Hetty Claudia Nainggolan*
| Satia Negara | Isnen Fitri | Agus Purwoko
© 2025 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
Nature-based tourism in developing countries is increasingly vulnerable to environmental disruptions, socio-economic shocks, and institutional fragility. This study proposes and empirically validates a conceptual model of resilient ecotourism development aimed at enhancing community well-being in Bukit Lawang, Indonesia. The model integrates four key constructs: ecotourism development, tourism resilience, community-based governance, and community well-being. Using a quantitative approach, data were collected from 150 local stakeholders and analyzed with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results confirm that ecotourism development significantly improves community well-being both directly and indirectly through tourism resilience, with substantial explanatory power (R²=0.652). Community-based governance also contributes to resilience and equitable outcomes, although with a smaller direct effect. These findings highlight the strategic importance of integrating adaptive capacity and inclusive governance into sustainable tourism planning. The model offers practical insights for policymakers and tourism managers in fragile ecotourism destinations.
Bukit Lawang, community well-being, ecotourism, environmental, sustainable development, tourism resilience
Tourism has emerged as a key driver of global economic development, particularly in developing countries endowed with rich natural and cultural resources [1]. However, the rapid expansion of the tourism industry has also exposed its inherent vulnerability to external disruptions, including global crises, natural disasters, and pandemics [2]. The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, highlighted the urgent need for a paradigm shift—from growth-centric models to frameworks that prioritize resilience and sustainability in tourism management.
Ecotourism, as a form of nature-based tourism with ecological and social responsibility at its core, offers significant potential to promote environmental conservation and empower local communities [3]. Unlike conventional tourism, ecotourism emphasizes minimal environmental impact, active community involvement, and educational value. Nevertheless, in regions prone to environmental hazards such as flash floods, forest degradation, and climate-related disruptions, traditional ecotourism frameworks fall short in addressing systemic risks [4]. To remain viable, ecotourism destinations must adopt a resilient tourism perspective—one that integrates risk mitigation, climate change adaptation, and community preparedness into spatial and policy planning.
Bukit Lawang, located in Langkat Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia, serves as a prominent ecotourism destination and a critical conservation zone within the Gunung Leuser National Park [5]. Known for its unique biodiversity and the endangered Sumatran orangutan, the region attracts ecotourists from around the world. At the same time, Bukit Lawang faces recurrent ecological threats, notably flash floods in 2003 and 2015 that caused significant infrastructure and ecological damage [6]. These recurring shocks make Bukit Lawang a compelling case for exploring integrative models of resilient ecotourism development.
Existing literature on ecotourism predominantly addresses environmental conservation and community empowerment but often lacks a systematic conceptual integration of tourism resilience [7]. In the current era of environmental and social disruption, the long-term sustainability of ecotourism destinations hinges not only on conservation efforts but also on their capacity to anticipate, absorb, and adapt to external stressors [8]. Thus, there is a critical need to reconceptualize ecotourism development through the lens of resilience.
This article aims to develop and present a conceptual model for resilient ecotourism development in Bukit Lawang by integrating ecological, social, economic, and governance dimensions. The study contributes to bridging the knowledge gap in sustainable regional planning through a resilience-oriented tourism framework [9]. It also offers a foundational basis for future empirical research and strategic policy formulation aimed at enhancing both destination sustainability and community welfare.
2.1 Sustainable development
Sustainable development has become a fundamental paradigm in contemporary spatial planning and resource management. First popularized through Mkono and Hughes [10], the concept emphasizes meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. It encompasses four interrelated dimensions—economic, social, environmental, and cultural—which must be integrated into a balanced development strategy [11].
In ecotourism areas such as Bukit Lawang, sustainable development serves as a guiding framework for managing ecologically sensitive resources while fostering community participation and safeguarding environmental carrying capacity [12]. Rather than pursuing growth in isolation, development efforts in these contexts must embed long-term resilience against socio-environmental risks.
2.2 Ecotourism
Ecotourism is defined as responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of local people, and involves interpretation and education [13]. It seeks to integrate conservation goals with community-based development and economic empowerment, forming a multidimensional and participatory tourism model [14].
According to the Directorate General of Destination Development, key principles of ecotourism include conservation, education, local participation, and economic sustainability [15]. In Bukit Lawang, these principles are reflected in community-managed homestays, orangutan conservation programs, and environmental education for visitors [16]. However, the region also faces mounting ecological pressures due to ecosystem degradation and uncontrolled tourism flows—highlighting the need for adaptive management frameworks.
