paths to success: benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourism

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1044e1056

Contents lists available

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Paths to success: Benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourismq

Lucian Cernat a, Julien Gourdon b,c,*

a European Commission, BelgiumbCEPII, Paris, Francec Trade Department, World Bank, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 May 2009Accepted 1 December 2011

Keywords:Tourism activitySustainability

q The content of this article does not reflect the offiUnion. Responsibility for the information and views ewith the author.* Corresponding author. CEPII, Paris, France. Tel.: þ

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Gourdo

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.007

a b s t r a c t

Given the complexity of the issues surrounding the concept of sustainable tourism, the current papertries to provide a unified methodology to assess tourism sustainability, based on a number of quanti-tative indicators. The proposed methodological framework (Sustainable Tourism Benchmarking Tool eSTBT) will provide a number of benchmarks against which the sustainability of tourism activities invarious countries can be assessed. A model development procedure is proposed: identification of thedimensions (economic, socio-ecologic, infrastructure) and indicators, method of scaling, chart repre-sentation and evaluation on three Asian countries. This application to three countries shows us thata similar level of tourism activity might bring on different sorts of improvements to implement in thetourism activity and might have different consequences for the socio-ecological environment. Theheterogeneity of developing countries exposed in the STBT is useful to detect the main problem that eachcountry faces in their tourism sector.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Sustainable tourism e the need for a comprehensivemethodological framework

In recent years the list of international organizations, NGOs andacademics tackling the concept of sustainable development hasincreased dramatically. Such efforts range from grand theoriesfocused on producing a generally accepted, “one-size-fits-all”conceptual framework for sustainable development tomoremodestattempts concentrated on specific issues or sectors. One of thespecific areas of research concentrates on the concept of sustainabletourism. Sustainable developmentwas defined as development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs”. Both an equitydimension (intra-generational and inter-generational) and a social/psychological dimension are clearly outlined by this definition. Aswith other subfields of the sustainable development literature,sustainable tourism is an area where the list of existing analyses islong and impressive. In its 1998 annotated bibliography, the WorldTourism Organization (WTO-OMT) reviewed about 100 books andmore than 250 articles on sustainable tourism. Yet, despite these

cial opinion of the Europeanxpressed therein lies entirely

33 1 53 68 55 11.n).

All rights reserved.

sustained research efforts, and irrespective of the approach adopted,themerits and usefulness of such analyses are not yet fully clear andtheir findings remain under-utilized. This is, in part, because theconcept itself is far from being consistently used. The WTO-OMTdefines sustainable tourism as follows:

“Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of presenttourists and host regions while protecting and enhancingopportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading tomanagement of all resources in such away that economic, socialand esthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining culturalintegrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity andlife support systems.”

However, the definition is sufficiently flexible to allow a varietyof approaches and interpretations of the concept. For instance, inthe WTO-OMT annotated bibliography, within the “sustainabletourism” catchphrase are included issues connected to ruraldevelopment, ecotourism, environmental impact, cultural andnatural heritages, urban development, alternative tourism, indig-enous people, wildlife, natural parks, etc. This diversity of views onthe subject and the complexity of the concept have led sometourism academics and practitioners to even question its utility(e.g. Middleton & Hawkins, 1998). As Fernandez and Rivero (2009)pointed out in their recent article, there is still no agreement ona universal list of indicators enabling the comparison of sustain-ability levels in different tourism destinations because of the

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02615177

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.007



L. Cernat, J. Gourdon / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1044e1056 1045

multivariate character of sustainability, together with the difficultyin aggregating the considerable amounts of information required.

Given the complexity of the issues surrounding the concept ofsustainable tourism, this paper will provide a unified methodologyto assess tourism sustainability, based on a number of quantitativeindicators. Its aim is to resolve the lack of aggregate information ontourism sustainability and to be of aid in evaluating management attourism destinations and comparing the sustainability measurestaken by those destinations. The proposed methodological frame-work will provide a number of benchmarks against which thesustainability of tourism activities in various countries can beassessed. The STBT methodology developed in this paper relies onquantitative indicators that are policy-relevant and, as such, it ishoped that it will become a useful tool for decision-makers,researchers and businesses involved in tourism activities indeveloping countries.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section twobriefly reviews some of the literature on indicators for sustainabletourism. The third section makes a succinct case for a sustainabletourism benchmarking tool, while the fourth section describes themethodology used to construct the STBT. The fifth section exem-plifies its usefulness using three case studies. The concludingsection summarizes the main findings obtained based on the use ofSTBT and provides some policy recommendations.

2. Sustainable tourism indicators

2.1. What do we have so far?

Most studies assessing tourism activities often deal with oneaspect of tourism. For instance, the economic impact of tourismactivities is usually estimated on the basis of data on number ofarrivals, receipt per tourist, average length of stay and othereconomic indicators. In order to correctly estimate tourism activityand the impact of tourism on national economies, some studieshave developed tourism account methodologies (e.g. Frechtling,1999; Frechtling & Horvath, 1999). Other studies have focused onthe use of tourism resources (natural, cultural, etc.). However,a growing literature deals with the sustainability assessment,trying to develop indicators and provide methodologies forsustainable tourism, such asMiller (2001). Unlikemany studies thatcover only the physical and human environment, Miller (2001)presents several indicators covering all aspects of sustainability:environmental issues (physical and human), employment, financialleakages and aspects pertaining to the customer (satisfaction levels,etc.). In recent years there has indeed been significant progress inthe definition of indicators for the sustainablemanagement of firmsand tourism destinations (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Rao, 2000; Dwyer,Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004; or Liu, 2003). However the application toreal cases is only partial, being and restricted to specific cases.

Another notable attempt to create a comprehensive method-ology to assess sustainable tourism is found in Ko (2005). Aftera review of the existing literature, he argues that “methods ofsystemic sustainability assessment are not currently used intourism” (Ko, 2005). He finds that most studies on sustainabletourism development are descriptive, based on qualitative data andsubjective in their conclusions, thus lacking a rigorous method-ology to assess these issues. After identifying this gap in the liter-ature, he develops a conceptual framework for tourismsustainability assessment based on eight dimensions: political,economic, socio-cultural, production-related aspects, environ-mental impact, ecosystem quality, biodiversity and environmentalpolicies. Each dimension is assessed on the basis of several quan-titative and qualitative indicators which are scaled and clustered toassess the sustainability of a tourist destination.

The current analysis follows the sameobjective as Fernandez andRivero (2009) and Ko (2005), notably to develop a methodology toassess tourism sustainability with quantitative indicators. However,the current paper departs in a number of respects from the meth-odology outlined in Ko (2005). Firstly, Ko (2005) argues that theissues and concerns related to sustainable tourism vary from onetourism destination to another. Hence, he suggests that dimensions,indicators and data gatheringmethods could also thus vary, in orderto adapt the methodology to the specific conditions of each touristdestination. While this methodology has its merits, it limits theability to compare results across tourist destinations. To address thisgap, our methodology is intended to create sustainable tourismbenchmarks based on a generally applicable and consistent meth-odology that allows comparability of results across tourist destina-tions. Secondly, Ko (2005) works with hypothetical data to give anillustration of his methodology. Recently Fernandez and Rivero(2009) have conducted a similar exercise but using real data forseveral indicators on tourism sustainability in Spain. We agree withtheir assessment and we use similar methodologies (i.e. factoranalysis) to assign weights. The authors emphasize the use of thisapproach and test it with data from Spanish regions. We trust themand take comfort they did it. Our value added is that we do thisapproach on a wide range of countries and a much broader set ofindicators (they only have 14). In the current paper, the STBT istested using real data for 75 countries and we also conduct a moredetailed analysis for three case studies. This allows us to show theusefulness of such an approach in identifying policy-relevant indi-cators and making policy recommendations to increase thesustainability of the tourism sector in developing countries. Thirdly,unlike previous studies, our methodology covers a wide range oftourism-related dimensions: economic sustainability (tourismassets, tourism activity, linkages and leakage effects), the role ofoverall infrastructure and environmental and social sustainability.

