
tourism initiatives to improve destination sustainability.
Based on the indicators proposed in the study, contributors like
skill development programs and promotion of local produces are to
be taken into the forefront of the agenda of tourism. It suggests
tourism projects should aim at ensuring direct benefit to the local
populace. It is also important to create favourable perceptions
concerning policy interventions like creating and promoting
employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for local commu-
nity members, optimum utilization of available local skills, efforts
to increase multiplier effect by reducing leakages and retaining as
much revenue as possible in the local economy, promotion local
procurement, encouraging community based tourism products
(CBT), focus on value addition and marketing of small scale prod-
ucts and services, promotion of local business and micro enter-
prises, creating a conducive environment for industry-community
interactions, creation of self-employment opportunities, and
providing seed money for start-ups can bring positive changes to
the communities thereby sustainability of the destination.
It also important to develop a favourable perception among local
communities concerning the quality of job provided as part of
sustainable tourism initiatives. Moreover, favourable perceptions
concerning the sustainability can be developed through setting up
of technical and vocational schools in tourism destinations to
improve standards and outreach of skill development programs.
This should be done followed by a comprehensive need assess-
ment. Also, strategies ensuring that a fair proportion of total travel
expenditure is received locally and endorsing visitors to avail
products and services from destination premises as possible can
make a change. Policy makers need to remind that it is not mere job
and meagre income, but perceptions concerning the local in-
dividual's quality of employment and consistent income for sus-
tenance are very important. Thus, creating favourable perceptions
concerning the revenue generating opportunities should be
developed among local individuals and also they should feel that
these opportunities are consistent (full-time) and sustainable.
The second hypothesis anticipated relationship between desti-
nation sustainability and quality of life which also supported from
data analysis. When analysing the variable destination sustain-
ability, it was noted that emphasis should be on implementing
effective social programs/schemes, empowerment of socially and
economically backward community, and engagement of local res-
idents in tourism related activities. Much thrust on economic, so-
cial, cultural and environmental sustainability dimensions in a
destination are very vital to bring perceived quality of life among
destination communities. This perception of quality of life can be
developed through encouraging employment practices that pro-
vide opportunities for socially and economically backward people,
supporting the development of enterprises by disadvantaged
people, endorsing industry/business partners to compulsory spend
 P.V. Mathew, S. Sreejesh / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89 87

Table 2
CFA loadings, AVE and CR.

Constructs Indicators Loadings AVE CR

Responsible Tourism
Economic Responsibility Employment opportunities 0.78
Purchasing of local produces 0.61 0.81 0.82
Skill development 0.81
Local enterprise support 0.82
Social Responsibility Local community engagement 0.69
Employment opportunities for backward 0.68
Support for the enterprises of backward 0.66 0.74 0.79
Training for engagement 0.71
Public awareness 0.78
Cultural Responsibility Traditions 0.66 0.63 0.64
Culture 0.65
Heritage 0.64
Environmental Responsibility Environmental conservation 0.69 0.67 0.68
Waste management 0.68
Destination Sustainability
Economic Sustainability Local enterprise growth 0.66
Improvement of living standards 0.62
Jobs and benefits 0.67 0.68 0.67
Tangible benefits 0.68
Consistent and reliable income 0.69
Tourism integrated economy 0.71
Social Sustainability Benefits to backward people 0.71
Social programs and schemes 0.69
Empowerment of local communities 0.78 0.78 0.79
Congestion 0.73
Infrastructure development 0.83
Infrastructure for combined needs Space for recreation 0.81
Social issues 0.83
Cultural Sustainability Management and conservation of heritage sites 0.78
Preservation of cht 0.79 0.79 0.81
Quality of landscapes and environment 0.81
Development is appropriate to local condition 0.82
Preservation of traditional rural landscapes 0.81