2.3 Resilient tourism
Resilient tourism refers to strategic approaches that enhance a destination’s capacity to adapt to, absorb, and recover from shocks such as natural disasters, climate change, and socio-economic crises [17]. Resilience in tourism goes beyond physical infrastructure; it encompasses community preparedness, local economic diversification, and responsive governance systems.
This concept has gained increased relevance in the wake of global disruptions, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed the structural vulnerabilities of the global tourism sector [18]. Recent studies advocate for integrative models that combine disaster risk reduction, social resilience, and environmental adaptation within tourism planning.
In the context of Bukit Lawang, the flash floods of 2003 and 2015 underscore the urgency of embedding resilience into ecotourism systems [19]. A synthesis of ecotourism principles with resilience thinking is essential to ensure the continuity of the region as a sustainable destination and a functioning socio-ecological system.
2.4 Community well-being
Community well-being reflects the multidimensional quality of life encompassing economic prosperity, social cohesion, health, education, and safety [20]. Within tourism-based regional development, well-being is not limited to income generation but also involves local participation, agency, and cultural identity.
Inclusive and community-driven ecotourism can act as a catalyst for enhancing well-being through employment creation, local entrepreneurship, and cultural preservation [21]. However, overdependence on tourism heightens vulnerability during crises, necessitating resilient and diversified development models to sustain community welfare over time.
2.5 Theoretical synthesis and conceptual linkages
The four theoretical pillars above collectively form the foundation for constructing a conceptual model of resilient ecotourism development [22]. Sustainable development serves as the overarching framework that binds the ecological, social, economic, and institutional elements of tourism planning. Ecotourism provides the operational platform through which conservation and community empowerment are realized. Resilient tourism introduces a critical adaptive layer that enables destinations to withstand disruptions and recover efficiently. Meanwhile, community well-being functions as the ultimate objective, achievable only when sustainability and resilience are implemented in tandem.
Accordingly, ecotourism destinations like Bukit Lawang require integrated design models that go beyond conservation to encompass crisis-readiness and equitable community development. A robust conceptual framework must therefore synthesize these dimensions to support long-term viability and inclusive growth in socio-ecologically fragile regions.
The conceptual model developed in this study is grounded in an interdisciplinary synthesis of four major theoretical pillars: sustainable development, ecotourism, tourism resilience, and community well-being. These frameworks are integrated to explain how ecotourism-based development in socio-ecologically sensitive areas can foster long-term community welfare while maintaining adaptive capacity to external shocks.
Sustainable development serves as the overarching paradigm that balances ecological integrity, social equity, and economic viability. Ecotourism, as a practical application of this paradigm, emphasizes environmentally responsible tourism that actively involves and benefits local communities. Meanwhile, the theory of tourism resilience introduces a critical dimension of risk adaptation, particularly relevant for destinations prone to environmental and socio-economic disturbances [23]. Finally, community well-being is positioned as the ultimate outcome of tourism development, encompassing not only economic gains but also social empowerment, cultural preservation, and safety. Building on these perspectives, the model proposes four interlinked constructs:
The hypothesized relationships among these constructs are illustrated in Figure 1. Ecotourism Development is expected to enhance Community Well-being both directly and indirectly through Tourism Resilience. Community-Based Governance is hypothesized to positively influence Tourism Resilience and Community Well-being either directly or indirectly as an enabling mechanism. Although Community-Based Governance and Tourism Resilience share common features such as participatory planning and stakeholder involvement, each represents a distinct theoretical construct. Community-Based Governance refers explicitly to institutional frameworks, transparent decision-making processes, accountability, and collaborative mechanisms involving various stakeholders. In contrast, Tourism Resilience focuses on adaptive capacity, preparedness, and the ability of tourism systems and communities to effectively respond to disruptions like natural disasters, economic crises, and environmental threats. Governance thus serves primarily as a structural enabler, while resilience emphasizes dynamic and operational adaptability. Clearly differentiating these constructs enables more precise theoretical definitions and targeted policy actions.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of resilient ecotourism development
This model provides a testable framework for empirical validation using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), allowing for the evaluation of both direct and mediated pathways through which tourism development affects local communities in vulnerable ecotourism areas such as Bukit Lawang.