Ourmethodology also has several limitations. The STBT does notaccount for quality considerations, nor does it at this stage includeany qualitative data (perception surveys, questionnaires, etc.). Also,another specificity of our approach is that economic sustainabilityis broken down into several dimensions whereas the environ-mental and social aspects are bundled together in socio-ecologicalsustainability. However, the fact that each detailed indicator has itsown score allows the STBT users to combine or separate the varioussustainability dimensions in different ways.

2.2. Why do we need a methodology?

The main reason for a comprehensive methodology aimed atimproving the prospects for sustainable tourism in developingcountries stems from the growing importance of tourism activityin developing countries. Tourism has already emerged as one ofthe world’s most important socio-economic sectors, and has beensteadily expanding at an average rate of about 4e5 per centannually during the latter half of the 20th century. In spite ofoccasional shocks, international tourist arrivals have shownvirtually uninterrupted growth: from 25 million in 1950, to 277million in 1980, to 435 million in 1990, to 675 million in 2000,and to 940 million in 2010 (WTO, 2011). The combination ofdomestic and international tourism is now acknowledged ascomprising the world’s “largest industry”. In 2010, tourismglobally generated an estimated US$3.4 trillion in gross output,contributing 5 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product(GDP). For advanced, diversified economies, the contribution oftourism to GDP ranges from approximately 2% for countrieswhere tourism is a comparatively small sector, to over 10% forcountries where tourism is an important pillar of the economy.The contribution that tourism makes to employment tends to be

L. Cernat, J. Gourdon / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1044e10561046

slightly higher and is estimated in the order of 6e7% of theoverall number of jobs worldwide.

The overall export income generated by inbound tourism,including passenger transport, exceeded US$ 1 trillion in 2010.Tourism exports account for as much as 30% of the world’s exportsof commercial services and 6% of overall exports of goods andservices. Globally, as an export category, tourism ranks fourth afterfuels, chemicals and automotive products.

For many developing countries it is one of the main sources offoreign exchange income and the number one export category,creating much needed employment and opportunities for devel-opment. Developing countries are receiving an increasing numberof international tourists as they improve transportation access,develop tourist attractions, facilities and services and becomeknown as desirable tourist destinations. Their share in the inter-national tourist arrivals1 grew up from 28 per cent in 1990 to 47 percent in 2010. Moreover for developing countries, this tourismactivity constitutes a large fraction of total export receipts and theshare inGDP can rise above 40 per cent in someCaribbean countries.

Moreover, unlike many primary products whose share in worldconsumption might decrease, in the case of tourism, there isa favorable income elasticity of demand. With increasing incomes,tourist expenditures increase at a faster rate than income. More-over, even though the tourism sector has been severely hit bya number of crises (e.g. international terrorism, SARS, naturaldisasters, the global financial crisis), the standard deviation ofgrowth rates of ‘export value’ for several primary commodities andtourism shows that tourism revenue is less volatile thancommodity revenues (Papatheodorou, 1999; Rosensweig, 1988;Song, Romilly, & Liu, 2000 or Maloney & Montes-Rojas, 2005).Finally, tourism activities bring much needed foreign exchangewhich allows developing countries to finance the import of capitalgoods and raw materials required for the economic developmentand diversification of their economies.

Despite such considerable potential, some economies have notbeen able to take advantage of the growth in tourism activity. Forexample, tourist expenditures in Latin America have risen by only0.51 per cent annually for the last 20 years; the region hasdramatically lost market shares and the apparent expenditure pervisitor appears to be declining over time (Maloney & Montes-Rojas,2005). Huge sustainability problems have emerged in some othercountries as well. In fact, on islands such as Tahiti or in the Carib-bean, increased tourist flows create shortages that have negativeeffects on the local population (e.g. increases in food prices, lodgingproblems, water supply, etc.). Moreover, the local population doesnot always benefit from tourism revenues. Previous research hasshown that a large share (60e90 percent) of the price that touristspay for their holidays goes to themultinational companies that ownthe airlines and run the hotels.

This brings us to the issue of sustainability. Progress in this areahas been particularly disappointing. In spite of all the initiativesthat have been put into effect in the past decade the 2002 WTOreport submitted to the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment concluded that the main challenge to overcome in achievingsustainable tourism is to fill the current gap between, on the onehand, the stage of designingmethodological approaches, guidelineson tourism policies and technological know how and, on the other,the implementation of those plans and the execution of tourismprojects by public agencies, together with the usual activities oftourism firms.

1 The term ‘tourists arrivals’ refers to total international tourist trips made andnot to the number of different tourists traveling. Some tourist take more than oneinternational trip per year.

Consequently, for every country, a first step is to measure thelevel of sustainability that it has achieved in its tourism develop-ment. As Fernandez and Rivero (2009) put it, “the idea is to verifyhow far those objectives are in accord or disaccord with thedestination’s development model and to make changes if theoriginal objectives are not being fulfilled.”Or, as Ko (2005) puts it, ‘Ifsustainable development is one of the tourism industry’s majorcontemporary objectives, then the industry needs to be able tomeasure its performance and impacts in this area.’

The existing gap between the actual and the potential sustain-ability of tourism force us to develop a methodology that couldestimate the gap and cover the complex issues described above.Moreover, such methodology would need to develop somebenchmarks in order to allow developing countries that aredependent on the tourism to improve the sustainability of thesector.

There is general agreement in the literature that one of the mainobstacles to attaining sustainable tourism is the difficulty inmeasuring the sustainability level that has been achieved by anygiven tourism destination. This has hindered decision making inthe corresponding management processes and made it difficult torecognize and meet the specific needs of these territories.

Although there have been notable advances in the design ofindicators in the past decade, the results are still only partial. Thereis still no agreement on a universal list of indicators enabling thecomparison of sustainability levels in different tourism destina-tions. This is due in part to the multivariate character of sustain-ability, together with the difficulty in aggregating the considerableamounts of information required.

3. Sustainable tourism benchmarking tool (STBT)

The objective of the STBT is two-fold. Firstly, this methodologyshould be able to detect the sustainability problems in a tourismdestination. Secondly, using benchmarks and policy-relevant indi-cators, the methodology should enable policymakers to makeinformed decisions and improve the prospects for sustainabletourism development in their countries. The following steps werefollowed to construct STBT.

First, seven key dimensions were singled out for assessment,namely:

� tourism assets;� tourism activity;� tourism-related linkages;� tourism-related leakages;� environmental and social sustainability;� overall infrastructure;� attractiveness

Once these dimensions were defined, the next phase in theconstruction of the STBT was their operationalization. Eachdimension was therefore broken into groups of variables, whichwere further broken into key indicators (see Annex Table 1). Thoseindicators were scaled to allow cross-country comparisons. Fourth,the indicators were placed on a conceptual chart that frames thespecific issues addressed by the STBT.