Environmental Sustainability Environmental protection 0.78
Environmental pollution 0.62 0.78 0.76
Business impact 0.63
Disturbance and noise 0.67
Conservation of natural areas 0.81
Quality Of Life
Material Well-Being Income and employment 0.81
Income at current job 0.83
Economic security of job 0.72
Family income 0.74 0.78 0.76
Pay and fringe benefits 0.63
Cost of living 0.68
Real estate taxes 0.71
Cost of living 0.78
Cost of basic necessities 0.69
Community Well-Being People 0.69
Services and facilities 0.59 0.65 0.66
Community life 0.63
Community environment 0.78
Emotional Well-Being Leisure activity 0.71
Spare time 0.87
Leisure activity 0.88
Influx of tourists 0.66 0.63 0.64
Spiritual activity 0.65
Religious services 0.64
Cultural preservation 0.62
Cultural exchange 0.63
Spiritual life 0.66
Health and Safety Well-Being Health well-being 0.56
Health 0.66
Air quality 0.63
Water quality 0.71 0.65 0.66
Water purity 0.74
Garbage 0.74
Safety well-being 0.69
Accident and crime rate 0.68
Environmental cleanness 0.66
Safety and security 0.67
Quality of life in General Life as a whole 0.78 0.74 0.73
Way of spending life 0.71
Overall feeling about life 0.77
88 P.V. Mathew, S. Sreejesh / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89
for the development of local people, and setting up of an institu-
tional mechanism for destination management. Also, organizing
awareness programs on how tourism influence local people may
provide them a guideline for active engagement in tourism
development.
It is very vital to ensure ownership of local self-governments in
tourism development and to offer capacity building programs for
local governance bodies and institutional members to improve
their perception on tourism and its sustainability. Authorities
should also think about the local community while put out an
infrastructure development plan; it should be designed for the
combined needs of tourists and local residents. Though the matter
of social issues like drug trafficking, child labour and commercial
sex trade are not addressed by the respondents, vigilance is vital to
monitor this aspect. Careful management and scientific approach
for infrastructure upcoming is important to limit the development
within its carrying capacity. Focus on developing of basic infra-
structure facilities like road, shopping options, health care, educa-
tion and banking etc. can have a multitude impact on the
satisfaction of community members.
5.1. Limitations and directions for future study
Even though the concept responsible tourism is a widely
accepted strategy for sustainable destination management, only a
very few empirical evidence are available to substantiate its im-
pacts in triple bottom line spheres. It was essential to assess the
impact of responsible tourism in quantitative terms as well. How-
ever, being a social science approach, the study considered
perception of local residents as the single most factors to be
considered for the model development. An effort to benchmark
destinations on the basis of its responsibility towards various
stakeholder dimensions would be an added advantage to clearly
articulate the impacts of tourism. As studies on tourism are mostly
destination specific, further improvisation of scales can be
considered. When responsible tourism emerges as a sustainable
model for destination management, similar studies in various
destinations may throw light into the interventions of policy
makers and tourism planners. As a business perceptive, perceptions
of visitors on the responsible tourism aspects and subsequent ef-
fects on destination clean image, visitor satisfaction, re-visit
intention etc. can bring more inputs to destination marketing
strategies. Considering the experiences of responsible tourism as a
sustainable marketing strategy, more study in this direction will
contribute to the tourism literature and can provide insights to
tourism practitioners. Another aspect of the study is the role of
business enterprises in responsible tourism and sustainability of
destination. The impact of responsible strategies of business units
on local community and tourists, and its far reaching impacts on
destinations will surely pave ways for designing a new paradigm in
tourism development. Further, role of responsible tourism on the
elevation of its stakeholders especially underprivileged, women,
local enterprises etc. will be a worth contribution to the sustainable
tourism studies. Being the study depicted a relatively new model,
further validation and extension of this framework in various other
destinations can bring more strength to this sustainable destination
management model.