Despite the significant focus on resilience and sustainability in the ecotourism literature, there are still significant gaps in the integration of these concepts into practical, empirically tested models. Existing resilience tourism frameworks often emphasize theoretical or descriptive knowledge, but rarely validate multidimensional constructs through robust empirical methods such as modeling structural equations. In addition, the nuanced interplay between governance structures, resilience mechanisms, and community well-being remains understudied, especially in socio-ecologically vulnerable destinations such as Bukit Lawang. This study addresses these gaps explicitly by empirically testing a conceptual model that combines the development, resilience, community leadership, and well-being of ecotourism, contributing to both theoretical improvements and practical guidance for sustainable tourism management.
4.1 Research design
This study employs a quantitative explanatory research design aimed at validating a conceptual model of resilient ecotourism development [24]. The objective is to empirically examine the hypothesized causal relationships among four latent constructs: Ecotourism Development, Tourism Resilience, Community-Based Governance, and Community Well-being.
Given the interrelated and multidimensional nature of these constructs, SEM is adopted as the primary analytical technique. Specifically, PLS-SEM is utilized due to its suitability for theory development and its robustness with relatively small to moderate sample sizes. In addition, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is applied to evaluate the measurement model in terms of reliability and construct validity. The research design follows a deductive logic, progressing from theoretical hypotheses to empirical validation, and allows for the simultaneous testing of both direct and indirect relationships among variables.
4.2 Population and sampling
The study is conducted in Bukit Lawang, Langkat Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia—a well-known ecotourism destination with high socio-ecological sensitivity. The target population consists of local stakeholders directly involved in tourism-related activities, such as homestay operators, tour guides, small business owners, and tourism managers.
A stratified purposive sampling method is employed to ensure balanced representation across stakeholder groups. While a minimum sample size of 200 respondents was originally targeted to ensure model robustness, a total of 150 valid responses were obtained due to time and logistical constraints [25]. This sample size remains acceptable for PLS-SEM analysis considering the complexity and context of the model.
4.3 Data collection
Primary data were collected through a structured questionnaire consisting of five main sections: (1) respondent demographics, (2) ecotourism development, (3) tourism resilience, (4) community-based governance, and (5) community well-being. Each construct was measured using a series of Likert-scale items (1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree), adapted from validated scales in prior studies and refined through expert consultation and a pilot test involving 30 respondents.
Ethical clearance was secured from the affiliated institution, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. The survey was administered face-to-face by trained enumerators to ensure accuracy and clarity in response interpretation across diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
4.4 Measurement of variables
The four latent variables in the model are operationalized through a series of validated indicators, each adapted from previous literature. First, ecotourism development is measured using items related to environmental conservation efforts, visitor education programs, community involvement, and preservation of local culture. Second, tourism resilience is measured through indicators of disaster preparedness, diversification of local income sources, risk management practices, and early warning mechanisms.
Third, community-based governance is captured through items reflecting participatory planning, transparency, partnership with local government and private actors, and accountability mechanisms [26]. Fourth, community well-being is operationalized through multidimensional measures of income adequacy, access to basic services (education and health), cultural pride, and perceived safety. All measurement items are subject to reliability and validity testing before inclusion in the SEM analysis.
4.5 Data analysis technique
Data analysis was performed in two major phases. First, the measurement model was assessed through CFA using SmartPLS 4.0 to evaluate convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted ≥0.50), composite reliability (CR ≥0.70), and indicator loadings (≥0.60). Discriminant validity was also examined to ensure construct independence.
Second, PLS-SEM was used to estimate the structural model and test the hypotheses. Evaluation criteria included path coefficients (β), t-statistics, p-values, R² values (explained variance), Q² values (predictive relevance), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) for model fit assessment. To assess mediation effects, a bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 resamples was employed to estimate the significance of indirect effects. All statistical outputs were interpreted at a significance level of p<0.05, unless otherwise specified.
4.6 Limitations
One of the limitations of this study is the relatively small sample size (n=150), which is below the threshold typically recommended for complex PLS-SEM models. Although PLS-SEM is resilient to smaller sample studies, this limitation may affect the generalizability and statistical power of the results. Future studies should consider replicating this study with larger and more diverse samples in order to strengthen the validity and applicability of the proposed model.
5.1 Respondent profile
The study involved 150 valid respondents representing stakeholders directly engaged in ecotourism activities in Bukit Lawang, including local residents, tourism entrepreneurs, destination managers, and community representatives. Most respondents were within the productive age range (25-45 years), had completed secondary or tertiary education, and were actively involved in tourism-related professions, such as homestay operators, tour guides, and small business owners. This demographic composition suggests a community with substantial engagement and awareness in the operational dynamics of the tourism sector.
5.2 Validity and reliability testing
Measurement validity and reliability were evaluated using CFA. As presented in Table 1, all standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.60, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values surpassed the 0.50 threshold, and Composite Reliability (CR) values were above 0.70, indicating adequate convergent validity and internal consistency.
Table 1. Convergent validity and composite reliability of constructs
|
Construct |
Item |
Factor Loading |
AVE |
CR |
Cronbach’s Alpha |
|
Ecotourism Development |
Environmental conservation efforts |
0.81 |
0.65 |
0.88 |
0.83 |
|
|
Visitor education programs |
0.78 |
|
|
|
|
|
Local community participation |
0.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
Preservation of local culture |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
Tourism Resilience |
Disaster preparedness measures |
0.84 |
0.67 |
0.89 |
0.85 |
|
|
Income diversification |
0.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk management practices |
0.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
Early warning mechanisms |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
Community-Based Governance |
Participation in decision-making |
0.82 |
0.66 |
0.89 |
0.85 |
|
|
Transparency and inclusiveness |
0.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
Effective partnerships |
0.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accountability of community leaders |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
Community Well-being |
Income adequacy |
0.81 |
0.68 |
0.89 |
0.85 |
|
|
Access to essential services (education, health) |
0.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cultural pride |
0.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
Perceived community safety |
0.82 |
|
|
|
5.3 Structural model assessment
The structural model was assessed using PLS-SEM via SmartPLS. As shown in Table 2, the model demonstrated an acceptable fit with predictive relevance. The R² value for Community Well-being was 0.652, and for Tourism Resilience, it was 0.601—indicating moderate to strong explanatory power. The SRMR was below the 0.08 threshold, and the Q² value was greater than zero, indicating predictive relevance.
Table 2. Structural model evaluation
|
Evaluation Indicator |
Value |
Criterion |
|
R²–Community Well-being |
0.652 |
Moderate–Strong |
|
R²–Tourism Resilience |
0.601 |
Moderate |
|
Q²–Predictive Relevance |
>0 |
Predictive |
|
SRMR–Model Fit |
<0.08 |
Acceptable Fit |
5.4 Hypothesis testing
All hypothesized relationships were statistically significant at p <0.001, with t-statistics exceeding the minimum threshold of 1.96. The strongest effect was observed between Ecotourism Development and Tourism Resilience (H2), followed by the effect of Ecotourism Development on Community Well-being (H1). Full results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Hypothesis testing results
|
Hypothesis |
Relationship |
Path Coefficient (β) |
T-Statistic |
P-Value |
Conclusion |
|
H1 |
Ecotourism Development→Community Well-being |
0.422 |
6.714 |
<0.001 |
Supported |
|
H2 |
Ecotourism Development→Tourism Resilience |
0.487 |
7.136 |
<0.001 |
Supported |
|
H3 |
Tourism Resilience→Community Well-being |
0.316 |
4.831 |
<0.001 |
Supported |
|
H4 |
Community-Based Governance→Tourism Resilience |
0.293 |
3.987 |
<0.001 |
Supported |
|
H5 |
Community-Based Governance→Community Well-being |
0.210 |
2.674 |
<0.01 |
Supported |
5.5 Mediation analysis and total effects
A mediation analysis revealed that Tourism Resilience partially mediates the relationship between Ecotourism Development and Community Well-being. This indicates that the development of ecotourism enhances well-being not only directly but also indirectly by strengthening the adaptive and crisis-response capacities of the tourism system. The mediation was confirmed through bootstrapping procedures, where the indirect effect was significant at p<0.001.
In addition to testing the direct relationships, a mediation analysis was carried out to investigate the indirect effects of the conceptual model. Specifically, the indirect impact of community-based governance on community well-being through tourism resilience (governance →resilience →well-being) was evaluated using a boot procedure of 5,000 repeat samples. The results showed a statistically significant indirect effect, confirming that tourism resilience partially mediates the link between community-based management and community well-being. This finding highlights the critical role of resilience-building measures as an important intermediary through which participatory leadership impacts community outcomes. Future research should further explore this mediated pathway to improve our understanding of the resilience mechanisms of tourism-dependent communities.
5.6 Key findings
This study produced several important findings. First, Ecotourism Development significantly influences Community Well-being (β=0.422, p<0.001) and is the strongest predictor of Tourism Resilience (β=0.487, p<0.001). Second, Tourism Resilience significantly enhances Community Well-being and acts as a partial mediator in the relationship between Ecotourism Development and Well-being. Third, Community-Based Governance supports resilience and equity in benefit distribution, with a moderate but statistically significant effect on both dependent variables. These findings validate the theoretical model and reinforce the importance of resilience and participatory governance as enabling factors in sustainable ecotourism planning.
This study empirically supports the proposed model, confirming that Ecotourism Development directly and indirectly enhances Community Well-being via Tourism Resilience [27]. The results reinforce the theoretical foundation that sustainable and participatory tourism development must be complemented by resilience-building efforts to yield meaningful and long-lasting socio-economic outcomes.
6.1 Ecotourism development as a direct driver of well-being
The findings demonstrate a strong and statistically significant relationship between Ecotourism Development and Community Well-being (β=0.422, p<0.001) [28]. This reinforces prior research suggesting that ecotourism—when rooted in environmental stewardship and local engagement—can be a multidimensional tool for improving income, strengthening cultural identity, and fostering community cohesion.
In Bukit Lawang, ecotourism practices such as homestays, wildlife conservation tours, and environmental education initiatives have tangibly enhanced livelihoods and local pride. These outcomes highlight the centrality of sustainable and inclusive tourism in driving socio-economic advancement [29]. However, the magnitude and durability of these benefits are contingent upon the institutional and environmental context in which ecotourism operates.
6.2 The mediating role of tourism resilience
One of the key findings is the partial mediation effect of Tourism Resilience in the relationship between Ecotourism Development and Community Well-being [30]. The indirect pathway was significant (β_indirect >0, p<0.001 via bootstrapping), suggesting that development efforts yield greater social returns when integrated with adaptive mechanisms such as disaster preparedness and income diversification.
This echoes Lu et al. [31], who argue that resilience is not merely a protective factor, but a strategic enabler in volatile environments. For Bukit Lawang, which has suffered recurrent flash floods (2003, 2015), resilience is vital to safeguarding both infrastructure and socio-economic systems. The results validate that the presence of early warning systems, risk communication, and redundant livelihood sources strengthens the continuity of tourism-derived welfare.
6.3 Community-based governance as a structural enabler
Although the direct effect of Community-Based Governance on Community Well-being is relatively modest (β=0.210, p<0.01), its influence on Tourism Resilience is more pronounced (β=0.293, p<0.001) [32]. This supports the notion that governance does not act in isolation but serves as a structural enabler for adaptive capacity and benefit distribution.
In Bukit Lawang, village-level tourism cooperatives and multi-stakeholder partnerships have fostered social trust, local ownership, and transparency—elements critical for institutional resilience [33]. While governance may yield slower direct economic returns, it lays the foundation for long-term stability and equitable development.
6.4 Theoretical contributions
This study contributes to theoretical development by offering an integrated model that combines sustainability, resilience, community-based governance, and well-being into a coherent framework [34]. The validation of partial mediation through Tourism Resilience advances current understanding of how complex interactions among constructs manifest in real-world settings.
The model’s empirical robustness—evidenced by Q²>0 (predictive relevance), SRMR <0.08 (model fit), and R²=0.652 for community well-being—demonstrates its potential applicability across other ecotourism contexts [35]. It also emphasizes that governance and resilience are not passive variables but active dimensions shaping developmental outcomes under conditions of uncertainty.
6.5 Practical and policy implications
From a policy perspective, the findings suggest that interventions should go beyond physical development and address the systemic factors that mediate tourism outcomes [36]. Investments should be directed toward:
In particular, strengthening community-based governance not only improves trust and accountability but also acts as a lever to enhance destination resilience [37]. This dual approach—combining environmentally responsible development with adaptive institutional mechanisms—can help transform ecotourism into a proactive and resilient pathway for sustainable regional growth.
In integrating the findings of this study into strategies, policymakers and local tourism managers should consider the following specific recommendations:
6.5.1 Establishing community-based ecotourism committees
Establishing structured governance bodies that include local residents, tourism operators, conservation experts and local government representatives. These committees should ensure inclusive decision-making, transparency and equitable distribution of ecotourism benefits.
6.5.2 Implementing resilience training programmed
Organizing regular training seminars that focus on disaster preparedness, risk management and sustainable tourism practices. Modules should cover crisis response strategies, the use of early warning systems and livelihood diversification to reduce reliance on tourism alone.
6.5.3 Building local capacity through education and certification
Establishing certification programmed for ecotourism operators, guides and accommodation providers to improve service quality, environmental awareness and visitor education. Certified training should cover conservation techniques, cultural heritage management, visitor engagement and safety protocols.
6.5.4 Develop integrated risk management systems
Invest in early warning and integrated risk communication systems that provide timely and accurate information about potential environmental and socio-economic disruptions. Such systems should be integrated into community structures and regularly tested through simulation exercises.
This study demonstrates that ecotourism development significantly enhances community well-being when supported by community-based governance and strengthened through tourism resilience. The findings validate a conceptual model in which resilience partially mediates the relationship between development initiatives and social outcomes, highlighting the importance of adaptive capacity in vulnerable destinations like Bukit Lawang. With acceptable model fit and predictive relevance, the research advances the integration of sustainability, governance, and resilience in tourism planning. Practically, the study emphasizes that resilient ecotourism requires not only environmental stewardship but also inclusive governance and proactive risk management. Future research may expand this framework to other ecotourism settings and incorporate longitudinal approaches to assess long-term community adaptation.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Universitas Sumatera Utara for providing the facilities and institutional support for this research. Special appreciation is extended to the research team and local collaborators in Bukit Lawang for their valuable contributions during the fieldwork and data collection process.
Measurement Items for Latent Constructs
[1] Lee, S.W., Xue, K. (2020). A model of destination loyalty: Integrating destination image and sustainable tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(4): 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1713185
[2] Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Ramakrishna, S., Hall, C.M., Esfandiar, K., Seyfi, S. (2023). A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(7): 1497-1517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621
[3] Fotis, P., Korre, M. (2023). The relationship between competition, tourism and sustainable development: Three interdependent topics. Journal of Research, Innovation and Technologies, 2(1): 70-78. https://doi.org/10.57017/jorit.v2.1(3).06
[4] Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Mäntymäki, M. (2020). Bibliometric analysis and literature review of ecotourism: Toward sustainable development. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37: 100777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100777
[5] Xu, F., Nash, N., Whitmarsh, L. (2019). Big data or small data? A methodological review of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(2): 144-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1631318
[6] Erul, E., Woosnam, K.M., McIntosh, W.A. (2020). Considering emotional solidarity and the theory of planned behavior in explaining behavioral intentions to support tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(8): 1158-1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1726935
[7] Han, H. (2021). Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: A review of theories, concepts, and latest research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(7): 1021-1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1903019
[8] Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Nunkoo, R., Dhir, A. (2022). Digitalization and sustainability: Virtual reality tourism in a post pandemic world. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(11): 2564-2591. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2029870
[9] Wang, S., Wang, J., Li, J., Yang, F. (2019). Do motivations contribute to local residents’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviors? Resident-destination relationship and pro-environmental climate perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(6): 834-852. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1707215
[10] Mkono, M., Hughes, K. (2020). Eco-guilt and eco-shame in tourism consumption contexts: Understanding the triggers and responses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(8): 1223-1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1730388
[11] Phelan, A., Ruhanen, L., Mair, J. (2020). Ecosystem services approach for community-based ecotourism: Towards an equitable and sustainable blue economy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(10): 1665-1685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1747475
[12] Megeirhi, H.A., Woosnam, K.M., Ribeiro, M.A., Ramkissoon, H., Denley, T.J. (2020). Employing a value-belief-norm framework to gauge Carthage residents’ intentions to support sustainable cultural heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(9): 1351-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1738444
[13] Le, N., Vo, Q.N., Bui, T.T., Vu, L.Q. (2025). Determinants of green travel intention: The interplay of green marketing strategies and subjective norms. Challenges in Sustainability, 13(1): 78-96. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis130106
[14] Woosnam, K.M., Stylidis, D., Ivkov, M. (2020). Explaining conative destination image through cognitive and affective destination image and emotional solidarity with residents. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(6): 917-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1708920
[15] Roxas, F.M.Y., Rivera, J.P.R., Gutierrez, E.L.M. (2018). Framework for creating sustainable tourism using systems thinking. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(3): 280-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1534805
[16] Cheer, J.M. (2020). Human flourishing, tourism transformation and COVID-19: A conceptual touchstone. Tourism Geographies, 22(3): 514-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1765016
[17] Joo, D., Woosnam, K.M., Strzelecka, M., Boley, B.B. (2019). Knowledge, empowerment, and action: Testing the empowerment theory in a tourism context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(1): 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1675673
[18] Ramkissoon, H. (2020). Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: A new conceptual model. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(2): 442-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1858091
[19] Sharma, R., Gupta, A. (2020). Pro-environmental behaviour among tourists visiting national parks: Application of value-belief-norm theory in an emerging economy context. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(8): 829-840. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1774784
[20] Grilli, G., Tyllianakis, E., Luisetti, T., Ferrini, S., Turner, R.K. (2020). Prospective tourist preferences for sustainable tourism development in small island developing states. Tourism Management, 82: 104178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104178
[21] Sheller, M. (2020). Reconstructing tourism in the Caribbean: Connecting pandemic recovery, climate resilience and sustainable tourism through mobility justice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(9): 1436-1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1791141
[22] Ahmad, W., Kim, W.G., Anwer, Z., Zhuang, W. (2020). Schwartz personal values, theory of planned behavior and environmental consciousness: How tourists’ visiting intentions towards eco-friendly destinations are shaped? Journal of Business Research, 110: 228-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.040
[23] Wondirad, A., Tolkach, D., King, B. (2020). Stakeholder collaboration as a major factor for sustainable ecotourism development in developing countries. Tourism Management, 78: 104024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104024
[24] Nguyen, T.D., Nguyen, N.T., Thanh, N.N. (2024). Factors affecting sustainable tourism development: Evidence from the central highlands of Vietnam. Sage Open, 14(2): 21582440241240816. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241240816
[25] Bauer, G.R., Churchill, S.M., Mahendran, M., Walwyn, C., Lizotte, D., Villa-Rueda, A.A. (2021). Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM-Population Health, 14: 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798
[26] Mueller, A.V., Eden, M.J., Oakes, J.M., Bellini, C., Fernandez, L.A. (2020). Quantitative method for comparative assessment of particle removal efficiency of fabric masks as alternatives to standard surgical masks for PPE. Matter, 3(3): 950-962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.07.006
[27] Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). The “war over tourism”: Challenges to sustainable tourism in the tourism academy after COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(4): 551-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1803334
[28] Ioannides, D., Gyimóthy, S. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable global tourism path. Tourism Geographies, 22(3): 624-632. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763445
[29] Foo, L.P., Chin, M.Y., Tan, K.L., Phuah, K.T. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on tourism industry in Malaysia. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(19): 2735-2739. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1777951
[30] Font, X., Torres-Delgado, A., Crabolu, G., Martinez, J.P., Kantenbacher, J., Miller, G. (2021). The impact of sustainable tourism indicators on destination competitiveness: The European tourism indicator system. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(7): 1608-1630. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1910281
[31] Lu, J., Xiao, X., Xu, Z., Wang, C., Zhang, M., Zhou, Y. (2021). The potential of virtual tourism in the recovery of tourism industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(3): 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1959526
[32] Prayag, G. (2020). Time for reset? COVID-19 and tourism resilience. Tourism Review International, 24(2-3): 179-184. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427220X15926147793595
[33] Filimonau, V., De Coteau, D. (2019). Tourism resilience in the context of integrated destination and disaster management (DM2). International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(2): 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2329
[34] Bianchi, R.V., De Man, F. (2020). Tourism, inclusive growth and decent work: A political economy critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(2-3): 353-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1730862
[35] Sharpley, R. (2020). Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(11): 1932-1946. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1779732
[36] Wu, J., Font, X., Liu, J. (2020). Tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors: Moral obligation or disengagement? Journal of Travel Research, 60(4): 735-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520910787
[37] Li, Q., Wu, M. (2020). Tourists’ pro-environmental behaviour in travel destinations: Benchmarking the power of social interaction and individual attitude. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(9): 1371-1389. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1737091