3.1. Dimensions and indicators

3.1.1. Tourism assetIt goes without saying that any country that is considering

developing its tourism sector should carefully evaluate its tourism-related assets and resources. Tourism assets are essentially themain factors that motivate tourists in choosing a particular

2 Openness Index shows the level of a country’s openness towards internationaltrade and international visitors. The Openness Index is an aggregate indexcombining the Visa Index, Tourism Openness Index, Trade Openness Index andTaxes on International Trade Index.

3 Direct Gross Domestic Product associated with Travel & Tourism Consumption.Establishments in this category include traditional Travel & Tourism providers suchas airlines, hotels, car rental companies, etc.


destination. Tourism assets need therefore to be appraised beforedeciding whether there is any potential for developing orexpanding tourism in a given area, and if so, what type of tourismactivities should be developed. In the literature, the relatively fewstudies concerned with the evaluation of tourism assets highlightthe difficulties in interpreting various quantitative tourism assetindicators. The WTO’s Guide for local authorities on developingsustainable tourism (WTO, 1998) provides a good description of thetype of tourism resources that need to be considered and assessed.The Tourism Satellite Account, for instance, also analyses the supplyside of tourism, but only concerning the producer of goods andservices in tourism activity.

In our methodology, we make a simple distinction between thevarious types of tourism assets. They are grouped into two cate-gories: i) natural resources and ii) cultural assets.

i) Natural resources: As previously mentioned, one majortourism asset is comprised of activities related to the naturalenvironment and provide opportunities for beach andmarinetourism, hiking, skiing or mountaineering, ecotourism, wild-life viewing, fishing and hunting. The methodology containsquantitative indicators for such natural tourism assets,selected on the basis of relevance and data availability. Weuse the distance of coast line weighted by the distance toequator (a coast line in Canada does not offer the sameadvantage as a coast line in Indonesia), the number of scarceanimal and vegetal species, the surface of forest and thenumber of national parks.

ii) Cultural assets: The second type of tourism assets that hasbeen accounted for in the STBT refers to cultural assets. Suchassets are related to cultural heritage, museums, archaeo-logical sites, architecture or crafts, major cultural and sportsevents, etc. In order to construct an indicator which aggre-gates all those aspects, we have to weight all these assets fortheir potential attractiveness for tourism.

The choice of tourism asset indicators is subject to interpreta-tion. Several other variables and indicators could have beenincluded. For instance, in its guidelines, WTO-OMT includes otherdimensions in tourism assets: climate, environment quality, humanresources development (qualification of employees), infrastructure(roads, rail, etc.), tourism facilities (accommodation, restaurants,etc.) and evening entertainment (cinema, casino, etc.). However,the climate, environment, quality of infrastructure and tourismassets are, more often than not, considered as the main determi-nants of tourism demand. Therefore these aspects have been takeninto account in the tourism-related infrastructure.

3.1.2. International tourism activity: tourists frequenting andspending

While existing tourism assets give an indication of the potentialfor tourism development, it is also important to know how thecountry exploits these tourism assets. Therefore, the seconddimension in our methodology measures tourism activity. Thereare several aspects that could be included in such activity. The twomain indicators that are normally used to assess this dimension arethe number of tourists and tourism revenues. Another useful effortwould be to develop indicators aimed at assessing the dynamismand long-term potential of tourism activities. However, such effortsgo beyond the scope of our paper and are not captured in the STBT.

The main tourism activity indicators e the number of touristsand tourism receipts e should be further disaggregated by type oftravel, trip and transport, country of origin and purpose of visit.Such detailed statistics could shed some light on a number ofspecific characteristics of tourism, such as the extent to which

a tourism destination is engaged in high value tourism. Dependingon the specific characteristics of a tourism destination, the tourismactivity indicators could also suggest ways in which the averageexpenditure per trip could be increased (e.g. raising the length ofstay or the expenditure per day).

We distinguish the “Flow” indicators, i.e. number of touristarrivals and tourists receipt, from “Quality” indicators, i.e. theaverage length of stay and the receipt per tourist per day. We addindexes to measure the dynamism in international tourism, whichare part of international tourism revenue on national tourismrevenue, the receipts from international tourism on exports and theopenness index from WTCC.2

3.1.3. Linkages: tourism revenue for the overall economyOne of the best ways to enhance economic benefits is to inte-

grate tourism into the national economy by establishing stronglinkages between tourism and other economic sectors. Tourism isviewed as possessing the potential for creating positive linkageswith other sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, fish-eries, manufacturing, construction and other service industries(Diaz Benavides, 2001). If the tourism sector makes use of productsand services produced within the economy, it will strengthen thosesectors and provide additional income. The extent tourism isintegrated in the national economy is captured by the multipliereffect of the tourism sector on the overall economy.

Given the complexity of tourism activities, it is rather difficult tostatistically distinguish tourism from other economic activities andto measure its contribution to the overall economy. The WTO-OMThas played an instrumental role in improving the way in whichtourism activity is statistically identified and measured. Despitethese efforts, difficulties remain in measuring linkages of tourismactivity. A large part of the problem stems from the traditionalmethod of defining an industry, i.e. from a supply or productionperspective. However, many industries such as agriculture ormanufacturing, as well as most tourism-related businesses do notdevote all of their production to tourism. Restaurants and shops areexamples of retail operations which rely on sales revenue gener-ated by both visitors and non-visitors.

Setting up a tourism satellite account that disaggregates tourismas a sector in the national economic accounts, as has been recom-mended by theWTO-OMT, is an important technique to analyze thetrue economic contribution of tourism and inputeoutput analysiswill determine the extent to which tourism is linked to othersectors. Inputeoutput analysis is one of the best methodologies touse here, for it helps to demonstrate how economic sectors arerelated; the number of linkages among them; and the impact ofthese linkages. Inputeoutput analysis is a mean of analyzing inter-industry relationships by tracking the flow of goods and servicesacross different sectors. For this reason we use the amount ofindirect effects on other sectors. In comparing this amount totourist expenditure, we find an indicator that could proxy thetourism multiplier effect.

The recent report from Satellite Account allows us to distinguishbetween a tourism industry3 which satisfies visitor consumptionand a tourism economy created by the tourism industry. Thetourism industry linkage index measures the indirect effect of thetourism industry (e.g. tourism industry demand on other sectors). It


is the indirect Gross Domestic Product associated with travel andtourism consumption. This is the upstream resident economycontribution which comes about from suppliers to the traditionaltravel and tourism industry. Establishments in this category includefuel and catering companies, laundry services, accounting firms,etc. The tourism economy linkage indexmeasures the effect on GDPof the development of tourism industry. This is the broadestmeasure of travel and tourism’s contribution to the residenteconomy. Establishments in this category include manufacturing,construction, government, and other areas that are associated withcapital investment, government services and non-visitor exports.

3.1.4. Leakages: missed opportunitiesWhen linkages with the other sectors of the domestic economy

cannot be built, a significant part of the development potentialstemming from tourism activities is lost. For Gollub, Hosier, andWoo (2003) leakages is a real concern for sustainability. Leakagesare broadly defined as the loss of foreign exchange and other hiddencosts deriving from tourism-related activities. Not all leakages areunnecessary, as some costs cover crucial input to the tourism sectornot available in the local economy. Leakages include two maincomponents that need to be taken into account to obtain a reliableapproach on issues touching upon the effects of such losses. Internalleakages are losses due to tourism activities that originate in theeconomic space of the tourism service provider and are paid andaccounted for domestically. It most generally refers to the “importcoefficient” of tourism, or the proportion of imported goods neededto provide the service. External leakages are opportunity costs thatoriginate outside the economic space of the tourism serviceprovider and are not accounted for domestically. As Wells (1997)stressed out, economic benefits linked to tourist expenditures areoften captured by commercial tourism operators in developedcountries. In order to appropriately define a tourism developmentstrategy for any developing countries, leakages indicators must beelaborated and policy options evaluated in the light of these factors.

As in the case of linkage effects, measuring economic leakagesnecessitates either satellite accounts or using inputeoutput tables.Import-related internal leakages are, in principle, highest wherethe local economies are poorly equipped to provide adequateinputs, particularly in terms of the quality of produced goods andservices, to the tourism sector. Some studies have provided aninteresting differentiation between competing imports and non-competing imports (UNESCAP, 1991, Malaysia). This allows for thedifferentiation of imports according to their unavailability or tofactors relating to quality and taste.

Using inputeoutput tables would allow us to calculate severalindicators. Firstly, the leakage effects can be assessed using the netbalance of foreign exchange (which is the difference betweenearnings from tourist expenditure and the input imports fortourism), or the net foreign exchange earnings ratio for tourism.Secondly, another useful indicator is the import multiplier, whichmeasures the amount of imported inputs required for every unit ofoutput consumed by tourists. As we have already accounted fortourist expenditure, we only include the amount of importsinduced by tourist expenditures.

Since there is a difference between tourism industry and tourismeconomy, we can provide several indexes, one measuring theimports required by the tourism industry only, the other theimports required by the tourism economy (including imports fromother sectors for the tourism activity). The last onemeasures overallimports on overall tourism consumption.

Internal linkages are not only limited to imports, they alsocontain a financial component resulting from remunerations toforeign capital and labor that supplement (usually scarce) localendowment (see Annex for further details). These remunerations

result in the repatriation of salaries and interest paid of earningduties in the local tourism sector. However, due to lack of data,this aspect has not been included in the quantitative analysisbelow.

3.1.5. Socio-ecological sustainabilityAnother aspect included in our methodology is the extent to

which tourism activities benefit the community and the environ-ment. A tourist destination is sustainable only if both the humancondition and the condition of the ecosystem are satisfactory orimproving. If the condition of either is unsatisfactory or worsening,the destination is unsustainable. The social dimension quantifiesthe involvement of local communities in various tourism activities(Pearce, 2000). The environmental aspect included in our meth-odology assesses the implementation of environmental and qualitystandards agreed by relevant international organizations fortourism projects and allocation of tourism revenues to preventdegradation of resources in the destination country.

The two components of this dimension are clearly connectedwith the linkages and leakages issue and need to be analyzedjointly. For instance, even though a tourist activity may have lowleakage effects, this does not necessarily mean that the communitywill draw any benefits from this activity if local operators do notcreate sufficient jobs for the community, or if wages are very low.Moreover, socio-ecological sustainability will not be assured if thisactivity is not properly taxed to provide resources for environ-mental protection.

There is a considerable amount of literature on the variouspositive and negative impacts of tourism (see in particular, Khosla,1995; Pearce, Moscardo, & Ross, 1996). These accounts can be usedas a basis for the development of tourism sustainability indicators.The indicators can also be derived from extensive literature onimpacts. The WTO (1993, 1995, 1998, 2002) has also developeda group of indicators for sustainable tourism, although they arefocused on ecological dimensions. As Font and Bendell (2002) havepointed out, at present, environmental criteria are often moredeveloped than social criteria in the development of indicators

One broad indicator with relevance for socio-ecologicalsustainability is the number of tourists relative to the local pop-ulation. The indicator should be calculated as the average numberof tourist present at one time, and not the overall arrivals. Thatnecessitates weighting the number of arrivals during a month bythe length of stay. For social sustainability, the indicators shouldcapture the major benefit for local communities. Two useful indi-cators in this regard are: (i) the number of jobs created by thetourism sector; and (ii) the average wage in tourism relative to theaveragewage in the economy. The employment effects that we takeinto account are direct employment in the tourism sector andindirect employment in other sectors. The second indicatorassesses the extent to which tourism represents a high valueactivity. Several studies for developing countries often suggestcomparable wages in tourism and non-tourism sectors. However,the official wage statistics usually do not include tips, which mayincrease the relative wage in the tourism sector.

Further, another benefit for the community that needs to betaken into account is tax revenues. Tourism-related taxes can offeran important economic benefit to an area. These taxes can providethe financial resources for infrastructure development, publicfacilities and services that can improve the living standards of localcommunities. However, there is concern that undue or high levelsof taxation will be a deterrent to developing tourism on an inter-nationally competitive basis. Tourism-related taxes that arediscriminatory or inequitable may distort the competitive positionof the destination leading to decreasing tourist markets (Souty,2003).


The direct impact of tourism activity on the environment isdifficult to estimate at a national level. However, several broadaspects can be incorporated in our framework. First, the existingenvironmental quality needs to be quantified, using several indi-cators such as the number of endangered species, CO2 emissions,etc. Secondly, the regulatory framework is a vital element for the-preservation of environmental quality. For this, the numberof environment-related international agreements signed bya country may be a good indicator of the commitment towardsenvironmental protection. Lastly, the impact of the actual level oftourism activity on environment needs to be assessed. One simpleway to quantify this is to determine the tourism density (e.g. thenumber of tourists per square km). This requires weightingthe number of arrivals during a certain period (e.g. a month) by thelength of stay.

One could, of course, refine this analysis and include additionalindicators or dimensions of environmental impact e if data wereavailable. For instance, the existence of environmental reviewprocedures for infrastructure management and site development,could also supplement information on regulatory frameworks. Thenumber of protected areas or the tourism-related tax revenuesdevoted to environmental protection activity are also good indi-cators of environmental sustainability.

3.1.6. Infrastructure sustainabilityInfrastructure may well be considered as a tourism asset.

General infrastructure assets are keys to sustainable tourismdevelopment since the accessibility of specific tourism assetsdepends on the quality of the overall infrastructure. However, givenits general nature, we prefer to treat this field separately from thosetourism assets that are natural and cultural resources. Furthermore,unlike natural and cultural resources, the quality of infrastructuredepends muchmore on a host of other policies, rather than tourismpromotion strategies alone. Hence, given its high policy relevance,this further justifies its separate treatment.

The development of travel services in developing countriesobviously depends on the quality of overall and tourism-relatedinfrastructure. Overall, infrastructure indicators refer to transportinfrastructure, electricity and water access. ICT infrastructure hasbecome an important element in the choice tourists make becauseof the need for rapid communication. This aspect is captured byseveral classic indicators such as the number of phone lines, mobilephone penetration and internet hosts.

Tourism-related infrastructure comprises accommodation,restaurants and other tourist facilities. Entertainment facilities arealso an important element, although not necessarily for all types oftourism (ecotourism, for instance). Finally we add governmentexpenditure in tourism, as a proxy for investment in tourism-related infrastructure.

3.1.7. AttractivenessPrice competitiveness is usually regarded as one of the most

important factors underpinning the competitiveness of a givendestination so this could well explain the differences in economicactivity between countries. Attractiveness could also depend onhow well qualified the population is and on the general securitysituation in the country.

This last field completes the endowment for tourism withinfrastructure and asset fields. We assess it in choosing severalaspects used in the WTTC study on competitiveness in line with Goand Gover (2000). We select the index on price competitiveness(a mix of the hotel price index, the purchasing power parity index),the index on human resources (mainly based on the educationindex), and we add ICRG and civil liberties.

3.1.8. ScalingLee-Smith (1997) point out that in assessing sustainability,

ordinal or interval scales are normally used; for example Prescott-Allen’s Barometer of Sustainability uses an interval scale of 1e100(Prescott-Allen, 1997). The ordinal scale (badepooremediume

good) is especially useful when there is a lack of consensus as towhat would constitute an adequate standard. However, as Ko(2005) argues, numerical sustainability scales may be moreappropriate than qualitative scales. Even if one tourist destinationis moved from one qualitative category to another, it would bedifficult to appreciate the extent to which a tourist destination isgetting better or worse without numerical scaling. We havetherefore chosen to use an interval scale based on numericalscores.

The indicators included in the STBT range from 1 to 100. Sincenumerical standards are absent in the literature on sustainability,the score for each country is assessed against the relative score ofother countries. The scores of each country could therefore beassessed against various benchmarks (global, regional, tailor-madecountry groupings such as small islands, LDCs, etc.).

These values are obtained through a ‘normalization’ technique,where each indicator has been assigned minimum and maximumvalues. Through a simple arithmetic average, the relevant normal-ized indicators are aggregated to give the value for each variable,and the relevant variables are aggregated to provide the value foreach area. For all indicators, a high value indicates a good perfor-mance in their respective area.

In sum, the condition to obtain a relevant assessment using theSTBT is to include enough countries in the database so as to haveseveral relevant benchmarks against which the performance ofindividual countries could be assessed. We apply, as inGooroochurn and Sugiyarto (2005), the following formula:

Normalisation ¼ Actual value�Minimum valueMaximum value�Minimum value

We apply this normalization for all the indicators (40) we use in thisstudy, and we use it also for the composite themes indices: vari-ables and dimensions (see Annex 1). Effectively, each compositetheme index is the product of several indicators, and we normalizethis value to scale it from 0 to 100. Themain limit to this approach isthat we consider as best practice (a score of 100) the performanceof the best country; however this higher level may still be badoverall.

3.2. The STBT chart: framing the issues

The STBT framework is based on several dimensions (assets,activity, linkages, leakages, sustainability and infrastructure) andthe complex interaction between these interactions (see arrowsAeF). Such a framework will make it possible to create a descriptivemap of the score for individual countries on each dimension (assets,linkages, etc.), but will also allow a comparison of different coun-tries in different areas. Moreover, the framework allows us toaddress specific tourism-related issues in developing countries byanalyzing various linkages between specific areas.

For instance, as Fig. 1 shows, several key connected issues couldbe addressed using the STBT:

A: Assets-activity: Is the country able to increase the tourismrevenue?

The link between assets and activity relates to a country’s abilityto exploit its tourism asset. If the tourism activity indicators showlower values than the ones for tourism assets, this could indicatethat the country does not attract sufficient tourists or that expen-diture per tourist is low.


B: Activity-linkages: What are the linkages with the rest of theeconomy?

This connection assesses the capacity of the tourism sector tocontribute to the activity of other economic sectors. It could alsoindicate whether action needs to be taken to promote increasedpositive spill-over effects on other domestic economic sectors.

C: Linkages-leakages: Could tourism be more beneficial to the localeconomy?

By examining the interaction between linkages and leakages,the STBTcould detect ways inwhich developing countries could notonly identify leakages in tourism activity, which are generated bytour operators, hotels owners, other foreign economic actors,imported goods, but alsoways to transform them into linkages withlocal economies.

D: Activity-sustainability: Are tourism activities sustainable?As mentioned above, this issue is related to the social and

environmental capacity to develop tourism activity. For the envi-ronmental issue there are two aspects: the current state of theenvironment and the environmental impact of tourism activity. Thesocial aspect captures the impact of tourism activity on employ-ment, job quality and tax revenues for local communities.

E: Activity-infrastructure: Is the infrastructure sufficiently devel-oped to support tourism development?

This issue is related to the ability of the existing infrastructure torespond to tourism demand. It concerns tourism-related infra-structures (hotels, restaurants, etc.), transport and communicationinfrastructures, as well as other basic infrastructures.

F: Attractiveness-Activity: Is the country sufficiently attractive toenhance tourism activity?

Attractiveness of tourism destinations is a key factor whentourists plan holidays. It goes without saying that a higher attrac-tiveness index would have a positive impact on tourism activity.

The applied STBT methodology can be best presented asa multidimensional graph (see Fig. 2 in Annex). All indicators havebeen scaled from 0 to 100, with maximum values being desirablefrom a policy perspective. Therefore a high score in the leakage fieldmeans that the country has few leakages relatively to the tourismactivity. Because of data constraints, we could not include all theindicators presented above in our methodology, especially thoseconcerning the financial leakages field. The indicators used arepresented in the Annex 1 by a bold slash. The STBT allows us toanalyze the issues raised above.

We briefly see that Vietnam appears to have weak internationaltourism activity compared to the asset. This may be due to a lack ofinfrastructure. In contrast Dominican Republic and Egypt seem toexploit their assets relatively well. Vietnam has a tourism activitythat generates a great part of output for the other sectors, but itcreates also a lot of imports. Once we have done these generalcomments, we must look more precisely at the sub-indicators thatcomposed each field of this composite index. We apply this processin part IV using the case studies of three Asian countries.

4. Global approach

Here we can firstly adopt our method to provide a global anal-ysis on the main characteristics of a country facing high linkages orweak leakages in the tourism activity. We use a cluster analysiswhich aims at grouping countries based on the indicators (leakagesor linkages), such that the groups exhibit high internal (withinclusters) homogeneity and high external (between clusters)heterogeneity for those indicators.

We thus obtain four clusters grouping by their linkage level andfour clusters grouping by their leakages level. So we can now studythe characteristics of each group in terms of asset (sorts of asset),

activity, infrastructure, sustainability and attractiveness, to detecttheir correlations with the indicators.

To obtain consistent clusters we need several countries, so welimit the number of indicators to get 75 countries in our sample, theindicators retained are in Annex 1 with a bullet.

The results for the linkages clusters are given in Table 1.1, andthey offer several interesting conclusions. First it does not seemthat linkages were correlated to a specific tourism asset. Secondly,there is no clear relation between leakages and linkages. Thirdly itseems that the more the international tourism activity, the less thebenefit that other sectors of the economy derive from the tourismindustry.

The results for the leakages clusters are given in Table 1.2. Herewe show a clearest relationship between linkages and leakagessince it seems that the countries which have the weakest indicatorsfor leakages have the highest indicators for linkages. So tourismactivity which creates output for the entire economy will alsoincrease imports in the economy. Finally, it seems that countriesthat have a high indicator for international tourism activity havefew leakages but also few linkages.

The main conclusion here is that an increase in internationaltourism activity is correlated with fewer leakages but also fewerlinkages, not of course in absolute terms, but in relative terms. Thetourism sectors manage to become less dependent from othersectors and from other countries.

However the main use of the composite theme indices is to helpus in country analysis, in comparing situation for each country oneach theme relative to the other countries.

5. Country case studies

We test our STBT methodology on three developing countriesfrom Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, for which we havemore indicators. The STBT dimensions for those three countries arepresented in Fig. 3.

5.1. Assets-activity issues

Indonesia has the highest score for tourist assets, whereasMalaysia and Thailand rank far below. However, despite lowerscores for tourist assets, the scores for tourism activity are veryclose for all three countries. The STBT suggests that Malaysia andThailand appear to be more efficient in the exploitation of theirassets than Indonesia. A closer look at each of the indicators thatwere aggregated in each dimension reveals other important find-ings (Annex Table 2).

For instance, Malaysia attracted the largest number of touristsbut spends relatively little per tourist. In contrast, Thailand seemsto be oriented towards high value tourism. Both Malaysia andThailand score low on the length of time tourists spend in thesecountries. Finally, Indonesia does not have a good score on thenumber of tourists but achieves a good score on revenues pertourist, not necessarily due to high value tourism but becausetourists tend to stay longer in the country.

These indicators suggest that Malaysia needs to raise expendi-ture per tourist and length of stay, as well as develop tourist assetsthat attract special interest tourists, leading to a higher value-addedtourism. Similarly, the STBT framework suggests that Thailandneeds to take action aimed at raising the length of stay of tourists byproviding for instance new attractions or special events as part oftourist packages. On the other hand, Indonesia would need toimprove its score on the number of tourists, by more actively usingnew marketing techniques such as the Internet.


5.2. Activity e linkages: what are the linkages with the rest of theeconomy?

The STBT framework suggests that tourism in Indonesia andThailand creates fewer linkages in the economy relatively to theamount of expenditure by tourists. This stands in contrast to theMalaysian case, where despite the lowest score for tourism activity,the biggest score for linkages is recorded. A more detailed analysiscould indicate which sectors need to be encouraged to expand orcreate new products. Establishing stronger inter-sector linkageswill typically require special analysis and specific programmes.When the potential linkages are identified, specific programmes tostrengthen linkages can be formulated and applied.

For example, certain food items of interest to the tourism sectormay exist in the country but production may need to be expandedto ensure a steady source of supply, transport from the productionarea to the tourism enterprises improved and marketing mecha-nisms adopted. Some types of food items may need to be improvedor modified before they are acceptable for use by tourism enter-prises. Farmers may require technical and financial assistance toimprove and expand their production. For manufactured items,incentives may need to be provided to manufacturers to produceneeded items and standards adopted to ensure that the items aresuitable for use in tourism. Craft production may require betterorganization and the implementation of quality standards andmarketing facilities.

5.3. Linkages-leakages: could the tourism be more beneficial to thelocal economy?

The STBT framework pointed out some interesting cross-country comparisons with regards to linkages and leakagesgenerated by the tourism sector. Malaysia, which had the best scorefor linkages, has the worst score for leakages. This apparentparadox may be explained by the fact that a large part of thetourism-related activities generated in other sectors needs toimport most of their input to supply the required products by thetourism sector. On the contrary, tourism in Indonesia provides“relatively” less leakages but this activity is conducive to a largeextent to linkages with the local economy. Several policy recom-mendations to contain leakages could be advanced. To reduceleakages generated by imports of goods and services, developingcountries need to encourage investment by local entrepreneurs toimprove their existing products and to diversify into new products.To reduce internal financial leakages, the country can imposea limitation of foreign capital for some tourism-related projects andactivities where financial leakages are important. Similarly, leak-ages generated by foreign management personnel could bereduced if such skills already exist in the country. Policies shouldalso aim to provide incentives to reinvest profits that otherwisewould be repatriated or invested abroad.

5.4. Activity-sustainability: are tourism activities sustainable?

With regard to tourism sustainability, Thailand and Malaysiapresent the most problematic situation, the former on the humancomponent, and the latter in the environmental component. A goodscore for Indonesia in the sustainability segment confirms that anincrease in the number of tourists would not be detrimental totourism sustainability. Improvements in tourism sustainability canbe achieved through a number of specific actions. Puppim deOliveira (2003) presents four types of environmental actions:building institutional capacity; establishment of protected areas;investment in environmental projects (sanitation, water, wastemanagement); and control of private actions (e.g. land mostly

owned by the state, control number of tourists and new tourisminvestments). Strategies for managing those impacts are also dis-cussed in detail by WTO (1997). At the policy level, developmentplans, which include tourism and which set out zones for touristuse, should determine rights of access to areas and consider whatsort of activities are suitable for the area. Economic mechanismssuch as subsidies could be used to encourage more sustainablepractices and provide incomes to protect conservation of theenvironment. For the development of infrastructure, projectsshould use minimal impact construction techniques, native speciesfor landscaping and appropriate architecture styles. Infrastructuredevelopment should also take into account recycling, waste mini-mization and energy efficiency programmes.

5.5. Activity-infrastructure: is the infrastructure sufficientlydeveloped to support tourism development?

Looking at the infrastructure in the STBT chart, Indonesia seemsto be lagging behind in terms of infrastructure potential. In terms ofhotel rooms for instance, the STBT framework suggests a consider-able gap between tourism activity and the number of tourists.Thailand also needs to improve its supply capacity of tourismservices, mostly in terms of tourism infrastructure. Based on theSTBT indicators, Malaysia seems to have more adequate infra-structure to support tourism development than Indonesia andThailand.

5.6. Activity-attractiveness: is the country sufficiently attractive toenhance tourism development?

The most attractive destination among the three countriesexamined is Thailand. The low score for attractiveness in Indonesiacould explain the weaker score in activity. This lack of attractive-ness in Indonesia, and to a lesser extent in Malaysia, is mainly dueto the lower score levels on safety and civil liberties indicators.Furthermore, in Indonesia a detrimental factor for tourism attrac-tiveness is the weaker score on quality of governance.

6. Conclusion

Based on the extent to which it has been quantified and dis-cussed in cross-country analyses, the concept of sustainabletourism is still considered to be in its infancy. The current papertried to fill this gap by providing a simple methodology to assesstourism sustainability, based on a number of quantitative indica-tors. The proposed methodological framework would allow thecreation of a comprehensive database against which the sustain-ability of tourism activities in various countries can be assessed. TheSTBT methodology developed in this paper relies on quantitativeindicators that are policy-relevant and, as such, it is hoped that itwill become a useful tool for decision-makers, researchers andbusinesses involved in tourism activities in developing countries.

The usefulness of the STBT methodology is illustrated by usingthree case studies: Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.While the STBTmethodology used in this paper may need further refinement andelaboration, the results and findings obtained suggest that the STBTcanbecomeavaluable tool for researchers andpolicymakers involvedin the assessment and design of sustainable tourism strategies.

This illustration shows us that an equal level of tourism activitymight induce different sorts of improvements and might havedifferent consequences on development. Some countries thereforeneed to increase the number of tourists’ arrivals, while others haveto extend length of stay or receipts per tourists. Furthermore, theSTBT can be extended to other fields linked to tourism activity, inparticular by expanding the analysis of leakages.


Here, we have connected in the same analysis, the relation oftourism industry to the broader economy (wide impact), and wehave also surrounded the leakages problem. While some countrieshave to increase the linkage of the tourism industry with the rest ofthe economy, other countries have to ensure that those linkagesbenefit national sectors given the large amount of leakage. Finally,we tie this economic sustainability to the socio-ecologicalsustainability to detect the present or future main problems thatappear with tourism development in developing country.

The main advantage in following this methodology is thatgrouping many countries into one analytical toolbox is relevant anddoes not remove the heterogeneity aspect, contrary to Ko (2005)argument. Indeed, the heterogeneity of developing countries isuseful to detect the main problems of each country in their tourismactivity. Therefore, The STBT could form a solid basis for a rigorousanalysis that could shed further light on the main problemsdetected by conducting country specific studies by followinga consistent methodology that allows comparability of resultsacross tourist destinations.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank David Diaz for comments andsuggestions as well as three anonymous referees for insightfulcomments on earlier drafts. Useful comments were also receivedfrom the participants to an internal seminar in UNCTAD. Previousdraft has benefited from the careful reading from Mohini Datt.

Annex 1. Measuring tourism-related leakages

To account for tourism-related leakages, Perez-Ducy de Cuello(2001) proposes the following indicator:

Table 1STBT: dimensions, variables, indicators and units.

Dimensions Variables Indicators

Asset Beach assetCoast LineLatitude

Natural assetMarine environmentDesertsForestsWaterfalls, Lakes, CavesWildlifeNational Park

Cultural assetListed sites and monumentsMuseumsFolklore festivals

Activity FlowExpenditureArrivals

ValueExpenditure/TouristLength of stayExpenditure/dayLodging occupancy

Linkages Tourism industryIndirect effect

Tourism economyIndirect effect

Leakages InternalImports

Competing tourism importsNon-competing tourism imports

FactorsL: Employee remuneration repatriatioK: Interest paid to the ROW from loan

F ¼ ðW þ I þ DÞ=RF: Financial outflowsW: Foreign Employee remuneration repatriationI: Interest paid to the rest of the worldD: Dividends repatriationR: Tourism IncomeThese remunerations result in the repatriation of salaries and

interest paid in connection to the activities carried out in the localtourism sector. Gollub et al. (2001) consider dividends repatriationas external leakages since they are directly linked to the foreignshare and capital participation on tourism. Based on this approach,another modified version of internal leakages is:

F ¼ ðW þ IÞ=RIn addition, external leakages occur for instance when revenues areretained by external tour operator, booking intermediaries, foreignairlines, cruise ships or other forms of foreign-owned trans-portation. The loss of potential income due to sales contracted byagents abroad, of which only a margin is paid to the domestictourism service providers is a cost that reduces the positive effecttourism can have on the local economy. This could be measured bythe percentage of prearranged tourism booking prices received bylocal tour operators (Perez-Ducy de Cuello, 2001).

Furthermore, leakages can occur when foreign investorsfinancing developing country tourism infrastructure and facilities,repatriate profits earnings. Those leakages are often unavoidableand necessary in the near term in order to access sufficient sourcesof development finance. In this case, only repatriated profits areconsidered as leakages since locally reinvested profits are consid-ered to promote the host economy. In this case, the formulabecomes:

Unity measure

Km (Source: CIA fact book) U

Position to equator (Source: WDI) U

Squared kmSquared km (Source: WDI) U

Species Number (Source: CITES) U

Squared km/number (Source: UNESCO) U

Number (Source: UNESCO) U

Number (Source: UNESCO)Number

Billion $ (Source: WTO or WDI) U

Million (WTO or WDI) U

Million $ (Source: WTO or WDI) U

Days (Source: WTO)Million $ (Source: WTO) U

Percentage (Source: WTO) U

Million $ per Tourism income (Source: TSA) U



Million $ per Tourism income

ns Million $ per Tourism income (Source: National Accounts)s Million $ per Tourism income (Source: National Accounts)

Table 1 (continued )

Dimensions Variables Indicators Unity measure

ExternalIntermediaries

Tourists using local operator PercentageForeign operator price received by destination Percentage

Foreign InvestorsDividend repatriations Million $ per Tourism income (Source: National Accounts)Repatriated profits from IDE Million $ per Tourism income (Source: National Accounts)

Sustainability EnvironmentEnvironmental Agreements Number of environment international agreement (Source:

CIA fact book)U

Critical ecosystem Percentage of endangered species (Source: CITES) U

Pollution CO2 emissions, tones million per capita (Source: WDI) U

Intensity of use Tourists/hectare (Sources: author’s calculation) U

Environmental benefice Tax revenue from tourism allowed to environmentprotection activity (Source: TSA)

Developing control Existence of environmental review procedure overdevelopment of site

Human Pressure impact Ratio of tourism to locals (Sources: author’s calculation) U

Employment impact Employs required to Tourism output (Source: TSA) U

Quality of employment Average wages in tourism sector/Average wage (Source:ILO)

Tax revenue from tourism Value of direct and indirect tax (Source: TSA)Infrastructure Basic

Roads networks Km per surface (Source: WDI) U

Rails networks density Km rail per surface (Source: WDI)Sanitation access Percentage (Source: WDI) U

Electricity Production Kwh per capita (Source: WDI) U

Water access Percentage (Source: WDI) U

ICTInternet Hosts number per 10000 people (Source: WDI) U

Telephone mainlines Number per 1000 people (Source: WDI) U

Mobile phones Number per 1000 people (Source: WDI) U

TourismRestaurant Number (Source: WTO)Lodging Beds number (Source: WTO) U

Entertainment Cinema number (Source: UNESCO)Attractiveness Price Competitiveness

Hotel prices In US$ (Source: WTCC) U

Power Parity Purchase US$ required to purchase same amount as 1US$ in UnitedStates (Source: WTCC)

U

Human ResourcesAdult Literacy Rate Percentage (Source: WTCC) U

Enrollment Combined for primary, secondary and tertiary educationenrollment (Source: WTCC)

U

SafetyICRG index U

Civil Liberties index U

Table 1.1Clusters analysis by linkages groups.

Linkages Leakages Asset Beach Natural Cultural Activity Flow Quality International Sustain Hum Env Infra Attractive

Group 1 11 77 30 31 29 21 41 14 26 41 63 41 73 29 67Group 2 27 51 24 31 23 14 31 7 26 31 64 41 74 39 72Group 3 40 62 27 28 33 12 27 7 14 35 64 41 74 21 64Group 4 75 47 28 33 28 14 21 8 14 25 52 40 58 26 55

Table 1.2Clusters analysis by leakages groups.

Leakages Linkages Asset Beach Natural Cultural Activity Flow Quality International Sustain Hum Env Infra Attractive

Group 1 19 45 27 46 24 3 23 2 13 34 69 52 70 19 50Group 2 55 38 23 29 24 14 29 7 23 30 58 35 70 31 67Group 3 78 18 32 30 31 22 40 13 24 43 67 45 74 29 70Group 4 96 8 38 32 34 29 44 26 25 35 60 42 67 30 57


Table 2STBT: disaggregated scores.

Benchmarks Ma Tb Ic Ma Tb Ic Ma Tb Ic

Tourism asset 45 40 100Beach 55 44 100

Coast 9 6 100Latitude 95 77 89

Natural 45 40 100Forest 50 50 68Wild 40 25 75Park 20 33 40

Cultural 0 8 8Sites 0 8 8Museums

Tourism activity 43 45 33Flow 18 17 8

Number 17 14 6Revenue 10 12 6

Quality30 33 34 Exp/Tour/Day 20 21 21

Exp/Tour 17 24 29Occupancy 65 62 52Length of stay 17 27 33

International open 52 48 24Intern/National 40 27 11WTCC Open 62 61 32Intern/Exports 11 18 12

Linkages 39 7 20Tourism industry 40 13 22

Impact on GDP 40 13 22Tourism economy 21 7 15

Impact on GDP 21 7 15Leakages 52 72 84

Internal 52 72 84Import in industry 46 72 79Import in economy 44 65 74Factor

ExternalIntermediariesForeign investors

Sustainability 64 69 94Environment 73 70 90

Pressure 81 85 97Charts 42 35 32End Spec 79 58 62Energy 95 81 66CO2 per capita 69 84 94

Community 42 53 69Pressure 25 65 92Employ Tour. Ind. 10 16 41Wage 20 31 35

Infrastructure 41 18 8Basic 60 45 34

Road 4 2 3Rail 6 4 2Water access 90 80 75Electricity 12 6 2Sanitation access 95 95 46

Tourism 15 15 8Rooms 9 11 2Cinema 3 2 2

ICT 69 32 14Lines 25 14 5Mobiles 39 27 6Internet 2 1 1

Attractiveness 66 83 46Price Comp. 87 82 82

Hotel Price 100 95 85PPP 74 83 82

Human 83 86 80Adult Literacy rate 89 93 88Enrollment 70 73 65

Safety 50 85 30ICRG index 74 72 39Civil Liberties 33 63 37

a Malaysia.b Thailand.c Indonesia.


0

100A

B

C

D

E

F

Fig. 1. The STBT: the conceptual structure.

Fig. 2. STBT.


100

33

20

8494

8

46

45

43

39

5264

41

66 40 45

7

7269

18

83

Fig. 3. The STBT chart.


F ¼ ðDþ PÞ=RP: repatriated profits, not invested in the host economy

Overall, a consolidated formula for financial leakages could bethe following:

F ¼ ðW þ I þ Dþ PÞ=RIf the relevant data is available, such financial losses could then

easily be incorporated in the STBT.

References

Diaz Benavides, D. (2001). The sustainability of international tourism in developingcountries. In UNLDC. (Ed.), Tourism in the least developed countries. Geneva:UNLDC.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2000). The price competitiveness of travel andtourism: a comparison of 19 destinations. Tourism Management, 21, 9e22.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: newand old approaches. Tourism Management, 25, 307e317.

Fernandez, J. I. P., & Rivero, M. S. (2009). Measuring tourism sustainability: proposalfor a composite. Tourism Economics, 15, 277e296.

Font, X., & Bendell, J. (2002). Standards for sustainable tourism for the purpose ofmultilateral trade negotiations. In WTO. (Ed.), Studies in relation to tradenegotiations on tourism services. Madrid: WTO.

Frechtling, D. C. (1999). The tourism satellite account: foundations, progress andissues. Tourism Management, 20, 163e170.

Frechtling, D. C., & Horvath, E. (1999). Estimating the multiplier effects of tourismexpenditures on a local economy through a regional inputeoutput model.Journal of Travel Research, 37, 324e332.

Go, F. M., & Gover, R. (2000). Integrated quality management for tourist destina-tions: a European perspective on achieving competitiveness. Tourism Manage-ment, 21, 79e98.

Gollub, J., Hosier, A., & Woo, G. (2003). Leakages and linkages in the tourism sector. InWTO. (Ed.), Studies in relation to tradenegotiations on tourism services.Madrid:WTO.

Gooroochurn, N., & Sugiyarto, G. (2005). Competitiveness indicators in the traveland tourism industry. Tourism Economics, 11(1), 25e43.

Ko, T. G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure:a conceptual approach. Tourism Management, 26(3), 431e445.

Khosla, A. (1995). Foreword. In T. C. Trzyna (Ed.), A sustainable world: Defining andmeasuring sustainable development (pp. 7e9). Sacramento, CA: IUCN.

Lee-Smith, S. (1997). Community-based indicators: a guide for field workerscarrying out monitoring and assessment at the community level. In IUCN. (Ed.),An approach to assessing progress toward sustainability: Tools and training seriesfor institutions, field teams and collaborating agencies. Gland: IUCN.

Liu, Z. H. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: a critique. Journal of SustainableTourism, 11(6), 459e475.

Maloney, W. F., & Montes-Rojas, G. V. (2005). How Elastic are Sea, sand and sun?Dynamic panel estimates of the demand for tourism. Applied Economics Letters,12(5), 277e280.

Middleton, V. T. C., & Hawkins, R. (1998). Sustainable tourism: A marketingperspective. Oxford: Edition Butterworth-Heinemann.

Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism:results of a Delphi survey of tourism researches. Tourism Management, 22,351e362.

Papatheodorou, A. (1999). The demand for international tourism in the mediter-ranean region. Applied Economics, 31, 619e630.

Pearce, D. G. (2000). Tourism plan reviews: methodological considerations andissues from Samoa. Tourism Management, 21, 191e203.

Pearce, P., Moscardo, G., & Ross, G. (1996). Tourism community relationships. Oxford:Pergamon.

Perez-Ducy de Cuello, E. (2001). Financial leakages from tourism, evaluation andpolicy issues for LDCs. In UNLDC. (Ed.), Tourism in the least developed countries.Geneva: UNLDC.

Prescott-Allen, R. (1997). Barometer of sustainability: measuring and communi-cating wellbeing and sustainable development. In IUCN. (Ed.), An approach toassessing progress toward sustainability: Tools and training series for institutions,field teams and collaborating agencies. Gland: IUCN.

Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. (2003). Governmental responses to tourism development:three brazilian case studies. Tourism Management, 24, 97e110.

Rosensweig, J. A. (1988). Elasticities of substitution in Caribbean tourism. Journal ofDevelopment Economics, 29(1), 89e100.

Song, H., Romilly, P., & Liu, X. (2000). An empirical study of outbound tourism in theUK. Applied Economics, 32, 611e624.

Souty, F. (2003). Competition problems in the tourism sectors, studies in relation totrade negotiations on tourism services. In WTO. (Ed.), Studies in relation to tradenegotiations on tourism services. Madrid: WTO.

UNESCAP. (1991). The economic impact of tourism in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand.New York: UNESCAP.

Wells, M. P. (1997). Economic perspectives on nature tourism, conservation anddevelopment. Pollution and environmental economics division, environmentaleconomics series. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Tourism Organisation. (1995). What tourism managers need to know: Apractical guide to the development and use of indicators of sustainable tourism.Ottawa: Consulting and Audit Canada.

World Tourism OrganisationdInternational Working Group on Indicators ofSustainable Tourism (IWGIST). (1993). Indicators for the sustainable managementof tourism. Winnipeg: WTO.

World Tourism Organization. (1997). International tourism: A global perspective.Madrid: WTO.

World Tourism Organization. (1998). Guide for local authorities on developingsustainable tourism. Madrid: WTO.

World Tourism Organization. (2002). Enhancing the economic benefits of tourism forlocal communities and poverty alleviation. Madrid: WTO.

World Tourism Organization. (2011). Tourism highlights: Edition 2011. Madrid: WTO.

paths to success: benchmarking cross-country sustainable tourism

Documents