6. Conclusion
Study found that local residents' favourable perception of
responsible tourism practices have a significant positive relation
with the destination sustainability (economic, social, cultural and
environmental) perceived by the local community, and quality of
life of community (community well-being, emotional well-being,
and health and safety wellbeing). Additionally, overall quality of
life is derived from destination sustainability and responsible
tourism initiatives. Study revealed that sustainability of the desti-
nation is positive functions of quality of life of local residents. It was
found that perceived responsible tourism practices are a predictor
of overall QOL of an individual. Also, the mediating role of desti-
nation sustainability calls for the increased attention on the crea-
tion of sustainable livelihood, community engagement and
environmental consciousness. This can have significant contribu-
tion towards sustainable destination management. While tourism
destinations strive to maintain balance between sustainability and
development, responsible tourism practices can enhance endeav-
ours of sustainable tourism development. This in turn can improve
quality of life of communities, and image and competitiveness of
tourism destinations.
References
Andrew, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Americans' perception of quality of life. In
Social indicator of well-being. New York: Plenum Press.
Ap, J. (1992). Resident's perceptions of tourism impacts. Annals o f Tourism Research,
665e690.
Aspinall, A. J. (2006). Communities in Change: Social sustainability and tourism
development (A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo: Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada).
Bah, A. (2008). Responsible tourism development; lessons from Gambia. In The
second international conference on responsible tourism in destinations (Kochi:
Kerala Tourism).
Baros, Z., & David, L. D. (2007). Environmentalism and sustainable development
from the point of view of tourism. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary
Journal of Tourism, 2(2), 141e152.
Cape Town. (2009). Responsible tourism policy for the city of Cape Town.
Cavus, S., & Tanrisevdi, A. (2003). Residents' attitudes toward tourism development:
A case study in Kusadasi, Turkey. Tourism Analysis, 259e269.
Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community
tourism. Tourism Management, 1274e1289.
Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Estimates and tests in
structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Cicerchia, A. (1996). Indicators for the measurement of the quality of urban life:
What is the appropriate territorial dimension? Social Indicators Research,
321e358.
Constanta, E. (2009). The impact of tourism in enhancing the quality of life. Review
of International Comparative Management, 347e351.
Crotts, J. C., & Holland, S. M. (1993). Objective indicators of the impact of rural
tourism development in the state of Florida. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(2),
112e120.
Cummins, R. A. (1996). Life for handicapped people. In R. I. Brown (Ed.), Assessing
quality of life. London: Chapman & Hall.
DEAT. (1996). A white Paper on the Development and Promotion of tourism. South
Africa: Department of Environment and Tourism.
Delibasic, R., Karlsson, P., Lorusso, A., & Rodrigue. (2008). Quality of life and tourism
in Budecsko.
Doxey, G. V. (1975). When enough's enough: The natives are restless in Old Niagara
(Vol. 2). Heritage Canada.
Dredge, D. (2008). Managing local tourism. master class: Eastern metropolitan
regional council workshop materials, tweed heads. Australia: Southern Cross
University.
Faulkner, B., & Tideswell, C. (1997). A framework for monitoring community im-
pacts of Tourism. Journal Of Sustainable Tourism, 5(1).
Frey, N., & George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link
between business owners' attitudes and behaviour in the Cape Town tourism
industry. Tourism Management, 31, 621e628.
Godfrey, K. (1998). Attitudes towards 'sustainable tourism' in the UK: A view from
local government. Tourism Management, 19(3), 213e224.
Goodwin, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for tourism: Responsible tourism manage-
ment. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Limited.
Greiner, R. (2010). Improving the net benefits from tourism for people living in
remote Northern Australia. Sustainability, 2, 2197e2218.
GSTC-D. (2013). Global sustainable tourism Criteria for destinations (GSTC-D).
Global sustainable tourism criteria for destinations (pp. 10e11).
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black. (1998). In Multivariate data analysis
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2004). Sustainable development innovation and
competitive advantage: Implications for business, policy and management
education. Corporate Sustainability: Governance, Innovation Strategy, Develop-
ment and Methods, 129e140.
Hanafiah, M. H., Azman, I., Jamaluddin, M. R., & Aminuddin, N. (2016). Responsible
tourism practices and quality of Life: Perspective of Langkawi island
 P.V. Mathew, S. Sreejesh / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 31 (2017) 83e89
communities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 406e413.
Howse, C. (2008). Klein's Camp, A case study from CC Africa. In The second inter-
national conference on responsible tourism in destinations (Kochi: Kerala
Tourism).
Hughes, R., Addington-Hall, J., Aspinal, & Dunckl, M. (2004). Developing methods to
improve the quality of life. Journal Of Interprofessional Care, 200e201.
Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on resident attitudes towards
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 396-312.
Kennedy, I. (1992). Endemic tourism: A profitable industry in a sustainable environ-
ment. Towards a vision for Australia and the region. Sydney: Pacific Asia Travel
Association.
Kim, K. (2002). The effects o f tourism impacts on quality o f life of the residents in the
community. PhD Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
(Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management).
Kim, K., Uysal, B. M., & Joseph Sir, S. M. (2013). How does tourism in a community
impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management,
527e540.
Ko, D. W., & Stewart, W. (2002). A structural equation model of residents' attitudes
for tourism development. Tourism Management, 23, 521e530.
Krippendorf, J. (1982). Toward new tourism policy, the importance of environ-
mental and socio-cultural factors. Tourism Management, 135e148.
Leslie, D. (2012). Responsible tourism. Concepts, theory and practice. Wallingford:
CABI.
Maelge, C. (2008). Sri Lanka's responsible tourism story and achievements. In The
second international conference on responsible tourism in destinations (Kochi:
Kerala Tourism).
Michot, T. (2010). Pro-poor tourism in Kumarakom, Kerala, South India: Policy
implementation and impacts. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social
Sciences, 2e24. ISBN: 978-0-557-70452-1. http://www.japss.org/upload/
Working_Paper_no._7_March_2010_FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf
Mihalic, T. (2016). Sustainable-responsible tourism discourse e Towards
responsustable’ tourism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 461e470.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainability: New tourism in the third
world (London: Routledge).
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. Sage Publications, Inc.
89
Norusis, M. (1990). SPSS introductory statistics student guide (Chicago: Illinois).
Paul, V. M., & Rupesh, K. K. (2013). Responsible tourism: A strategy for grass root
level empowerment. Innovative Issues and Approaches in Social Sciences (IIAAS),
7(1), 54e71.
Romeril, M. (1985). Tourism and conservation in the Channel Islands. Tourism
Management, 43e50.
Saji, M. P., & Narayanasamy, N. (2010). Tourism product development in ecologically
and culturally fragile areas e Observations from Kerala in India. Tamil Nadu:
Gandhigram Rural Institute Of Management.
Simpson, K. (2001). Strategic planning and community involvement as contributors
to sustainable tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(1), 3e41.
Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing
perspective.
Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O'Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organisa-
tion's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and re-
sults of the international field trial (A report from the WHO QOL Group. Quality
of Life Research).
Smith, R. A. (1992). Beach resort evolution: Implications for planning. Annals of
Tourism Research, 304e322.
Spenceley, A., Relly, P., Keyser, H., Warmeant, P., McKenzie, M., Mataboge, A., et al.
(2002). Responsible tourism manual for South Africa. Pretoria: Department for
Environmental Affairs and Tourism. http://www.kruger2canyons.org/031%20-%
20Responsible%20Tourism%20Manual.pdf.
Stanford, D. (2000). A review of the education of tourists to achieve sustainable
tourism. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Tearfund. (2002). Worlds apart: A call to responsible global tourism (UK: Tearfund).
Kerala Tourism. (2012). Kerala tourism policy. Thiruvananthapuram: Department of
Tourism, Government of Kerala.
UNEP, & WTO. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable; a guide for policy makers.
UNEP & WTO.
Van der Merwe, M., & Wocke, A. (2006). An investigation into responsible tourism
practices in the South African hotel industry. South African Journal of Business
Management, 38(2).
Venu, V., & Goodwin, H. (2008). The Kerala declaration on responsible tourism.
Thiruvananthapuram: Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala.