A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from two best practices in Southern Italy

Abstract

In recent years, travel habits, needs and desires have been gradually changing and influencing both demand and supply in the tourism industry. Macro-phenomena like the pandemic, the climate change with consequent environmental issues, and the digital turn have been introducing new trends and directions. In this view, the need of addressing tourism towards new itineraries is proving crucial for activating processes of regenerative tourism, which acts as a transformational approach and aims to identify the potential of places to create net positive effects. The focus of the paper is on marginalised areas, specifically on areas with low population density, distant from the main hotspots and endowed with significant environmental assets and cultural heritage. The paper chooses to employ the concept of regenerative tourism for investigating the conditions that foster and sustain the development of these communities. To this aim, the analysis of two Italian best practices is meant to provide a new approach to brand-identity, tourism and local industry in marginalised areas. The case of “Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi” (“Widespread Museum of the 5 Senses”) identifies new itineraries and builds new economies in a village in Sicily through the reconnection of the local community with its land. The case of “Sea Working Brindisi” reevaluates a marginalised area as a destination for nomad workers and works for the activation of innovative economies in the South of Italy. The analysis conducted will be based on online material (i.e. website, social media, journal articles) and literature review (when available). Based on this material, the paper will analyse the two cases along the value chain ecosystem-intuition-design-action-dissemination. The value chain will help identify the connection of each practice to the territory and to the local community as well as their potential to enhance the tourist attractiveness of the area. The analysis of the two successful cases, explored through the lens of regenerative tourism, has the merit to define the connection between regenerative tourism and the development of marginalised communities, providing directions to realise successful practices in other areas. The acknowledgment of the two cases as contemporary forms of tourism will help foster further practices and outline incentives that enhance tailored projects based on the uniqueness of each place.

Full text

TURISTICA
ITALIAN
JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Special Issue:
Travel and Tourism
Navigang Changes and
Challenges in a Post-
Pandemic World
32(1) - 2023
TIJT
YYYY
ISSN: 1974 - 2207

Travel and Tourism
Navigating Changes and Challenges in a
Post-Pandemic World

Fabrizio Antolini – Editor in Chief
Giovanni Ruggieri – Guest Editor
ISSN: 1974-2207. Scientific journal established in 1991/92 by Emilio Becheri.
https://www.turistica.it/journal/index.php/turistica
This work is protected by copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, including the rights to
translation, reprinting, the use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction via microfilms
or any other physical means, as well as transmission or storage and retrieval of information, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or any similar or dissimilar methods currently known or developed in
the future. The inclusion of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks,
etc. in this publication does not imply that these names are exempt from relevant protective laws and
regulations, and thus they are not free for general use, even in the absence of a specific statement to
that effect. The publisher, authors, and editors can assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be accurate and true as of the publication date. However, neither the publisher
nor the authors or editors provide any warranty, whether expressed or implied, regarding the material
contained herein or any errors or omissions that might be present. The publisher maintains a neutral
stance regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contents
Preface i
Fabrizio Antolini
Introduction ii
Giovanni Ruggieri
Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review (1-44)
Marco Platania
Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory
analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena” (45-70)
Fabio Forlani
Antonio Picciotti
Simone Splendiani
Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience
orientation (71-92)
Lorenza Gerardi
Fabiola Sfodera
Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European
Destinations (93-109)
Samuele Cesarini
Ivan Terraglia
Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An
Origin-Destination Matrix approach (110-127)
Caterina Sciortino
Ludovica Venturella
Stefano De Cantis
A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised
areas. Insights from two best practices in Southern Italy (128-149)
Matilde Ferrero
Irene Pinto
The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment,
involvement, loyalty attitudes, and environmentally responsible
behavior toward a cultural destination (150-176)
Roberta De Cicco
Mauro Dini
Ilaria Curina
Barbara Francioni
Marco Cioppi
How to cite 177
Volume reference 178

i
Preface
We proudly welcome you to our prestigious scientific journal, Turistica - Italian Journal of
Tourism. This publication represents a beacon of knowledge in the vast universe of tourism, offering
a unique opportunity to explore the challenges, innovations, and trends in this ever-changing industry.
Turistica is a publication of great tradition and prestige in tourism studies. Founded over thirty years
ago by Prof. Emilio Becheri, the journal has pioneered in promoting high-quality research and
providing a platform for exchanging ideas between academics, researchers, and tourism
professionals. His legacy of excellence continues to be our strength. We are aware of the importance
of the international perspective on tourism. For this reason, our journal is published in English,
allowing researchers, scholars, and professionals worldwide to access our content and contribute to
the global discussion on tourism. Turistica is a journal open to all who share our interest in tourism.
We welcome contributions from emerging researchers, industry experts and professionals eager to
share their findings, innovative solutions, and policy approaches. The diversity of perspectives
enriches our debate. I am honored to be president of SISTUR, and I guarantee my enthusiasm and
commitment to directing this journal, allowing us to deepen our understanding of tourism and
contribute to its sustainable growth. Our first issue is dedicated to the theme of resilience in tourism,
a topic of great importance in a world that continues to be plagued by challenges and changes. This
is just the beginning of our journey, and we expect to explore many other crucial issues in the coming
issues. We invite you to join us on this exciting journey of knowledge and discovery. Your voice is
crucial to the journal’s success. By contributing your articles, research, and experiences, we can all
help shape the future of tourism. We look forward to working with you and exploring the many facets
of tourism through the pages of Turistica - Italian Journal of Tourism.
Prof. Fabrizio Antolini
SISTUR - President
TURISTICA - Editor in Chief

ii
Introduction
Welcome to the “Tourism Resilience” special Italian Journal of Tourism issue. In a world marked
by dynamic changes, from the challenges posed by climate change to the recent disruptions caused
by the global pandemic, the tourism industry is continually evolving to adapt and recover. This special
issue focuses on various aspects of tourism resilience, drawing insights from research. The open
article Resilience Frameworks in Tourism Studies provides a literature review of resilience
frameworks. A comprehensive overview of the studies in this field is provided by summarising key
findings and research directions related to tourism resilience. This review is a valuable resource for
future research on resilience in the tourism sector. The following article examines cultural routes as
social innovation projects that promote tourism development in marginal areas. Cultural routes are
shown to have the potential to build resilience, and their role in preserving cultural heritage, fostering
community engagement, and driving economic growth is highlighted. Challenges in effectively
implementing these routes are also identified in the study. The concept of authenticity in historical art
cities is explored in Authenticity in Historical Art Cities. The study examines the correlation between
authenticity, cultural motivation, and loyalty, highlighting how mass tourism can threaten authenticity
and be employed as a strategy to build resilience in heritage cities. Destination managers can benefit
from the valuable insights the research provides, which aim to preserve cultural identity. Sustainable
Tourism and Resilience are connected. A Composite Index for European Destinations
comprehensively reviews sustainable tourism indicators in European Union (EU) countries. The
importance of sustainability in tourism and its impact on destination competitiveness are highlighted.
This study presents a framework for policymakers and stakeholders to make informed decisions on
resource allocation and policy development, emphasizing the importance of tailored approaches to
address specific destination challenges. Another investigation point is the proximity tourism in Spain,
focusing on how tourist flows changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It introduces the concept of
proximity tourism, emphasizing its relevance in a post-pandemic world and its potential to support
local destinations. The study utilizes an Origin-Destination Matrix approach to analyse tourism
dynamics within Spain. The Regenerative Tourism Approach for Marginalized Areas explores the
concept of regenerative tourism and its potential to transform marginalized areas. By examining two
best practices in Southern Italy, the paper illustrates how regenerative tourism can create net positive
effects by reinvigorating local communities and economies. It emphasizes these practices; role in
enhancing such areas tourist attractiveness. Finally, the last contribution focuses on the influence of
socio-demographic factors such as nationality, age, gender, and education on tourists’ attachment,
involvement, loyalty attitudes, and environmentally responsible behaviour toward a cultural Italian
destination. It sheds light on how these factors affect tourists; perceptions and behaviour, providing
valuable insights for cultural tourism marketing and management. Throughout this special issue, you
will find diverse perspectives and insights on tourism resilience, ranging from sustainability and
socio-demographic influences on regenerative tourism practices to the importance of authenticity in
heritage cities. We hope these contributions will inspire new approaches and strategies to navigate
the ever-changing landscape of the tourism industry.
Prof. Giovanni Ruggieri
Special Issue Editor

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
1
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 1-44
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 08.04.2023
Accepted: 05.06.2023
Published: 15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
Marco Platania
Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Palazzo delle Scienze
Corso Italia, 55 - Catania, Italy, marco.platania@unict.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-0965-8816
Abstract: In recent years, there has been an increased interest in studies on economic resilience. There
have been several contributions from scholars who have applied theoretical frameworks on various
social and economic fields. Among these is the subject of tourism. Using a traditional narrative style,
this paper summarises the main findings concerning resilience and tourism that have been published
in academic journals over recent years and it provides some critical reflections about the research
directions. For the selection of papers in this literature review, the author has considered those studies
that have analysed the relationships between tourism and resilience within a tourist destination, in a
framework of resistance and / or a recovery from shocks. The main results of this study will allow for
one to acquire a complete picture of the studies in this line of research. This may be useful for future
studies on resilience in the tourism sector.
Keywords: resilience; literature; review
JEL Codes: L83; Z32
1. Introduction
Tourism is often considered to be a useful tool for promoting economic and social development, but
at the same time, its strength can significantly influence the structures and the processes of ecosystems,
while deteriorating the natural resources that are non-renewable (Lacitignola et al., 2007). In addition, the
tourism industry is particularly sensitive to destabilising forces, such as war (Butler & Suntikul, 2012;
Mansfeld, 1999), together with the economic complexity that happens in the transition from a local market
to a global market (Holling, 2001; Milne & Ateljevic, 2010), as well as with natural occurring disasters
(Beeton, 2006; Ritchie 2004; Scott & Laws, 2005). However, some systems can demonstrate an ability to
adapt to these disturbances and this is an obvious characteristic of resilience (Buikstra et al., 2010;
Cumming et al., 2005; Gunderson, 2000; Magis, 2010; Plodinec, 2009).
The concept of resilience has emerged from the ecological sciences (Holling, 1973; Gunderson &
Holling, 2002). It has always attracted more attention among researchers for its usefulness as a framework
for understanding the abilities of a community to face crises and systemic shocks. As an interdisciplinary

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
2
concept, resilience has been applied to different contexts, such as communities (Maguire & Hagan, 2007),
human organisations (Sriskandarajah, et al., 2010) and industries (Cochrane, 2010). Resilience has also
been applied as a lens for understanding the responses to different types of changes (Benard, 2002),
including social traumas (Bonanno, 2004), environment deterioration (Berkes & Jolly, 2002), and
economic and political changes (Simmie & Martin, 2010).
Resiliency is the ability of a system (or a subject) to absorb disturbances and to learn and to adapt to
the turbulence in order to grow and become more dynamic (Holling 1973; Walker & Salt, 2012). Increasing
the adaptability of economic systems and the capacities of communities, and hence, the growth of resilience,
are necessary conditions in the light of fluctuating economies and global threats (such as climate changes
and the loss of biodiversity) (Berkes et al., 2008; Gallopin, 2006; Rockstrom et al., 2009). Moreover,
sustainable development is also one of the most common prescriptions for making a tourism destination
more resilient.
Tourist destinations and economic players of global tourism compare themselves with different
models of governance, when trying to deal with climate changes, demographic changes and economic
crises. While the possible paths of adaptation to these impacts have been extensively analysed in the
literature, in recent years, the number of studies has increased when addressing the complexities of the
governance of tourism, the development of destinations, as well as their management, all from the point of
view of resilience.
The aim of this work has been to assemble a review of the studies on the relationships between
resilience and tourism. In particular, the work will examine those studies that have analysed the external
shocks on tourist destinations, together with their effects on a particular territory, by reviewing conceptual
frameworks of resiliency, and thus, highlighting useful strategies in order to restart these tourist destinations.
The paper is structured as follows: the section about “Tourism and Resilience” names the principal
issues that are related to tourism Resilience research. The section “Literature Review” covers the existing
literature that has analysed the resilience of tourism destinations. The paper will be concluded with some
recommendations for further research.
The author hopes that the objectives and the results of the present study will be useful to future
researchers on the resilience of tourism sectors.
2. Tourism and Resilience
Tourism is increasingly characterised by dynamism and complexity. There are several factors that
contribute to this condition: globalisation, the development of technologies, transport, together with
changes in the labour markets. Such complexities are more evident when we consider a tourist destination
from a structural point of view. It can be understood as a system that is composed of a number of elements,
with different types of relationships (Baggio, 2008). A tourist destination is sensitive to several factors that
make it vulnerable to shocks. This would be a place-specific nature of the tourist activities, the dependency
on tourism as a primary livelihood, the marketing strategies of international tour operators, and the levels
of seasonality (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Knox & Marston, 2001). This sensitivity to the complexity of the
sector and the interrelationships between the different components of the system-destination, justify the
application of a resilience theory. This concept is useful for understanding how tourist destinations are able
to respond effectively and to adapt positively to sustainable development path, to increasing global changes
and disturbances (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Tyrrell & Johnston, 2008). However, the link between
resilience and sustainable development remains a fruitful evolving field of study. While sustainability is a

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
3
key point for tourism research, the concept of resilience is relatively young in the literature on tourism
development.
The resilience theory has been studied by many researchers in tourism sectors since the early 1990s
(Sheppard et al., 2014). The concept of resilience was initially analysed in terms of tourism market
fluctuations (O'Hare & Barrett, 1994) and the impacts of tourism on the environment (Nyström et al., 2000).
Subsequently, in the last decade, the resilient studies applied to destination tourism are increased. Scholarly
attention has focused on the resilience that is linked to climate and environmental changes, together with
the related sustainability issues in tourism (Klint et al., 2012), environmental disasters, and risk
management (Biggs et al., 2012a; Hall, 2010; Badoc-Gonzales et al., 2021), particularly in a spatial
perspective (Cochrane, 2010; Larsen et al., 2011). Most recently, an emerging stream of literature has been
examining those factors that enhance resilience in tourism governance systems.
This growing interest has manifested itself, in spite of some critical positions on Resilience conceptual
vagueness (Strunz, 2012). It has led to the development of discussions about the usefulness of theoretical
frameworks of resilience as a concept that is needed in order to study the impacts of tourism (Strickland-
Munro et al., 2010).
This reflection on resilience, when in relation to tourism and its sustainability, inevitably involves the
discussion of three important aspects. These would be the relationships that are observed between resilience
and tourist destinations (meant as systems), the relationships between communities and resilience, and
finally, the issues of vulnerability.
The social and economic impact that produces tourism in an area and in particular, in a destination, is
the result of a complex process of actions that stem crosswise, by tourists, by the host community, and by
the characteristics of the destination. These relationships have been illustrated by several authors (McMinn,
1998; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Faulkner & Russell, 1997). The features and the effects of this
complex system of relationships can easily be understood within theoretical frameworks, such as socio-
ecological systems (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). These outlooks allow for us to consider more carefully,
the fragility of a destination and the risks that are associated with the excessive pressures of tourism (Kerr,
1997; Nelson et al., 2007; Cheer et al., 2019). An analysis of tourism from within this systemic vision, also
allows for us to consider the nonlinearity of tourism, that is, its complex interactions with other internal
and external elements of the system, framing those issues in a theme of chaos and complexity (Farrell &
Twining Ward 2004 and 2005). It is precisely this aspect that represents the main differences between socio-
ecological resilience and the resilience of other forms of systems. It recognises the inevitability of changes
and embraces the transformation and the adaptation thereby, in order to address and manage the changes
(Hegney et al., 2007).
The second aspect to consider when addressing a study of resilience in tourism, concerns the
relationship between resilience and the community. This relationship is very important, because long-term
resilience plans that are placed in order to ensure strength cannot be practiced without an understanding of
the underlying socio-political processes (Cutter et al., 2000; Thomalla et al., 2006). In this sense, when
considering the relationships between resilience and tourism, the role of the host community also needs to
be analysed. It must be specified that resilience can be defined in both systemic and individual terms. When
in a relationship to individuals, resilience is seen as the ability to personally cope and recover from adversity.
It is embedded in clinical dimensions, development (children and youth resiliency), subjective well-being,
and the social aspects of a job (Sheppard & Williams, 2016). Resilience can be thought of as a mix of
personal and behavioural qualities, rather than specific characteristics (Ayala & Manzano, 2014), and as so,
it is an important quality for entrepreneurs (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003; Magnano et al., 2022).

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
4
Community resilience is the ability of community components to use internal resources in order to
guide their communities within a changing and precarious environment (Berkes & Ross, 2013). Thus,
community resilience concepts refer to the ability of communities to cope with stress, overcome adversity,
and to positively adapt and to recover from negative experiences. This can all be the result of learning and
experience.
In the context of community resilience, the ability to recover can be considered through economic,
ecological, social, and institutional dimensions (Berkes & Ross, 2013; Martini & Platania, 2021; Paton &
Johnston, 2001). For the governments of a resilient territory, the governance of the destination must support
the preparation of "noise", through the creation and the maintenance of diversity (e.g. by strengthening the
decentralised processes of social learning). It must respond to disturbances by creating and maintaining
flexibility (e.g. by strengthening the central collective actions). Therefore, the amount of resilience in a
community can be determined by the capacities of the community to buffer unexpected disruptions (Adger,
2000), its ability to self-organise (Walker et al., 2004), and its learning and the adaption of its abilities
(Folke, 2006). A high degree of a combination of all of these elements leads to higher levels of persistence
and a robustness of the system (such as tourism) (Folke 2006). The “Experiences of Community-Based
Tourism” (CBT) is an example that these communities can improve their living conditions, without
disappearing and without irreversibly damaging the environment (Musavengane & Kloppers, 2020;
Cáceres-Feria et al., 2021). The aims of CBT are multiple and ambitious: “community” empowerment and
ownership, a conservation of natural and cultural resources, social and economic development, and quality
visitor experiences” (Hiwasaki, 2006, p.677). The pressure of tourism on a community could enable a
society to pass from an unstable economy to a stable economy, but it would be necessary that this
development remains characterised by the so-called "triple bottom line", in which policies and actions
attempt to balance the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits (Hall & Lew, 2009). This
attention to detail is vital for communities in order to protect and promote what is precious and essential
for their survival (Amir et al., 2015).
Studies on resilience are complementary to vulnerability, which is an important issue in tourism
sectors, especially with respect to climate changes (Batabyal, 2016; Moreno & Becken, 2009; Nyaupane
& Chhetri, 2009). According to Turner, vulnerability is “the degree to which a system, a subsystem, or a
system component, is likely to experience harm, due to exposures to a hazard, either as a perturbation or a
stress/stressor” (Turner et al., 2003: 8074). In this definition, it is evident that there are links with resilience.
Other authors have identified vulnerability according to the following factors: (1) exposure, which is
the degree of risk that a system faces from natural disasters; (2) sensitivity, which is a system’s ability to
defend itself against disasters; and (3) an adaptive capacity, which is a system’s ability to recover from
extreme events (Adger, 2006; Cutter et al., 2000; Gabriel-Campos et al., 2021; Gallopìn, 2006; Tsao & Ni,
2016; Turner et al., 2003). In addition, for Cochrane (2010), a resilience theory is a framework and “it is
possible to analyse the factors which cause vulnerability in systems and by extension, the factors which
can enhance their capacity to absorb disturbances”. In this way, the two frameworks then appear
complementary. According to other studies, these two approaches differ substantially (Becken, 2013). It
could be a resilience study on complex systems, with more emphasis on the size of social and governance
aspects (Miller et al., 2010). As Becken (2013) clarified, the goal of resilience is to increase robustness in
a dynamic sense, rather than to support stability. In contrast, studies on vulnerability have focused primarily
on a reduction of vulnerability for specific groups (Nelson et al., 2007) and they have tried to understand
the causes and the dimensions of the phenomena. In addition, considerations on vulnerabilities often result
in managerial aspects that are related to the management of shocks, regardless of the development paths

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
5
that are undertaken by destinations (Cioccio & Michael 2007).
3. Literature Review of Tourism and Resilience
3.1. Aims and significance of the review
The aim of this paper is to present a review of the research that has considered the behaviour of tourist
destinations in the face of shocks of a different nature, and to investigate those effects in terms of the
resilience of community, of the economic actors or of tangible and intangible resources.
The significance of this review is threefold: first, despite the fact that the effect of a shock on a touristic
destination in the resilience framework has been recognized, a systematic literature review in resilience and
tourism is long overdue. By mapping what is known, this review allows to identify gaps and opportunities
for future research. Second, this review advances existing understanding of the different mode of the
resilience framework is applied on the touristic destination behavior in front to change.
Third, the resilience framework is strictly related to sustainable development. The different approach
presented in the review are usefull to have a complete picture of the implemented policies to deal with the
crisis and the change.
3.2 Methodology
There are three different kind of literature review methodology: systematic review, meta-analysis and
traditional. In this paper we use the last one, the traditional narrative style, which can summarize, explain
and interpret evidence on a particular topic/question, because the method is more malleable and hence
comprehensive (Mays et al., 2005).
A search on major citation databases (Web of Science and Scopus) (van der Zee and Vanneste, 2015),
by using appropriate keywords (“resilience” AND “tourism” in keyword field), returned more of 580
entries. We next considered only studies before the 2022 (from 2021), published in referred journal articles
in economics, sociology, management, finance, ecology and environmental areas. Regarding the period,
following Modica and Reggiani (2015), that state in the 1980s and 1990s economic resilience did not
receive the level of scientific attention, we decide to consider the contribution over the last 15 years. The
results of this selection are 207 (web of science) + 271 articles (scopus) that were published between 2007
and 2021. This underlines the popularity of this topic and the growing academic interest for its applications
in the field of tourism. We next considered only studies on the resilience of tourism destinations, excluding
literature review articles. Finally, we consider only 186 articles.
In order to simplify the reading, the articles have been organised into subject areas. The topics that
have been reviewed and a list of the references are provided in Tables 1-6. The section order was designed
as being a logical way to follow the structures of the papers on resilience.
4. Review findings
4.1 Theoretical Framework on Resilience
The first elements to classify the different studies were related to the theoretical reflections on the
resilience definition (table 1). A first consideration that must be made is that several studies lacked a clear

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
6
theoretical framework, which refers to one of the different interpretations of resiliency that was presented
at the beginning of this paper. This theoretical clarity was also evident in another way. Many of the studies
have had no clear theoretical approaches and for this reason they were not of an immediate or easy
arrangement.
The first group of authors set the study of tourism destinations within the Socio-Ecological Systems
(SES) theory (Folke et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2006). They analysed resilience, as was stated by Holling,
in since it was a measurement of the abilities of a system to persist in the presence of changes and
disturbances (Holling, 1973). The need to refer to the SES theory would seem to be connected, for some
authors, to the studies of community resilience that were related to the tourist phenomena (Ruiz-Ballesteros,
2011). This is no surprise, because tourist destinations are the first examples of a SES theory, in which the
interactions between resources, both social (including economic) and natural, can take many different
configurations (Alvarez & Cortes-Vazquez, 2020; Becken, 2013). In this sense, references to the SES
theory allow for one to explore the ability of socio-ecological systems to face, proactively, unexpected
changes.
According to Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011), the framework that relate to the SES theory has identified four
factors that can influence the development of resilience in a tourist community. They concern living next
to the changes and the uncertainties, the support diversities for reorganisation and renewal, combinations
of different knowledge, and the creation of opportunities for self- organisation. The nourishment of these
factors strengthens the SES theory and reduces the vulnerability (Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011). For Larsen et al.
(2011), a link to the SES theory was also necessary for when the roles of the stakeholders in a tourism
destination agency are deepened. These authors, in fact, refer to the conventional epistemology of social–
ecological systems, in which a stakeholder agency is perceived as a practice of individuals or groups (the
‘informal’ domain) that relate to institutional structures (the formal domain).

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
7
Table 1. Summary of the arguments and the articles that have been reviewed - Theoretical
Frameworks on Resilience.
Subject Areas
References
Resilience and
Socio-Ecological
Systems (SES)
Alvarez & Cortes-Vazquez (2020); Araral (2013); Bangwayo-Skeete & Skeete (2021);
Becken (2013); Bui et al. (2020); Diaz-Aguilar & Escalera-Reyes (2020); Espeso-
Molinero & Pastor-Alfonso (2020); Felicetti (2016); Hassan et al. (2019); Jones et al.,
(2011); Kim et al. (2017); King et al., 2021; Kutzner (2019); Larsen et al., (2011);
Prayag et al. (2020); Roca Bosch & Villares Junyent (2014); Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011);
Ruiz-Ballesteros & Tejedor (2020); Stotten (2021); Uddin et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2015); Weis et al. (2021).
Community
Resilience
Almeida-Garcia et al. (2020); Amir et al., (2015); Bakas (2017); Bec et al., (2016);
Caceres-Feria et al. (2021); Cahyanto et al. (2021a); Cerquetti & Cutrini (2021);
Erdmenger (2019); Gabriel-Campos et al. (2021); Guo et al. (2018); Helgadottir et al.
(2019); Lee et al. (2021); Matarrita-Cascante & Trejos (2013); Musavengane (2019);
Musavengane & Kloppers (2020); Pilquiman-Vera et al. (2020); Posch et al. (2019);
Powell et al. (2018); Pyke et al. (2018); Sheppard & Williams (2016); Sisneros-Kidd
et al. (2019); Stotten et al. (2021); Sydnor-Bousso et al., (2011); Torres-Alruiz et al.
(2018); Wakil et al. (2021); Yang et al. (2021a); Yang et al., (2021b).
Organisational
Resilience
Bhaskara & Filimonau (2021); Biggs et al., (2015); Chowdhury et al. (2019); Dahles
& Susilowati (2015); Mandal et al. (2021); Melian-Alzola et al. (2020); Njuguna et al.
(2021); Orchiston et al., (2016); Pathak & Joshi (2021); Senbeto & Hon (2020).
Resilience and
Sustainability
Awedyk & Niezgoda (2018); Badoc-Gonzales et al. (2021); Barata-Salgueiro &
Guimarães (2020); Chen et al. (2021); Cheung & Li (2019); Choi et al. (2021); Coghlan
& Prideaux (2009); Holladay & Powell (2013); Hu et al. (2021); Jimenez-Medina et
al. (2021); Keahey (2019); Lambert et al., (2010); Sheppard & Williams (2017); Sobaih
et al. (2021).
Resilience and
Vulnerability
Breiling (2021); Brown et al. (2018); Calgaro & Lloyd (2008); Espiner & Becken
(2014); Filimonau & De Coteau (2020); Kim & Marcouiller (2015); Liu-Lastres et al.
(2020); Mackay & Spencer (2017); McCartney et al. (2021); Pyke et al., (2016); Pyke
et al., (2021); Tsao & Ni (2016); van der Veeken et al. (2016).
Source: Author elaboration
In this theoretical space, the relationship between SES and the stakeholders present in the area is very
interesting. Ruiz-Ballesteros & Tejedor (2020) argues that in order to understand the effect of community-
based tourism (CBT) on sustainability, the resilience framework is useful as a theoretical-methodological
resource suitable for this purpose. The authors focus on two elements related to CBT: (1) diversification of
productive activities; and (2) collective participation in tourism, thus highlighting the contribution of CBT
to the resilience of the socio-ecosystem and its coherence.
There was also an agreement in the SES theory literature that regions are an appropriate scale for
improving ecological and social resilience (Yorque et al., 2002). Jones et al. (2011), in particular, starting
the definition of social resilience and defined regional resilience as the capacity of a region to cope with
disturbances and changes. It was also said that regional planning that was focused on the development of
tourism required careful consideration. This thoughtfulness was because of the diversity of the groups that

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
8
are affected by tourism, the organisational requirements of a destination over time, and the wide range of
areas which are affected by the various changing circumstances (Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005; Schianetz
et al., 2007). Resilience within the SES theory derives a line of study that considers the resilience of
communities to long-term structural changes that are driven by tourism (see for example Amir et al., 2015;
Bec et al., 2016; Sheppard & Williams, 2016; Sydnor-Bousso et al., 2011). Community resilience is often
defined in terms of the physical infrastructure, together with the economic and community resources that
are able to respond to adversity (Sheppard & Williams, 2016; Paton & Johnston, 2001). Community
resilience explores the opportunities that can emerge from changes (Berkes & Ross, 2013) and it integrates
both the social and environmental systems, drawing from the socio-ecological interpretations of resilience
(Magis, 2010). Caceres-Feria et al. (2021) illustrate the relationship between community, resilience and
tourism through CBT, an activity which, if organized and managed locally, can help to cope with the crisis
and support recovery processes. Close to the resilience of communities, we found some studies that showed
the resilience of community organisations. The term “organisational resilience” has emerged as an
important concept in disaster management literature (McManus, et al., 2008; Smit & Wandel, 2006). It
refers to the capacity of organisations to adapt to disturbances and to seize the opportunities that emerge
from the changed environment. The studies of Biggs et al. (2015) on the resilience of coral reef tourism
enterprises, Orchiston et al. (2016) on tourist sectors, and Pathak & Joshi (2021) on the relationship
between psychological capital and organizational resilience during COVID-19, have been examples. The
fourth group of studies have explored some aspects of community resilience and they have analysed the
relationships between resilience and sustainability. A definition of sustainable development for tourism-
based communities is the “triple bottom line”, in which policies balance the social, economic and
environmental costs, together with the benefits (Hall & Lew, 2009). Sustainable development is one of the
most required assumptions for making a community more resilient, that is, a sustainable community is
more resilient than a community that has not adopted significant sustainable development policies.
Sustainability is referred to both destinations as a whole and in parts of it. Holladay & Powell (2013), in
some communities in the Commonwealth of Dominica, have examined the resilience and the sustainability
of community tourism development. Lambert et al. (2010) have shown that changes may affect the
sustainability of whale-watching operators, from a resilience perspective, while Coghlan & Prideaux (2009)
studied health and the resilience of reef ecosystems. Awedyk & Niezgoda (2018) propose new resilience
planning techniques relevant to the implementation of sustainable development, which include scenario
planning for the development of future strategies, for more dynamic activities, in regions that attract large
numbers of tourists. Vulnerability and its relationships with resilience has been another line of study. In
these researches, a theoretical approach that was based on the need to study the vulnerability of tourist
destinations, as to the degree to which an exposure unit (human groups, ecosystems and communities) is
susceptible to harm, due to an exposure to perturbation or stress and the ability of that exposure unit to
cope, recover, or fundamentally adapt. The theoretical justification is that the design of resilience is not
effective without an understanding of the underlying socio-political processes and the environmental
linkages that underpin vulnerability (Cutter et al., 2000; Thomalla et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2003; Pyke et
al., 2021; Tsao & Ni 2016; van der Veeken et al. (2016). The vulnerability of a community or group is
determined by three dynamic and inter-connected dimensions: exposure, sensitivity, and resilience (Turner
et al., 2003).
4.2 Resilience Dimension

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
9
The second reading key concerns the dimensions of resilience (table 2). It seems evident that this is
crucial to the researchers for the existence of a shock of any type (economic, environmental, social), which
justifies the interest of scholars. The shock dimensions and the conditions of the system’s pre-post crisis
(resistance and recovery) have been predominantly investigated. Most of the studies did not make a
distinction so precise. Several authors have considered various shock affects, or the subjects whose might
suffer in the tourist destinations. They have examined the consequences. There is, therefore, no precise
examination of the stages of resistance and recovery. This has not been shown in the literature. In the first
group of studies that were analysed, the question of research was limited to understanding those factors
that enabled or enhanced the resilience of tourism destinations and for their own characteristics that
appeared sensitive (Biggs et al., 2015; Cirer-Costa, 2021; Holladay & Powell, 2013; Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011;
Wyss et al., 2015; Zeng et al., 2005), or to define theoretical frameworks that could help to understand the
modes of adaptation of the particular tourist destinations (Lew, 2014). Cirer-Costa (2021) for example,
highlights the importance of a competent business community and a social consensus able to cope with the
disadvantages of tourism development for the local population while Sheppard & Williams (2016) took
into account several shocks of various kinds: they tried to understand the factors that allowed for
destinations to endure different moments of crises. Other studies have illustrated those factors and they
have determined the vulnerabilities and the resilience (resistance and recovery) to natural shocks and
disasters (seismic risk, climate changes, tsunami, war, etc.). They have all analysed the ante and post
periods in terms of planning and development (Burnett & Johnston, 2020; Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Hillmer-
Pegram, 2014; Kim & Marcouiller, 2015; Luthe et al., 2012; Orchiston, 2013).
Table 2. Summary of the arguments and the articles that have been reviewed - Resilience
Dimensions.
Subject Areas
References
Resistance and
Recovery
Barata-Salgueiro & Guimarães (2020); Bernini et al. (2020); Biggs et al., (2015);
Bimonte et al. (2019); Calgaro & Lloyd (2008); Cirer-Costa (2021); Cui et al. (2021);
Espeso-Molinero & Pastor-Alfonso (2020); Hillmer-Pegram (2014); Holladay &
Powell (2013); Kim & Marcouiller (2015); Lee et al. (2021); Lew (2014); Luthe et al.,
(2012); Orchiston (2013); Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011); Sheppard & Williams (2016); Wyss
et al., (2015); Zeng et al., (2005).
Resistance
(disturbance): Pre
Shock Conditions
Biggs (2011), Burnett & Johnston (2020); Cellini & Cuccia (2015), Coghlan &
Prideaux (2009); Lopez et al. (2021).
Recovery
Bhaskara & Filimonau (2021); Biggs et al., (2012a); Buultjens et al., (2015); Cahyanto
et al. (2021a); Cahyanto et al. (2021b); Cedeno et al. (2020); Cerquetti & Cutrini
(2021); Chan et al. (2020); Chan et al. (2021); Cheng & Zhang (2020); Chin & Musa
(2021); Chowdhury et al. (2019); Dahles & Susilowati (2015); Fountain et al. (2021);
Gabriel-Campos et al. (2021); Gago-Garcia et al. (2021); Ghaderi et al., (2015); Jiang
et al. (2021); Joshi & Gupta (2021); Larsen et al., (2011); Liu-Lastres et al. (2020);
McCartney et al. (2021); McCartney et al. (2021); Morakabati (2020); Murdana et al.
(2021); Orchiston et al., (2016); Paiva & Santos (2020); Prayag et al. (2020); Pyke et
al. (2018); Pyke et al., (2016); Qi et al. (2021); Soliku et al. (2021); Sydnor-Bousso et
al., (2011); Tsao & Ni (2016); Wearing et al. (2020).
Source: Author elaboration

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
10
These resistance dimensions have been faced in a few studies (Biggs, 2011; Cellini & Cuccia, 2015;
Coghlan & Prideaux, 2009; Lopez et al. 2021). Even in these cases, what distinguished these papers was
the determination of the shock periods, especially when they considered measuring the resistance of the
destinations. In those studies that have taken into account economic data, this was easily determined, as in
Cellini and Cuccia (2015). They described the evolution of the tourism sectors in Italy over the last few
years of the so-called 'Great Recession' (2008-12). They highlighted the most important features of the
changes, focusing on the differences between the regions and on the target types and the categories of
accommodation. Resilience was used to explain the different degrees of success of the responses to the
national negative shocks that hit the sectors. In other studies, has been taken into account the socio-
economic and political problems, referring to general disturbances. Both Biggs (2011) and Coghlan &
Prideaux (2009) have deeply described tourism in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), whose natural
characteristics are very sensitive, both to climate changes and to the general economic and political
frameworks, such as an economic recession, a crisis in resource prices, as well as issues at a national and
local level. Biggs (2011) defined a shock scenario and analysed the behaviour of enterprises in the reef
tourism sectors. Coghlan & Prideaux (2009) studied the weather conditions and the reef experiences of
tourists, suggesting that these issues may also be an important indicator of changes. Finally, there have been
several researchers that have only investigated the subsequent periods to the shock. In most of the studies,
they have analysed the responses of the different economic actors to natural types of shock (Biggs et al.,
2012a; Ghaderi et al., 2015; Larsen et al., 2011; Tsao & Ni, 2016) and to man-made shocks (Buultjens et
al., 2015). Several paper, as Larsen et al. (2011), Biggs et al. (2012a), Cahyanto et al. (2021a), Liu-Lastres
et al. (2020) have both presented primary evidence of the governance of post-disaster recovery in Thailand's
coastal tourism-dependent communities and enterprises following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Tsao
& Ni (2016) examined the Shanmei community in Taiwan following Typhoon Morakot and the
community’s responses to crises in general and Typhoon Morakot in particular. Ghaderi et al. (2015)
investigated the effects of the floods which covered parts of Thailand in 2011 and the responses (the
resilience) of the public and the private sectors. Sydnor-Bousso et al. (2011) attempted to ‘model’ job
resilience after an industry experiences a disaster. Pyke et al. (2016 and 2018) investigated the impact of
bushfires on the tourism economics of Harrietville, a small town in North East Victoria, Australia. They
presented adaptations that were necessary for the town to minimise the economic effects of future fire
shocks. Finally, Orchiston et al. (2016) examined organisational resilience within a post-disaster context.
4.3 Characteristics of a Tourist Destination
The features of a destination in which the characteristics of resilience have been observed are another
factor that has been taken into account in the literature (table 3). On the basis of the results of our literature
research, an initial distinction between seaside and mountain destinations can be made. As for the first, we
found several papers that referred to natural resources that may undergo changes, which could be the
attractions within a destination. Indeed, we have found studies that have focused on the environmental and
economic shocks that are linked to coral reefs (as Biggs, 2011; Biggs et al., 2012b; Biggs et al., 2015;
Coghlan & Prideaux, 2009; Jones et al., 2011) or island (Bangwayo-Skeete & Skeete, 2021; Mazzola et al.,
2019; Uddin et al., 2021) and to natural disasters (as Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Larsen et al., 2011). Other
studies have taken into consideration some types of tourism products in seaside destinations, such as when
Adams (2010) considered cruise ship tourism and when Hillmer-Pegram (2014) studied diving tourism, by

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
11
referring to economic shocks. Lambert et al. (2010) analysed whale-watching tourism and the
consequences of climate changes. As for mountain destinations, the studies that we considered (Cocolas et
al., 2016; Espiner & Becken, 2014; Luthe, et al., 2012; Orchiston, 2013; Sheppard & Williams, 2016;
Stotten, 2021; Stotten et al., 2021; Wyss et al., 2015) have some relatively common traits. Those tourist
destinations that are on mountains are very appreciated by tourists and whose easy equilibrium (economic
and environmental) could be altered by natural shocks. Destinations, such as mountain or seaside resorts,
often may be within a protected area. In two studies that we have collected (Strickland-Munro et al., 2010;
Woosnam & Kim, 2014), the analyses of resilience have also taken into account the further "wealth" of a
destination and the consequent problems that are related to the presence of tourism.
Table 3. Summary of the arguments and the articles that have been reviewed - Characteristics of
Tourist Destinations.
Subject Areas
References
Seaside
Adams (2010); Anasco et al. (2021); Bangwayo-Skeete & Skeete (2021); Banos
et al. (2019); Biggs (2011); Biggs et al. (2012a); Biggs et al. (2012b); Biggs et
al., (2015); Cahyanto et al. (2021a); Calgaro & Lloyd (2008); Cheer et al. (2019);
Choi et al. (2017); Cirer-Costa (2021); Coghlan & Prideaux (2009); Cook &
Jóhannsdóttir (2021); Hernandez et al. (2018); Hillmer-Pegram (2014); Jones et
al., (2011); Kim et al. (2017); King et al. (2021); Lambert et al., (2010); Lam-
Gonzales et al. (2021); Larsen et al., (2011); Mackay & Spencer (2017); Mazzola
et al. (2019); Melian-Alzola et al. (2020); Pathak et al. (2021); Podhorodecka
(2018); Ruiz-Ballesteros & Tejedor (2020); Uddin et al. (2021); Usher et al.
(2020); Vereb et al. (2020a); Weis et al. (2021); Williams et al. (2020).
Mountain
Chen et al. (2021); Cocolas et al., (2016); Espiner & Becken (2014); Luthe et
al., (2012); Orchiston (2013); Sheppard & Williams (2016); Sherpa (2017)
Stotten (2021); Stotten et al. (2021); Wyss et al., (2015).
Protected Areas, National
Parks
Strickland-Munro et al., (2010), Woosnam & Kim (2014); King et al., 2021;
Felicetti (2016); Maciejewski et al. (2015); Chidakel et al. (2020).
Others (Tropical Forest,
Sites for Eco-Tourism,
Community, Rural
Destinations; inner areas;
lake)
Amir et al., (2015), Becken (2013), Holladay & Powell (2013), Pyke et al.,
(2016), Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011), Tsao & Ni (2016); Cerquetti & Cutrini (2021);
Gabriel-Campos et al. (2021); Caceres-Feria et al. (2021); Chin & Musa (2021);
Ibanescu et al. (2020); Chen et al. (2020); Alvarez & Cortes-Vazquez (2020);
Espino, (2020). (2020); Engeset (2020); Rindrasih (2018); Bui et al. (2020);
Grimstad et al. (2019); Kamarudin et al. (2019); Wang et al. (2015).
Urban areas
Almeida-Garcia et al. (2020); Barata-Salgueiro & Guimarães (2020); Dai et al.
(2019); Erdmenger (2019); Finzi et al. (2021); Jimenez-Medina et al. (2021);
McCartney et al. (2021); Naef (2020); Setiadi et al. (2021); Terhorst & Erkus-
Ozturk (2019); Vecco & Srakar (2017); Yang et al. (2021b).
Macro Destinations:
National or at a Regional
Level
Amoamo (2021); Awedyk & Niezgoda (2018); Bernini et al. (2020); Bhati et al.,
(2016); Bozovic et al. (2021); Buultjens et al., (2015); Cellini & Cuccia (2015);
Cruz-Milan & Lagunas-Puls (2021); Gago-Garcia et al. (2021); Karunarathne et
al., (2021); Kim & Marcouiller (2015); Lee et al. (2021); Noorashid & Chin
(2021); Otoo & Kim (2019); Paiva & Santos (2020); Senbeto & Hon (2020);

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
12
Soliku et al. (2021); Yang et al. (2021a); Zeng et al., (2005).
Source: Author elaboration
In addition to these two types of places (seaside and mountain), there are many other types, such as
valleys (Grimstad et al., 2019; Pyke et al., 2016), sites for eco-tourism (Tsao & Ni, 2016), rural sites (Amir
et al., 2015; Caceres-Feria et al., 2021; Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011) and lakes (Becken, 2013; Wang, 2015).
In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused on urban resilience and sustainability. Almeida-
Garcia et al. (2020) and Barata-Salgueiro & Guimarães (2020) examine the relationship between residents
of urban tourist destinations and tourism, evaluating the attachment to the place and the level of satisfaction
with tourism, highlighting the role played by public policies. In some cases, studies have emphasized
"urban resilience" as a core value of the city and its residents. In particular, Naef (2020) relates the notion
of "branding" with that of "resilience". In the Medellin case study, showing how in the community it tends
to reject the vision of resilience as self-sufficiency (adaptation), requiring instead structural changes
(transformation).
Finally, the last group of researchers have proposed a macroeconomic perspective and they have
analysed tourism resilience in relation to large areas, such as regional areas or national areas. They have
taken into consideration, not only the effects of the shocks in terms of arrivals and presences (Bonham et
al., 2006), but also those that propagate on the entire tourism sectors (Bhati et al., 2016; Buultjens et al.,
2015; Cellini & Cuccia, 2015; Kim & Marcouiller, 2015; Senbeto & Hon, 2020; Zeng et al., 2005).
4.4 Typology of Shocks
Overall, the shocks on tourist destinations that the literature has examined have been of two types.
The "natural", that is, those that were produced by the environment naturally or artificially and those that
were "economic and social", which instead, focused on the disturbances that were produced by economic
cycles and by social variables (table 4).
Inside of the studies of the first type, we found different types of shock. The first group of seven
articles have focused on the effects of climate changes and on the resilience of tourism destinations, with
respect to such changes. Climate changes, indeed, may potentially have an important impact on tourism
models, because environmental assessments were a significant component of the decision-making
processes by tourists (Braun et al., 1999). Climate changes certainly produced high levels of uncertainty
between individual actors and policy-makers (Jopp et al. 2010). Climate changes were carefully considered,
especially with regard to the effects of rising temperatures. These changes covered mountain destinations
(Cocolas et al., 2016; Knowles, 2019; Luthe et al., 2012; Wyss et al., 2015) and seaside resorts (Biggs et
al., 2012b; Coghlan & Prideaux, 2009; Lambert et al., 2010). In these kinds of ecosystems, climate changes
were one of the most serious problems and they were likely to have the greatest impact.
In mountain tourist destinations, effects that were linked to changing weather patterns, threatened to
produce large-scale effects and irreversible changes to the plant and animal communities and the landscapes.
In particular, for these types of destinations, two studies (Bulkeley & Newell, 2015; Meehl et al., 2007)
have expressed concerns about the future profitability of low-altitude farmland, for two reasons: a) the
snow is decreasing in glaciers and b) the possible large-scale loss of biodiversity, caused by the increment
in global temperatures.

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
13
Table 4. Summary of the arguments and the articles that have been reviewed - Typology of
Shocks.
Subject Areas
References
Climate Changes
Becken (2013); Beery (2019); Biggs et al., (2012a); Cevik & Ghazanchyan
(2021); Cocolas et al., (2016); Coghlan & Prideaux (2009); Day et al., (2021);
Forster et al. (2014); Hassan et al. (2019); Hernandez et al. (2018); Jamaliah &
Powell, (2018); Jopp et al., (2010); Knowles (2019); Kutzner (2019); Lambert
et al., (2010); Lam-Gonzales et al. (2021); Luthe et al., (2012); Mackay &
Spencer (2017); Pyke et al., (2021); Tervo-Kankare (2019); van der Veeken et
al. (2016); Wyss et al. (2015).
Natural and
Environmental Disasters
(Earthquakes, Tsunami,
Bushfires, Floods,
Hurricanes, etc.)
Cahyanto et al. (2021a); Cahyanto et al. (2021b); Calgaro & Lloyd (2008);
Calgaro et al., (2014); Cedeno et al. (2020); Cerquetti & Cutrini (2021); Chan et
al. (2020); Chan et al. (2021); Cheng & Zhang (2020); Cioccio & Michael
(2007); Cochrane (2010); Fountain et al. (2021); Ghaderi et al., (2015); Kim &
Marcouiller (2015);Larsen et al., (2011); Liu-Lastres et al. (2020); Min et al.
(2020); Murdana et al. (2021); Nguyen et al. (2021); Orchiston (2013);
Orchiston et al. (2016); Paiva & Santos (2020); Posch et al. (2019); Prayag et al.
(2020); Pyke et al. (2018); Pyke et al., (2016); Rindrasih (2018); Sherpa (2017);
Sydnor-Bousso et al., (2011); Tsao & Ni (2016); Usher et al. (2020); Wearing et
al. (2020); Woosnam & Kim (2014).
Political and Social Crises
(Terrorism, Impact of
War)
Bonham et al. (2006); Buultjens, et al. (2015); Morakabati (2020); Vereb et al.
(2020b).
Social and Economic
Perturbations
Adams (2010); Biggs (2011); Burnett & Johnston (2020); Cellini & Cuccia
(2015); Espiner & Becken (2014); Hamzah & Hampton (2013); Holladay &
Powell (2013); Mazzola et al. (2019); Podhorodecka (2018); Terhorst & Erkus-
Ozturk (2019); Walmsley (2019).
Sanitary Disasters and
Epidemics
Adams et al. (2021); Bhaskara & Filimonau (2021); Bhaskara & Filimonau
(2021); Bozovic et al. (2021); Chin & Musa (2021); Cruz-Milan & Lagunas-Puls
(2021); Gabriel-Campos et al. (2021); Gago-Garcia et al. (2021); Joshi & Gupta
(2021); Karunarathne et al., (2021); King et al. (2021); Lekgau & Tichaawa
(2021); Lopez et al. (2021); Matei et al. (2021); McCartney et al. (2021);
McCartney et al. (2021); Melian-Alzola et al. (2020); Noorashid & Chin (2021);
Otoo & Kim (2019); Pathak & Joshi (2021); Setiadi et al. (2021);
Setthachotsombut & Sua-iam (2020); Sobaih et al. (2021); Soliku et al. (2021);
Zeng et al., (2005); Zheng et al. (2021).
Source: Author elaboration
With regard to seaside tourist destinations, these particular studies on resilience were justified by the
various effects of climate changes. These most obviously concerned probable rising sea levels and the
increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes. However, several studies have also highlighted the dangers

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
14
that are associated with the effects on marine ecosystems, both with respect to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg,
1999; Reaser et al., 2000) and the composition of flora and marine fauna (Wilkinson et al., 1999). These
effects can subsequently affect tourists' choices (see for example, Amelung et al., 2007). The climate
changes require adaptation policies and Tervo-Kankare (2019) presents a study that examines the values
and attitudes of nature-based tourism entrepreneurs in relation to adaptation to climate change.
The second line of research is where they have analysed the relationships between resilience and
natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, etc. These papers were all related to previous studies (many
natural disasters were explicable by climate changes), but they differed from them by recognising the facts
of what disastrous effects can possibly transpire on tourist destinations. Natural hazards are a constant part
of human history. For those people who live near the coast (23% of the world's population live within 100
km from the coast, with a steady growth expected in the coming years), there are specific risks, such as
floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, and the transmission of infectious diseases that are related to the sea (Adger
et al., 2005). In the last few years, disaster planning and the management of tourism businesses have
received great attention, especially in light of recent destructive natural disasters (Hall, 2010; Laws et al.,
2007; Orchiston, 2013; Ritchie, 2009).
Regarding the effects of tsunamis on tourist destinations, Calgaro and Lloyd (2008) have tried to
understand what socio-political and environmental conditions have contributed to the vulnerability of the
affected tourism communities. This was because knowledge of the root causes of destination vulnerabilities
was vital, not only for the successful implementation of regional recovery plans, but also for building a
long-term resilience against future shocks. Larsen et al. (2011) have examined the efforts of recovery and
the reduction of post-disaster catastrophic risks in tourism-dependent coastal communities, after the
tsunami of 2004. They have defined a new conceptual framework that puts the concept of resilience in a
conception of destination governments, as a result of the regulatory processes that have been negotiated.
Another line of research has been the one concerning hurricanes. Kim & Marcouiller (2015) examined
the vulnerability and the resilience of 10 regional economies that were based on tourism, which included
national parks and beaches, both affected by weather phenomena. The model that was used made it possible
to quantify the negative effects on the regional economies, by showing that those regions with stronger
economies have resilient capacities greater than those with weaker economies. Cahyanto et al. (2021b)
examine existing partnerships between emergency operations centers and the tourism industry in the co-
management of hurricane-related disasters, and highlight the theoretical and practical implications for
current public-private partnerships and the need to improve these disaster management efforts.
The literature has also taken into account other disasters that may occur on tourist destinations. Cioccio
& Michael (2007) presented the case of North Eastern Victoria (Australia) when it was hit by fire and they
demonstrated the vulnerability of the territory and the lack of preparation to deal with a threat of this
magnitude. The resilience of operators depended on the accumulated experiences in order to handle these
types of situations. Orchiston (2013) presented the empirical results of a survey on business tourism in the
Southern mountains of New Zealand, a high seismic risk zone area in which there was a tourism industry
that included many micro-enterprises. They highlighted how business size was a key determinant in the
uptake of Resilience tools, such as continuity insurances, staff training, induction, and disaster planning.
Crises must be distinguished from disasters. According to Faulkner (2001), disasters are sudden and
unpredictable catastrophes, over which a business has very limited control, while crises tend to refer to an
event that leads to negative business outcomes, which are in part, exacerbated by a lack of preparatory or
planning action by managers. Among crises, there were also terrorist attacks and wars, with more and more
frequent events that influenced the preferences of tourists (Rose et al., 2009). Buultjens et al. (2015) focused

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
15
their attention on the effects of the armed conflicts between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which had a considerable impact on the country's tourism industry. The
authors highlighted how policies were implemented in order to support the tourism sectors, by favouring
large groups rather than small operators. This, in their view, threatened to reduce resilience and, therefore,
the sustainability of the industry.
Perturbations and shocks that affect tourist destinations can also be of a social and economic nature.
Adams (2010), when debating about tourism cruise ships, highlighted the impact within small coastal
communities. This impact on the one side was positive, since it supported the waning economies. On the
other hand, however, the magnitude and the intensity of passenger visits appeared to reduce social resilience.
To induce changes in an economic regime, leads to a rapid socio-economic reorganisation, with clear
effects on the loss of social capital. Hamzah & Hampton (2013) debated the resilience of the socio-
economic systems of small destinations and they studied the evolution over time of a tourist destination in
Malaysia. They addressed local responses to exogenous factors that threatened their equilibrium, and hence,
the sustainability of the tourism industry on the island, by showing non-linear changes, rather than by
conventional resort evolutions.
Quite differently, Cellini and Cuccia (2015) addressed the issue of large scale resilience, taking into
account the evolution of the tourism sectors in Italy during the years of the so-called "Great Recession"
(2008-12). They highlighted the most important features of the changes that occurred, both in terms of the
demand and supply sides, as well as the different degrees of responses to the negative shocks and to the
national success stories.
Moving to an another kind of social perturbations, Burnett & Johnston (2020) presents an analysis of
the tourism scenario for an anticipated shock seen through the lens of Irish hospitality managers preparing
for Brexit. According to the authors, the buoyancy of the industry has led management to develop
complacent tendencies, a myopic point of view and a head-in-the-sand mentality. Their "wait and see"
approach to anticipating shock planning suggests an industry that believes it is resilient to threats.
Among the shocks that have been considered in the literature, many have related to social and
economic instability. There have also been risks related to tourism sector developments. Some examples
of this are the studies of Holladay & Powell (2013) and Espiner & Becken (2014), where they have
analysed the effects of changes in tourist flows to heavily dependent tourism destinations. Holladay &
Powell (2013) led a case study of investments in tourism that were made in order to diversify the economies
and improve the quality of life in the Caribbean. They evaluated the effects of such investments in tourism
in terms of resilience, which led them to suggest that communities should invest in the strengthening of
social ties, the development of the capacities of local institutions, tourism product diversifications, while
also developing their infrastructures. Espiner & Becken (2014) considered as a tourist destination, a
national park (Westland National Park), which although popular with tourists, was suffering from a number
of conditions (geographical isolation, threats of floods and earthquakes, as well as climate change scenarios)
that could undermine the economic and the social longevity of this particular destination. Mazzola et al.
(2019) study the economic resilience of the islands and, in particular, the role of the tourism sector in the
reaction to economic crises. The results show that the growth factors for regional islands are similar to
those normally considered for other regions, but the tourism-led growth hypothesis is widely supported.
Tourist demand more than supply plays a role together with accessibility.
Finally, we concluded the classification of shocks, with studies of disease, which may make a tourist
destination less attractive. Obviously, this section is full of contributions related to Covid-19. These articles
describe the impact of covid in the tourist destination from different points of view (on demand, on supply,

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
16
on the system as a whole) and try to suggest tourist policy guidelines to address future pandemics. However,
the pandemic is certainly not a new topic in the debate on resilience and tourism. Zeng et al. (2005) referred
to the 2003 SARS epidemic that created a negative impact on the development of tourism in China and
they considered the realisation of tourism businesses that were affected by this particular crisis. As with
previous authors, even Zeng et al. concluded that a resilient system requires diversification and partnerships
that can minimise the vulnerability of communities to these crises and then facilitate an economic recovery.
4.5 Elements by which Resilience is Measured
Within a tourist destination, there are basically three categories of subjects on which the shock effects
of any kind can operate (table 5). First of all, the operators of the supply chain, in other words, those
businesses and economic operators that allow for the accessibility and the usability of attractions for tourists.
Secondly, the tourists themselves are the economic actors that activate the tourist destinations. Thirdly, the
residents who normally live in the destination undergo most of the negative and positive effects of tourism.
In the studies of resilience within destinations, a distinctive feature of the literature review concerned,
precisely which of these three categories were to be considered in the measurements of the effects of the
shocks and their Resilience capacities.
Two papers have taken into account the opinions of tourists, suggesting that this may be an important
indicator of changes for a territory. Prideaux et al. (2010) developed a tourism research that evaluated how
tourists were likely to respond to visual changes in mountain landscapes, while Coghlan & Prideaux (2009)
tried to understand if weather conditions affected the reef experiences of tourists, suggesting that this may
also be an important indicator of changes on a reef. Bernini et al (2020) use an alternative approach,
considering the Italian Households Budget Survey data over the period 1997-2013 and comparing the
consumption behaviour in the pre- and post-crisis time.
Table 5. Summary of the arguments and the articles that have been reviewed - Elements upon
which the Resilience was measured.
Subject Areas
References
Demand Analyses
(Tourist Opinions,
Consumer Demands;
Tourist spending)
Bernini et al. (2020); Bimonte et al. (2019); Canh &Thanh (2020); Coghlan &
Prideaux (2009); Lam-Gonzales et al. (2021); Prideaux et al. (2010).
Supply Analyses
(Enterprise Resilience,
Job Resilience, etc.)
Ayala & Manzano (2014); Biggs (2011); Biggs et al., (2012a); Biggs et al.,
(2015); Bozovic et al. (2021); Brown et al. (2018); Buultjens et al., (2015); Cruz-
Milan & Lagunas-Puls (2021); Cui et al. (2021); Dahles & Susilowati (2015);
Engeset (2020); Hillmer-Pegram (2014); Ibanescu et al. (2020); Mandal &
Dubey (2020); Mandal et al. (2021); Melian-Alzola et al. (2020); Senbeto & Hon
(2020); Sobaih et al. (2021); Sydnor-Bousso et al., (2011); Terhorst & Erkus-
Ozturk (2019).
Community analysis
Adams et al. (2021); Anasco et al. (2021); Cahyanto et al. (2021a); Chen et al.
(2020); Dai et al. (2019); Diaz-Aguilar & Escalera-Reyes (2020); Larsen et al.,
(2011); Luthe et al., (2012); Pilquiman-Vera et al. (2020); Wyss et al., (2015)
Stakeholder analysis
Lee et al. (2021); Williams et al. (2020).

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
17
Regional/System analysis
Hu et al. (2021); Lekgau & Tichaawa (2021); Min et al. (2020); Podhorodecka
(2018).
Source: Author elaboration
Resilience was also studied through analyses of the factors that conferred a resistance to tourism
enterprises (Biggs, 2011; Biggs et al., 2012a; Hillmer-Pegram, 2014), through an individual analysis (Ayala
& Manzano, 2014) or a sectorial analysis (Buultjens et al., 2015). The results of these studies have allowed
for us to identify some elements that characterise the various abilities that are needed to react in a crisis
scenario, such as higher levels of social and human capital in the form of governments, families, and
community support, rather than formal enterprises (Biggs, 2011; Biggs et al., 2012a).
Another group of papers have taken into consideration the network structures of a community. Their
point of view was to study the effects of tourism on the destination residents and their reactions. In two of
the papers (Luthe et al., 2012; Wyss et al., 2014), the perspective of their analyses was the network, that is,
the social processes of governance. The collaboration between communities through the existence and the
strength of the connections between the actors and their embeddedness in a broader socio-economic
network, gave stability and flexibility, as well as increasing their regional resilience (Luthe et al., 2012).
On the contrary, a low density and a lack of integration by some of the supply chain sectors into the overall
network and the lack of an integration by the public sector actors, with a high number of actors in the
periphery of the network, weakened the system and made it more exposed to the risks (Luthe et al., 2012;
Wyss et al., 2015). Larsen et al. (2011) focused instead on the frameworks of the stakeholder agencies as
an interface between the formal and informal institutions. In our study’s opinion, this was the main
determinant of Resilience building.
4.6 Measuring Methods
As has been explained previously, measurements of resilience were always a critical aspect. As a result
of studying the literature, this has led us to identify two different pathways that have been used by the
researchers in their analyses (table 6). The first was characterised by a qualitative approach. In this first
group, we have distinguished the surveys through interviews (in-depth interviews, focus groups, and
resource surveys) that were directed to the various stakeholders and those that were addressed to the tourists.
The first group included interviews with national and local governmental representatives (Calgaro & Lloyd;
2008), staff in the public sector (Tsao & Ni; 2016), non-governmental organisations (Sheppard & Williams,
2016), environmental action group members and local figures (Ruiz-Ballesteros, 2011), research institutes
and media representatives, business operators (Hillmer-Pegram, 2014), and those operators in the tourism
industry (Ayala & Manzano, 2014; Espiner & Becken, 2014). In some studies, the assessments that were
expressed by the stakeholders were used to study the social processes of governance, through the existence
and the strength of the connections between the actors, as well as their embeddedness in the broader socio-
economic networks, by social network analyses (SNA) (Gabriel-Campos et al., 2021; Luthe et al., 2012).
Often, the issues that were addressed in the interviews to the stakeholders were preceded by past
literature reviews, together with secondary document analyses (newspaper reports, NGO recovery reports,
and various official and governmental documents) (Calgaro & Lloyd, 2008; Tsao & Ni, 2016). In some
papers, the interviews were more emphasised and they were pointed towards tourists, seeking to investigate
some important issues. For instance, the tourist’s purpose, their motivations and behaviour, their knowledge,
their understanding, their responses to shock risks, and their demographic details (see for example, Pyke et

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
18
al., 2016).
Regarding the quantitative studies, we collected some papers in which it was interesting to note that
they highlighted the variables that were used to measure shock resilience. Cellini and Cuccia (2015)
analysed the impact of the crises on the Italian tourism sector in terms of resilience. They defined an index
in order to capture the economic resilience at a regional level. They then deepened the structural
characteristics of the regions and their strategies, through exploratory analyses. Kim & Marcouiller (2015)
considered a number of variables that captured the effects of environmental shocks resulting from
hurricanes, particularly the average number of fatalities and injuries from the hurricanes, together with the
economic status of each county containing national parklands. Lee et al. (2021) addressed the spatially
varying relationships between intertemporal specialization or instability of tourism clusters and community
resilience thought spatial and aspatial regression models in a case study of sixty-seven counties in Florida.
Table 6. Summary of the arguments and the articles that have been reviewed - Measuring
Methods.
Subject Areas
References
Qualitative Method
Stakeholder’s Survey
Adams et al. (2021); Amoamo (2021); Anasco et al. (2021); Ayala & Manzano
(2014); Becken (2013); Biggs et al. (2015); Cahyanto et al. (2021b); Calgaro &
Lloyd (2008); Chan et al. (2020); Chan et al. (2021); Chen et al. (2021); Erdmenger
(2019); Espiner & Becken (2014); Filimonau & De Coteau (2020); Fountain et al.
(2021); Ghaderi et al., (2015); Hassan et al. (2019); Hillmer-Pegram (2014); Jiang
et al. (2021); Jones et al., (2011); Kamarudin et al. (2019); Karunarathne et al.
(2021); Knowles (2019); Liu-Lastres et al. (2020); Luthe et al., (2012); Orchiston
(2013); Paiva & Santos (2020); Pyke et al. (2018); Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011);
Sheppard & Williams (2016); Soliku et al. (2021); Stotten et al. (2021);
Villavicencio & Pardo (2019); Weis et al. (2021).
Community survey
Almeida-Garcia et al. (2020); Chen et al. (2020); Dai et al. (2019); Gabriel-Campos
et al. (2021); Guo et al. (2018); Helgadottir et al. (2019); Jamaliah & Powell, (2018);
Murdana et al. (2021); Powell et al. (2018); Zheng et al. (2021).
Visitors Survey
Coghlan & Prideaux (2009); Pyke et al. (2016).
Employees survey
Bozovic et al. (2021).
Supply survey
Bakas (2017); Brown et al. (2019); Brown et al. (2021); Burnett & Johnston (2020);
Chin & Musa (2021); Engeset (2020); Forster et al. (2014); Mandal & Dubey
(2020); Mandal & Saravanan (2019); Mandal (2019); Njuguna et al. (2021);
Noorashid & Chin (2021); Pathak & Joshi (2021); Pathak et al. (2021); Pechlaner
et al. (2019); Posch et al. (2019); Prayag et al. (2020); Setthachotsombut & Sua-iam
(2020); Sobaih et al. (2021); Tervo-Kankare (2019); Usher et al. (2020); Walmsley
(2019).
Quantitative Method
Cellini & Cuccia (2015), Kim & Marcouiller (2015); Gago-Garcia et al. (2021); Lee
et al. (2021); Cui et al. (2021); Cruz-Milan & Lagunas-Puls (2021); Bangwayo-
Skeete & Skeete (2021); Morakabati (2020); Cheng & Zhang (2020); Canh &Thanh
(2020); Bernini et al. (2020); Min et al. (2020); Mazzola et al. (2019); Podhorodecka

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
19
(2018); Cevik & Ghazanchyan (2021).
Mixed methods
Cirer-Costa (2021; Cedeno et al. (2020).
Source: Author elaboration
5. Resilience Tourism: recommendations for future research
Tourism is a social and economic activity, that is integrally part of a contemporary community and, as
such, it reflects the challenges that communities face, as well as the increasing pressures of environmental
and social global changes. This increasing pace and the complexity of social and environmental
contemporary changes, explain the importance of the growth of the Resilience frameworks.
In this paper, we have presented the results of a literature review on the resilience of tourism
destinations. The results are threefold. First, the papers have achieved an important result, to put under the
eyes of scholars and policy makers the risks deriving from tourist pressures that make destinations weak
and the effects of shocks on communities. Tourist destinations, by their nature, react to the weakness that
is inherent in the system itself. It follows that understanding of how the resilience cycle works is interesting,
but it necessarily configured policies and actions. Almost all of the authors have come to the same
conclusion, that it was essential that a destination should have a diversified economy and not be
concentrated on a few large groups of operators.
Secondly, the literature analyses have led us to highlight the relation between resilience and
sustainability. Tourist destinations, together with their communities and their business operators, face
several pressures for change, including the environment (changing natural resources), social (changing
cultural resources) and economic situations (changing economic conditions). These pressures occur within
different time rates. In some cases, the shock is slow and predictable, while in other cases, there is a need
for urgent responses and flexible actions. The pressures for change occur on a variety of social and
geographical scales. Sometimes, the impact is on a sole trader, while for others, the impact is on an entire
community or a social group. The analysis of the paper allow to highlight the different roles of resilience
and sustainability in tourist destinations.
Third, In the process of realizing the goal of sustainable and resilient development, authors should see
the dominant role of social factors such as destination governance in the adaptation process. Therefore, the
establishment of a “rational” tourism development mechanism could help improve the capacity of the
destination more effectively to cope with the various crises involved. The different papers analysed clearly
show that the development of tourism continues over time only when it is both resilient and sustainable.
Regarding the areas identified for future research, they start from the weaknesses of the review
presented before, and include theoretical and methodological aspects. Some papers did not have a clear
theoretical approach to resilience. In many of them, there was a generic reference to resilience, without this
being connected to one of the different strands that were present in the literature. It is therefore suggested
to proceed to a more thorough and in-depth theoretical framework.
The future research line should put effort into resilience measurement. The results of the literature
analysis confirmed the multidimensional nature of resilience. The attempt to quantify this framework has
led to the development of a large number of indicators or "metrics" of resilience, which are the formal
expression of how researchers define and quantify resilience and its components. A quantitative
measurement of resilience can contribute to the resolution of contradictions in the conceptualization of
resilience.
Nor was it clear whether resilience was a theory, a metaphor, or rather a conceptual framework (Pike

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
20
et al., 2010; Swanstrom, 2008). Moreover, the relationship among tourism, dimensions of sustainability
and the benefits of tourism realized by stakeholder groups should be more clarified and debated. It need
rather an improve of the dynamic relationships among various dimensions of sustainability, tourist activity
and resulting short and long term benefits (Tyrrell & Johnston, 2008).
When studying the behaviour of resilience tourist destinations, it was also possible to grasp the
aspects that were related to the environment, the use and the distribution of resources, the equities in their
various dimensions, the causes as well as the remedies for shocks, and the effects that they all produce.
Therefore, the resilience approach to tourism has, in our opinion, a great advantage. It allows for one
to give a new impetus to the ecological variables that are always an important component in socio-
economic systems.
As said by Bristow (2010), the destinations (the resilience regions) are ones that, as the result of shocks,
recalibrate their own path, to less standardised paths, and hence, to ones that are more based upon the
resources and the territorial specificities.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The Author acknowledge financial support of the fund “Linea Intervento 2—Piaceri” from
Catania University.
References
Adams; A.W. (2010). Planning for cruise ship resilience: an approach to managing cruise ship impacts
in Haines, Alaska. Coastal Management 38(6): 654-664. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2010.529035
Adams; K.M.; Choe; J.; Mostafanezhad, M.; & Phi; G.T. (2021). (Post-) pandemic tourism resiliency:
Southeast Asian lives and livelihoods in limbo. Tourism Geographies, 23(4), 915-936. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2021.1916584
Adger; W.N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in human geography
24(3): 347-364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465
Adger; W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global environmental change 16(3): 268-281. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Adger; W. N.; Hughes; T. P.; Folke; C.; Carpenter; S. R.; & Rockström; J. (2005). Social-ecological
resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737): 1036-1039. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1112122
Almeida-García; F.; Cortes-Macías; R.; Balbuena-Vázquez; A.; & Carmen-Hidalgo; M. (2020). New

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
21
perspectives of residents’ perceptions in a mature seaside destination. Sustainability,12(10), 4183. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104183
Álvarez; B. M.; & Cortes-Vazquez; J. A. (2020). “May the Smoke Keep Coming Out the Fireplace”:
Moral Connections between Rural Tourism and Socio-Ecological Resilience in the EUME Region,
Galicia; Sustainability; 12(11): 4602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114602
Amelung; B.; Nicholls; S.; & Viner; D. (2007). Implications of global climate change for tourism flows
and seasonality; Journal of Travel research; 45(3): 285-296. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506295937
Amir; A. F.; Ghapar; A. A.; Jamal; S. A.; & Ahmad; K. N. (2015). Sustainable tourism development:
A study on community resilience for rural tourism in Malaysia; Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences; 168: 116-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.217
Amoamo; M. (2021). Brexit–threat or opportunity? Resilience and tourism in Britain’s Island
Territories; Tourism Geographies; 23(3): 501-526. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1665093
Añasco; C. P.; Monteclaro; H. M.; Catedrilla; L. C.; Lizada; J. C.; & Baylon; C. C. (2021). Measuring
small island disaster resilience towards sustainable coastal and fisheries tourism: The case of Guimaras;
Philippines; Human Ecology; 49(4): 467-479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00241-0
Araral; E. (2013). What Makes Socio-ecological Systems Robust? An Institutional Analysis of the
2,000 Year-Old Ifugao; Society Human Ecology; 41(6): 859-870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-
013-9617-5
Awedyk; M.; & Niezgoda; A. (2018). Resilience planning as an opportunity for future sustainable
development in tourism; Operations Research and Decisions; 28(2): 23-40. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5277/ord180202
Ayala; J.C.; & Manzano; G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the
business. A longitudinal analysis; Journal of Economic Psychology; 42: 126-135. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.02.004
Badoc-Gonzales; B. P.; Mandigma; M.B.S.; & Tan; J.J. (2021). Resilience and sustainability
interventions in selected Post-Haiyan Philippines: MSMEs perspective; International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction; 57: 102162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102162
Baggio; R. (2008). Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system; Tourism Analysis; 13(1): 1-20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354208784548797
Bakas; F. E. (2017). Community resilience through entrepreneurship: the role of gender; Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy; 11(1): 61-77. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
22
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2015-0008
Bangwayo-Skeete; P. F.; & Skeete; R. W. (2021). Modelling tourism resilience in small island states:
a tale of two countries; Tourism Geographies; 23(3): 436-457. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1750684
Baños; C. J.; Hernández; M.; Rico; A. M.; & Olcina; J. (2019). The hydrosocial cycle in coastal tourist
destinations in Alicante; Spain: Increasing resilience to drought; Sustainability; 11(16): 4494. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164494
Barata-Salgueiro; T.; & Guimarães; P. (2020). Public policy for sustainability and retail resilience in
Lisbon city center; Sustainability; 12(22): 9433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229433
Batabyal; A. A. (2016). Accessibility, vulnerability, and resilience in a stochastic model of sustainable
ecotourism; Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment; 43: 71-81. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.004
Bec; A.; McLennan; C. L.; & Moyle; B. D. (2016). Community resilience to long-term tourism decline
and rejuvenation: a literature review and conceptual model; Current Issues in Tourism; 19(5): 431-457.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1083538
Becken; S. (2013). Developing a framework for assessing resilience of tourism subsystems to climatic
factors; Annals of Tourism Research; 43: 506-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.06.002
Beery; T. (2019). Exploring the role of outdoor recreation to contribute to urban climate resilience;
Sustainability; 11(22), 6268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226268
Beeton; S. (2006). Community development through tourism. Landlinks Press; Collingwood:
Benard; B. (2002). “Applications of resilience”. In Resilience and development: Positive life
adaptations, edited by Glantz; M. D.; & Johnson; J. L., 269–280. Kluwer Academic Publishers; New
York, NY.
Berkes; F.; & Jolly; D. (2002). Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian
western Arctic community; Conservation ecology; 5(2): 18.
Berkes; F.; & Ross; H. (2013). Community resilience: Towards and integrated approach; Society &
Natural Resources; 26(1): 5–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605
Berkes; F.; Colding; J.; & Folke; C. (Eds.). (2008). Navigating social-ecological systems: building
resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
Bernini; C.; Cracolici; M. F.; & Nijkamp; P. (2020). Micro and macro resilience measures of an
economic crisis; Networks and Spatial Economics; 20(1); 47-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
23
019-09470-9
Bhaskara; G. I.; & Filimonau; V. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational learning for
disaster planning and management: A perspective of tourism businesses from a destination prone to
consecutive disasters; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management; 46; 364-375. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.011
Bhati; A. S.; Upadhayaya; A.; & Sharma; A. (2016). National disaster management in the ASEAN-5:
an analysis of tourism resilience; Tourism Review; 71(2): 148-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-
12-2015-0062
Biggs; D. (2011). Understanding resilience in a vulnerable industry: the case of reef tourism in
Australia; Ecology and Society; 16(1); 30.
Biggs; D.; Hall; M.; & Stoeckl; N. (2012a). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises
to disasters: Reef tourism in Phuket; Thailand; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 20(5): 645-665. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.630080
Biggs; D.; Hicks; C. C.; Cinner; J. E.; & Hall; C. M. (2015). Marine tourism in the face of global
change: The resilience of enterprises to crises in Thailand and Australia; Ocean & Coastal
Management; 105: 65-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.019
Biggs; D.; Ban; N. C.; & Hall; C. M. (2012b). Lifestyle values; resilience; and nature-based tourism's
contribution to conservation on Australia's Great Barrier Reef; Environmental Conservation; 39(4):
370-379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892912000239
Bimonte; S.; D'Agostino; A.; Grilli; G.; & Pagliuca; M. (2019). Tourist season and residents' life
satisfaction: Empirical evidence from a longitudinal design in a Mediterranean destination;
International Journal of Tourism Research; 21(3): 323-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2263
Bonanno; G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human
capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events?; American psychologist; 59(1): 20-28.
Božović; T.; Blešić; I.; Knežević; M. N.; Đeri; L.; & Pivac; T. (2021). Resilience of tourism employees
to changes caused by COVID-19 pandemic; Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”
SASA; 71(2): 181-194.
Braun; O.L.; Lohmann; M.; Maksimovic; O.; Meyer; M.; Merkovic; A.; Messerschmidt; E.; Riedel;
A.; & Turner; M. (1999). Potential impacts of climate change effects on preferences for tourism
destinations. A psychological pilot study; Climate Research; 11: 247–254.
Breiling; M. (2021). Global rural value chains and the role of natural disasters in their transformation;
Journal of Social and Economic Development; 23(3); 540-567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-
021-00147-z

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
24
Bristow; G. (2010). Resilient regions: re-‘place'ing regional competitiveness; Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society; 3: 153-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp030
Brown; N.A.; Feldmann-Jensen; S.; Rovins; J.E.; Orchiston; C.; & Johnston; D. (2021). Exploring
disaster resilience within the hotel sector: A case study of Wellington and Hawke's Bay New Zealand;
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction; 55: 102080. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102080
Brown; N.A.; Rovins; J.E.; Feldmann-Jensen; S.; Orchiston; C.; & Johnston; D. (2019) Measuring
disaster resilience within the hotel sector: An exploratory survey of Wellington and Hawke's Bay; New
Zealand hotel staff and managers; International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction; 33: 108-121. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.09.014
Brown; N. A.; Orchiston; C.; Rovins; J. E.; Feldmann-Jensen; S.; & Johnston; D. (2018). An integrative
framework for investigating disaster resilience within the hotel sector; Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management; 36; 67-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.07.004
Bui H.T.; Jones T.E.; Weaver D.B.; & Le A. (2020). The adaptive resilience of living cultural heritage
in a tourism destination; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 28(7): 1022-1040. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1717503
Buikstra; E.; Ross; H.; King; C. A.; Baker; P. G.; Hegney; D.; McLachlan; K.; & Rogers‐Clark; C.
(2010). The components of resilience—Perceptions of an Australian rural community; Journal of
Community Psychology; 38(8): 975-991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20409
Bulkeley; H.; & Newell; P. (2015). Governing climate change. Routledge; New York.
Burnett; M.; & Johnston; T. (2020). Brexit anticipated economic shock on Ireland’s planning for
hospitality and tourism: resilience; volatility and exposure; Tourism Review; 75(3): 595-606. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-04-2019-0118
Butler; R. & Suntikul; W. (2012). Tourism and war. Routledge; New York.
Buultjens; J. W.; Ratnayake; I.; & Gnanapala; W. A. C. (2015). Post-Conflict tourism development in
Sri Lanka: implications for building resilience; Current Issues in Tourism; 19(4): 355-372. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.1002760
Cáceres-Feria; R.; Hernández-Ramírez; M.; & Ruiz-Ballesteros; E. (2021). Depopulation; community-
based tourism; and community resilience in southwest Spain; Journal of Rural Studies; 88: 108-116.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.008
Cahyanto; I.; Kingsbury; A. J.; Widodo; E.; Puspita; N. Y.; & Harnadi; A. (2021a). Coping as a
community: Recovery experiences of a tourism‐reliant area following a tsunami in
Indonesia. International Journal of Tourism Research; 23(5); 928-941. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
25
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2454
Cahyanto; I. P.; Liu-Lastres; B.; & Edwards; C. (2021b). Developing a resilience-based adaptive co-
management framework: public sectors’ insights on the role of tourism; Journal of Policy Research in
Tourism, Leisure and Events; 13(2): 204-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2020.1759611
Calgaro; E.; & Lloyd; K. (2008). Sun; sea; sand and tsunami: examining disaster vulnerability in the
tourism community of Khao Lak, Thailand; Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography; 29(3): 288-
306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2008.00335.x
Canh; N. P.; & Thanh; S. D. (2020). Domestic tourism spending and economic vulnerability. Annals
of tourism research; 85; 103063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103063
Cedeño; E. M. B.; Pennington-Gray; L.; & Cedeño; X. A. B. (2020). Tourism destination recovery
after disaster: an evaluation of the tourism disaster resilience scorecard for destinations (TDRSD);
PASOS: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural; 18(2): 309-321. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2020.18.021
Cellini; R.; & Cuccia; T. (2015). The economic resilience of tourism industry in Italy: What the ‘great
recession data show; Tourism Management Perspectives; 16: 346-356. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.007
Cerquetti; M.; & Cutrini; E. (2021). The role of social ties for culture-led development in inner areas.
The case of the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake; European Planning Studies; 29(3): 556-579. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1759512
Cevik; S.; & Ghazanchyan; M. (2021). Perfect Storm: Climate Change and Tourism; Journal of
Globalization and Development; 12(1): 47-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jgd-2020-0015
Chan; C.-S.; Nozu; K.; & Zhou; Q. (2021). Building destination resilience in the tourism disaster
management process from the past experiences: The case of the 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi
earthquake in Japan; Tourism Recreation Research; 47(5-6): 527-543. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1881707
Chan; C. S.; Nozu; K.; & Zhou; Q. (2020). Tourism stakeholder perspective for disaster-management
process and resilience: The case of the 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake in
Japan; Sustainability; 12(19): 7882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197882
Cheer; J. M.; Milano; C.; & Novelli; M. (2019). Tourism and community resilience in the
Anthropocene: accentuating temporal overtourism; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 27(4): 554-572.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1578363
Chen; F.; Xu; H.; & Lew; A. A. (2020). Livelihood resilience in tourism communities: The role of
human agency; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 28(4): 606-624. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
26
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1694029
Chen; G.; Peachey; J. W.; Stodolska; M.; Hooimeijer; P. ; & Lin; Y. (2021). Governing adaptation
strategies of winter tourism destinations in the context of the 2022 Olympic Winter Games; Tourism
Review International; 25(1): 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/154427220X15990732245727
Cheng; L.; & Zhang; J. (2020). Is tourism development a catalyst of economic recovery following
natural disaster? An analysis of economic resilience and spatial variability; Current Issues in Tourism;
23(20): 2602-2623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1711029
Cheung; K. S.; & Li; L. H. (2019). Understanding visitor–resident relations in overtourism:
Developing resilience for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 27(8): 1197-1216. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1606815
Chidakel; A.; Eb; C.; & Child; B. (2020). The comparative financial and economic performance of
protected areas in the Greater Kruger National Park; South Africa: functional diversity and resilience
in the socio-economics of a landscape-scale reserve network; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 28(8):
1100-1119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1723602
Chin; W. L.; & Pehin Dato Musa; S. F. (2021). Agritourism resilience against Covid-19: Impacts and
management strategies; Cogent Social Sciences; 7(1); 1950290. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1950290
Choi; Y.E.; Oh; C.-O.; & Chon; J. (2021). Applying the resilience principles for sustainable ecotourism
development: A case study of the Nakdong Estuary; South Korea, Tourism Management; 83: 104237.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104237
Choi; Y.E.; Song; K.; Kim; M.; & Lee; J. (2017). Transformation planning for resilient wildlife habitats
in ecotourism systems; Sustainability; 9(4): 487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040487
Chowdhury; M.; Prayag; G.; Orchiston; C.; & Spector; S. (2019). Postdisaster Social Capital; Adaptive
Resilience and Business Performance of Tourism Organizations in Christchurch, New Zealand;
Journal of Travel Research; 58(7): 1209-1226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728751879431
Cioccio; L.; & Michael; E. J. (2007). Hazard or disaster: Tourism management for the inevitable in
Northeast Victoria; Tourism Management; 28(1): 1-11.
Cirer-Costa; J. C. (2021). Economic and social resilience accounts for the recovery of Ibiza’s tourism
sector; Tourism Geographies; 23(3); 479-500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1722214
Cochrane; J. (2010). The sphere of tourism resilience; Tourism Recreation Research; 35(2): 173-185.
Cocolas; N.; Walters; G.; & Ruhanen; L. (2016). Behavioural adaptation to climate change among
winter alpine tourists: an analysis of tourist motivations and leisure substitutability; Journal of

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
27
Sustainable Tourism; 24(6): 846-865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1088860
Coghlan; A.; & Prideaux; B. (2009). Welcome to the wet tropics: the importance of weather in reef
tourism resilience; Current Issues in Tourism; 12(2): 89-104. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802596367
Cook; D.; & Jóhannsdóttir; L. (2021). Impacts; systemic risk and national response measures
concerning COVID-19—The Island case studies of Iceland and Greenland; Sustainability; 13(15):
8470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158470
Cruz-Milan; O.; & Lagunas-Puls; S. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 on Variations of Taxpayers in
Tourism-Reliant Regions: The Case of the Mexican Caribbean; Journal of Risk and Financial
Management; 14(12): 578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14120578
Cui; W.; Chen; J.; Xue; T.; & Shen; H. (2021). The economic resilience cycle evolution and spatial-
temporal difference of tourism industry in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao greater bay area from 2000
to 2019; Sustainability; 13(21): 12092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112092
Cumming; G. S.; Barnes; G.; Perz; S.; Schmink; M.; Sieving; K. E.; Southworth; J.; ... & Van Holt; T.
(2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience; Ecosystems; 8(8): 975-
987.
Cutter; S. L.; Mitchell; J. T.; & Scott; M. S. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places:
a case study of Georgetown County; South Carolina; Annals of the association of American
Geographers; 90(4): 713-737.
Dahles; H.; & Susilowati; T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth and crisis; Annals of
Tourism Research; 51: 34-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002
Dai; S.; Xu; H.; & Chen; F. (2019). A hierarchical measurement model of perceived resilience of urban
tourism destination, Social Indicators Research; 145(2): 777-804. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02117-9
Day; J.; Chin; N.; Sydnor; S.; Widhalm; M.; Shah; K. U.; & Dorworth; L. (2021). Implications of
climate change for tourism and outdoor recreation: an Indiana, USA, case study; Climatic Change;
169(3): 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03284-w
Díaz-Aguilar; A. L.; & Escalera-Reyes; J. (2020). Family relations and socio-ecological resilience
within locally-based tourism: The case of El Castillo (Nicaragua); Sustainability; 12(15): 5886. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155886
Engeset; A. B. (2020). “For better or for worse”–the role of family ownership in the resilience of rural
hospitality firms; Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism; 20(1): 68-84. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2020.1717600

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
28
Erdmenger; E. (2019). Community Resilience in urban tourist destinations; Zeitschrift für
Tourismuswissenschaft; 11(3): 437-450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tw-2019-0025
Espeso-Molinero; P. ; & Pastor-Alfonso; M. J. (2020). Governance, community resilience, and
indigenous tourism in Nahá, Mexico; Sustainability; 12(15): 5973. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155973
Espiner; S.; & Becken; S. (2014). Tourist towns on the edge: Conceptualising vulnerability and
resilience in a protected area tourism system; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 22(4): 646-665. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.855222
Espino; H. (2020). Cultural heritage as a factor of resilient territorial development in rural areas. The
case of Mértola (Portugal); PASOS: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural; 18(1): 9-25. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2020.18.001
Farrell; B. H.; & Twining-Ward; L. (2004). Reconceptualizing Tourism; Annals of Tourism Research;
31(2): 274-295.
Farrell; B.; & Twining-Ward; L. (2005). Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context of
new knowledge; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 13(2): 109-122. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580508668481
Faulkner; B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management; Tourism Management
22: 135–147.
Faulkner; B.; & Russell; R. (1997). Chaos and complexity in tourism: in search of a new perspective;
Pacific Tourism Review; 1: 93-102.
Felicetti; G. (2016). The Concept of Resilience Applied by Local Communities in Protected Area as
Social-Economic-Ecological Systems (SEES); Quality-Access to Success; 17(153).
Filimonau; V.; & De Coteau; D. (2020). Tourism resilience in the context of integrated destination and
disaster management (DM2); International Journal of Tourism Research; 22(2): 202-222. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2329
Finzi; Y. ; Ganz; N.; Limon; Y.; & Langer; S. (2021). The next big earthquake may inflict a multi-
hazard crisis – Insights from COVID-19, extreme weather and resilience in peripheral cities of Israel;
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction; 61: 102365. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102365
Folke; C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses;
Global environmental change; 16(3): 253-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Folke; C.; Hahn; T.; Olsson; P.; & Norberg; J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
29
systems; Annual Review of Environment and Resources; 30: 441-473. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Forster; J.; Lake; I.R.; Watkinson; A.R.; & Gill J.A. (2014) Marine dependent livelihoods and
resilience to environmental change: A case study of Anguilla; Marine Policy; 45: 204-212. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.017
Foster; K. A. (2007). A Case Study Approach to Understanding Regional Resilience; Institute of Urban
and Regional Development; University of California; Berkeley.
Fountain; J.; Cradock-Henry; N.; Buelow; F.; & Rennie; H. (2021). Agrifood Tourism, Rural
Resilience, and Recovery in a Postdisaster Context: Insights and Evidence From Kaikōura-hurunui,
New Zealand; Tourism Analysis; 26(2-3): 135-149. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354221X16079839951420
Gabriel-Campos; E.; Werner-Masters; K.; Cordova-Buiza; F.; & Paucar-Caceres; A. (2021).
Community eco-tourism in rural Peru: Resilience and adaptive capacities to the Covid-19 pandemic
and climate change; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management; 48: 416-427. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.07.016
Gago-Garcia; C.; Gonzalez-Relano; R.; Cambronero; M. S.; & Babinger; F. (2021). Impact of the
Covid-19 crisis on labor in the tourism sector in Spain: Territorial and gender perspectives; Boletin de
la Asociacion de Geografos Espanoles; 91.
Gallopin; G.C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity; Global
Environmental Change; 16: 293–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004
Ghaderi; Z.; Mat Som; A. P.; & Henderson; J. C. (2015). When disaster strikes: the Thai floods of 2011
and tourism industry response and resilience; Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research; 20(4): 399-
415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2014.889726
Grimstad S.; Waterhouse J.; & Burgess J. (2019). Creating a little bit of la Dolce Vita'. Explaining
resilience and transformation in the Hunter Valley wine region, NSW; Australia International Journal
of Globalisation and Small Business; 10(4): 359-380. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2019.103589
Gunderson; L. (2000). Ecological resilience – in theory and application; Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics; 31: 425–439.
Gunderson; L.H.; & Holling; C.S. (Eds.) (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human
and Natural Systems; Island Press; Washington DC.
Guo; Y.; Zhang; J.; Zhang; Y.; & Zheng; C. (2018). Examining the relationship between social capital
and community residents' perceived resilience in tourism destinations; Journal of Sustainable Tourism;

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
30
26(6): 973-986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1428335
Hall; C.M. (2010). Crisis events in tourism: Subjects of crisis in tourism; Current Issues in Tourism;
13(5): 401–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2010.491900
Hall; C.M.; & Lew; A.A. (2009). Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts: An Integrated
Approach. London: Routledge.
Hamzah; A.; & Hampton; M. P. (2013). Resilience and non-linear change in island tourism; Tourism
Geographies; 15(1): 43-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.675582
Hassan; K.; Higham; J.; Wooliscroft; B.; & Hopkins; D. (2019). Climate change and world heritage: a
cross-border analysis of the Sundarbans (Bangladesh–India); Journal of Policy Research in Tourism,
Leisure and Events; 11(2): 196-219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2018.1516073
Hegney; D. G.; Buikstra; E.; Baker; P.; Rogers-Clark; C.; Pearce; S.; Ross; H.; ... & Watson-Luke; A.
(2007). Individual resilience in rural people: a Queensland study, Australia; Rural and remote health;
7(4): 620.
Helgadóttir; G.; Einarsdóttir; A. V.; Burns; G. L.; Gunnarsdóttir; G. Þ.; & Matthíasdóttir; J. M. E.
(2019). Social sustainability of tourism in Iceland: A qualitative inquiry; Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism; 19(4-5): 404-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2019.1696699
Hernandez; Y. ; Guimarães Pereira; Â.; & Barbosa; P. (2018). Resilient futures of a small island: A
participatory approach in Tenerife (Canary Islands) to address climate change; Environmental Science
and Policy; 80: 28-37.
Hillmer-Pegram; K. C. (2014). Understanding the resilience of dive tourism to complex change;
Tourism Geographies; 16(4): 598-614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.851268
Hiwasaki; L. (2006). Community-based tourism: A pathway to sustainability for Japan's protected
areas; Society and Natural Resources; 19(8): 675-692.
Hoegh-Guldberg; O. (1999). Climate change; coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs;
Marine and freshwater research; 50(8): 839-866.
Holladay; P. J.; & Powell; R. B. (2013). Resident perceptions of social–ecological resilience and the
sustainability of community-based tourism development in the Commonwealth of Dominica; Journal
of Sustainable Tourism; 21(8): 1188-1211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.776059
Holling; C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems; Annual review of ecology and
systematics; 4(1): 1-23.
Holling; C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems;

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
31
Ecosystems; 4(5): 390-405.
Hu; H.; Qiao; X.; Yang; Y.; & Zhang; L. (2021). Developing a resilience evaluation index for cultural
heritage site: Case study of Jiangwan Town in China; Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research; 26(1):
15-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2020.1805476
Ibanescu; B. C.; Eva; M.; & Gheorghiu; A. (2020). Questioning the role of tourism as an engine for
resilience: The role of accessibility and economic performance; Sustainability; 12(14): 5527. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145527
Jamaliah; M.M.; & Powell; R.B. (2018) Ecotourism resilience to climate change in Dana Biosphere
Reserve; Jordan; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 26(4): 519-536. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1360893
Jiang; Y.; Ritchie; B. W.; & Verreynne; M. L. (2021). Developing disaster resilience: A processual and
reflective approach; Tourism Management; 87: 104374. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104374
Jiménez-Medina; P.; Artal-Tur; A.; & Sánchez-Casado; N. (2021). Tourism business; place identity,
sustainable development, and urban resilience: A focus on the sociocultural dimension; International
Regional Science Review; 44(1): 170-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017620925
Jones; T.; Glasson; J.; Wood; D.; & Fulton; E. A. (2011). Regional Planning and Resilient Futures:
Destination Modelling and Tourism Development—The Case of the Ningaloo Coastal Region in
Western Australia; Planning Practice and Research; 26(4): 393-415. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.582377
Jopp; R.; DeLacy; T.; & Mair; J. (2010). Developing a framework for regional destination adaptation
to climate change; Current Issues in Tourism; 13(6): 591-605. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683501003653379
Joshi; V.A.; & Gupta; I. (2021). Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitality and
tourism education in India and preparing for the new normal; Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism
Themes; 13(5): 622-635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-05-2021-0068
Kamarudin; K.H.; Razak; K.A.; Omar; C.N.; Abd; Wahid S.N.A.; & Wan Mohd Rani; W.N.M. (2019).
From surviving to thriving? Evaluating the resilience of rural tourism businesses in disaster-prone area
of Sabah, Malaysia; Disaster Advances; 12(7): 41-48.
Ranasinghe; J. P. R. C.; Sammani; U. G. O.; & Perera; K. J. T. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on tourism operations and resilience: stakeholders’ perspective in Sri Lanka; Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes; 13(3): 369-382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-01-2021-
0009

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
32
Keahey; J. (2019). Sustainable heritage development in the South African Cederberg; Geoforum; 104:
36-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.006
Kerr; J. T. (1997). Species richness; endemism; and the choice of areas for conservation; Conservation
Biology; 11(5): 1094-1100.
Kim; M.; You; S.; Chon; J.; & Lee; J. (2017) Sustainable land-use planning to improve the coastal
resilience of the social-ecological landscape; Sustainability; 9(7): 1086. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071086
Kim; H.; & Marcouiller; D. W. (2015). Considering disaster vulnerability and resiliency: the case of
hurricane effects on tourism-based economies; The Annals of Regional Science; 54(3): 945-971. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-015-0707-8
King; C.; Iba; W.; & Clifton; J. (2021). Reimagining resilience: COVID-19 and marine tourism in
Indonesia; Current Issues in Tourism; 24(19): 2784-2800. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1873920
Klint; L. M.; Wong; E.; Jiang; M.; Delacy; T.; Harrison; D.; & Dominey-Howes; D. (2012). Climate
change adaptation in the pacific island tourism sector: Analysing the policy environment in Vanuatu;
Current Issues in Tourism; 15(3): 247-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.608841
Knowles; N. LB. (2019). Can the North American ski industry attain climate resiliency? A modified
Delphi survey on transformations towards sustainable tourism; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 27(3):
380-397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1585440
Knox; P. L.; & Marston; S. A. (2001). Places and regions in global context: human geography. Prentice
Hall.
Kutzner; D. (2019). Environmental change; resilience; and adaptation in nature-based tourism:
conceptualizing the social-ecological resilience of birdwatching tour operations. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism; 27(8): 1142-1166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601730
Lacitignola; D.; Petrosillo; I.; Cataldi; M.; & Zurlini; G. (2007). Modelling socio-ecological tourism-
based systems for sustainability; Ecological Modelling; 206(1): 191-204.
Lambert; E.; Hunter; C.; Pierce; G. J.; & MacLeod; C. D. (2010). Sustainable whale-watching tourism
and climate change: towards a framework of resilience; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 18(3): 409-
427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669581003655497
Lam-González; Y. E.; Galindo; C. G.; Hernández; M. M. G.; & León; C. J. (2020). Understanding the
heterogeneity of tourists’ choices under climate change risks: A segmentation analysis; Atmosphere;
12(1); 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12010022

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
33
Larsen; R. K.; Calgaro; E.; & Thomalla; F. (2011). Governing resilience building in Thailand's tourism-
dependent coastal communities: Conceptualising stakeholder agency in social–ecological systems;
Global Environmental Change; 21(2): 481-491. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.009
Laws; E.; Prideaux; B.; & Chon; K.S. (2007). Crisis management in tourism. CABI; Wallingford,
England.
Lee; Y. J. A.; Kim; J.; & Jang; S. (2021). Intertemporal tourism clusters and community resilience. The
Professional Geographer; 73(3): 567-572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2021.1871768
Lekgau; R.J. & Tichaawa; T.M. (2021). Adaptive strategies employed by the mice sector in response
to covid-19; Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites; 38(4): 1203-1210. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.38427-761
Lew; A. A. (2014). Scale; change and resilience in community tourism planning; Tourism Geographies;
16(1): 14-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.864325
Liu-Lastres; B.; Mariska; D.; Tan; X.; & Ying; T. (2020). Can post-disaster tourism development
improve destination livelihoods? A case study of Aceh, Indonesia; Journal of Destination Marketing
& Management; 18: 100510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100510
Lopez; J. G. G.; Garcia; L. S.; & Solan; O. G. (2021). Absorption capacities model focused on
innovation in tourism companies postCOVID19; Cimexus; 16(1): 95-119.
Luthe; T.; Wyss; R.; & Schuckert; M. (2012). Network governance and regional resilience to climate
change: empirical evidence from mountain tourism communities; Regional Environmental Change;
12(4): 839-854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0294-5
Maciejewski; K.; De Vos; A.; Cumming; G. S.; Moore; C.; & Biggs; D. (2015). Cross‐scale feedbacks
and scale mismatches as influences on cultural services and the resilience of protected areas;
Ecological Applications; 25(1): 11-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/13-2240.1
Mackay; EA; & Spencer; A. (2017). The future of Caribbean tourism: competition and climate change
implications; Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes; 9(1): 44-59. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-11-2016-0069
Magis; K. (2010). Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability; Society & Natural
Resources; 23(5): 401–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674
Magnano; P.; Platania; M.; & Santisi; G. (2022). Recovery paths after crisis: risk intelligence as
antecedent of entrepreneurs’ resilience; Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship; 27(3): 1-22. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946722500169

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
34
Maguire; B.; & Hagan; P. (2007). Disasters and communities: Understanding social resilience;
Australian Journal of Emergency Management; 22(2): 16–20.
Mandal; S. (2019). Exploring the influence of IT capabilities on agility and resilience in tourism
Moderating role of technology orientation; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology; 10(3): 401-
414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-01-2018-0001
Mandal; S.; & Dubey; R. K. (2021). Effect of inter-organizational systems appropriation in agility and
resilience development: an empirical investigation; Benchmarking: An International Journal; 8(9):
2656-2681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2020-0542
Mandal; S.; & Dubey; R. K. (2020). Role of tourism IT adoption and risk management orientation on
tourism agility and resilience: Impact on sustainable tourism supply chain performance; International
Journal of Tourism Research; 22(6): 800-813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2381
Mandal; S.; & Saravanan; D. (2019). Exploring the Influence of Strategic Orientations on Tourism
Supply Chain Agility and Resilience: An Empirical Investigation; Tourism Planning & Development;
16(6): 612-636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2018.1561506
Mansfeld; Y. (1999). Cycles of war, terror, and peace: Determinants and management of crisis and
recovery of the Israeli tourism industry; Journal of Travel research; 38(1): 30–36.
Martini; B. & Platania; M. (2021). The resilience of tourist destination. Seismic risk perception by
tourism operators in Volcano Etna (Italy), in Tourism and Earthquakes, Michael Hall; C.; Girish Prayag,
36-50. Channel View Publication.
Matarrita-Cascante; D.; & Trejos; B. (2013). Community resilience in resource-dependent
communities: a comparative case study; Environment and Planning A; 45(6): 1387-1402. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1068/a45361
Matei; D.; Chiriță; V. ; & Lupchian; M.M. (2021). Governance and tourism resilience during the
COVID-19 crisis. Case study Bukovina; Romania Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites; 34(1): 256-
262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.34135-646
Mays; N.; Pope; C.; & Popay; J. (2005). Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence
to inform management and policy-making in the health field; Journal of health services research &
policy; 10(1): 6-20.
Mazzola; F.; Pizzuto; P. ; & Ruggieri; G. (2019). The role of tourism in island economic growth and
resilience: A panel analysis for the European Mediterranean countries (2000–2015); Journal of
Economic Studies; 46(7): 1418-1436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-04-2019-0172
McCartney; G.; Pinto; J.; & Liu; M. (2021). City resilience and recovery from COVID-19: The case
of Macao; Cities; 112: 103-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103130

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
35
McManus; S.; Seville; E.; Vargo; J.; & Brunsdon; D. (2008). Facilitated process for improving
organizational resilience; Natural Hazards; Review 9(2): 81-90.
McMinn; S. (1998). Tourist typology observations from Belize; Annals of Tourism Research; 25(3):
675-699.
Meehl; G. A.; Stocker; T. F.; Collins; W. D.; Friedlingstein; P.; Gaye; A. T.; Gregory; J. M.; Kitoh; A.;
Knutti; R.; Murphy; J. M.; Noda; A.; Raper; S.C.B.; Watterson; I. G.; Weaver; A. J.; & Zhao; Z. C.
(2007). Global climate projections. in Solomon; S.; Qin; D.; Manning; M.; Chen; Z.; Marquis; M.;
Averyt; K. B.; Tignor; M.; & Miller; H. L.; eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York Cambridge University Press: 749–844.
Melian-Alzola; L.; Fernandez-Monroy; M.; & Hidalgo-Penate; M. (2020). Hotels in contexts of
uncertainty: Measuring organisational resilience; Tourism Management Perspectives; 36: 100747.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100747
Miller; F.; Osbahr; H.; Boyd; E.; Thomalla; F.; Bharawani; S.; Ziervogel; G.; ... & Hinkel; J. (2010).
Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts?; Ecology and Society; 15(3): 1-
25.
Milne; S.; & Ateljevic; I. (2010). Tourism; economic development and the global-local nexus: Theory
embracing complexity; Tourism Geographies; 3(4): 369–393. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/146166800110070478
Min; J.; Kc; B.; Kim; S.; & Lee; J. (2020). The impact of disasters on a heritage tourist destination: A
case study of Nepal earthquakes; Sustainability; 12(15); 6115. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156115
Modica; M.; & Reggiani; A. (2015). Spatial economic resilience: overview and perspectives; Networks
and Spatial Economics; 15(2): 211-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-014-9261-7
Morakabati; Y. (2020). A question of confidence. Is tourism as vulnerable to civil unrest as we think?
A comparative analysis of the impact of Arab Spring on total reserves and tourism receipts;
International Journal of Tourism Research; 22(2): 252-265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2333
Moreno; A.; & Becken; S. (2009). A climate change vulnerability assessment methodology for coastal
tourism; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 17(4): 473-488. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802651681
Murdana; I.M.; Paturusi; S.A.; Suryawan Wiranata; A.A.P.; Mandala; H.-L.; & Suryawardani; G.A.O.
(2021). Community Involvement and Participation for Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study in Gili
Trawangan Post-earthquake; Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism; 10(3):
319-332.

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
36
Musavengane; R. (2019). Using the systemic-resilience thinking approach to enhance participatory
collaborative management of natural resources in tribal communities: toward inclusive land reform-
led outdoor tourism; Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism; 25: 45-56. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.12.002
Musavengane; R.; & Kloppers; R. (2020). Social capital: An investment towards community resilience
in the collaborative natural resources management of community-based tourism schemes; Tourism
Management Perspectives; 34: 100654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100654
Naef; P. (2020). Resilience as a City Brand: The Cases of the Comuna 13 and Moravia in Medellin,
Colombia; Sustainability; 12(20): 8469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208469
Nelson; D.; Adger; W.; & Brown; K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a
resilience framework; Annual Review of Environment and Resources; 32: 395-419. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348
Nguyen; D.N.; Esteban; M.; & Motoharu; O. (2021). Resilience adaptive capacity wheel: Challenges
for hotel stakeholders in the event of a tsunami during the Tokyo Olympics; International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction; 55: 102097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102097
Njuguna; P.K.; Maingi; S.; Kiria; S. (2021). Recruitment and Employee Training and Organisational
Resilience in Kenyan Hotels; African Journal of Hospitality Tourism and Leisure; 10(3): 999-1012.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720-145
Noorashid; N.; & Chin; W. L. (2021). Coping with COVID-19: The resilience and transformation of
community-based tourism in Brunei Darussalam; Sustainability; 13(15): 8618. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158618
Nyaupane; G. P.; & Chhetri; N. (2009). Vulnerability to climate change of nature-based tourism in the
Nepalese Himalayas; Tourism Geographies; 11(1): 95-119. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680802643359
Nyström; M.; Folke; C.; & Moberg; F. (2000). Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a human-
dominated environment; Trends in Ecology & Evolution; 15(10): 413-417. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01948-0
O'Hare; G.; & Barrett; H. (1994). Effects of market fluctuations on the Sri Lankan tourism industry:
Resilience and change; 1981-1991; Tijdschrift Voor Economische En SocialeGeografie; 85(1): 39-52.
Orchiston; C. (2013). Tourism business preparedness; resilience and disaster planning in a region of
high seismic risk: the case of the Southern Alps; New Zealand; Current Issues in Tourism; 16(5): 477-
494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.741115
Orchiston; C.; Prayag; G.; & Brown; C. (2016). Organizational resilience in the tourism sector; Annals

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
37
of Tourism Research; 56: 145-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.11.002
Otoo; F. E.; & Kim; S. (2018). Is there stability underneath health risk resilience in Hong Kong inbound
tourism?; Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research; 23(4): 344-358. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1433700
Paiva; C; & Santos; N. (2020). Tourist Destinations; Crisis and Catastrophes: The Fires of October
2017; Cadernos de Geografia; (42); 7-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14195/0871-1623_42_1
Pathak; A.; van Beynen; P. E.; Akiwumi; F. A.; & Lindeman; K. C. (2021). Climate adaptation within
the tourism sector of a small island developing state: A case study from the coastal accommodations
subsector in the Bahamas; Business Strategy & Development; 4(3): 313-325. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.160
Pathak; D.; & Joshi; G. (2021). Impact of psychological capital and life satisfaction on organizational
resilience during COVID-19: Indian tourism insights; Current Issues in Tourism; 24(17): 2398-2415.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1844643
Paton; D.; & Johnston; D. (2001). Disasters and communities: vulnerability; resilience and
preparedness; Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal; 10(4): 270-277.
Pechlaner; H.; Zacher; D.; Eckert; C.; & Petersik; L. (2018). Joint responsibility and understanding of
resilience from a DMO perspective–an analysis of different situations in Bavarian tourism destinations;
International Journal of Tourism Cities; 5(2): 146-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-12-2017-
0093
Pilquimán-Vera; M.; Cabrera-Campos; G.; & Tenorio-Pangui; P. (2020). Experiences of resilience and
Mapuche community based tourism in the pre-cordilleran territories of Panguipulli; Southern Chile;
Sustainability; 12(3): 817. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030817
Plodinec; M. J. (2009). Definitions of resilience: An analysis. Oak Ridge: Community and Regional
Resilience Institute (CARRI).
Podhorodecka; K. (2018). Tourism economies and islands' resilience to the global financial crisis;
Island Studies Journal; 13(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.43
Posch; E.; Höferl; K. M.; Steiger; R.; Bell; R.; & Gurung; L. (2019). Ke garne? How values and
worldviews influence resilience to natural hazards: A case study from Mustang, Nepal; Mountain
Research and Development; 39(4): R10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-
00005.1
Powell; R.B.; Green; T.F.; Holladay; P.J.; Krafte; K.E.; Duda; M.; Nguyen; M.T.; Spencer; J.H.; Das;
P. (2018). Examining community resilience to assist in sustainable tourism development planning in
Dong Van Karst Plateau Geopark, Vietnam; Tourism Planning & Development; 15(4): 436-457. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
38
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2017.1338202
Prayag G.; Spector S.; Orchiston C.; & Chowdhury M. (2020). Psychological resilience, organizational
resilience and life satisfaction in tourism firms: insights from the Canterbury earthquakes; Current
Issues in Tourism; 23(10): 1216-1233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1607832
Prideaux; B.; Coghlan; A.; & McNamara; K. (2010). Assessing tourists' perceptions of climate change
on mountain landscapes; Tourism Recreation Research; 35(2): 187-200. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2010.11081633
Pyke; J.; Law; A.; Jiang; M.; & de Lacy; T. (2018). Learning from the locals: the role of stakeholder
engagement in building tourism and community resilience; Journal of Ecotourism; 17(3): 206-219.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2018.1505586
Pyke; J.; De Lacy; T.; Law; A.; & Jiang; M. (2016). Building small destination resilience to the impact
of bushfire: A case study; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management; 28: 49–58. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.04.003
Pyke; J.; Lindsay-Smith; G.; Gamage; A.; Shaikh; S.; Nguyen; V. K.; de Lacy; T.; & Porter; C. (2021).
Building destination resilience to multiple crises to secure tourism’s future; Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research; 26(11): 1225-1243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.04.003
Qi; H.; Faisal; A.; & Ka; X. (2021). Negotiating the impacts of policy interventions among tourism
organizations: Adaptation and sensemaking; Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management; 47:
476-484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.05.001
Reaser; J. K.; Pomerance; R.; & Thomas; P. O. (2000). Coral bleaching and global climate change:
scientific findings and policy recommendations; Conservation Biology; 14(5): 1500-1511.
Rindrasih; E. (2018). Under the Volcano: Responses of a community-based tourism Village to the 2010
Eruption of Mount Merapi; Indonesia; Sustainability; 10(5): 1620. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051620
Ritchie; B. W. (2009). Crisis and disaster management for tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Ritchie; B.W. (2004). Chaos; crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the
tourism industry; Tourism Management; 25: 669–683.
Roca Bosch; E.; & Villares Junyent; M. (2014). Reinforce socio-ecologial resilience for tourist
destinations: Bay of rosas case (Costa Brava); Architecture; City and Environment; 25: 493-523. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5821/ace.9.25.3637
Rose; A. Z.; Oladosu; G.; Lee; B.; & Asay; G. B. (2009). The economic impacts of the September 11
terrorist attacks: a computable general equilibrium analysis; Peace Economics, Peace Science and

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
39
Public Policy; 15(2): 217-244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-8597.1161
Ruiz-Ballesteros; E. (2011). Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism: an approach
from Agua Blanca; Ecuador; Tourism Management; 32(3): 655-666. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.021
Ruiz-Ballesteros; E.; & Tejedor; AD. (2020). Community-Based Tourism as a Factor in Socio-
Ecological Resilience. Economic Diversification and Community Participation in Floreana
(Galapagos); Sustainability; 12(11): 4724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114724
Schianetz; K.; Kavanagh; L. & Lockington; D. (2007). The learning tourism destination: The potential
of a learning organisation approach for improving the sustainability of tourism destinations; Tourism
Management; 28(6): 1485–1496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.01.012
Scott; N. & Laws; E. (2005). Tourism crises and disasters: Enhancing understanding of system effects;
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing; 19(2/3): 149–158.
Senbeto; D.L.; & Hon; A.H.Y. (2020). Market turbulence and service innovation in hospitality:
examining the underlying mechanisms of employee and organizational resilience; Service Industries
Journal; 40(15-16): 1119-1139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1734573
Setiadi; A.; Rudwiarti; L.A.; Priscilia; F.; & Wardhani; M.K. (2021). City tourism branding resilience
during the covid-19 pandemic in Yogyakarta; Indonesia Spatium; 45: 1-8. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT2145001S
Setthachotsombut; N.; & Sua-iam; G. (2020). The resilience development for the entrepreneurs
tourism sector (RDETS) from the 2019 Coronavirus crisis in Thailand; African Journal of Hospitality,
Tourism and Leisure; 9(2): 1-14.
Sheppard; V.A.; & Williams; P.W. (2017). The effects of shocks and stressors on sustainability-focused
governance systems; International Journal of Tourism Policy; 7(1): 58-80. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTP.2017.082766
Sheppard; V. A.; & Williams; P. W. (2016). Factors that strengthen tourism resort resilience; Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Management; 28: 20-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.04.006
Sheppard; V. A.; Williams; P.W.; Gill; A.; & Wexler; W. (2014). Resilience in governance for
sustainable development systems: research agenda & initial findings. Resilience Alliance Conference;
Montpellier; France (May 4-8; 2014).
Sherpa; P.Y. (2017). Community and resilience among sherpas in the post-earthquake Everest region;
Himalaya; 37(2): 103-112.
Simmie; J.; Martin; R. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: towards an evolutionary approach;

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
40
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society; 3(1): 27-43. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsp029
Sisneros-Kidd; A. M.; Monz; C.; Hausner; V.; Schmidt; J.; & Clark; D. (2019). Nature-based tourism;
resource dependence; and resilience of Arctic communities: Framing complex issues in a changing
environment; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; 27(8): 1259-1276. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1612905
Smit; B.; & Wandel; J.; (2006). Adaptation; adaptive capacity and vulnerability; Global Environmental
Change; 16(3): 282–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Sobaih; A.E.E.; Elshaer; I.; Hasanein; A.M.; & Abdelaziz; A.S. (2021). Responses to COVID-19: The
role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable
tourism development; International Journal of Hospitality Management; 94: 102824. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102824
Soliku; O.; Kyiire; B.; Mahama; A.; & Kubio; C. (2021). Tourism amid COVID-19 pandemic: impacts
and implications for building resilience in the eco-tourism sector in Ghana's Savannah region; Heliyon;
7(9); e07892. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07892
Sriskandarajah; N.; Bawden; R.; Blackmore; C.; Tidball; K. G.; & Wals; A. E. (2010). Resilience in
learning systems: Case studies in university education; Environmental Education Research; 16(5–6):
559–573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505434
Stotten; R. (2021). The role of farm diversification and peasant habitus for farm resilience in mountain
areas: the case of the Otztal valley, Austria; International Journal of Social Economics; 48(7): 947-
964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-12-2019-0756
Stotten; R.; Schermer; M.; & Wilson; G.A. (2021). Lock-ins and community resilience: Two
contrasting development pathways in the Austrian Alps; Journal of Rural Studies; 84: 124-133. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.001
Strickland-Munro; J.K.; Allison; H.E.; & Moore; S.A. (2010). Using resilience concepts to investigate
the impacts of protected area tourism on communities; Annals of Tourism Research; 37(2): 499-519.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.11.001
Strunz; S. (2012). Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to
the concept of resilience; Ecological Economics; 76: 112-118. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.012
Sutcliffe; K.M.; & Vogus; T.J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In; Editors: K.S. Cameron; J.E. Dutton;
R.E. Quinn. Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler; San
Francisco; 94-110.

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
41
Swanstrom; T. (2008). Regional resilience: a critical examination of the ecological framework.
Institute of Urban & Regional Development.
Sydnor-Bousso; S.; Stafford; K.; Tews; M.; & Adler; H. (2011). Toward a resilience model for the
hospitality & tourism industry; Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism; 10(2): 195-
217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2011.536942
Terhorst; P.; & Erkuş‐Öztürk; H. (2019). Resilience to the global economic and Turkish (geo) political
crisis compared; Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie; 110(2): 138-155. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12343
Tervo-Kankare; K. (2019). Entrepreneurship in nature-based tourism under a changing climate;
Current Issues in Tourism; 22(11): 1380-1392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1439457
Thomalla; F.; Downing; T.E.; Spanger-Siegfried; E.; Han; G.; Rockström; J. (2006). Reducing hazard
vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation;
Disasters; 30(1): 39–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00305.x
Torres-Alruiz; M.D.; Pilquimán; V.M.J.; & Henríquez-Zúñiga; C. (2018). Resilience and community-
based tourism: Mapuche experiences in pre-cordilleran areas (Puyehue and Panguipulli) of Southern
Chile; Social Sciences; 7(12): 249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7120249
Tsao; C.Y. ; & Ni; C. C. (2016). Vulnerability, resilience, and the adaptive cycle in a crisis-prone
tourism community; Tourism Geographies; 18(1): 80-105. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1116600
Turner; B. L.; Kasperson; R. E.; Matson; P. A.; McCarthy; J. J.; Corell; R. W.; Christensen; L.; ... &
Polsky; C. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science; Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences; 100(14): 8074-8079.
Tyrrell; T. J.; & Johnston; R. J. (2008). Tourism sustainability; resiliency and dynamics: Towards a
more comprehensive perspective; Tourism and Hospitality Research; 8(1): 14-24. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1057/thr.2008.8
Uddin; M.M.; Schneider; P.; Asif; M.R.I.; Rahman; M.S.; Arifuzzaman; A.; & Mozumder M.M.H.
(2021). Article fishery-based ecotourism in developing countries can enhance the social-ecological
resilience of coastal fishers—a case study of Bangladesh; Water; 13(3): 292. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030292
Usher; L. E.; Yusuf; J. E.; & Covi; M. (2020). Assessing tourism business resilience in Virginia Beach;
International Journal of Tourism Cities; 6(2): 397-414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-02-2019-
0019
van der Veeken; S.; Calgaro; E.; Munk Klint; L.; Law; A.; Jiang; M.; de Lacy; T.; & Dominey-Howes;

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
42
D. (2016). Tourism destinations’ vulnerability to climate change: Nature-based tourism in Vava’u; the
Kingdom of Tonga; Tourism and Hospitality Research; 16(1): 50-71. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358415611068
van der Zee; E.; & Vanneste; D. (2015). Tourism networks unravelled; a review of the literature on
networks in tourism management studies; Tourism Management Perspectives; 15: 46-56. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.03.006
Vecco; M.; & Srakar; A. (2017). Blue notes: Slovenian jazz festivals and their contribution to the
economic resilience of the host cities; European Planning Studies; 25(1): 107-126. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1272548
Veréb; V.; van Wyk de Vries; B.; Hagos; M.; & Karátson; D. (2020a). Geoheritage and Resilience of
Dallol and the Northern Danakil Depression in Ethiopia; Geoheritage; 12(4): 82. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-020-00499-8
Veréb; V.; Nobre; H.; & Farhangmehr; M. (2020b). Cosmopolitan tourists: the resilient segment in the
face of terrorism; Tourism Management Perspectives; 33: 100620. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100620
Villavicencio; B. P.; & Pardo; G. L. (2019). Relationships of nature tourism; communality and
resilience in the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca, Mexico; PASOS: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural;
17(6): 1205-1216.
Wakil; M. A.; Sun; Y. ; & Chan; E. H. (2021). Co-flourishing: Intertwining community resilience and
tourism development in destination communities; Tourism Management Perspectives; 38: 100803.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100803
Walker; B.; & Salt; D. (2012). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing
world. Island Press.
Walker; B.; Gunderson; L.; Kinzig; A.; Folke; C.; Carpenter; S.; & Schultz; L. (2006). A handful of
heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems; Ecology
and Society; 11(1): 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01530-110113
Walker; B.; Holling; C. S.; Carpenter; S. R.; & Kinzig; A. (2004). Resilience; adaptability and
transformability in social--ecological systems; Ecology and Society; 9(2); 5.
Walmsley; A. (2019). Policy decisions and tourism: unintended consequences or deliberate neglect -
reactions to the ban on term time holidays in the UK's South West; Journal of Policy Research in
Tourism Leisure and Events; 11(1): 179-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2018.1465066
Wang; Q.; Lu; L.; & Yang; X. Z. (2015). Study on measurement and impact mechanism of socio-
ecological system resilience in Qiandao Lake; Acta Geographica Sinica; 70(05): 779-795.

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
43
Wearing; S.; Beirman; D.; & Grabowski; S. (2020). Engaging volunteer tourism in post-disaster
recovery in Nepal; Annals of Tourism Research; 80: 102802. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102802
Weis; K.; Chambers; C.; & Holladay; P. J. (2021). Social-ecological resilience and community-based
tourism in the commonwealth of Dominica; Tourism Geographies; 23(3): 458-478. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.021
Wilkinson; C.; Lindén; O.; Cesar; H.; Hodgson; G.; Rubens; J.; & Strong; A. E. (1999). Ecological
and socioeconomic impacts of 1998 coral mortality in the Indian Ocean: An ENSO impact and a
warning of future change?; Ambio; 28(2): 188-196.
Williams; C.; You; J.J.; & Joshua; K. (2020). Small-business resilience in a remote tourist destination:
exploring close relationship capabilities on the island of St Helena; Journal of Sustainable Tourism;
28(7): 937-955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1712409
Woosnam; K. M.; & Kim; H. (2014). Hurricane impacts on southeastern United States coastal national
park visitation; Tourism Geographies; 16(3): 364-381. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.823235
Wyss R.; Abegg B.; & Luthe T. (2014). Perceptions of climate change in a tourism governance context;
Tourism Management Perspectives; 11: 69-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.04.004
Wyss; R.; Luthe; T.; & Abegg; B. (2015). Building resilience to climate change–the role of cooperation
in alpine tourism networks; Local Environment; 20(8): 908-922. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.879289
Yang; E.; Kim; J.; Pennington-Gray; L.; & Ash; K. (2021a). Does tourism matter in measuring
community resilience?; Annals of Tourism Research; 89: 103222. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.879289
Yang; X.; Zhang; D.; Liu; L.; Niu; J.; Zhang; X.; & Wang; X. (2021b). Development trajectory for the
temporal and spatial evolution of the resilience of regional tourism environmental systems in 14 cities
of Gansu Province, China; Environmental Science and Pollution Research; 28(46): 65094-65115. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14932-0
Yorque; R.; Walker; B.; Holling; C. S.; Gunderson; L. H.; Folke; C.; Carpenter; S.; & Brock; W. A.
(2002). Toward an integrated synthesis. In Gunderson L.H.; Panarchy: Understanding transformations
in human and natural systems; Island press; 419-440.
Zeng; B.; Carter; R. W.; & De Lacy; T. (2005). Short-term perturbations and tourism effects: The case
of SARS in China; Current Issues in Tourism; 8(4): 306-322. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500508668220

Volume 32, Issue 1(1-44). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review
44
Zheng; D.; Luo; Q.; & Ritchie; B.W. (2021). Afraid to travel after COVID-19? Self-protection; coping
and resilience against pandemic ‘travel fear’; Tourism Management; 83: 104261. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104261
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license
lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone, anywhere in the world
to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without
permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long
as the author and original source are properly cited.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
45
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 45-70
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 08.06.2023
Accepted: 26.07.2023
Published: 15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory
analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
Fabio Forlani
Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Via Pascoli, 20 - Perugia, Italy,
fabio.forlani@unipg.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-5002-3177
Antonio Picciotti
Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Via Pascoli, 20 - Perugia, Italy,
antonio.picciotti@unipg.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-1998-2644
Simone Splendiani
Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Via Pascoli, 20 - Perugia, Italy,
simone.splendiani@unipg.it. ORCID: 0000-0001-5874-6508
Abstract: Cultural routes have been recognized as effective social innovation projects to promote
tourism development in marginal areas. However, the resilience of these routes, particularly in the face
of external shocks and disruptions, remains a critical area of investigation. This study examines the
role of cultural routes (as social innovation projects) in improving the resilience of these marginal areas
after pandemic crisis. The research draws upon a combination of secondary data provided by ISTAT
for assessing the marginality of the study areas and primary data on the impact of the "Via Francigena"
project obtained through 32 interviews with managers of accommodation facilities (B&Bs, hostels,
farm stays, hotels) located along the route itself. The findings of this study reveal that cultural routes
offer significant opportunities for tourism development in marginal areas. Firstly, they serve as unique
selling points, showcasing the cultural heritage and authenticity of these regions. Cultural routes
provide a compelling narrative that attracts tourists seeking immersive experiences, promoting
sustainable tourism practices and economic growth in these areas. Secondly, cultural routes act as
catalysts for local community engagement and empowerment. By involving residents in tourism-
related activities and initiatives, cultural routes foster a sense of pride, ownership, and entrepreneurship
among the local population. The socio-economic benefits of the project determine a diversification of
income sources and increase the resilience of communities located in the most marginal areas of the
Apennines. However, a successful implementation of cultural routes to develop tourism and
community resilience in marginal areas requires overcoming various challenges. These include limited
resources, the need for a cultural change and the need for collaborative efforts among multiple
stakeholders, including government bodies, local communities, tourism operators, and cultural

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
46
organizations. This research contributes to the understanding of cultural routes as a powerful tool for
tourism development in marginalized areas. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers,
tourism planners, and destination managers in leveraging the potential of cultural routes as social
innovation projects. By capitalizing on the cultural heritage of these areas, cultural routes can drive
economic growth, improve community well-being, preserve environmental heritage and thereby
increase the economic resilience of communities. In conclusion, this research enhances our
understanding of tourism resilience through the case of Via Francigena, demonstrating its relevance as
a model for other cultural routes. By identifying key strategies and factors that contribute to resilience,
this study informs effective planning and management approaches for the long-term sustainability of
cultural tourism destinations and the preservation of cultural heritage. Future research should focus on
evaluating the long-term impacts of cultural routes on tourism development, assessing visitor
satisfaction, and investigating the potential replication of these projects in different marginal areas.
Keywords: Social Innovation; Cultural Routes; Cultural Tourism; Slow Tourism; Tourism
Development; Tourism resilience.
JEL Codes: M2; M3
1. Introduction
Cultural routes (CRs) have emerged as powerful tools for promoting social innovation and revitalizing
marginal areas (Aquino et al., 2018; Altinay et al., 2016). Recent tourism literature (Splendiani et al., 2023)
has demonstrated the multifaceted benefits of the cultural routes as a social innovation project for marginal
areas. Firstly, the cultural route, like the Via Francigena, provides opportunities for economic development
by stimulating tourism (Altinay et al., 2016), creating employment, and fostering entrepreneurship in local
communities (Laeis & Lemke, 2016). Secondly, it enhances social cohesion by promoting cultural
exchange, intercultural dialogue, and community engagement (Kato & Progano, 2017; Cardia, 2018).
Thirdly, the cultural routes contribute to the preservation and valorization of cultural heritage, promoting a
sense of identity and pride among local residents (Jimura, 2016).
As highlighted by Forlani et al. (2021) several challenges and limitations must be addressed for the
successful implementation of cultural routes. Among these factors, poor route design, weaknesses in
attractiveness factors, lack of hospitality services (dedicated accommodation facilities such as pilgrim
hostels), insufficient investments in basic infrastructure (signage, water access points, etc.), and lack of
collaboration among different stakeholders, including public authorities, local communities, and volunteer
organizations, are notable.
While the benefit of well-designed and managed CRs to local development is recognised, an
assessment of their impact in terms of resilience, particularly in the face of external shocks and
disruptions, remains a critical area of investigation.
Resiliency is the ability of a system (or a subject) to absorb disturbances and to learn and to adapt to
the turbulence in order to grow and become more dynamic (Magnano et al., 2022; Pechlaner et al. 2018;
Walker & Salt, 2012, Plodinec, 2009). Increasing the adaptability of economic systems and the capacities

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
47
of communities, and hence, the growth of resilience, are necessary conditions in the light of fluctuating
economies and global threats (Martini & Platania; 2021; Berkes et al., 2008). As Becken (2013) clarified,
the goal of resilience is to increase robustness in a dynamic sense, rather than to support stability.
This study explores the Italian case of the "Via Francigena" to investigate the potential of cultural
routes for promoting tourism development and resilience in marginal areas. The Via Francigena, an ancient
pilgrimage route connecting Canterbury to Rome, traverses diverse Italian territories. Some areas are
developed for tourism and have world-famous cities (Rome, Siena, Lucca), while other areas (small
municipalities in the Po Valley or the Apennines) are classified by ISTAT - Italian National Institute of
Statistics - (2019) as marginal and/or non-touristic areas.
The case of the Via Francigena is particularly significant as a successful example that has managed to
overcome these problems, creating significant flows of pilgrims with noticeable economic, social, and
environmental impacts for both operators and the local population (Splendiani & Forlani, 2023).
Considering that the flow of tourists generated by the Via Francigena traverses both well-developed
tourist areas and areas that are marginal from a tourism and/or economic perspective, the object of the study
is twofold: firstly, understanding how the economic, social, and environmental impact of tourist flows
generated by the Via Francigena varies across different areas; secondly, to assess the impact of Cultural
Routes on the resilience of marginal areas and their capacity to respond to the pandemic crisis. Based
on this aim, the article is structured as follow: in the second paragraph, we first introduce the perspective
of social innovation, with a particular focus on the tourism dimension. Subsequently, we define the
capabilities of cultural routes to activate economic and development and resilience within a territory.
The third paragraph describes the methodology employed, while the fourth presents and discusses the
findings that emerge from the empirical research. The article concludes by providing an overview of
the main implications for future research and policy.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Social innovation in tourism
A theoretical perspective that can be used to define the development, the organizational approach and
the social and economic effects of the paths is represented by Social Innovation. As noted above, the paths
not only produce economic values, relating to the development of services and structures addressed to the
reception of tourists, but also have clear social implications. This “social role” emerges at least from a
double point of view. On the one hand, in terms of territorial attractiveness, local communities contribute,
with their traditions, habit and cultural heritage to the construction and animation of tourist destinations.
On the other hand, in terms of governance, the peculiarity of the tourist development model of the paths
lies in the ability to aggregate different actors (public and private, profit and non-profit), to generate inter-
organizational architectures based on involvement and on the participation of entire local communities and
to activate economic and social development in marginal areas. For these reasons they could be considered
as social innovation practices, like other experiences emerged in the tourism industry (Aquino et al., 2018;
Altinay et al., 2016; Malek & Costa, 2015). In this perspective, the cultural routes represent an archetype
of sustainable development capable of activating the participation of local community, the protection and
improvement of the quality of life and the creation and diffusion of new entrepreneurship and employment.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
48
It then becomes necessary to understand what is the meaning of social innovation and, subsequently,
to establish whether and how this theoretical perspective can be applied to the tourism industry and, in
particular, to the Cultural Routes. In order to establish the content of social innovation, it is possible to
recall the definition proposed by the European Commission (2013) on the basis of which the Social
Innovation is “the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services and models) to meet
social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. It represents new responses to pressing
social demands, which affect the process of social interactions. It is aimed at improving human well-being.
Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means”.
Considering the content of this definition, some aspects assume the role of distinctive components of
Social Innovation.
The first element is represented by the output of social innovation which can be different as it can give
rise to the creation of new products (goods, services and experience) and new processes that did not
previously exist or that, although existing, they were unable to adequately satisfy certain needs. The second
element is the goals of social innovation. It is aimed at identifying and satisfying social needs or social
problems, considering with this term the needs of contemporary society, relating to both poverty,
marginalization and exclusion conditions of specific categories of people, and to new social needs as
sustainability and quality of life. The third element is the organizational methods through which social
innovation initiatives are implemented which are essentially based on collaborative architectures and
relationships. Finally, the last distinctive element is the typology of the actors. The proposed definition
assumes that any subject, whether for profit or non-profit, public or private, can undertake Social
Innovation initiatives, highlighting, also in this case, the existence of an extreme heterogeneity of solutions
and the possibility of activating different organizational configurations.
Considering this definition, the dimension most evoked by the concept of social innovation is the
social change in its different forms and levels of manifestation. Therefore, innovating means trying to
identify and provide solutions to the new needs of people and communities; it means planning, developing
and introducing transformations in the relationships between individuals and between institutions; it
basically means redefining the aims and priorities of economic and social development.
This orientation towards social innovation was already established in the past, mainly in the academic
field, with the foundation of various specialized research centers (Edwards-Schachter et al., 2012) but it
has particularly spread especially over 2000s. Currently, on the one hand, there is the emergence of
numerous initiatives launched by large sectors of society that seek to generate experiences of social
innovation or that, at least, are inspired by this approach (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010) and, on the other
hand, there is a growing tendency by policy makers to consider social innovation as one of the main
inspiring criteria of future economic and social development policies (for example, the creation of the
OSICP - Office of Social Innovaton and Civic Participation - and the establishment of the related fund, the
SIF - Social Innovation Fund - in 2009, by the American government and the launch of the initiative called
“This is European Social Innovation” in 2010 by the European Commission, which gave rise, in the
following years, to the financing of different research projects, also within the 7th Framework Program,
directly or indirectly assigned to the theme of Social innovation).
However, despite having similar characteristics, social innovation has not been adequately explored
by tourism studies. The research carried out so far are limited and extremely heterogeneous, both in terms
of approaches and contents. In particular, in order to define the main declinations that the concept of social

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
49
innovation has in the tourism industry, three distinct research trajectories are generally identified in the
scientific literature (Mosedale & Voll, 2017).
A first trajectory has a technological nature. In this perspective, the introduction and dissemination of
new technologies, based on the sharing economy approach, allow the generation of new benefits and the
satisfaction of individual and collective needs. This is the case, for example, of some online tourism
platforms through which users can share their time and skills and offer their services to visit and stay in
different locations, developing networks of relationships that tend to generate and self-strengthen over time
(Walker and Chen, 2019). Or it is the case of other important online operators such as Airbnb which decided
to introduce activities in its business model aimed at the enhancement of some territories and the
regeneration of particular locations or architectural buildings. The value generated by such initiatives,
undertaken with the collaboration of local communities, remains and is reinvested in the territories,
assuming not only an economic but above all a social meaning (Presenza et al., 2021).
A second trajectory explores the issue of governance of participatory processes. The works included
in this research field try to define new and adequate methods and approaches to involve local communities
in decision-making processes aimed at planning and implementing tourism programs. For example, some
studies underline the need for each region to create and support innovation contexts that are based on the
characteristics of the territory and that provide mechanisms and tools for community participation, in order
to guarantee the shared definition of scenarios, objectives and actions (Malek and Costa, 2015). Other
works, on the other hand, try to define the contents and systems of incentives and monitoring of social
innovations that are aimed at the reconversion, also in a tourism development perspective, of rural or forest
areas (Secco et al., 2019).
Finally, a last trajectory, particularly relevant for the purposes of this work, considers social
innovation as a process capable of activating dynamics of economic and social development consistent
with the intrinsic characteristics of local communities, dynamics that counteract the impoverishment
of the most fragile areas and increase their resilience to external shocks. These studies show how the
collaboration between subjects with different nature and purposes, including the emergence of new actors
guided by exclusively social aims, can cause positive effects on territories in terms of generating new
products, creating new entrepreneurship and new employment, contributing to the regeneration of entire
marginal areas. A study on some rural development initiatives shows how the joint activities of university,
industry, government and civil society lead to the creation of new leisure activities, to development of new
tourist destinations and the generation of new entrepreneurship oriented towards tourism (Nordberg et al.,
2020). Other research shows how the social innovation process can generate new entrepreneurship and
employment opportunities in the tourism industry in the context of the underprivileged community (Quandt
et al., 2017). Finally, even in more advanced economic and social contexts, various researches show how
the implementation of collaborative processes can both improve the management of natural resources and
strengthen tourism activities from an environmental sustainability perspective (Batle et al., 2018), and
constitute the prerequisite for the development of new business models oriented towards greater social
sustainability through the inclusion of disadvantaged people in tourism activities (Alegre & Berbegal-
Mirabent, 2016).
On the basis of these studies, it is therefore possible to argue that the perspective of social innovation,
even if not adequately explored, can represent an effective field of research, able to explain the ways in

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
50
which entire local communities are organized and able to activate bottom-up processes to produce new
solutions and creative spaces (Trunfio & Campana, 2019).
2.2 Cultural Routes, local development, social value and resilience
Over the last few years there has been a constant growth in the forms of tourism that are included in
the category of Slow Tourism (Losada & Mota, 2019; Guiver & McGrath, 2016; Conway & Timms, 2012;
Heitmann et al., 2011; Fullagar et al., 2012). The characteristics of slow travel have been well identified by
Lumsdon & Mcgrath (2011): slowness and time value; authenticity of the destination; travel arrangements
and travel experience; environmental awareness and sustainability. From the tourists’ side, this kind of
tourism is considered able to offer authentic experiences and intensive emotions through the self-
rediscovery (Soulard et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2012; Murray & Graham, 1997) transforming the
holiday in a mental journey with representative values, meanings and expectations. A kind of tourist
fruition that is clearly opposed to mass tourism, promoting the experience quality and the relationship with
the host community (Oh et al., 2014; Dodds, 2012; Zago, 2012; Heitmann et al., 2011; Murray & Graham,
1997; Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004). A journey that includes sustainable consumption approach and
contain various practices such as participating in local traditions, eating and drinking local products while
exploring the area on foot or by bike (Guiver & McGrath, 2016).
Among the Slow Tourism perspective, that of the Cultural Routes is acquiring an increasingly
important role (Denstadli & Jacobsen, 2011), in particular in the less touristy areas (Meyer, 2004). These
initiatives, mainly aimed at the economic and social regeneration of peripheral rural areas (Briedenhann &
Wickens, 2004), begin to spread to various areas of the world.
One of the first definitions of route as a tourist proposal can be referred to the concept of "Heritage
route", developed by UNESCO on the occasion of the Meeting of Experts on Routes as a Part of our
Cultural Heritage in Madrid in 1994: "A heritage route is composed of tangible elements of which the
cultural significance comes from exchanges and a multi-dimensional dialogue across countries or region,
and that illustrate the interaction of movement, along the route, in space and time ".
Recognized as cultural resources, themed routes have been defined by the Council of Europe (2015,
p. 15) as “routes crossing one or two more countries or regions, organised around themes whose historical,
artistic or social interest is patently Europe; any route must be based on a number of highlights, with places
particularly rich in historical associations”.
The Cultural Routes are therefore consisting of a set of ancient roads that include art, architecture and
religious sites under a unified theme (Fernandes et al., 2012). The CRs creating an intangible heritage made
up of history, traditions and local culture (Cardia, 2018; Kato & Progano, 2017; Jimura, 2016) with a great
power to valorise both cultural and spiritual aspects of life (Lourens, 2007; Briedenhann & Wickens, 2004).
They have the possibility of uniting territorial systems, often very different from each other (Vada et al.,
2023), giving the possibility of combining more resources that independently would not have the capacity
to generate the necessary critical mass to attract tourist flows (Murray & Graham, 1997).
Meyer (2004, p. 3) added that “by combining the attractions or a number of attraction providers into
regional packages, thus creating greater access to a variety of products while at the same time increasing
the product’s appeal, routes are important tourism development strategies”.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
51
The tourism of the paths therefore represents an alternative and sustainable development practice, not
only from an economics point of view but also from a social point of view, thanks to the involvement and
promotion of the host communities (Cardia, 2018; Kato & Progano, 2017; Jimura, 2016; Božić & Tomić,
2016).
Although the literature shows a general recognition of the potential of the Paths to generate value for
the territory, there are few studies that, through empirical analyses, measure the multidimensional impact
of these tourism enhancement initiatives.
According to Meyer (2004), the most relevant opportunities are linked to the development of services
for pilgrims along the routes, capable of encouraging tourist spending and extending the average length of
stay. Further advantages are linked to the possibility of providing additional employment and income, both
directly and indirectly, through the creation of new business opportunities (Fernandes et al., 2012).
According to Božić and Tomić (2016) themed routes can play a pivotal role in encouraging local
community to participate in cultural activities raising awareness of the local heritage importance.
Jimura (2016) in his exploratory study of the Kii mountain routes in Japan highlighted their impact
on: management and conservation of heritage (environmental, religious and cultural); involvement of local
communities (employment of workers, rediscovery of local culture, etc.); tourism development (increases
in tourist flows, creation of new businesses).
From the analysis of the literature on Slow Tourism and Cultural Routes, it emerges that these projects
(both top-down and bottom-up) can be classified as typical processes of social innovation, as
highlighted in paragraph 2. Cultural routes are indeed initiatives of tourist-cultural promotion designed
with social purposes, through collaborative and horizontal logics among actors of different nature
(public, for-profit, non-profit), which activate economic and social dynamics that characterize slow
tourism (Splendiani & Forlani, 2023; Losada & Mota, 2019; Guiver & McGrath, 2016; Fullagar et al.,
2012). Like other slow tourism projects, cultural routes also increase the resilience of local
communities (Splendiani et al., 2023; Sheldon & Daniele, 2017; Cheer & Lew, 2017). Slow tourism
focuses on promoting local economies by encouraging visitors to engage with local businesses,
artisans, and services. By supporting local enterprises, slow tourism helps diversify the economic base
of an area, reducing its dependence on a single industry. This diversification enhances economic
resilience, making the area less vulnerable to economic shocks or downturns. Slow tourism emphasizes
sustainable practices, such as minimizing environmental impact, conserving natural resources,
supports the development and maintenance of environmental infrastructure (including walking and
cycling paths) and promoting eco-friendly transportation options. By prioritizing environmental
sustainability, slow tourism helps protect the natural beauty and resources of an area. Preserving the
environment is crucial for the long-term resilience of an area, as it ensures the availability of natural
attractions and resources for future generations. Slow tourism promotes authentic cultural experiences
and interactions with local communities. By encouraging visitors to immerse themselves in the local
culture, traditions, and ways of life, slow tourism fosters social cohesion and mutual understanding
between tourists and residents. This connection and engagement can strengthen the social fabric of a
community and promote social resilience in the face of challenges or crises. Slow tourism values and
promotes the preservation of cultural heritage sites, traditions, and local knowledge. By recognizing
and protecting the cultural heritage of an area, slow tourism contributes to the resilience of its identity

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
52
and sense of place. This preservation of cultural heritage not only benefits local communities but also
enriches the tourism experience for visitors seeking authentic and meaningful encounters.
In summary, slow tourism's emphasis on economic, environmental, social, and cultural resilience
makes it a valuable contributor to the overall resilience of an area. By prioritizing sustainability,
authenticity, and local engagement, slow tourism helps create more robust and adaptable communities
that can better withstand and recover from challenges and disruptions.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research design and case selection
Given the explorative nature of this research, the methodological approach used is the case study
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). In particular, a multiple-case study analysis has carried out because of its
robustness and generalizability, greater than the single case study research (Baxter & Jack, 2008;
Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Moreover, this method has been previously adopted in hospitality studies
(Paniccia & Leoni, 2019; Peters & Kallmuenzer, 2018). The multiple-case study method is proper to the
aim of the research as it provides an in-depth description of the cases and seeks to advance the theoretical
understanding of the phenomenon.
The experience studied in this article is the Via Francigena, a historical-cultural itinerary represented
by a bundle of roads that connects Canterbury Cathedral to Rome, passing through England, France,
Switzerland and Italy and following in the footsteps of ancient medieval pilgrims. The motivations behind
the choice of this experience are manifold, encompassing both theoretical and empirical factors. In
particular, the Via Francigena is the most important pilgrim way of Italy with the high number of pilgrims
(17,092 credentials distributed in the 2018
1
), as well as the second for number of hikers in Europe. Via
Francigena is a “Council of Europe cultural itinerary” certified in 1994, the second in chronological order
after the Santiago de Compostela Pilgrim Routes, certified in 1987.
Given its relevance, from a theorical point of view the case of the Via Francigena has already been
the subject of numerous studies that highlighted its virtuosity in management and performance perspective
(Forlani et al., 2021).
The territories crossed by the Via Francigena represent contexts in which it is possible to assess
the effects of policies and interventions of social innovation (such as the Via Francigena) aimed at
activating dynamics of revitalization in rural areas. The initiative to revive the Via Francigena, along
with other historical pilgrimage routes in Italy, emerged during the Jubilee of 2000 and is linked to the
establishment of the European Association of the Via Francigena (AEVF). After more than 20 years,
this project has achieved significant results: "By the end of 2020, AEVF networks 189 local authorities
and 64 nonprofit organizations in England, France, Switzerland, and Italy, along with over 400 private
actors in the hospitality, tourism, and technical equipment sectors."
2
It is therefore interesting to define
the economic and social effects that the construction of an attraction like the Via Francigena has been
able to generate in the territories it traverses.
1
www.percorsiditerre.it/Cammini-in-italia-ecco-tutti-i-numeri/ (Access 25/07/2023)
2
https://www.viefrancigene.org/en/about-us/ (Access 25/07/2023)

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
53
The following sections provide a detailed description of the data collection and analysis activities,
as well as the specific methods that were adopted to ensure the validity and reliability of the results
(Lindgreen et al., 2021).
3.2. Data gathering
The information used in the empirical investigation was of various types and derived from both
primary and secondary sources. The main source consisted of in-depth interviews conducted with
managers and owners of accommodation facilities located along the section of the Via Francigena that
traverses Italy, comprising 45 stages spanning approximately 1,000 km. The key informants were
identified by researchers from the list provided in the Via Francigena Official Guide.
The research protocol involved sending an email to all 270 accommodation facilities listed in the
guide, explaining the purpose of the research and requesting their participation. The emails were sent
in groups of 30, allowing for interviews to be conducted in subsequent steps. After the initial phase, a
second round of emails was sent only to the facilities that had not responded positively to the first
invitation. Overall, information was obtained from 32 accommodation facilities (11.8% of the total),
as presented in Table 1, specifying their profile (type and nature of the activity) and their location
(region and municipality).
The researchers did not continue with other interviews because no new information or issues emerging
in the data were noticed, as the ‘saturation point’ had been reached (Guest et al., 2006).

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
54
Table 1. The hospitality subjects interviewed.
Source: Author elaboration
The individual interviews lasted from 30 to 60 minutes and were conducted using a structured guide
developed by the researchers. The guide aimed to explore, in addition to demographic variables, the
following themes: history/description of the business, significance of the Via Francigena (VF) for its
establishment/development, analysis of the pilgrim profile, and perceptions regarding the benefits
brought by the VF to the territory.
The interview protocol was developed based on theoretical considerations derived from a literature
review, with the aim of identifying the main conceptual areas to analyze. It was progressively adapted
according to the results obtained during the investigation, following a logic of interaction between
theory and empirical feedback (Gephart, 2004). Indeed, given the breadth and complexity of the topics
addressed, open-ended questions were asked, allowing the interviewees to also delve into other
Accommodation
Category
Company profile
N. interviews
Region
Municipalities
Camping
Profit
1
Valle d’Aosta (1)
Etroubles
Bed & Breakfast
Profit
13
Valle d’Aosta (1);
Piemonte (4);
Lombardia (2);
Emilia Romagna (2);
Toscana (3);
Lazio (1)
Châtillon; Borgofranco
di Ivrea (2); Santhià (2)
Palestro; Mirandolo
Terme; Piacenza;
Berceto; Pontremoli;
Santo Stefano di
Magra; Lucca; Viterbo
Private room
Profit
2
Toscana (2)
Pontremoli; Camaiore
Guest houses
Profit
1
Toscana (1)
Altopascio
Farmhouse
Profit
1
Piemonte (1)
Sant’Ambrogio di
Torino
Hostel
Secular non-profit
3
Valle d’Aosta
(2); Piemonte (1);
Verres; Pont-Saint-
Martin; Santhià;
Religious non- profit
4
Toscana (4)
Aulla; Camaiore;
Monteriggioni;
Ponte d’Arbia
Profit
2
Lazio (2)
Montefiascone;
Campagnano di
Roma
Holiday house
Religious non- profit
3
Toscana (1);
Lazio (2)
Monteriggioni;
Montefiascone;
Viterbo
Hotel
Profit
2
Lazio (2)
Vetralla; Capranica

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
55
relevant issues. This approach helped to clarify some of the initially vague concepts during the data
collection process, leading to new insights that had not been considered before (Flick, 2004). The
interviews were conducted by two authors between August and December 2020. To preserve all the
acquired information, the interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Additionally, during
the meetings, the authors took notes to capture ideas and impressions that arose during the discussions.
After each interview, the authors discussed the obtained information and revised the questions to
include aspects that had not been previously considered but emerged during the meetings (Eisenhardt
& Graebner, 2007).
During the research, information was also gathered from secondary sources. Initially, data were
collected from articles on the Via Francigena published in national and international specialized
journals, reports available on the website of the European Association of the Vie Francigene, which
provided insights into the functioning of this pathway, and from websites dedicated to pilgrimage
routes and social media groups of walkers. This preliminary study on pilgrimage routes allowed for a
deeper understanding of the case under study and helped define the positioning of the Via Francigena
in this context.
Subsequently, once the accommodation facilities were identified, additional secondary data were
acquired. This included company information available on websites and social media profiles, as well
as data related to the territories where the facilities were located, such as tourist flows and indicators
of tourism demand.
The use of secondary sources was valuable as they provided essential background information to
comprehend the context and reality of the businesses. The obtained information allowed for the
identification of topics that required further exploration and the modification or introduction of new
questions concerning aspects that had not been previously considered. This supported the authors in
conducting direct interviews.
Following this approach, all the collected information from interviews and secondary sources that
could lead to misinterpretations or highlight critical situations was shared with the interviewees to
enhance the rigor of the research (Creswell & Miller, 2000).
3.3. Data Analysis
With this activity, a logical and conceptual reconstruction of the collected data and information was
carried out, followed by the construction of an interpretative framework.
Firstly, an analysis of the interviews and documents from secondary sources was conducted. To
increase the reliability of the research, each author independently read the interview transcripts and
examined the information. On one hand, they identified the decisions and behaviors adopted by the
individual accommodation facilities, and on the other hand, they identified the main changes that
occurred in the territories, providing their own interpretation of events. In cases where one author's
perspective differed from that of the other authors, the topic was further explored through additional
verification of the correspondence between the information from the interviews and the data from
secondary sources, following a triangulation logic (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Secondly, in order to assess the impact of the Via Francigena on the areas it traverses, the
municipalities included in the study, where the individual accommodation facilities were located, were

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
56
divided into four categories based on their degree of economic marginality and level of tourism.
Economic marginality was determined by intersecting two different indicators: the list of depressed
areas in 2001 (Yes: present; No: not present) and the classification of Italian municipalities according
to the methodology of internal areas in 2014 (A: Pole; B: Inter-municipal Pole; C: Belt; D: Internal
Area). Municipalities with at least one positive indicator were classified as marginal areas. In cases
where the Via Francigena passes through peripheral areas of the municipality (hamlets), their
additional level of marginality was evaluated using data from ISTAT regarding population and
economic activities in the area. The level of tourism was obtained from the 2019 Tourist Classification
of Italian Municipalities provided by ISTAT, which categorizes municipalities based on tourism
density and assigns a score on a scale from 1 (low density) to 5 (high density). By cross-referencing
these indicators, different types of municipalities emerge, each with its own characteristics, as
presented in Table 2.
Table 2. The types of territories crossed by the Via Francigena.
High tourism density
Low tourism density
Geographical peripherality and economic
marginality
Type A
Type B
Geographical centrality and economic
development
Type C
Type D
Source: Author elaboration
Finally, the last activity consisted of overlaying the results derived from the empirical research
(primary and secondary data) with the territorial typologies identified along the Via Francigena route.
This allowed for the definition of the economic, social, and environmental effects that, according to
the operators' perception, the Via Francigena has generated for the territories and the accommodation
facilities.
4. Findings and discussion
Below (Table 3), the ISTAT data describing the locations crossed by the Via Francigena under
study and their classification based on the typologies proposed in this study (Table 4) are presented.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
57
Table 3. The degree of economic and touristic marginality of the areas crossed by the Via Francigena.
Source: Author elaboration
N.
Location
or hamlets
Municipality
Region
N°
of
inhabitants
List
of depressed
areas (2001)
Internal
areas
(2014)
Level
of tourism
density (1-5)
N° int.
Type
1
Etroubles
Etroubles
Valle d’Aosta
493
No
D
5
1
A
2
Châtillon
Châtillon
Valle d’Aosta
4,631
Yes
C
4
1
A
3
Verres
Verres
Valle d’Aosta
2,633
Yes
C
3
1
B
4
Pont-Saint-
Martin
Pont-Saint-
Martin
Valle d’Aosta
3,683
Yes
D
3
1
B
5
Borgofranco
d'Ivrea
Borgofranco
d'Ivrea
Piemonte
3,672
Yes
C
3
2
B
6
Santhia
Santhia
Piemonte
8,468
No
C
2
3
B
7
Sant'Ambrogio
di Torino
Sant'Ambrogio
di Torino
Piemonte
4,707
Yes
C
1
1
B
8
Palestro
Palestro
Lombardia
1,897
No
C
1
1
B
9
Miradolo
Terme
Miradolo Terme
Lombardia
3,733
No
C
3
1
B
10
Piacenza
Piacenza
Emilia
103,942
No
A
5
1
C
11
Berceto
Berceto
Emilia
1,990
Yes
C
4
1
A
12
Previdé &
Toplecca
Pontremoli
Toscana
(22) 7,182
Yes
B
3
2
B
13
Aulla
Aulla
Toscana
11,067
Yes
C
3
1
B
14
Ponzano
Superiore
Santo Stefano di
Magra
Toscana
(432) 7,182
Yes
C
3
1
B
15
Camaiore
Camaiore
Toscana
32,283
No
B
5
1
C
16
Valpromano
Camaiore
Toscana
(200)
32,283
No
B
5
1
B
17
Lucca
Lucca
Toscana
88,824
No
A
5
1
C
18
Altopascio
Altopascio
Toscana
15,532
No
C
3
1
B
19
Monteriggioni
Monteriggioni
Toscana
10,033
No
B
4
2
C
20
Ponte d'Arbia
Monteroni
d'Arbia
Toscana
9,070
C
3
1
B
21
Montefiascone
Montefiascone
Lazio
13,387
Yes
C
3
2
B
22
Viterbo
Viterbo
Lazio
67,681
Yes
A
4
2
C
23
Vetralla
Vetralla
Lazio
13,978
Yes
C
2
1
B
24
Capranica
Capranica
Lazio
6,442
Yes
D
1
1
B
25
Campagnano di
Roma
Campagnano di
Roma
Lazio
11,533
Yes
D
4
1
A

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
58
Table 4. The types of municipalities crossed by the Via Francigena.
High tourism density
Low tourism density
Geographical
peripherality and
economic marginality
Type A: Etroubles; Châtillon;
Berceto; Campagnano di Roma
Type B: Verres; Pont-Saint-Martin; Borgofranco
d'Ivrea; Santhia; Sant'Ambrogio di Torino;
Palestro; Miradolo Terme; Pontremoli; Santo
Stefano di Magra; Camaiore; Monteroni d'Arbia;
Montefiascone; Vetralla,
Geographical centrality
and economic
development
Type C: Piacenza; Camaiore; Lucca;
Monteriggioni; Viterbo
Type D: No municipality
Source: Author elaboration
In Table 5, the main results obtained from the interviews conducted with the tourist operators of
the analyzed locations are presented.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
59
Table 5. The impact of the Via Francigena on the perception of tourism operators divided according
to the type of area crossed.
Types
of territories
crossed
Economic implications;
Socio-cultural implications;
Environmental
implications
Type A
• Territory awareness;
• Increased flow of tourists
(Variability: in some
establishments, pilgrims
constitute 60% to 90% of the
clientele, while in others it
ranges from 10% to 20%);
• Support to the local
microeconomy by boosting the
revenue of small shops, bars, and
restaurants;
• Emergence of new B&B
accommodations.
• Cultural exchange
• Contribution to preventing
depopulation of more peripheral
areas
• Restoration and
maintenance of trails;
• Increased attention to
environmental aesthetics
in the areas traversed;
Type B
• Territory awareness;
• Increased and, in some areas,
emerged of tourist flows
(Variability: in many
establishments, pilgrims make
up almost 100% of the clientele,
in many it ranges from 40% to
60%, only in some cases they are
a minority but not insignificant,
around 10% to 20%);
• Support to the local
microeconomy by boosting the
revenue of small shops, bars, and
restaurants (a fundamental
contribution for their existence);
• Emergence of new activities:
B&Bs, guesthouses, hostels,
bars, new services (luggage
transportation, river crossing),
and dedicated small shops
(bicycle repair and rental).
• Cultural exchange and enrichment
and greater openness of the
population;
• Improvement of the hospitality of
the local community towards
tourists;
• Increased appreciation of local
resources by citizens;
• Promotion of sports activities
(hiking);
• New residents in areas at risk of
depopulation
• Restoration and
maintenance of trails;
• Increased attention to
environmental aesthetics
in the areas traversed;
Type C
• Territory awareness;
• Increased tourist flow
(Variability: in some
• Cultural exchange and greater
openness of the population;

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
60
establishments, pilgrims are
highly significant, accounting
for 50% to 80% of the clientele,
while in others they are
marginal, ranging from 10% to
25%; for a minority, they are
almost irrelevant (1%);
• Benefits for small businesses
(grocery stores, bars,
restaurants);
Source: Author elaboration
In general, it can be stated that the Via Francigena produces direct impacts in all the territories it
crosses:
1) Creation of new tourist flows with the main motivation of the journey being the pilgrimage.
This type of tourism has been referred to by interviewees as "sober" as walkers require essential
services for their experience and while walking, they are moderate consumers. There are two
main profiles of walkers: the pure pilgrim and the hiker. The pure pilgrim covers a long stretch
of the Francigena (at least 15 stages), prefers spartan and shared hospitality structures (hostels),
focuses on the pilgrimage itself, and consumes the essentials (food and beverages, medical
care) with an average expenditure of 30-35€. The hiker covers shorter sections (from 3 to 14
stages), uses professional yet authentic and typical hospitality facilities (B&Bs, small hotels,
farmhouse, etc.) as they seek a connection with the territory, social interaction, as well as
comfort and privacy. Along the route, they take the time to discover the local culture and
gastronomy by dining in typical restaurants at each stage point.
2) Increased awareness of the places crossed by the pilgrimage due to communication efforts by
various stakeholders and word-of-mouth generated by the walkers.
3) Increased revenues for small businesses located in the historical centers along the route (bars,
grocery stores, pharmacies), particularly at the stage points (restaurants, bars, tobacco shops,
grocery stores, pharmacies, accommodations).
4) Socio-cultural benefits for the local community generated by the exchange facilitated by the
slow travel and the passage of walkers. The interaction between pilgrims and locals has resulted
in greater openness towards foreigners and diversity in all the communities crossed, leading to
an increased capacity for hospitality within the entire territorial system.
In marginal areas type A, in addition to the previous four points, the following additional direct
benefits are clearly perceived:
5) Improvement of the maintenance of the Francigena route and increased attention to the
environmental quality of the places crossed. This attention is certainly directed towards the
safety and healthiness of the route but is increasingly focused on aesthetics as well, as
communities have recognized the importance of a well-maintained territory that "looks good."
6) Creation of tailored tourist services to meet the demand expressed by pilgrims. Firstly, new
non-profit organizations (and some for-profit cases) have been established for the management
of hostels and new B&Bs have been developed in response to the increased influx of pilgrims.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
61
Secondly, existing profit and non-profit organizations in the area have expanded their services,
such as hospitality and catering specifically for pilgrims (pilgrim menus, adapting parts of their
operations to hostels, etc.), luggage transportation, bicycle repair and rental services, river
crossing services, and so on.
In marginal areas type B, unlike those located in more developed areas, especially from a tourism
perspective, interviewees also perceive significant indirect and induced impacts:
7) Cultural change among the populations in the areas crossed, with a progressive openness and
increased hospitality of the citizens, contributes to the improvement of the territory's tourism
offerings. A better tourism culture promotes not only an enhancement of services aimed at
walkers but also prepares the area for other tourism offerings.
8) Creation of new jobs (hostel staff, B&B managers, etc.) and improvement of community
income.
9) Preservation of small businesses (and/or non-profit organizations) that characterize the
microeconomy of small towns with fewer than 1000 inhabitants (shops, bars, restaurants, etc.)
that are no longer sustainable with local demand alone. The survival of these businesses is not
only important for the number of jobs and related employment but also because it ensures the
preservation of basic services for the community itself (bars, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc.).
10) Maintenance of the population in small villages crossed by the Francigena. The income
generated by pilgrimage tourism has allowed some interviewees to keep their struggling
businesses alive and continue living in challenging and marginal areas with high environmental
quality. Among the interviewees, there are also individuals who, after discovering the places
as walkers, decided to change their lifestyle and moved to depopulated small villages, opening
B&Bs and related businesses catering to pilgrims.
11) Particularly in underdeveloped marginal areas prior to the introduction of the Via Francigena,
a slow but significant process of economic and social revitalization has been observed. Without
pilgrimage tourism, these areas would have embarked on an irreversible path of decline.
These effects, considered collectively, clearly demonstrate the overall benefit that a community
and a locality can derive from the inclusion and location of their territory within the Via Francigena
route. From a theoretical standpoint, considering the nature of such benefits (economic, social, and
environmental) and, above all, the ways in which they are achieved (involving and activating a plurality
of public and private, profit and non-profit actors), it is equally evident how the Via Francigena project
exhibits the characteristics and can be considered a "successful" social innovation experiment.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
62
Table 6. The impact of the Via Francigena on tourist flows in different types of accommodation
facilities, categorized by area.
Source: Author elaboration
Focusing on the impact on tourism from the analysis of the incidence of walkers on the total
number of tourists in the interviewed businesses (Table 6), it is possible to observe that a successful
pilgrimage-cultural route produces:
1. The establishment of dedicated hospitality facilities (hostels). The interviewed facilities state
that they were specifically created because of their location on the Via Francigena and primarily
accommodate pilgrims (at least 80% of guests), even in areas with a higher level of tourist
development.
2. Essential support for small tourism businesses (B&Bs, hotels, guest houses) in marginal areas.
Numerically, pilgrimage tourism represents between 40% and 60% of the total guests in such
establishments. Additionally, walkers distribute themselves over a period from April to
October, making a significant contribution to the deseasonalization of these businesses
(otherwise, they would only operate during July and August).
3. The emergence of tourism facilities in areas previously unaffected by the phenomenon due to
a lack of attractive factors capable of capturing other tourist flows.
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine how the implementation of a tourism social innovation
project contributes to the development of tourism and, consequently, enhances the economic,
environmental, and socio-cultural resilience of the areas involved. Specifically, the objective was to
assess whether and how the perceived impacts on operators vary as the project traverses territories
with increasing levels of tourist and economic marginality.
From the interviews, a highly varied picture emerges, in which the Via Francigena is recognized
as playing an important role, particularly in terms of its ability to enhance the conservation and
valorization of natural and environmental resources. Additionally, it enables the revitalization of
Type A
Type B
Type C
N.
Accomodation
category
%
pilgrims
N.
Accomodation
category
%
pilgrims
N.
Accomodation
category
%
pilgrims
2
B&B
40%
8
B&B
50%
3
B&B
12%
1
Hostel
90%
7
Hostel
96,5%
1
Hostel
80%
0
Private room
---
1
Private room
100%
1
Private room
50%
1
Other (Camping,
Farm house, ecc)
10%
1
Other (Camping,
Farm house, ecc)
10%
0
Other (Camping,
Farm house, ecc)
---
0
Hotel
---
2
Hotel
40%
0
Hotel
---
0
Guest houses
---
1
Guest houses
60%
0
Guest houses
---
0
Holiday house
---
1
Holiday house
10%
2
Holiday house
37,5%

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
63
peripheral areas that would otherwise be excluded from traditional tourist routes and at risk of
abandonment and depopulation. The impact in terms of increased tourist flows and the emergence of
new businesses linked to the passage of pilgrims, although observed, is less evident and becomes more
pronounced as the area's marginality grows.
This conclusion represents a significant theoretical contribution as it allows for a relevant
consideration of the level of knowledge and progressive construction of the concept of social
innovation. In particular, the initiatives undertaken in each territory crossed by the Via Francigena take
on all the typical characteristics of social innovation. In other words, it is as if each community self-
organizes to respond to the increased flow of visitors that this project manages to attract to all
territories, especially those that exhibit marginality compared to major tourist attractions. Therefore,
this represents a first-level social innovation that produces its effects on a local scale. At the same time,
these individual initiatives also serve as essential components of a comprehensive, second-level
innovation that produces its effects on a much larger, national, and international scale, constituted, in
the specific case, by the Via Francigena project. Based on such evidence, it is possible to argue that
the Via Francigena represents an experiment in social innovation as it acts as an innovation platform,
promoting development and incorporating widespread experiences and practices of innovation.
Another characteristic that is emerging is the importance of the role of the walker in shaping the
supply system. As a result, key aspects of this type of hospitality are focused on human relationships,
authenticity, and a connection to the territory. From a structural perspective, several key points emerge,
such as the identification and recognition through symbols of the Camino, the respect for the simplicity
of the offer, and the efficiency of services that can be useful to tourists (quick laundry service, packed
breakfast preparation, proximity to religious and emergency facilities, etc.). Other important
parameters in the selection and formation of the accommodation are related to more social and
psychological aspects, such as openness to multiculturalism.
In summary, the overall results of this study reveal that cultural routes offer significant
opportunities for the development of marginal areas and to increase their resilience to external shocks
as happened with Covid 19. Firstly, they allow for the integration of communication among small
territorial realities, showcasing the cultural heritage and authenticity of these regions. Cultural routes
offer engaging narratives that attract tourists seeking immersive experiences, promoting sustainable
tourism practices and economic growth in these areas. Secondly, cultural routes act as catalysts for the
involvement and empowerment of local communities. By involving residents in tourism-related
activities and initiatives, successful cultural routes foster a sense of pride, ownership, and
entrepreneurship among the local population. This leads to greater community resilience and numerous
socio-economic benefits. However, creating social innovation projects (cultural routes) for tourism
development in marginal areas requires overcoming several challenges. These include limited
resources, lack of infrastructure, and the need for collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders,
including government bodies, local communities, tourism operators, and cultural organizations.
Additionally, effective destination management, marketing strategies, and sustainable practices are
crucial for long-term success.
The findings of this study provide valuable insights for policymakers, tourism planners, and
destination managers, demonstrating the potential of cultural routes as social innovation projects. By
enhancing the cultural and environmental resources of these areas, cultural routes can stimulate

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
64
economic growth, improve community well-being, and preserve the cultural heritage of marginal
areas, thereby fostering the development of a tourism economy. The benefits are most evident in Type
B areas, where not only economic benefits but also social benefits, such as increased community
openness and interaction with walkers, and environmental benefits related to greater attention to urban
aesthetics and the natural landscape, are perceived.
Implications for trail managers are related to the design of routes, which should consider both
aspects of tourist attractiveness and those related to community involvement. Lastly, there are
implications for the tourism businesses involved in the project, who must understand the importance
of participation and sharing in such projects, as the competitiveness of their offerings is closely linked
to the competitiveness of the cultural route. Future research should focus on evaluating the long-term
impacts of cultural routes on tourism development, assessing visitor satisfaction, and exploring the
potential replication of these projects in different marginal areas.
Acknowledgments
None.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
Alegre, I., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Social innovation success factors: hospitality and tourism
social enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1155-1176.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0231
Altinay, L., Sigala, M., & Waligo, V. (2016). Social value creation through tourism enterprise. Tourism
Management, 54, 404-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.011
Andereck, K., Valentine, K., Knopf, R., & Vogt, C. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community
tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 1056-1076. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001
Aquino, R. S., Lück, M., & Schänzel, H. A. (2018). A conceptual framework of tourism social
entrepreneurship for sustainable community development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 37, 23-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.09.001
Batle, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., & Moon, C. J. (2018). Environmental management best practices: Towards
social innovation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 69, 14-20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.10.013

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
65
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation
for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
Becken, S. (2013). Developing a framework for assessing resilience of tourism subsystems to climatic
factors; Annals of Tourism Research; 43, 506-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.06.002
Božić, S., & Tomić, N. (2016). Developing the cultural route evaluation model (CREM) and its
application on the Trail of Roman Emperors. Serbia. Tourism Management Perspectives, 17, 26–35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.11.002
Briedenhann, J., & Wickens, E. (2004). Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of
rural areas—vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management, 25(1), 71–79. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00063-3
Cardia, G. (2018). Routes and itineraries as a means of contribution for sustainable tourism
development. In V. Katsoni & K. Valander (Eds.), Innovative approaches to tourism and leisure,
Springer, 17–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67603-6_2
Conway D. &Timms B.F. (2012), Are slow travel and slow tourism misfits, compadres or different
genres?, Tourism Recreation Research, 37(1), 71-76. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2012.11081689
Council of Europe (2015). Cultural Routes Management: from theory to practice [accessed at
https://rm.coe.int/gestion-des-itineraires-culturels-de-la-theorie-a-la-pratique/168098b061; consulted
on 25.07.23].
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Cheer, J. M., & Lew, A. A. (2017). Understanding tourism resilience: Adapting to social, political, and
economic change. In Cheer, J. M., & Lew, A. A. (Eds.). (2017). Tourism, resilience and sustainability:
Adapting to social, political and economic change. Routledge, 3-17.
Denstadli, J. M., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2011). The long and winding roads: Perceived quality of scenic
tourism routes. Tourism management, 32(4), 780-789. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.014
Dodds R. (2012). Questioning Slow as sustainable. Tourism Recreation Research, 37(1), 81-83. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2012.11081691

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
66
Edwards-Schachter M.E., Matti C.E. & Alcántara E. (2012), Fostering quality of life through social
innovation: A living lab methodology study case. Review of Policy Research, 29(6), 672-692. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00588.x
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review,
14(4), 532-550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
European Commission (2013), Guide to social innovation, DG Regional and Urban Policy.
Fernandes, C., Pimenta, E., Gonçalves, F., & Rachão, S. (2012). A new research approach for religious
tourism: The case study of the Portuguese route to Santiago. International Journal of Tourism Policy,
4(2), 83–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTP.2012.048996
Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. In Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., & Steinke, I.
(Eds.) A companion to qualitative research, Sage, 178-183.
Forlani, F., Ferrucci, L., Picciotti, A., & Splendiani, S. (2021). Mapping and evaluating the attractiveness
of pilgrim routes from an experiential perspective: The case of the ‘paths through Italy’. International
Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 9(4), 24-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21427/FDH7-VZ60
Fullagar, S., Markwell, K. & Wilson, E. (eds.) (2012), Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities. vol.
54, Channel View Publications.
García, F. A., Vázquez, A. B., & Macías, R. C. (2015). Resident's attitudes towards the impacts of
tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33-40. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002
Gephart Jr, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of
management journal, 47(4), 454-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2004.14438580
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data
saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Guiver J.W. & McGrath P. (2016), Slow tourism: Exploring the discourses, Dos Algarves, 27, 11-34.
Heitmann S., Robinson P. & Povey G. (2011), Slow food, slow cities and slow tourism, in Robinson
P., Heitmann S. & Dieke P., Research Themes for Tourism, CAB International, 114-127. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845936846.0114

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
67
Howaldt J. & Schwarz M. (2010), Social Innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends,
IMA/ZLW, Dortmund.
Jimura, T. (2016). World heritage site management: A case study of sacred sites and pilgrimage routes
in the Kii mountain range, Japan. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 11(4), 382–394. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2016.1146287
Kato, K., & Progano, R. N. (2017). Spiritual (walking) tourism as a foundation for sustainable
destination development: Kumano-kodo pilgrimage, Wakayama, Japan. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 24, 243-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.07.017
Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2013). How does tourism in a community impact the quality of
life of community residents?. Tourism management, 36, 527-540. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.005
Laeis, G. C., & Lemke, S. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: Applying sustainable livelihoods
approaches. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1076-1093. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0235
Lindgreen, A., Di Benedetto, C. A. & Beverland, M. B. (2021), How to write up case-study methodology
sections, Industrial Marketing Management, 96, A7-A10. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.012
Losada, N., & Mota, G. (2019). ‘Slow down, your movie is too fast’: Slow tourism representations in
the promotional videos of the Douro region (Northern Portugal). Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 11, 140–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.12.007
Lourens, M. (2007). Route tourism: a roadmap for successful destinations and local economic
development. Development Southern Africa, 24(3), 475-490. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03768350701445574
Lumsdon, L. M., & McGrath, P. (2011). Developing a conceptual framework for slow travel: A
grounded theory approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 265–279. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.519438
Magnano; P.; Platania; M.; & Santisi; G. (2022). Recovery paths after crisis: risk intelligence as
antecedent of entrepreneurs’ resilience; Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship; 27(03), 1-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946722500169
Malek, A., & Costa, C. (2015). Integrating communities into tourism planning through social
innovation. Tourism Planning & Development, 12(3), 281–299. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2014.951125

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
68
Martini; B. & Platania; M. (2021). The resilience of tourist destination. Seismic risk perception by
tourism operators in Volcano Etna (Italy), in Tourism and Earthquakes, Hall; C.M., Prayag, G.,
Channel View Publication, 36-50.
Meyer, D. (2004). Tourism routes and gateways: Key issues for the development of tourism routes and
gateways and their potential for pro-poor tourism. Overseas Development Institute.
Mosedale, J., & Voll, F. (2017). Social Innovations in Tourism: Social Practices Contributing to Social
Development. In: Sheldon, P., Daniele, R. (eds) Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism. Tourism on the
Verge. Springer, 101-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0_6
Murray, M., & Graham, B. (1997). Exploring the dialectics of route-based tourism: The Camino de
Santiago. Tourism Management, 18(8), 513–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(97)00075-7
Nordberg, K., Mariussen, Å, & Virkkala, S. (2020). Community-driven social innovation and quadruple
helix coordination in rural development. Case study on LEADER group Aktion Österbotten. Journal of
Rural Studies, 79, 157–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.001
Oh, Y., Lee, I. W., & Bush, C. B. (2014). The role of dynamic social capital on economic development
partnerships within and across communities. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(3), 230-243. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242414535247
Paniccia, P. M. A., & Leoni, L. (2019). Co-evolution in tourism: The case of Albergo Diffuso. Current
Issues in Tourism, 22(10), 1216-1243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1367763
Pechlaner; H.; Zacher; D.; Eckert; C.; & Petersik; L. (2018). Joint responsibility and understanding of
resilience from a DMO perspective–an analysis of different situations in Bavarian tourism destinations;
International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(2), 146-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-12-2017-
0093
Peters, M., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: The case of the
hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(1), 21-40. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1053849
Plodinec; M. J. (2009). Definitions of resilience: An analysis. Oak Ridge: Community and Regional
Resilience Institute (CARRI).
Presenza, A., Panniello, U., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2021). Tourism multi‐sided platforms and the
social innovation trajectory: The case of Airbnb. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(1), 47-
62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12394

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
69
Quandt, C., Ferraresi, A., Kudlawicz, C., Martins, J., & Machado, A. (2017). Social innovation
practices in the regional tourism industry: Case study of a cooperative in Brazil. Social Enterprise
Journal, 13(1), 78-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2015-0038
Rodríguez, B., Molina, J., Pérez, F., & Caballero, R. (2012). Interactive design of personalised tourism
routes. Tourism Management, 33(4), 926–940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.014
Secco, L., Pisani, E., Da Re, R., Rogelja, T., Burlando, C., Vicentini, K., Pettenella, D., Masiero, M.,
Miller, D., & Nijnjk, M. (2019). Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent
rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration. Forest Policy and
Economics, 104, 9-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.03.011
Sheldon, P., Daniele, R. (eds) Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism. Tourism on the Verge. Springer,
101-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0
Soulard, J., McGehee, N. G., & Stern, M. (2019). Transformative tourism organizations and
glocalization. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 91–104. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.03.007
Splendiani, S., & Forlani, F. (2023). Il turismo dei Cammini per la valorizzazione delle destinazioni
italiane. Modelli, strumenti manageriali e casi di studio. FrancoAngeli.
Splendiani, S., Forlani, F., Picciotti, A., & Presenza, A. (2023). Social Innovation Project and Tourism
Lifestyle Entrepreneurship to Revitalize the Marginal Areas. The Case of the via Francigena Cultural
Route. Tourism Planning & Development, 1-17. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2022.2161616
Trunfio, M., & Campana, S. (2019). Drivers and emerging innovations in knowledge-based destinations:
Towards a research agenda. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 14, 100370. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100370
Vada, S., Dupre, K., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Route tourism: a narrative literature review. Current Issues
in Tourism, 26(6), 879-889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2151420
Walker, N.K., & Chen, Y. (2019). Social innovation in tourism: Unleashing the time-money constraint.
Journal of the knowledge economy, 10, 1700-1719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0534-0
Walker; B.; & Salt; D. (2012). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing
world. Island Press.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage.

Volume 32, Issue 1(45-70). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes. An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”
70
Zago M. (2012), Definire e operativizzare lo slow tourism: il modello Castle, in Calzati V. & de Salvo
P. (eds.), Le strategie per una valorizzazione sostenibile del territorio, FrancoAngeli.
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license
lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone, anywhere in the world
to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without
permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long
as the author and original source are properly cited.

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
71
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 71-92
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 21.06.2023
Accepted: 02.08.2023
Published: 15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience
orientation
Lorenza Gerardi
Department of Communication and Social Research, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Salaria 113 -
Rome, Italy, marialorenza.gerardi@uniroma.it. ORCID: 0009-0006-4568-5121
Fabiola Sfodera
Department of Communication and Social Research, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Salaria 113 -
Rome, Italy ORCID: 0000-0003-1966-8038
Abstract: This research aims to validate the Consumer-Based Model of Authenticity by applying it to
the realm of large historical art cities destinations. Building upon existing literature models that explore
authenticity, cultural motivation, and loyalty, we apply a conceptual model that contributes to a
comprehensive understanding of these significant factors. By incorporating these dimensions, our aim
is to advance the theoretical framework and empirical knowledge pertaining to authenticity within the
context of historical art cities, destinations known to be subject to phenomena such as ‘touristification’
and gentrification, in which authenticity is both jeopardized by mass tourism and at the same time an
effective strategy for building resilience in heritage cities in regard to their cultural and environmental
integrity. A survey was conducted on a sample of 129 respondents. The questionnaire was administered
via Prolific to both tourists who have previously visited Rome and those who have never visited the
city. To test the conceptual model, factor analysis and SEM were employed through R software. From
a theoretical perspective, the research findings offer insights that contribute to a deeper comprehension
of the nature of authenticity in the resilience of heritage cities’ context. This study explores the
interconnections between the factors influencing authenticity and their subsequent impacts within a
heritage city as a destination. By investigating the antecedents and consequences of authenticity, this
research sheds light on the intricate dynamics and relationships at play in the realm of heritage cities.
Understanding the interconnections between authenticity and resilience offers valuable insights into
preserving the unique cultural identity of heritage cities while adapting to tourism challenges. The
study provides destination managers with a valuable tool to systematically measure the impact of
marketing and communication policies on the perceived authenticity of visitors over time. It offers
insights into the extent to which these strategies can influence tourists' future intentions to visit.
Furthermore, authenticity acts as a powerful approach to protect historical art cities from the negative
effects of mass tourism and touristification. By preserving their unique identity and cultural heritage,
authenticity promotes sustainable development economically and environmentally. This research
empowers destination managers to assess the effectiveness of their efforts in enhancing perceived
authenticity and its subsequent influence on tourists' decision-making processes.
Keywords: Authenticity, cultural tourism, historical art cities, cultural motivation, loyalty
JEL Codes: Z30, Z32

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
72
1. Introduction
In the last decades, tourism has reshaped destination geography, characterized by the "world tourism
cities" (Maitland & Newman 2009), as a tourism attractor. Each city is a tourist destination, connected with
other cities regardless of the region or country tourism development in which they are located. This is not
a polarized development of a city within a potential destination (Smith 2006) but a network of independent
destinations represented by world cities. They represent, at the same time, a hub for world tourism, a place
of origin, and a destination for significant tourist arrivals (Ashworth & Page, 2011). Radical changes in
recent decades have definitively challenged the ways of managing tourism offerings in urban spaces of
world cities. Cities have become spaces of relationships, humanized (Sachs-Jeantet, 1996), and transformed
into places whose economy is based on the productive activity of knowledge accumulation. Urban space
concept is based on the relationship between social relations and space (Gospodini, 2001). It expresses the
complex relationships between human and local elements according to the levels of cultural space, leisure
space, and landscape space. From the tourism perspective cities create new experiences and products
(Ashworth, 2015). Indeed, as Maitland (2008) states, city's atmosphere and identity and the urban,
historical, and social space create tourist attractiveness and experience. The world's tourism cities therefore
plan for the extension of products and experiences to broaden their set of offerings needed to compete
within the global network.
With this eye, the widespread belief that attractions of great historical or artistic value per se present
an unchanging ability to attract tourists over time due to their uniqueness and rarity is challenged. For these
cities, the perceived authenticity of cultural heritage is an essential qualifier of both the experience that
feeds its attractiveness and uniqueness and for heritage management guidelines and strategies (Jigyasu &
Imon, 2022).
Authenticity finds significant application in cultural heritage experience research, referring to which
the accuracy of representations and the risk of commodification resulting from cultural consumption
constitute a structured and ongoing field of interest in scientific research (Rickly, 2022). Authenticity is
rooted in the hyper-competitiveness of tourism previously addressed, authenticity is indeed conceptualized
as an attribute that describes a genuine, real experience (Le et al., 2019; Taylor, 1991) and the demand for
authenticity has had a profound impact on tourists’ decision-making process for years (Grayson &
Martinec, 2004). As a fundamental motivation for visitors (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010), authenticity is one of
today’s key trends in tourism, especially in cultural tourism (Jiang et al., 2016; Yeoman et al., 2007).
Authenticity represents for historical cities a significative opportunity for their competitiveness, as these
urban areas have unique historical and cultural assets that can provide immersive and meaningful
experiences for tourists (Jansen-Verbeke, 1998). Authenticity is a key factor for these cities, as it represents
the genuine and original features that contribute to the cultural identity of the place (Pendlebury et al.,
2009). The historical cities are being considered a sort of ‘open-air museum’, containing within themselves
all the typical elements of urban tourism (i.e., shopping and entertainment, gastronomy and culinary
experiences, urban landscapes, accessibility, and infrastructures), which affects the perception of
authenticity.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a particularly significant impact on tourism in historical art cities,
traditionally afflicted by the phenomenon of overtourism and therefore not considered safe in terms of
social distancing. In the last decades urban spaces dedicated to tourism experienced a complete
transformation into actual tourist destinations (Belhassen et al., 2014) and city centers experiences notable
negative consequences (Velasco et al., 2019) as being subjected to the processes of ‘touristification’ (de La

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
73
Calle, 2019) and ‘gentrification’ (Bobic & Akhavan, 2022). While historical centers hold universal
significance in terms of cultural, historical and social aspects, their value is globally acknowledged and
over time they became famous tourist attractions. Today mass tourism and globalization represent a
significant threat to historical cities, by challenging them with tourists overcrowding and depopulation. In
particular, the escalation of urban tourism has caused cities to undergo a process of environmental,
economic and social change not sustainable in the long term. This is a particularly significant concern in
European historical cities, where the Covid-19 pandemic has had a much deeper impact on tourism flows
due to their high dependence on international arrivals (Euromonitor, 2021). At the same time, these cities
have shown a quicker recovery compared to other destinations, with international arrivals already returning
to pre-pandemic levels (Eurostat, 2023). Although there is a widespread belief on the ability of tourism to
benefit the hosting community, by generating employment and fostering the growth of local businesses
(Egresi, 2018), tourism is also a consumer of environments and local communities (Orbasli, 2000). Within
this context, the concept of tourism resilience becomes a major issue in historical art cities, because all
these negative phenomena (i.e. touristification, gentrification) undermine authenticity itself, as cities lose
their cultural and environmental integrity (Drost, 1996) and the compensatory process of preservation is
often only object-oriented (Nasser, 2003; Bobic & Akhavan, 2022). Furthermore, in the case of historical
art cities, authenticity can be understood as a strategy to promote tourism resilience in times of crisis, as a
subjective judgement of truthfulness and a qualifier of attractiveness and uniqueness.
Based on these premises, this paper aims to investigate, in a post-pandemic tourist industry, how
authenticity contributes to the overall resilience of heritage cities, dwelling in particular on the perceived
authenticity of a large historical city, understood as both the perceived authenticity of cultural heritage and
the perceived authenticity of lived experience. According to these aspects, we investigate the relationship
between cultural motivation, perceived authenticity, and loyalty in an historical city, specifically focusing
on Rome. By examining the dynamic interplay between perceived authenticity and the resilience of
heritage cities, through a quantitative research method, this research aims to provide valuable insights for
destination managers, marketers, and policymakers in their efforts to enhance the attractiveness and
competitiveness of heritage cities as authentic tourist destinations. In terms of resilience, we frame
authenticity as a strategic tool for destinations to overcome economic shocks and flourish when confronted
with new challenges or trends, disruptions and crises.
2. Literature review and theoretical framework
2.1. Authenticity
The debate about the concept of authenticity and its dimensions has grown rapidly among tourist
scholars for many years. MacCannell (1973) was the first to introduce and define the concept of
authenticity in a comprehensive and explicit manner. According to Wang (1999)’s literature review,
authenticity is a construct consisting of three theoretical dimensions: objective authenticity,
constructive authenticity, and existential authenticity. The concept of objective authenticity is traced
back to the context of certified cultural heritage, this perspective adopts a positivist approach as it
conceptualizes authenticity as a measurable and inherent attribute of the original object, site, or artifact
(Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). On the other hand, constructive authenticity is a more nuanced concept,
shaped by individuals’ perceptions and attitudes and influenced by symbolic, contextual, and
negotiated aspects (Chaabra, 2008; De Bernardi, 2019) that merge into a collective process of social
recognition of authenticity. Existential authenticity is an activity-related concept, as it refers to
phenomenological traditions and subjective interpretation. Existential authenticity is independent from
objects or sites (Olsen, 2002) as it is composed of two subdimensions: intrapersonal existential
authenticity (physical feelings and self-creation) and interpersonal existential authenticity (social and

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
74
family ties) (Wang, 1999). Today, great attention is placed on the relation between existential
authenticity and both two other dimensions of authenticity (Zhang & Yin, 2020) and between
authenticity and performance indicators, as tourist satisfaction and loyalty (Yi et al., 2022). In the
context of tourist experience, according to Park et al. (2019), objective authenticity doesn’t influence
tourist satisfaction; nevertheless, existential authenticity has an impact on tourist loyalty and
satisfaction as it relates the object to individual perceptions and experience. Existential authenticity is
indeed closely linked to objects and context, and previous studies (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; Zhou et al.,
2013) have validated the positive impact of the object-based component on the existential component
of authenticity. In Wang (1999)’s perspective, authenticity theoretical dimensions should not be
considered exclusive or contradictory, but rather one the complement of the other. Based on this, in
this study we represent authenticity through two separate constructs, one referring to the object-based
component and the other representing the existential component. Furthermore, in line with the
consumer-based approach proposed by Kolar and Zabkar (2010), in this study authenticity is intended
as an evaluative judgment concerning a tourist's experience in a tourist destination. According to this
perspective, authenticity refers to the perceived genuineness, originality, and cultural integrity of a
tourist experience, which therefore refers both to the "objects" with which tourists come into contact
and to the existential experience they have during the vacation (Wang, 1999). Authenticity appears
thus to be strongly related to resilience. As it contributes to creating meaningful and memorable
experience through the preservation of cultural heritage and – in cities – through the enjoyment for
tourists of local traditions and cultural attractions, authenticity is considered an effective tool for
enabling heritage cities to survive and thrive in times of crisis and shocks, such as the recent pandemic.
In the context of resilience, authenticity plays therefore a pivotal role, as it enhances heritage cities’
ability to cope with the challenging effects of tourism (Hopkins & Becken, 2014; Bui et al., 2020)
2.2. The historical art cities and the experience environment
Culture and tourism have an enduring and intertwined relationship, as cultural sites, attractions,
cities today still represent a fundamental motivation for travel (UNWTO, 2023), while travelling itself
contributes to the creation and enrichment of culture (Richards, 2018). Cultural attractions like
monuments, historical building and historic centers often serve as the primary motivation for visiting
a specific destination, by engaging tourists in authentic immersive experiences that allow them to
witness the ‘extraordinary’ or the ‘wonderful’ in both tangible and intangible dimensions (Rojek,
1997). Cultural tourism involves different forms of travel (Richards, 2018), including tourism to urban
areas as historical art cities, where cultural attractions such as monuments, museums, building and
theaters are prominent and the city itself could be defined as an ‘open-air museum’ (Gnl et al., 2009).
The authentic experience is particularly meaningful in historical cities, as they provide tourists an
opportunity to not only engaging with extraordinary cultural objects and experiences, but also
experiences local life, shopping experiences and urban attractions such as festivals, cultural centers
and much more. While on the side of their cultural significance, historical cities stand as authentic
living testimonials to human culture and collective memory with their historic centers and artistic
masterpieces, on the other side heritage cities are as well part of urban tourism (Adamo et al., 2018).
In Van Den Berg et al. (1995)’s tourist city model, products as history, local cultures and attractions
represent the primary asset for unique tourism offerings (Balkaran & Maharaj, 2013; Vengesay et al.,
2009). In urban tourism, the dimensions of cultural motivation come together with other competitive
assets of the city, such as supporting infrastructure or activities (Ben-Dalia et al., 2013), activities as
shopping, dining, sports facilities, or outdoor activities (Camilleri, 2019), external and internal
accessibilities (Ouariti & Jebrane, 2020; Wessels & Tseane-Gumbi, 2022). Consequently, heritage
cities are an extraordinary context in which the city itself represents an authentic immersive
experience, and as a result more factors influence perceived authenticity. In this sense, it’s important
once again to highlight the difficulties and challenges of historical art cities. The Covid-19 pandemic

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
75
has unleashed an unprecedented and rapid onslaught on a global scale, with extensive travel bans,
quarantine restrictions, closures of borders, resulting in severe economic consequences for the tourism
sector (Gossling et al., 2020) and more specifically for urban destinations (Ntounis et al., 2022). As
the Covid-19 pandemic can be considered an ‘acute shock’ (Leitner et al., 2018) on global levels, the
implication of authenticity on tourism resilience is not to be underestimated in the case of historical
art cities. As previously stated, the concept of authenticity in historical art cities can be viewed both as
an efficient approach to support tourism resilience during periods of crisis and as a valuable asset
threatened by the deteriorating consequences of mass tourism. Furthermore, from a tourism
perspective, the concept of resilience – intended as the ability to recover, adapt and thrive in the face
of challenges, disruptions and shocks – in regard to historical art cities involves the immutability of
their historic centers. Paradoxically, historical art cities as Rome, which have unique and rare
attractions and are therefore recognized as World Heritage Sites (UNESCO) face challenges in terms
of their ability to embrace new types of experiences and ways of using spaces. In front of crisis and
shocks, it’s not possible for historical art cities to act on the configuration of the city and its spaces, as
UNESCO both preserves and enhance city’s uniqueness and at the same time draws a line in city’s
management. In simpler terms, impressive historical sites like Rome, which attract tourists due to their
exceptional and rare attractions, may struggle to adapt to new trends and changes. Intangible attributes
such as the authenticity of the tourism experience thus represent a maneuverable margin for destination
management to make the city flexible and open to change, despite the rigidity of its offerings.
2.3. Research hypotheses and conceptual model
In recent years, the need to study the tourism phenomenon by using a tourist-based approach has
been called for by several scholars (see: Castéran & Roederer, 2013; Zhong et al., 2023; Manimont et
al., 2022; Jie & Hemchua, 2022). A tourist-based perspective provides a way to understand and
investigate tourists’ perceptions and behaviors in a more in-depth and realistic manner, offering a
dynamic framework for conceptualizing authenticity and enabling the exploration of the influences
and outcomes of authentic experiences (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010).
Accordingly, this research adopts the Consumer-Based Model of Authenticity (Kolar & Zabkar,
2010) by applying it to the context of heritage cities, as cities have played a central role in the recent
development of the cultural tourism market (Richards, 2022) and offer a crucial context for the study
of authenticity, as typically urban dimensions and external factors can influence the perception of both
object-based and existential authenticity. The aim of our study is to investigate how cultural motivation
influences object-based authenticity and existential authenticity in historic cities.
In line with Kolar and Zakbar’s (2010) model, we define authenticity as the extent to which
tourists perceive their experiences at a cultural destination as enjoyable, genuine, and true. As
existential authentic experiences are always related to a context and to objects (Reisinger & Steiner,
2006; Zhou et al., 2013), the following hypothesis is presented:
H1: Object-based authenticity positively influences existential authenticity.
According to Kolar and Zakbar (2010), cultural motivation is a key factor in understanding tourist
behavior at heritage tourism destinations (Poria et al., 2003). In the adopted model, cultural motivation
is treated as a “cluster of interrelated, intellectually based interests in culture, history and heritage”,
implying that cultural motivation can be found even among tourists that are not necessarily exclusive
cultural tourists (Hughes, 2002; McIntosh, 2004). This motivation can influence both existential and
object-based authenticity. The following hypotheses are therefore adopted:
H2: Cultural motivation positively influences object-based authenticity.
H3: Cultural motivation positively influences existential authenticity.

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
76
Besides considering cultural motivation an antecedent of the authentic experience, Kolar and
Zokbar (2010) also include consequences of authenticity, loyalty. Perceptions in heritage tourism
exhibit a positive correlation with loyalty, suggesting that positive experiences are likely to enhance
loyalty as well (Poria et al., 2003). Furthermore, existing literature in the field of tourism provides
evidence for the direct impact of motivation on loyalty (Yoon & Uysal, 2005). The following
hypotheses are added to the model:
H4: Object-based authenticity positively influences loyalty.
H5: Existential authenticity positively influences loyalty.
H6: Cultural motivation positively influences loyalty.
Figure 1. Conceptual consumer-based model of authenticity. Adopted by Kolar & Zakbar, 2010.
Source: Author elaboration
3. Materials and methods
This study aims to validate the model by Kolar and Zabkar (2010), by extending its application
to the domain of heritage cities. The dimensions and variables considered in this research are presented
in Table 1. The model’s conceptual development draws upon existing literature models that delve into
the aspects of authenticity, thereby enriching the framework with a comprehensive understanding of
these crucial factors. By incorporating these dimensions, we aim to advance the theoretical foundation
and empirical understanding of authenticity in the context of heritage cities.

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
77
Table 1. Dimensions, subdimensions and questionnaire variables.
Dimension and
subdimensions
Reference
Variables
Authenticity
Object-based
authenticity
Kolar, T., and Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-
based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or
the foundation of cultural heritage
marketing? Tourism management, 31(5), 652-
664.
OBJ1: "the destination remains
itself regardless of the passage of
time."
OBJ2: "the atmosphere of the
destination is unrepeatable
elsewhere";
OBJ3: "the atmosphere of the
destination is unique".
Existential
authenticity
Kolar, T., and Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-
based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or
the foundation of cultural heritage
marketing? Tourism management, 31(5), 652-
664.
EXI1: "during my stay, I had the
opportunity to immerse myself in
the culture of the place";
EXI2: "I felt connected to the
history of the destination."
EXI3: "I felt part of the local
community."
Cultural
motivation
Kolar, T., and Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-
based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or
the foundation of cultural heritage
marketing? Tourism management, 31(5), 652-
664.
MOT1: "to increase my knowledge
and culture."
MOT 2: "to experience local
customs and culture";
MOT3: "to experience different
cultures";
MOT4: "to visit cultural attractions
and events."
Loyalty
Kolar, T., and Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-
based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or
the foundation of cultural heritage
marketing? Tourism management, 31(5), 652-
664.
LOY1: "I will visit the destination
in the future";
LOY2: ""I will recommend the
destination to other people through
my social networks";
LOY3: "I will recommend visiting
the destination to my friends".
Source: Author elaboration
As one of the most important and globally well-known tourist destinations, Rome offers both
attractions and experiences that encompass ancient wonders and vibrant contemporary life. The city's
timeless monuments epitomize its historical significance and provide a unique backdrop for exploring
the concept of authenticity. A total of 129 questionnaires were collected. Factor analysis (Gorsuch,
2013) and structural equation modeling (Rosseel, 2012) were used to test the conceptual model, with
the support of “R” software.
4. Results
4.1. Sample characteristics
The sample of this research was composed of a total of 129 respondents, 58.14% of the
respondents were women, compared to 41.86% of the male respondents. Regarding education, the
sample shows a diverse range of educational backgrounds: 20.16% completed only middle school,
while 22.48% hold high school diplomas and the same percentage holds a Ph.D. or a master’s degree
and the majority of them hold bachelor’s degree (34.88%). The sample is mostly composed of
respondents between the ages of 21-30 years. The majority of the respondents have been to Rome at

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
78
least once (89.15%), while the remaining 10.85% never visited Rome. (Tab.2).
Table 2. Participant sample.
Gender
Education
Male
41.86%
Middle school
20.16%
Female
58.14%
High school diploma
22.48%
Bachelor's degree
34.88%
Ph.D. or master's degree
22.48%
Age
Visited Rome at least once
18-20
25.58%
Yes
89.15%
21-30
27.13%
No
10.85%
31-40
22.48%
41-50
15.50%
51-60
6.98%
>60
2.33%
Source: Author elaboration
4.2. Authenticity
To measure authenticity and empirically test the proposed model (Fig.1), the study employed a
comprehensive analysis of the authenticity dimension variables: objective-based authenticity (OBJ),
existential authenticity (EXI), cultural motivation (MOT), and loyalty (LOY). This analysis was
conducted using "R" software, utilizing factor analysis and structural equation modeling techniques.
Factor analysis is a widely used statistical methodology for exploring the interrelationships and
patterns within a large set of variables (Awang et al., 2015). Its primary objective is to identify a
reduced number of latent factors that can account for the observed associations among the variables.
By condensing the variables into a smaller set of factors, factor analysis facilitates the identification
and comprehension of the underlying dimensions present in the data. The objective was to unveil the
distinct facets of authenticity represented by the OBJ, EXI, MOT, and LOY factors. Each factor
captures a unique aspect of authenticity, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the
phenomenon under investigation. Following the factor analysis and the identification of the latent
factors, the study advanced to structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM is a statistical approach that
evaluates and validates theoretical models by examining the relationships among latent variables. This
methodology allows for the estimation of both direct and indirect effects among variables, providing
insights into the causal links and overall model fit. By employing structural equation modeling, it was
possible to empirically assess the consumer-based model of authenticity and investigate the
interrelationships among the authenticity dimensions (OBJ, EXI, MOT, LOY). This analytical
framework facilitated the examination of direct and indirect effects among the latent variables, offering
insights into the degree of alignment between the model and the observed data. Overall, the combined
use of factor analysis and structural equation modeling aimed to measure authenticity and evaluate the
validity of the proposed model. Through the analysis of relationships among the authenticity-related

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
79
variables, it was gained a deeper understanding of the underlying dimensions and their impact on the
overall concept of authenticity within the specific context of the study.
Table 3. Results of the factor analysis.
Variable
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Object-based authenticity (OBJ)
The destination remains itself
regardless of the passage of time
0,122
0,565
The atmosphere of the destination
is unrepeatable elsewhere
-0,112
1,050
The atmosphere of the destination
is unique
-0,141
0,805
0,157
Existential authenticity (EXI)
During my stay I had the
opportunity to immerse myself in
the culture of the place
1,002
-0,122
I felt connected to the history of
the destination.
0,748
I felt part of the local community.
0,444
0,135
0,128
0,162
Cultural motivation (MOT)
To increase my knowledge and
culture.
0,780
To experience local customs and
culture
0,562
0,340
To experience different cultures
0,871
To visit cultural attractions and
events
0,839
-0,109
Loyalty (LOY)
I will visit the destination in the
future
0,309
0,518
-0,152
I will recommend the destination
to other people through my social
networks
0,601
0,141
I will recommend visiting the
destination to my friends
1.095
-0,104
Source: Author elaboration
Table 3 presents the results of the factor analysis conducted using the "R" software. The analysis
reveals the relationships between the factors and the corresponding dimensions of authenticity:
Existential Authenticity (EXI), Objective-Based Authenticity (OBJ), Motivation (MOT), and Loyalty
(LOY). The loadings for each factor indicate the strength and direction of the relationship between the
variables and the corresponding factor (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Factor 1 corresponds to the Existential

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
80
Authenticity variables (EXI) and is positively influenced by the variables EXI1, EXI2, and EXI3.
Factor 2 corresponds to the Objective-Based Authenticity variables (OBJ) and is positively influenced
by the variables OBJ1, OBJ2, and OBJ3. Factor 3 corresponds to the Loyalty variables (LOY) and is
positively influenced by the variables LOY1, LOY2, and LOY3. Factor 4 corresponds to the
Motivation dimension (MOT) and is positively influenced by the variables MOT1, MOT2, MOT3, and
MOT4 .
While factor analysis elucidates the latent dimensions and their relationships with the observed
variables, it is essential to further examine the interplay among these dimensions and evaluate the
overall model fit. To achieve this, the application of structural equation modeling (SEM) becomes
crucial as it allows for a comprehensive measurement of authenticity. This integrated approach ensures
a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of authenticity and its impact on tourists' perceptions
and behaviors.
4.3. Structural model and hypotheses testing
SEM allows for the examination of latent variables and their relationships, providing a more
comprehensive understanding of the underlying constructs. In this study, we employ a structural
regression model that incorporates latent variables representing Existential Authenticity (EXI),
Objective-Based Authenticity (OBJ), Loyalty (LOY), and Cultural Motivation (MOT). The model
specifies relationships between these latent variables:
H1: EXI ~ OBJ
H2: OBJ ~ MOT
H3: EXI ~ MOT
H4: LOY ~ OBJ
H5: LOY ~ EXI
H6: LOY ~ MOT
where latent variables are defined as:
EXI ~ EXI1 + EXI2 + EXI3
OBJ ~ OBJ1 + OBJ2 + OBJ3
LOY ~ LOY1 + LOY2 + LOY3
Below the results are presented (Table 4 and Figure 2):
Table 4. SEM results.
Regressions
Estimate
Std.Err
z-value
P(>|z|)
EXI ~ OBJ
0.204
0.130
1.570
0.117
OBJ ~ MOT
0.157
0.056
2.796
0.005
EXI ~ MOT
0.878
0.093
9.403
0.000
LOY ~ OBJ
0.319
0.104
3.073
0.002
LOY ~ EXI
0.267
0.137
1.945
0.042
LOY ~ MOT
0.047
0.135
0.345
0.730
Source: Author elaboration

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
81
The results of the structural regression model indicate several important findings. Firstly, the
model demonstrates good fit to the data, as indicated by various fit indices such as the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) of 0.960, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.947, and Normed Fit Index (NFI) of 0.905.
These indices suggest that the model adequately represents the relationships among the latent variables
(Bentler, 1990; Shi et al., 2019; Smith & McMillan, 2001). Examining the regression paths the
hypotheses were tested through the examination of the sign, size and statistical significance of the
structural coefficients (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996). Regarding the EXI latent variable, it showed
a positive but non-significant association with OBJ (estimate = 0.204, p = 0.117). In contrast, OBJ
exhibited a significant positive relationship with MOT (estimate = 0.157, p = 0.005). The most
substantial relationship was observed between EXI and MOT, with a highly significant positive
coefficient (estimate = 0.878, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the results indicated a positive and significant
association between LOY and OBJ (estimate = 0.319, p = 0.002), suggesting that Objective-Based
Authenticity influences Loyalty. The relationship between LOY and EXI was marginally significant
(estimate = 0.267, p = 0.042). However, no significant relationship was found between LOY and MOT
(estimate = 0.047, p = 0.730). The graphical representation of the findings is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Structural Model Paths. Source: Author elaboration
The path diagram represents the relationships between latent variables and observed variables in
the structural equation model. The latent variables are represented by nodes placed at the center of the
circle. Each latent variable (EXI, OBJ, LOY, and MOT) corresponds to a construct that cannot be
directly observed but is inferred from the observed variables, represented by nodes positioned along
the circumference of the circle. Each observed variable is connected to its corresponding latent variable
by an arrow, indicating the direction of influence. These arrows represent the paths or relationships
between the latent and observed variables. The numbers on the arrows represent the weights of the
paths. These coefficients indicate the strength and direction of the relationships between variables. By
examining the path diagram, it is possible to assess the relationships between latent variables and
observed variables and understand how the latent variables influence the observed variables and how
different variables are interconnected. Additionally, analyzing the lengths and directions of the arrows
it is possible to gauge the strength and direction of the relationships. Table 5 provides a comprehensive
overview of the previously discussed research hypotheses, presenting a concise summary of the final
results obtained.

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
82
Table 5 Test of the hypotheses.
Path
Result
H1
Object-based authenticity positively influences
existential authenticity.
Not supported
H2
Cultural motivation positively influences object-based
authenticity.
Supported
H3
Cultural motivation positively influences existential
authenticity.
Supported
H4
Object-based authenticity positively influences loyalty.
Supported
H5
Existential authenticity positively influences loyalty.
Supported
H6
Cultural motivation positively influences loyalty.
Not supported
Source: Author elaboration
The research results confirm the presence of a positive relationship between culture motivation
and object-based (H2) and existential (H3) authenticity and an impact of object-based and existential
authenticity on loyalty (H4, H5), aligning with the results of Kolar and Zabkar's (2010) study.
However, existential authenticity appears to be unaffected by object-based authenticity, and culture
motivation does not appear to significantly influence loyalty. Subsequently, Hypotheses 1 and 6 were
not supported.
5. Discussion, conclusions, and future implications
In the contemporary tourism market, tourists actively seek authentic and immersive experiences,
at historical art cities, where authentical experiences related to the enjoyment of cultural heritage are
accompanied by urban experiences (Richards, 2022). The concept of authenticity holds a key
significance for these tourists (Morhart et al., 2015) and authenticity has become a pivotal component
in shaping the expectations and desires of today travelers (Ram et al., 2016), driving their quest for
meaningful and immersive tourism experiences at heritage cities (De Bernardi & Arenas, 2022; Cinar
et al., 2022). Furthermore, authenticity in urban tourism could be defined as an attempt to find a
competitive advantage that set the city apart from competitors (Banks, 2022) and heritage cities (i.e.,
Rome, Venice, Florence, Paris) can provide tourists with authentic experiences by offering them a
storytelling about the past and the present of the city (Xu et al., 2022), besides engaging them in urban
tourist activities. Thus, the purpose of this study was to validate Kolar & Zabkar (2010)’s model in the
high specificity context of heritage cities, by using Rome as the application field of the research. In
particular, this researched aimed to understand how, starting with the cultural, authenticity affects
loyalty in the context of a heritage city as Rome.
The partially confirmed measurement model and the reliability and validity indicators attest that
the structural model reliably measures the constructs of perceived authenticity in the context of heritage
cities. Perceived authenticity can be conceptualized and measured as an evaluative judgment that
depends on tourism experiences. Furthermore, the results confirmed the relationship between object-
based and existential authenticity with the antecedent cultural motivation and the consequent loyalty.
Thus, authenticity is not to be considered as an "autonomous" concept but should be understood as a
mediator of tourists' long-term behavioral intentions. Since the structural model shows an acceptable
fit and the proposed hypotheses are mostly confirmed, we can confirm the assumed importance and
centrality of authentic experiences in understanding the loyalty of cultural tourists in the city of Rome.
However, our findings do not support the hypothesis that object-based authenticity positively
influences existential authenticity (H1). The lack of a significant evidence on the impact of individuals’
perception of object-based authenticity on their experience of existential authenticity challenges
previous studies that supported this hypothesis (Kolar & Zakbar, 2010; Yi et al., 2018; Zhou et al.,
2013; Atzeni et al., 2021), while confirming Park et al.’s (2019) results. In the context of this study, if
cities themselves represent tourist attractors, when it comes to heritage cities, we deal with special

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
83
features that stem from the fact that historic centers are a cultural tourism attraction surrounded by
other attractions, not only intended for tourists but also for residents, as events, shopping, dining out
and outdoor activities. The lack of correlation between object-based authenticity and existential
authenticity can thus be explained by the co-presence of other factors that, in the case of urban tourism
in heritage cities, affect the perception of existential authenticity. Furthermore, as previously stated in
this research, the results of the ‘touristification’ process in historical art cities could often impact the
dimensions of perceived authenticity, by effectively separating object-based authenticity – which
focuses on maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the tangible elements that contribute to a place's
authenticity – from existential authenticity – which, instead, relates to the personal and emotional
experience of individuals within a destination. This unsupported hypothesis gives empirical foundation
to the last assumption, demonstrating a possible influence of touristification of urban centers on the
perception of authenticity. In regard to cultural motivation, understood as the antecedent of an
authentic experience, the findings prove how cultural motivation positively influences perceived
authenticity. In terms of resilience, as tourists are motivated to delve into local cultures, traditions and
attractions and to experience existential authenticity, they contribute to the preservation and
sustainability of these elements, therefore enhancing heritage cities’ resilience. Accordingly, H2 and
H3 are supported hypotheses. Regarding the consequences of authentic experience, which are
identified with tourist loyalty in this research, our results confirm the positive influence of both object-
based authenticity and existential authenticity on loyalty. Accordingly, H4 and H5 are supported
hypotheses. Last, according to our findings there isn’t a significant relationship between tourists'
cultural motivation and their loyalty towards a destination. Despite the assumption that greater cultural
motivation would lead to increased loyalty (Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Kolar & Zakbar, 2010) our research
on perceived authenticity in Rome suggest otherwise. Cultural motivation thus does not seem to be
sufficiently relevant to have a direct influence on customer loyalty in historical art cities, unlike
authenticity, which thus appears to be a tool to support tourism resilience. In fact, cultural motivation
has an influence on the perceived object-based and existential authenticity, which both influence
loyalty, but cultural motivation isn’t directly correlated with loyalty. In heritage cities, other factors
might have a mediation role in the relationship between cultural motivation and tourist loyalty, future
research could extend Kolar and Zabkar (2010)’s model by identifying and introducing these
intervening factors.
In conclusion, authenticity has a substantial impact on how tourists see and enjoy a destination –
in this case, a historical art city. Indeed, authenticity is associated in literature to a value judgement,
which can have an impact on the overall perception that tourists have of the destination (Marine-Roig,
2015), as authenticity is always the result of a social, negotiable and contested process of authentication
(Cohen & Cohen, 2012; Mkono, 2013; Hughes, 1995; Marine-Roig, 2015). Besides the influence of
authenticity on visitors’ perception, some studies adopting an existential approach have explored the
relationship between authenticity and tourism behavior, for example the cultural motivations of tourists
- in other words, the motivation of tourists to engage in cultural heritage experiences - (Brown, 2013;
Knudsen et al., 2016; Park et al., 2019) or their decision-making processes (Park et al., 2019; Lee et
al., 2020). Our study confirms the impact of authenticity on these dimensions, thus identifying
authenticity as a precious tool for tourism diversification and destination positioning in a post-
pandemic world. The impact of authenticity in tourism is not only on the creation of meaningful
experiences for tourists, but it also contributes in building tourism resilience in an integrated approach
that ensures both the consideration of tourists’ expectations and a sustainable development for the
destination and its community. From a theoretical perspective, the research findings provide a way to
better understand the multidimensional nature of authenticity in tourism (Grayson and Martinec, 2004;
Kolar and Zabkar, 2010; Poria et al., 2003; Yeoman et al., 2007), exploring the relationships between
antecedents and consequences of authenticity within a heritage city.
The study offers destination managers of heritage cities a valuable tool to support them in
systematically measuring over time whether and with what intensity marketing and communication

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
84
policies can increase the perceived authenticity of visitors, verifying how this in turn affects tourists'
future intentions to visit. Tourism management for an historical art city in the postmodern era is a
complex issue, as the city is characterized by many different but interconnected objectives.
Authenticity can act as a powerful strategic countermeasure against the challenges posed by mass
tourism and touristification in historical art cities, as it preserves cities’ unique identity and cultural
heritage while ensuring long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability. With the
preservation of both object-based and existential authenticity, the involvement of the community and
the balance between tourism demand and local well-being, it is possible to endure tourism development
whilst safeguarding cultural heritage and local community quality of life.
Some limitations of the research should be highlighted. It is important to note that the research is based
on a convenience sample and as such the results cannot be generalized. In addition, the study does not
test the applicability of the models on different tourist destinations, as the data collected refer to the
perceptions of tourists visiting Rome.
Acknowledgments (All sources of funding of the study must be disclosed)
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to dr. Samuele Cesarini for his invaluable
contribution to this research, he played a crucial role in the data collection phase, demonstrating
exceptional dedication and meticulous attention to detail throughout the process.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. The Free Press,
New York.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.
Agapito, D., Oom do Valle, P., & da Costa Mendes, J. (2013). The cognitive-affective-conative model
of destination image: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(5), 471-
481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.803393
Al-Kwifi, O. S. (2015). The impact of destination images on tourists’ decision making: A technological
exploratory study using fMRI. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-06-2015-0024
Alcázar, M. D. C. H., Piñero, M. S., & de Maya, S. R. (2014). The effect of user-generated content on
tourist behavior: the mediating role of destination image. Tourism & Management Studies, 10, 158-
164.
Ambler, T. F. J. (1992). The Role of Duty Free in Global Marketing. Business Strategy Review, 3(3),
57-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8616.1992.tb00035.x
Anttiroiko, A. V. (2015). City branding as a response to global intercity competition. Growth and
change, 46(2), 233-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12085

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
85
Ashworth, G., & Page, S. J. (2011). Urban tourism research: Recent progress and current
paradoxes. Tourism management, 32(1), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.02.002
Ashworth, G. (2015). Urban form and the defence functions of cities. In The geography of defence (pp.
17-51). Routledge.
Atzeni, M., Del Chiappa, G., & Mei Pung, J. (2022). Enhancing visit intention in heritage tourism: The
role of object‐based and existential authenticity in non‐immersive virtual reality heritage experiences.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 24(2), 240-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2497
Banks, D. A. (2022). The attention economy of authentic cities: How cities behave like influencers.
European planning studies, 30(1), 195-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1882947
Bastiaansen, M., Straatman, S., Mitas, O., Stekelenburg, J., & Jansen, S. (2022). Emotion measurement
in tourism destination marketing: A comparative electroencephalographic and behavioral study.
Journal of Travel Research, 61(2), 252-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520981149
Belhassen, Y., Uriely, N., & Assor, O. (2014). The touristification of a conflict zone: The case of
Bil’in. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 174-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.09.007
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2),
238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and practices from
destination management organizations. Journal of travel research, 43(4), 328-338. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274646
Bobic, S., & Akhavan, M. (2022). Tourism gentrification in Mediterranean heritage cities. The
necessity for multidisciplinary planning. Cities, 124, 103616.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103616
Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing images of industrial cities. Annals of Tourism
research, 23(1), 201-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00061-5
Brown, L. (2013). Tourism: A catalyst for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 40,
176-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.004
Bui, H. T., Jones, T. E., Weaver, D. B., & Le, A. (2020). The adaptive resilience of living cultural
heritage in a tourism destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(7), 1022-1040. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1717503
Bui, V., Alaei, A. R., Vu, H. Q., Li, G., & Law, R. (2022). Revisiting tourism destination image: A
holistic measurement framework using big data. Journal of Travel Research, 61(6), 1287-1307. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211024749
Castéran, H., & Roederer, C. (2013). Does authenticity really affect behavior? The case of the
Strasbourg Christmas Market. Tourism Management, 36, 153-163. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.012
Chhabra, D. (2008). Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum. Annals of Tourism Research,

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
86
35(2), 427-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2007.12.001
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism management, 29(4), 624-636.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007
Chon, K. S. (1992). The role of destination image in tourism: An extension. The Tourist Review. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EB058086
Cinar, B., Toksoz, D., & Cakici, A. C. (2022). Meaning in life and the quest for authenticity in touristic
experiences among Turkish tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, (ahead-of-print).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-01-2022-0033
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: Hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3),
1295-1314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.004
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of tourism research, 6(4), 408-424.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5
De Bernardi, C. (2019). Authenticity as a compromise: A critical discourse analysis of Sámi tourism
websites. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(3), 249-262. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527844
De Bernardi, C., & Arenas, D. (2022). How to avoid swinging: A social enterprise's quest for
authenticity in tourism. Tourism Management, 89, 104439. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104439
De la Calle Vaquero, M. (2019). Turistificación de centros urbanos: clarificando el debate. Boletín de
la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (83), 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21138/bage.2829
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. ACR North
American Advances.
Drost, A. (1996). Developing sustainable tourism for world heritage sites. Annals of tourism
research, 23(2), 479-484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(96)83345-7
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image:[Reprint
of original article published in v. 2, no. 2, 1991: 2-12.]. Journal of tourism studies, 14(1), 37-48.
Egresi, I. (2018). Tourists go home!. Tourism overcrowding and" tourismophobia" in European cities
(Can tourists and residents still co-habitate in the city, 701-714.
Ekinci, Y. (2003). From destination image to destination branding: An emerging area of research. E-
review of Tourism Research, 1(2), 21-24.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Fridgen, J. D. (1987). Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived tourism regions. Leisure Sciences,

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
87
9(2), 101-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408709512150
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcıa, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual
framework. Annals of tourism research, 29(1), 56-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(01)00031-7
Gartner, W. C. (1994). Image formation process. Journal of travel & tourism marketing, 2(2-3), 191-
216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v02n02_12
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of consumer research, 31(2), 296-312.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/422109
Gorsuch, R. L. (2013). Factor analysis. Psychology press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781098
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid
assessment of COVID-19. Journal of sustainable tourism, 29(1), 1-20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Gospodini, A. (2001). Urban design, urban space morphology, urban tourism: an emerging new
paradigm concerning their relationship. European planning studies, 9(7), 925-934. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120079841
Guest, L. P. (1942). The genesis of brand awareness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26(6), 800.
Hopkins, D., & Becken, S. (2014). Sociocultural resilience and tourism. The Wiley Blackwell
companion to tourism, 490-499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118474648.ch39
Hughes, G. (1995). Authenticity in tourism. Annals of tourism Research, 22(4), 781-803. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00020-X
Hughes, H. L. (2002). Culture and tourism: a framework for further analysis. Managing Leisure, 7(3),
164-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360671022000013701
Hunt, J. D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of travel research, 13(3), 1-7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004728757501300301
Hunter, W. C. (2012). Projected destination image: A visual analysis of Seoul. Tourism geographies,
14(3), 419-443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.613407
Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images. International journal
of tourism research, 1(1), 1-15.
Jiang, Y., Ramkissoon, H., Mavondo, F. T., & Feng, S. (2017). Authenticity: The link between
destination image and place attachment. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(2), 105-
124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2016.1185988
Jie, D., & Hemchua, S. (2022). The Authenticity Of Online Linguistic Landscape In Historical
Heritage Tourism: A Consumer-Based Model. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 5158-5170.

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
88
Jigyasu, N., & Imon, S. S. (2022). Authenticity and integrity as qualifiers in managing living historic
cities. Urban Research & Practice, 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2133478
Kasapi, I., & Cela, A. (2017). Destination branding: A review of the city branding literature.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(4), 129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mjss-2017-0012
Kim, S., & Yoon, Y. (2003). The hierarchical effects of affective and cognitive components on tourism
destination image. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 14(2), 1-22.
Kim, H., & Chen, J. S. (2016). Destination image formation process: A holistic model. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 22(2), 154-166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766715591870
Kislali, H., Kavaratzis, M., & Saren, M. (2016). Rethinking destination image formation. International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-05-
2015-0050
Kislali, H., Kavaratzis, M., & Saren, M. (2020). Destination image formation: Towards a holistic
approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(2), 266-276. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2335
Knudsen, D. C., Rickly, J. M., & Vidon, E. S. (2016). The fantasy of authenticity: Touring with
Lacan. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 33-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.02.003
Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the
foundation of cultural heritage marketing?. Tourism management, 31(5), 652-664. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.010
Konecnik, M., & Go, F. (2008). Tourism destination brand identity: The case of Slovenia. Journal of
brand management, 15, 177-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550114
Lawson, F., & Baud-Bovy, M. (1977). Tourism and recreation development, a handbook of physical
planning. Architectural Press..
Le, T. H., Arcodia, C., Novais, M. A., & Kralj, A. (2019). What we know and do not know about
authenticity in dining experiences: A systematic literature review. Tourism Management, 74, 258-275.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.012
Lee, C. K., Ahmad, M. S., Petrick, J. F., Park, Y. N., Park, E., & Kang, C. W. (2020). The roles of
cultural worldview and authenticity in tourists’ decision-making process in a heritage tourism
destination using a model of goal-directed behavior. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 18, 100500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100500
Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., Webber, S., & Colven, E. (2018). Globalizing urban resilience. Urban
Geography, 39(8), 1276-1284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1446870
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American
journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/225585

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
89
Maitland, R. (2008). Conviviality and everyday life: the appeal of new areas of London for
visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(1), 15-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.621
Maitland, R., & Newman, P. (Eds.). (2014). World tourism cities: Developing tourism off the beaten
track. Routledge.
Manimont, G., Pike, S., Beatson, A., & Tuzovic, S. (2022). Culinary destination consumer-based brand
equity: exploring the influence of tourist gaze in relation to FoodPorn on social media. Tourism
Recreation Research, 47(3), 221-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1969623
Marine-Roig, E. (2015). Identity and authenticity in destination image construction. Anatolia, 26(4),
574-587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2015.1040814
Mayo, E. J. (1973). Regional images and regional travel behavior. In The travel research association
fourth annual conference proceedings (pp. 211-218). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2011.09.027
McIntosh, A. J. (2004). Tourists’ appreciation of Maori culture in New Zealand. Tourism management,
25(1), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00058-X
Mkono, M. (2013). African and Western tourists: Object authenticity quest?. Annals of Tourism
Research, 41, 195-214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.002
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An
integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of consumer psychology, 25(2), 200-218. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
Moro, S., & Rita, P. (2018). Brand strategies in social media in hospitality and tourism. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 343-364. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2016-0340
Nasser, N. (2003). Planning for urban heritage places: reconciling conservation, tourism, and
sustainable development. Journal of planning literature, 17(4), 467-479. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412203017004001
Nickerson, N. P., & Moisey, R. N. (1999). Branding a state from features to positioning: Making it
simple?. Journal of vacation marketing, 5(3), 217-226. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/135676679900500302
Ntounis, N., Parker, C., Skinner, H., Steadman, C., & Warnaby, G. (2022). Tourism and Hospitality
industry resilience during the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from England. Current Issues in
Tourism, 25(1), 46-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1883556
Oguztimur, S., & Akturan, U. (2016). Synthesis of city branding literature (1988–2014) as a research
domain. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(4), 357-372. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2054
Olipra, L. (2012). The impact of low-cost carriers on tourism development in less famous destinations.
Cittaslow 2012.

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
90
Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The social organization of the
experience of authenticity. Tourist studies, 2(2), 159-182. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/146879702761936644
Ooi, C. S., & Stöber, B. (2010). Authenticity and place branding: the arts and culture in branding
Berlin and Singapore. Re-Investing Authenticity: Tourism, Places and Emotions, Bristol: Channel
View Publications, 66-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781845411299-008
Orbaşli, A. (2000). Is tourism governing conservation in historic towns?. Journal of architectural
conservation, 6(3), 7-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.2000.10785276
Park, E., Choi, B. K., & Lee, T. J. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism.
Tourism Management, 74, 99-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.03.001
Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis—a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism
management, 23(5), 541-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00005-5
Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations. Tourism
management, 30(6), 857-866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.12.007
Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A
narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism management, 41, 202-227. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.009
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of tourism research,
30(1), 238-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymru
or Wales?. Tourism management, 22(2), 167-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(00)00047-9
Ram, Y., Björk, P., & Weidenfeld, A. (2016). Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor
attractions. Tourism management, 52, 110-122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.06.010
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of tourism
research, 33(1), 65-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.04.003
Rickly, J. M. (2022). A review of authenticity research in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism
Research Curated Collection on authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 92, 103349. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103349
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Ritchie, J. R. R. (1998). The branding of tourism destinations. In Annual congress
of the international association of scientific experts in tourism, Marrakech, Morocco (pp. 1-31).
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of statistical
software, 48, 1-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Sachs‐Jeantet, C. (1996). Humanizing the city. International Social Science Journal, 48(147), 129-
135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.1996.tb00064.x

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
91
Shankar, R. S. (2018). Destination personality and destination image: A literature review. IUP Journal
of Brand Management, 15(4), 47-60.
Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2019). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit
indices. Educational and psychological measurement, 79(2), 310-334. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
Smith, T. D., & McMillan, B. F. (2001). A Primer of Model Fit Indices in Structural Equation
Modeling.
Smith, A. (2006). Assessing the contribution of flagship projects to city image change: a quasi‐
experimental technique. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(6), 391-404. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.586
Tasci, A. D., Gartner, W. C., & Tamer Cavusgil, S. (2007). Conceptualization and operationalization
of destination image. Journal of hospitality & tourism research, 31(2), 194-223. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348006297290
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of tourism research, 26(2),
349-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(98)00103-0
Velasco González, M., Herrero López, R., & López Sánchez, E. R. (2019). El orden del caos: la
decisión del gobierno ante el problema del impacto del turismo en el centro urbano de Madrid. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21138/bage.2832
Xu, L., Zhang, J., & Nie, Z. (2022). Role of Cultural Tendency and Involvement in Heritage Tourism
Experience: Developing a Cultural Tourism Tendency–Involvement–Experience (TIE) Model. Land,
11(3), 370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030370
Yang, S., Isa, S. M., Yao, Y., Xia, J., & Liu, D. (2022). Cognitive image, affective image, cultural
dimensions, and conative image: a new conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935814
Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: The authentic tourist.
Tourism management, 28(4), 1128-1138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.09.012
Yi, X., Fu, X., Yu, L., & Jiang, L. (2018). Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: The moderation
effect of postmodern authenticity. Tourism Management, 67, 411-424. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.013
Yi, X., Fu, X., Lin, V. S., & Xiao, H. (2022). Integrating authenticity, well-being, and memorability
in heritage tourism: A two-site investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 61(2), 378-393. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875209876
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism management, 26(1), 45-56. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.016

Volume 32, Issue 1(71-92). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience orientation
92
Zhang, T., & Yin, P. (2020). Testing the structural relationships of tourism authenticities. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 18, 100485. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100485
Zhong, L., Liu, J., Morrison, A., Dong, Y., Zhu, M., & Li, L. (2023). Destination image: a consumer-
based, big data-enabled approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2021-1557
Zhou, Q. B., Zhang, J., & Edelheim, J. R. (2013). Rethinking traditional Chinese culture: A consumer-
based model regarding the authenticity of Chinese calligraphic landscape. Tourism Management, 36,
99-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.008
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license
lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone, anywhere in the world
to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without
permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long
as the author and original source are properly cited.

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
93
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 93-109
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 31.05.2023
Accepted: 04.06.2023
Published:15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European
Destinations
Samuele Cesarini
Department of Business Communication, University of Teramo, Campus Aurelio Saliceti, Via Renato
Balzarini, 1- Teramo, Italy, scesarini@unite.it. ORCID: 0000-0001-7062-1580
Ivan Terraglia
Department of Business Communication, University of Teramo, Campus Aurelio Saliceti, Via Renato
Balzarini, 1- Teramo, Italy
Abstract: This paper focuses on the analysis of sustainable tourism indicators for the 27 European
Union (EU) countries to address the challenges faced by the tourism sector. The impact of
sustainable tourism indicators on destination competitiveness was evaluated using the EU Tourism
Dashboard, a scheme funded by the European Commission. The Mazziotta-Pareto Index was used to
construct the indicator of sustainability by incorporating the three pillars of indicators:
Environmental impact, Digitalisation, and Socio-economic vulnerability. The proposed approach
provides greater tractability and flexibility for decision-makers to adjust the number of indicators to
meet specific case conditions. The sustainable tourism indicators aim to provide critical information
for resource allocation and policymaking in the conservation of tourism sites, as well as improving
the welfare and inclusiveness of local communities. The findings of the analysis highlight significant
disparities among destinations in terms of the examined indicators, emphasizing variations in
sustainability profiles and performance within the tourism sector. These disparities underscore the
need for personalized and targeted approaches to address the specific challenges and opportunities
faced by each destination in achieving sustainable tourism development. Furthermore, the proposed
ranking system, updated at regular intervals, can enhance the image and reputation of European areas
as high-quality and sustainable destinations, attracting increased tourism demand. Additionally, the
ranking system can foster knowledge sharing and the adoption of benchmarking practices,
incentivizing countries to maintain and improve their position in the ranking. This work contributes
to addressing the evidence gap in tourism sustainability policymaking and provides a comprehensive
framework for the development of sustainable tourism analysis in the EU context.
Keywords: sustainable tourism indicators; European Union (EU); destination competitiveness;
Mazziotta-Pareto Index.
JEL Codes: L83; Q56; O18; C43; R58

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
94
1. Introduction
Tourism is widely acknowledged as a pivotal economic activity that engenders job creation and
fosters development in numerous countries (Lee & Chang, 2008; León-Gómez et al., 2021). Nonetheless,
the adverse effects of tourism have underscored the pressing necessity for sustainable tourism practices
(Budeanu et al., 2016). A prevalent strategy for managing sustainability performance in tourism sites is
the formulation of indicator sets. These sets are tailored to the requirements and circumstances of each
location and are influenced by the geographical location of the site (Franzoni, 2015). Europe has held the
top spot as the world's premier tourist destination for several years. This is primarily due to the region's
rich cultural and natural heritage, which is complemented by the political instability in competing
countries in North Africa and the Middle East that discourages travel. However, the tourism industry, by
its very nature, has the potential to adversely affect Europe's cultural and natural heritage, traditions, and
contemporary cultures. This emphasizes the essential significance of incorporating sustainability into the
tourism industry, making it crucial for all destinations to embrace its principles to effectively handle and
alleviate the impacts of tourism. (De Marchi et al., 2022). In addition, the complex and
multidimensional nature of sustainability, combined with the pervasive impact of tourism, poses
inherent difficulties. However, there is a clear intention to create composite indicators that facilitate
the comprehensive evaluation of the variables influencing and determining the sustainability of
tourist destinations (Torres-Delgado & Lopez Palomeque, 2018).
The COVID-19 pandemic has played a significant and critical role in the ongoing transition
towards sustainability, as it has resulted in unprecedented socio-economic consequences and
heightened our awareness of the imperative role sustainability must assume in our daily lives and
economic activities. The crisis has underscored the necessity of enhancing the resilience of the
tourism industry and fostered a sense of unity and interconnectedness among various stakeholders. It
has shed light on the vulnerability of the natural environment and the pressing need for its
preservation, while also revealing unprecedented intersections between tourism, economics, society,
and the environment. This juncture presents an opportunity to expedite the adoption of sustainable
consumption and production patterns and facilitate the reconstruction of a more robust tourism sector
(UNWTO, 2020). Despite these circumstances, the European Union continues to be a prominent
global destination, attracting millions of domestic and international visitors annually. While the
economic impacts of tourism may vary among EU member countries and regions, tourism also
serves as a catalyst for promoting European culture and heritage, enhancing the well-being of both
residents and tourists, and facilitating cultural and economic exchanges.
The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 1993) has long emphasized the need to
manage destinations to achieve long-term sustainable tourism. The goal is to reconcile the development
of tourism activities with the protection and conservation of the natural and cultural resources that
support this activity. In practice, assessing the sustainability of a country's tourism is a widely employed
approach globally, with rankings established based on indicators derived from pertinent demand-related
information that influences the selection of specific regions as tourist destinations. In 2021, the European
Union (EU) Industrial Strategy was updated to accelerate the green and digital transitions, particularly in
sectors heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as tourism. Specifically, the European
Council requested that the Commission collaborate with Member States and relevant international

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
95
organizations to design a flagship tool for the tourism ecosystem, called the EU Tourism Dashboard
(European Commission, 2022).
This paper aims to accomplish the following objectives. Firstly, we describe and quantify the "EU
Tourism Dashboard" a sustainable tourism indicator system proposed by the European Commission for
evaluating the sustainability of tourism in European destinations. Secondly, to enhance the understanding
of the tourism industry and to promote sustainable management, leading to improved competitiveness of
the destinations, we propose to create a ranking of European tourist destinations based on sustainability.
This ranking will be determined using a composite indicator, which offers an overall evaluation of each
destination's situation, eliminating the need to evaluate the initial indicators separately. To derive the
composite indicators, we will employ a methodology based on non-substitutability and introduce a
penalty term for variability. This approach aims to reduce subjectivity and provide synthetic indicator
values that are easily interpretable by industry operators. Unlike previous studies, our proposed
composite indicator does not use a weighting system derived from a panel of experts in sustainable
tourism. Finally, using the values of the composite indicator, we establish a system of sustainable tourism
rankings that characterizes the destination country's sustainability. This system allows potential tourists to
assess the sustainability of the destination and make informed decisions, influencing their behavior as
consumers and the choice of destination. The article's structure comprises a description and quantification
of the sustainable tourism indicator system in the following section; the proposed methodology for the
composite indicator is presented in section 3, while section 4 analyzes and discusses the primary
outcomes. The last section presents the conclusions.
2. A sustainable tourism indicators system for European destinations: EU Tourism Dashboard
2.1. Operationalizing sustainable tourism: The role of indicators in achieving sustainability goals
The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), previously known as the World
Tourism Organization (2004), defines sustainable tourism development as the provision of present
tourists' and host regions' needs while preserving and enhancing opportunities for the future. This
definition seeks to establish a framework for the management of resources in a manner that satisfies
economic, social, and aesthetic needs, while concurrently preserving cultural integrity, ecological
processes, biological diversity, and life support systems. It emphasizes that the development and
management of tourist destinations must not inflict harm upon their cultural or natural resources in the
pursuit of sustainability. Therefore, sustainable tourism development is not only a future-oriented system
but also an inward vision that encompasses all aspects of the economy, environment, and society to
achieve its objective. Hence, touristic policies ought to be worked out to safeguard the protection of
natural, social, and cultural resources that uphold the activity and their ability to fulfil the requirements of
both present and future tourists and residents’ populations.
According to the European Commission, the use of sustainable tourism indicators is essential to
foster sustainable tourism and increase competitiveness in the European market (European Commission,
2003, 2007). Indicators of sustainable tourism can be defined as a set of measures that offer valuable
information to comprehend the interrelationships between the impact of tourism on the cultural and
natural environment on which it depends (UNWTO, 1996). It is posited that the information gathered
from such indicators can serve as a suitable tool to enhance the socioeconomic understanding of the
tourism sector and its connection to the environment. This panel of indicators furnishes details on various

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
96
aspects that enable to evaluate a complex and multifaceted phenomenon with no universally recognized
definition. Additionally, the components of the system help us identify the different factors that influence
the sustainability of tourism, resulting in operational knowledge that more than compensates for the
conceptual ambiguity. According to the UNWTO (op.cit.), sustainable tourism indicators are a collection
of measures that provide necessary information to comprehend the impact of tourism on the cultural and
natural environment, which it heavily depends on. Sustainable tourism indicators are used to indicate the
state or level of a particular activity, identify and measure results. The indicators must focus on the triple-
bottom-line, which includes environmental, economic, and social goals (Swarbrooke, 1999), to address
sustainability. The UNWTO highlights the need for a set of indicators that enables tourism management
to establish priorities and gain forward-looking perspectives. The selection of indicators can be performed
through stakeholder agreement, experts' recommendations, or related studies (Tanguay, 2013). Multiple
sustainable tourism indicator sets have been proposed in the literature, with most of them derived
incrementally from previous sets, such as the one established by the UNWTO, while other organizations
have also tried to develop similar sets.
The European Union has recently taken a series of initiatives to promote sustainable and responsible
tourism. To maintain Europe's leading position in tourism, the EU encouraged the development of new
tools to promote a more intelligent and sustainable approach to tourism planning and management based
on consumer trends, dynamic monitoring, and indicators. In this regard, the EU has collaborated with
member states and relevant international organizations to design an EU Tourism Dashboard, which will
function as the primary tool for the tourism ecosystem.
2.2. The EU Tourism Dashboard: indicators and policy pillars
The EU Tourism Dashboard, as envisioned by the European Commission, functions as an online
repository of tourism-related information, serving as a knowledge tool. Its purpose is to offer insightful
visualizations and analysis of specific indicators, thereby providing valuable information that aids policy
actions aimed at fostering a tourism ecosystem that is both sustainable and resilient. Notably, the
dashboard encompasses all 27 EU Member States, along with Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland,
enabling the profiling and comparison of countries and regions based on their tourism activities. The data
utilized in the dashboard are collected from various sources and harmonized to ensure consistency and
reliability. Furthermore, the EU Tourism Dashboard monitors the advancement of tourism destinations
over time in terms of their environmental impacts, digitalization efforts, and socio-economic vulnerability.
The current set of indicators integrated into the dashboard spans from 2019 (or the most recent available
year) to 2021 (or the nearest available year). In this study we use the latest value available for each
indicator. However, future updates are planned to extend the time series by incorporating additional years.
The primary audience for the dashboard comprises policy makers at national and regional levels, tourism
industry managers, researchers, statistical officers, as well as individuals from the public sphere with an
interest in the tourism ecosystem. The fundamental objectives of the EU Tourism Dashboard are to
provide guidance for policy formulation and strategic decision-making within the tourism ecosystem,
furnish valuable insights, and facilitate the effective dissemination of information to relevant stakeholders.
The figure (Fig.1) below shows the structure and main elements of the EU Tourism Dashboard.

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
97
Figure 1. EU Tourism Dashboard structure. Source: Author elaboration
In the context of the EU Tourism Dashboard, indicators play a crucial role by going beyond mere
data records or statistics. They serve as measures or estimations that depict the current state of a
phenomenon by quantifying its alignment with specific objectives, thresholds, or targets (Maggino, 2017).
These indicators are essential for conducting meaningful analyses across different time periods and
geographical areas. To ensure comparability and consistency in the analysis, it is necessary to develop
indicators in a manner that mitigates the influence of varying reporting unit sizes, such as countries or
regions. This consideration is crucial to enable accurate and fair assessments of tourism sustainability
across diverse contexts. By employing indicators that are carefully designed to account for such
variations, the EU Tourism Dashboard aims to provide reliable and robust insights that can guide policies
and strategies within the tourism ecosystem. The EU Tourism Dashboard utilizes the Nomenclature of
Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS), a hierarchical framework employed to delineate the economic
territory of the European Union (EU) into distinct divisions. This framework facilitates the collection,
development, and harmonization of regional statistics. While the primary focus of the dashboard is on
national-level indicators (NUTS0), it also incorporates regional-level (NUTS2) and sub-regional-level
(NUTS3) indicators for specific measures when detailed data is accessible. It is important to note that the
analysis was conducted at the NUTS0 level due to considerations of data availability and
comprehensiveness. By utilizing the NUTS framework, the dashboard ensures a consistent and
standardized approach to regional analysis while accounting for varying levels of granularity based on the
data availability and scope of the indicators. Currently, the dashboard encompasses a total of 18
indicators, classified under three policy pillars: environmental impacts, digitalization, and socio-
economic vulnerability. The underlying conceptual framework posits that destinations demonstrating
consistently higher scores across these pillars are more likely to possess a sustainable and resilient
tourism ecosystem. A fourth pillar, referred to as Basic Tourism Descriptors, complements the dashboard
with additional data and statistics to provide context and further characterization of tourism activity in
countries and regions. This pillar includes relevant information related to tourism supply, demand, and
offerings. The current version of the dashboard includes 12 tourism descriptors within this pillar. The

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
98
development of the indicator framework primarily involves the definition and selection of indicators. The
European Commission identifies individual indicators by considering conceptual and policy factors and
consulting key stakeholders, while also assessing data availability. Subsequently, data is collected from
relevant sources and prepared for analysis. By adopting this structured framework, the EU Tourism
Dashboard aims to provide a comprehensive and comparable suite of indicators, enabling the evaluation
of tourism dynamics and facilitating informed decision-making within the tourism sector. The complete
list of indicators and tourism descriptors is provided in Annex 1.
3. Sustainable tourism composite indicator
3.1. Data collection
The indicators employed in the development of the EU Tourism Dashboard were derived from
data and statistics obtained from reputable sources, ensuring the highest attainable level of territorial
and thematic granularity. The primary data source for the dashboard was Eurostat, the statistical
agency of the European Union, renowned for its reliability, consistency, and authoritative nature.
Eurostat was chosen as the preferred provider of data to ensure the robustness and credibility of the
dashboard. In addition to Eurostat, several supplementary data sources were employed, including:
Eurocontrol; European Commission Joint Research Centre; European Environment Agency;
Foundation for Environmental Education; Ookla; TripAdvisor and UNESCO. Below (Tab.1) are
presented the descriptive statistics pertaining to the 18 indicators associated with the tripartite
dimensions (Environment, Digitalization and Socio-economic) of tourism sustainability, as outlined
in Annex 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of sustainability tourism indicators.
Indicator
Mean
Median
Dev. Std.
Min
Max
Air travel emission intensity
120,52
99,83
44,22
76,69
225,79
Tourism GHG intensity
418,75
405,42
244,72
71,66
1200,16
Tourism energy intensity
7,46
6,28
4,18
1,72
19,42
Share of trips by train
7,03
6,24
4,42
0,34
19,39
Excellent bathing water
84,78
86,90
10,79
55,17
100,00
Dependence on distant origins
12,42
8,33
12,43
3,10
66,28
E-commerce sales
43,31
43,45
10,68
23,92
60,24
Enterprises using social media
40,90
41,13
14,16
13,42
65,00
Personnel training on digital skills
10,63
10,52
4,67
3,00
18,91
Enterprises seeking ICT specialists
3,31
3,12
2,31
0,36
10,53
Internet speed at tourism destinations
75,37
74,30
21,75
44,60
117,50
Accomodations listed online
-0,56
0,83
38,37
-68,37
100,84
Tourism intensity
4,62
3,36
3,49
1,08
17,38
Tourism seasonality
0,80
0,76
0,21
0,50
1,45
Dependence on top3 countries of origin
23,65
19,74
13,41
4,46
53,66
Tourism diversity
0,72
0,78
0,19
0,30
0,97
Contribution of tourism to employment
11,37
11,72
4,47
3,72
18,62
Average tourism expenditure
85,55
85,46
17,60
52,98
112,42
Source: Author elaboration EU tourism Dashboard data

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
99
In terms of environmental impact, the average air travel emission intensity shows significant
variation, with values ranging from 76.69 (Croatia) to 225.79 (Luxembourg), indicating differences
in the amount of CO2 emitted per air passenger across destinations. Similarly, the tourism GHG
intensity and tourism energy intensity indicators exhibit considerable variability, reflecting
differences in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption in the tourism sector.
The share of trips by train indicates the extent to which train travel is favoured in tourism activities.
The results demonstrate variations among destinations, with values ranging from 0.34 (Greece) to
19.39 (France), suggesting differences in transportation preferences and infrastructure. Assessing the
quality of bathing water is crucial for ensuring a positive tourism experience. The excellent bathing
water indicator reveals variations in water quality, with values ranging from 55.17% (Hungary) to
100% (Cyprus), indicating disparities in the share of sampled bathing water sites classified as
"excellent" across destinations.
Examining the dimension of digitalization, the indicators reflect the level of technology adoption
within the tourism ecosystem. The indicator of e-commerce sales indicates the percentage of tourism
ecosystem enterprises that engage in online sales. The findings reveal a range of values, with the
percentage ranging from 23.92% (Greece) to 60.24% (Denmark). This suggests variations in the
extent to which tourism enterprises have embraced online sales channels as a means of conducting
business. Similarly, the indicator on enterprises using social media assesses the share of tourism
ecosystem enterprises that utilize two or more social media platforms. The results demonstrate
variability across destinations, with values ranging from 13.42% (Bulgaria) to 65.00% (Finland).
This variation indicates differences in the level of engagement and utilization of social media
platforms for marketing, communication, and customer engagement purposes. The indicator of
personnel training on digital skills examines the share of tourism ecosystem enterprises that provide
ICT (Information and Communication Technology) training to their personnel. The findings reveal
variations in training efforts, with values ranging from 3.00% (Bulgaria) to 18.91% (Norway). This
suggests disparities in the commitment of tourism enterprises to enhancing the digital competencies
and skills of their workforce. The indicator on enterprises seeking ICT specialists measures the
percentage of tourism ecosystem enterprises that actively seek ICT specialists. The results indicate
differences in the demand for ICT expertise across destinations, with values ranging from 0.36%
(Slovakia) to 10.53% (Spain). This reflects variations in the recognition and prioritization of ICT
skills within the tourism industry. The maximum available internet speed at tourism destinations
provides insights into the level of connectivity in terms of fixed and mobile networks. The values
range from 44.60 (Greece) to 117.50 (Denmark), indicating differences in the quality and speed of
internet connections across destinations. Higher values suggest better infrastructure and connectivity,
enabling smoother digital interactions and online experiences for tourists and tourism businesses.
The indicator of accommodations listed online examines the disparity between the observed number
of tourist accommodation rooms listed on a key online platform (TripAdvisor) and the expected
number of listed rooms based on known tourism demand. The results show a wide range of values,
with disparities ranging from -68.37 (Sweden) to 100.84 (Bulgaria). This discrepancy indicates
variations in the degree to which accommodations are effectively represented and marketed online,
potentially affecting their visibility and competitiveness in the digital marketplace.
The results related to socio-economic vulnerability in the tourism sector provide insights into
several key aspects. The indicator of tourism intensity measures the number of nights spent at tourist

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
100
accommodations by the resident population. The findings indicate variations across destinations,
with values ranging from 1.08 (Poland) to 17.38 (Croatia). This suggests differences in the level of
tourism activity and engagement within the local population, highlighting destinations with higher
resident participation in tourism-related activities. Tourism seasonality, represented by the coefficient
of variation of nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments per month, examines the degree
of fluctuation in tourist activity throughout the year. The results show values ranging from 0.50
(Estonia) to 1.45 (Croatia), indicating differences in the extent of seasonal variations. Higher values
suggest greater fluctuations in tourist demand over the course of the year, potentially impacting the
stability and sustainability of tourism-related businesses. The indicator of dependence on the top
three countries of origin measures the share of nights spent by tourists from the top three countries of
origin relative to the total nights spent in a destination country. The results demonstrate variations
across destinations, with values ranging from 4.46% (Poland) to 53.66% (Luxemburg). This reflects
differences in the level of reliance on specific source markets, with destinations exhibiting varying
degrees of diversification in terms of visitor nationalities. Tourism diversity, assessed using the
Shannon diversity index (1949), examines the distribution of tourism accommodation establishments
across five geographical zones within a destination. These zones include cities, coastal areas, rural
areas, natural or mountainous areas, and snowy mountains. The results reveal a range of values, from
0.30 (Malta) to 0.97 (France), indicating differences in the diversity and dispersion of tourism
accommodations across these zones. Higher values suggest a more balanced and diversified
distribution of tourism facilities. The indicator of the contribution of tourism to employment assesses
the net overall effect of tourist arrivals at accommodation establishments along the value chain,
including direct, indirect, induced, and catalytic effects within related activities and the entire
tourism ecosystem. The results demonstrate variations across destinations, with values ranging from
3.72% (Romania) to 18.62% (Croatia). This indicates differences in the extent to which tourism
contributes to employment generation and economic opportunities within the destinations. Finally,
the average tourism expenditure represents the average economic value generated per night spent at
the tourist destination. The findings reveal values ranging from 52.98 (Netherlands) to 112.42
(Estonia), indicating variations in the average spending patterns of tourists. Higher values suggest
destinations with a higher economic impact per visitor, indicating the potential for greater revenue
generation and economic benefits.
Overall, the findings reveal significant disparities among destinations in terms of the examined
indicators, highlighting the diverse sustainability performance and profiles within the tourism sector.
These outcomes emphasize the necessity for approaches to tackle the distinctive challenges and
prospects encountered by each destination in their endeavor to achieve sustainable tourism
development. The observed heterogeneity underscores the significance of adopting a comprehensive
viewpoint facilitated by composite indicators when examining sustainable tourism. By integrating
multiple indicators, we can obtain a comprehension of the varied sustainability profiles and
performance levels exhibited by distinct destinations.
3.2. Aggregation procedure: Mazziotta-Pareto Index
The indicator system presented in the preceding section is a valuable source of information
regarding the impacts of tourism and their connection to the environment. However, on its own is not
very practical due to the large number of indicators it encompasses. The size of the system creates

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
101
difficulties in obtaining a comprehensive evaluation of the status of each analysed destination.
To address this limitation, we propose augmenting the initial system by incorporating the
information it contains into a composite indicator of sustainable tourism. In computing terms, a
composite indicator refers to mathematical combinations or aggregations of individual indicators that
represent the various aspects of the concept being measured, in our case, sustainable tourism. This
composite indicator provides a multidimensional assessment of the concept, allowing for a more
comprehensive evaluation. The international literature on composite indicators has demonstrated that
the final outcomes are highly sensitive to the methodology employed (Saisana & Tarantola, 2002;
OECD, 2008). This sensitivity is particularly pronounced when methodologies involve weighting
criteria and/or conflicting aggregations. However, this limitation associated with constructing a
composite indicator can be mitigated by carefully selecting the methodology.
The choice of methodology should be based on the intended purpose of the composite indicator
and the requirements it must fulfil. In this work, we utilize Mazziotta-Pareto Index (MPI). The MPI
is a non-linear composite index which transforms the individual indicators in standardized variables
and summarizes the data using an arithmetic mean adjusted by a ‘penalty’ coefficient related to the
variability of each unit. The aim is to penalize the units with ‘unbalanced’ values of the indicators in
a non-compensatory perspective. The Mazziotta-Pareto Index (Mazziotta & Pareto, 2017; Mazziotta
& Pareto, 2013) is a composite index based on the assumption of ‘non-substitutability’ of the
indicators, i.e., they have all the same importance and a compensation among them is not allowed
(De Muro et al., 2011). The index is designed to satisfy the following properties: (i) normalization of
the indicators by a specific criterion that deletes both the unit of measurement and the variability
effect; (ii) synthesis independent from an ‘ideal unit’, since a set of ‘optimal values’ is arbitrary, non-
univocal and can vary with time; (iii) simplicity of computation; (iv) ease of interpretation. Let us
consider a set of individual indicators positively related with the phenomenon to be measured. Given
the matrix
X
={} with n rows (in our study, the European countries) and m columns (sustainability
indicators), we calculate a standardized matrix
Z
={} as follow:
  󰇡 󰇢

  󰇡 󰇢

where  and  are, respectively, the mean and the standard deviation of the j-th indicator.
Denoting with  and , respectively, the mean and the standard deviation of the standardized
values of the i-th unit, the generalized form of MPI is given by:

  ±   
(1)
where  =  is the coefficient of variation of the i-th unit and the sign ± depends on the kind
of phenomenon to be measured. If the composite index is ‘increasing’ or ‘positive’, i.e., increasing

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
102
values of the index correspond to positive variations of the phenomenon, then 
is used. Vice
versa, if the composite index is ‘decreasing’ or ‘negative’, i.e., increasing values of the index
correspond to negative variations of the phenomenon, then 
 is used. In the EU tourism
dashboard conceptual framework, it is assumed the tourist destinations scoring consistently higher
across pillars likely have a more sustainable and resilient tourism ecosystem so 
will be used
for each policy pillar (domain). The Mazziotta-Pareto index approach is characterized using a
function (* ) to penalize the units with ‘unbalanced’ values of the indicators. The ‘penalty’ is
based on the coefficient of variation and is zero if all the values are equal. The purpose is to favour
the units that, mean being equal, have a greater balance among the different indicators. In our study,
starting from the dashboard of m tourism sustainability indicators, depending on the polarity of the
measured phenomenon with respect to the analysed domain, we distinguish between positive and
negative indicators. This notation is marked with a (+) when the indicator is positive and with a (-) if
it is negative, as shown in Annex 1.
4. Results
The table below (Tab. 2) shows the Mazziotta-Pareto indices calculated for each sustainability
domain. The table includes the simple arithmetic mean of these indices, allowing for a holistic
evaluation of the overall sustainability performance.
Table 2. Mazziotta-Pareto indices sustainability domain 27 EU countries.
EU country
MPI’s mean
Environmental impact
Digitalisation
Socio-economic vulnerability
Austria
102,15
107,89
97,74
100,82
Belgium
97,41
96,42
97,20
98,62
Bulgaria
92,75
88,16
93,26
96,83
Cyprus
99,09
94,43
104,94
97,90
Czechia
97,34
99,28
95,98
96,75
Germany
102,10
105,06
98,77
102,47
Denmark
100,40
98,13
105,80
97,26
Estonia
98,28
96,13
95,73
102,99
Greece
96,19
97,77
95,86
94,93
Spain
104,38
102,19
110,73
100,21
Finland
100,19
95,65
102,70
102,22
France
100,22
102,37
96,79
101,49
Croatia
100,60
101,69
105,67
94,44
Hungary
96,02
93,80
96,57
97,70
Ireland
101,68
100,30
105,62
99,13
Italy
99,30
104,35
92,18
101,35
Lithuania
99,88
100,16
99,69
99,80
Luxembourg
94,34
98,69
92,00
92,33
Latvia
96,22
90,68
98,94
99,03
Malta
102,90
102,83
104,82
101,05
Netherlands
97,05
95,15
97,31
98,71
Poland
99,86
100,93
101,43
97,22

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
103
Portugal
98,98
97,25
99,55
100,13
Romania
98,90
102,78
93,31
100,59
Sweden
104,31
104,23
104,50
104,21
Slovenia
102,40
102,91
101,34
102,94
Slovakia
94,18
97,77
90,95
93,83
EU mean
99,15
99,15
99,24
99,07
Source: Author elaboration EU tourism Dashboard data
These rankings provide valuable insights into the overall performance of European Union (EU)
countries in the tourism sector across different dimensions. Higher values in the respective indicators
indicate better performance in specific areas.
In terms of environmental impact, Austria (107.89), Germany (105.06), Italy (104.35), Sweden
(104.23), and Slovenia (102.91) stand out as the top performers. These countries demonstrate a
relatively high level of environmental sustainability in their tourism practices. On the other hand,
Bulgaria (88.16), Latvia (90.68), and Hungary (93.80) rank lower in environmental impact,
suggesting the need for greater attention to environmental sustainability practices in their tourism
sectors. These countries may face challenges related to pollution control, resource management, and
conservation efforts. Higher-ranking countries are likely implementing eco-friendly policies,
promoting renewable energy sources, adopting sustainable waste management practices, and
encouraging responsible tourism behaviour. In contrast, lower-ranking countries may need to
enhance their efforts to address environmental concerns such as carbon emissions, resource
preservation, and biodiversity conservation.
Spain (110.73) emerges as the top performer in digital sustainability in tourism, indicating a
strong focus on leveraging digital technologies and platforms to enhance the tourism experience.
Denmark (105.80) and Croatia (105.67) also demonstrate high digital performance, reflecting their
commitment to digital transformation in the tourism sector. Conversely, countries like Slovakia
(90.95), Luxembourg (92.00), and Italy (92.18) rank lower in digital sustainability, suggesting a need
for improvement in their digital infrastructure, digital services, and adoption of innovative digital
practices in the tourism industry. The leading countries in digital sustainability are likely providing
visitors with enhanced digital experiences, seamless transactions, personalized services, and
innovative solutions. On the other hand, lower-ranking countries may face challenges in
implementing digital strategies, impacting their competitiveness in attracting tech-savvy tourists and
offering cutting-edge digital services.
In terms of socio-economic vulnerability, Sweden (104.21), Estonia (102.99), and Slovenia
(102.94) rank highest, indicating their robust and resilient tourism ecosystems with lower
vulnerability to economic fluctuations. Conversely, Luxembourg (92.33), Slovakia (93.83), and
Croatia (94.44) rank lower, suggesting challenges related to economic dependence on tourism,
limited economic diversification, or weaker social safety nets for tourism-related employment.
Higher-ranking countries are likely to have diversified economies, robust social welfare systems, and
effective policies in place to mitigate risks associated with fluctuations in tourism demand. In
contrast, lower-ranking countries may have a higher degree of economic reliance on tourism, making
them more vulnerable to external shocks, seasonality, or disruptions in the tourism sector. These
countries could benefit from strategies promoting economic diversification and enhancing the
resilience of their tourism industries. These rankings underscore the significance of environmental

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
104
sustainability, digital transformation, and socio-economic stability in the tourism sector. Countries
that excel in these areas are more likely to attract environmentally conscious tourists, offer enhanced
digital experiences, and build resilient and sustainable tourism economies. Policymakers can
leverage these insights to identify areas for improvement, develop targeted strategies, and promote
sustainable tourism development in their respective countries.
The use of an aggregate composite indicator, such as the arithmetic mean of the sustainability
pillars, enables a comprehensive assessment of countries' performance in achieving sustainable
tourism. This engenders a more comprehensive and cohesive evaluative framework, facilitating
cross-country comparative analysis of sustainability in the tourism sector. In this regard, Spain
(104.38), Sweden (104.31), Malta (102.90), Slovenia (102.40), and Austria (102.15) exhibit higher
mean scores across the MPI’s indicators. These nations showcase superior overall tourism
sustainability performance in relation to their European counterparts. Conversely, countries such as
Bulgaria (92.75), Slovakia (94.18), and Luxembourg (94.34) attain lower rankings, highlighting the
imperative to enhance their overall sustainability performance within the tourism sector. The
adoption of a unified composite indicator, derived from the mean of the previously calculated
sustainability pillars, provides a lucid and comparable perspective on the sustainability performance
of European countries in the domain of tourism. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that a singular
indicator may obscure significant variations within each sustainability pillar, warranting further
analysis and understanding of specific aspects within the broader framework of tourism sustainability.
5. Conclusions
This paper aims to develop a framework for assessing the sustainability levels of tourist
destinations and addressing the future challenges faced by the European tourism sector, as
emphasized by the European Commission. Within the context of the tourism sector, two primary
requirements are identified as deserving particular attention. Firstly, the European Commission
recognizes the importance of acquiring a better socio-economic understanding of tourism and its
interactions with the environment. Enhancing this knowledge is fundamental for promoting the
sector's competitiveness and fostering the development of responsible tourism characterized by
quality, diversity, and sustainability. In response to this need, the "EU Tourism Dashboard" has been
developed and is currently maintained by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
and the DG GROW, in compliance with the invitation of the Council of the European Union on May
27, 2021. This system has been comprehensively quantified, enabling the utilization of statistical
information available from European governmental entities. One of the key findings highlights
significant disparities among destinations in terms of the considered indicators, underscoring diverse
performance and sustainability profiles within the tourism sector. These conclusions emphasize the
necessity of adopting personalized and targeted approaches to address the specific challenges and
opportunities encountered by each destination in pursuing sustainable tourism development. The
observed heterogeneity underscores the importance of taking a holistic approach facilitated by the
use of composite indicators to analyse sustainable tourism. By integrating multiple indicators, a
comprehensive understanding of the various sustainability profiles and performance levels exhibited
by different destinations can be achieved. On the other hand, the European Commission places
significant emphasis on enhancing Europe's image and reputation as a collection of high-quality and
sustainable tourist destinations. Progress in this area is crucial to strengthen the attractiveness of

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
105
destinations and increase the flow of demand, both by attracting non-European visitors and
consolidating domestic demand. To address this need, this article proposes a ranking which enables
the evaluation of each destination in terms of sustainability, dividing this assessment into three
dimensions: environmental impact, digitalization, and socioeconomic vulnerability. To define this
ranking, a composite indicator based on the Mazziotta-Pareto index is adopted. The continuous use
of the proposed indicator system and its associated aggregation methodology could contribute to the
establishment of a standard for assessing the sustainability performance of the 27 European Union
countries in the tourism sector. The proposal of a Sustainable Tourism Ranking and its regular
updates could contribute to improving the image of European areas as high-quality and sustainable
destinations, aiming to attract a greater flow of tourist demand. Furthermore, this tourist demand
could differentiate various European destinations based on their position in the sustainability ranking.
Countries would be incentivized to maintain and improve their position in the ranking, thereby
promoting the exchange of experiences and the adoption of benchmarking practices. The analysis
presented in this article serves as a starting point for the study of a key issue in the sustainable
development of European tourism. Further research is crucial to delve deeper into the evaluation
system and study its implications and the enhancements it brings to destination activities.
Furthermore, although the proposed indicator aggregation system is designed to manage the ranking
at the national level, it can also be applied at lower territorial levels, such as small urban cities, rural
and coastal tourist destinations, regions, and other territories that share common tourism resources.
In any case, the availability of statistical information to quantify the initial indicator system is a key
element for the success of this type of analysis.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
Budeanu, A., Miller, G., Moscardo, G., & Ooi, C. S. (2016). Sustainable tourism, progress,
challenges and opportunities: an introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 285-294. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.027
European Commission. (2022). A tourism dashboard for greener, digitally savvy and resilient EU
destinations. Joint Research Centre. [accessed at https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-
and-updates/tourism-dashboard-greener-digitally-savvy-and-resilient-eu-destinations-2022-10-19_en;
consulted on 15.05.2023).
European Commission. (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Basic
Orientations for the Sustainability of European Tourism. Commission of the European Communities,
COM, Brussels (716 final).
European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission: Agenda for a Sustainable and
Competitive European Tourism. Commission of the European Communities, COM, Brussels (621

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
106
final).
De Marchi, D., Becarelli, R., Di Sarli, L. (2022). Tourism Sustainability Index: Measuring Tourism
Sustainability Based on the ETIS Toolkit, by Exploring Tourist Satisfaction via Sentiment Analysis.
Sustainability, 14, 8049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138049
De Muro, P., Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2011). Composite indices of development and poverty: An
application to MDGs. Social indicators research, 104, 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-
010-9727-z.
Franzoni, S. (2015). Measuring the sustainability performance of the tourism sector. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 16, 22-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.05.007
León-Gómez, A., Ruiz-Palomo, D., Fernández-Gámez, M. A., & García-Revilla, M. R. (2021).
Sustainable tourism development and economic growth: Bibliometric review and
analysis. Sustainability, 13(4), 2270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042270
Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2017). Synthesis of indicators: The composite indicators
approach. Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis, 159-191. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60595-1_7
Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2013). Methods for constructing composite indices: One for all or all
for one. Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, 67(2), 67-80.
Maggino, F. . (2017). Complexity in society: From indicators construction to their synthesis (Vol. 70).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60595-1
Sustainable tourism development and economic growth: Bibliometric review and
analysis. Sustainability, 13(4), 2270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042270
Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2008). Tourism development and economic growth: A closer look at
panels. Tourism management, 29(1), 180-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.02.013
OECD. Publishing. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user
guide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices
for composite indicator development (Vol. 214, pp. 4-15). Ispra: European Commission, Joint
Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Technological and
Economic Risk Management Unit.
Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
107
Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable tourism management. Cabi.
Tanguay, G. A., Rajaonson, J., & Therrien, M. C. (2013). Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection
criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. Journal of sustainable Tourism, 21(6),
862-879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.742531
Torres-Delgado, A., & Lopez Palomeque, F. (2018). The ISOST index: A tool for studying
sustainable tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Vol.8, 281-289. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.05.005
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). (2020). One Planet Vision for a Responsible
Recovery of the Tourism Sector – Report. [accessed at
https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/oneplanetstp_progressreport2020.pdf;
consulted on 22/05/2023).
Indicators of sustainable development for tourism destinations. In: World Tourism Organization (Ed.),
A Guidebook. Madrid (Madrid).
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). (1996). What Tourism Managers Need to
Know: A practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. World
Tourism Organization, Madrid.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). (1993). Tourism: the year 2000 and beyond
qualitative aspects. Discussion Paper. World Tourism Organization.

108
Supplementary
Annex 1. Description and polarity of sustainability indicators divided by pillars.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
INDICATORS
Polarity with pillar
Description
Air travel emission
intensity
( - )
Average amount of CO2 emitted per air passenger
Tourism GHG intensity
( - )
Amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by the tourism ecosystem per Million Euro of Gross Value Added (GVA) in the tourism
sector
Tourism energy intensity
( - )
Amount of energy used in tourism-related economic activities per Million Euro of Gross Value Added (GVA) in the tourism sector
Share of trips by train
( + )
Share of trips taken by train
Excellent bathing water
( + )
Share of sampled bathing water sites that are classified as "excellent" within a tourist destination
Dependence on distant
origins
( - )
Share of nights spent at accommodation establishments by foreign tourists arriving from distant origins (more than 2000 km)
DIGITALISATION
INDICATORS
Polarity with pillar
Description
E-commerce sales
( + )
Percentage of tourism ecosystem enterprises with online sales
Enterprises using social
media
( + )
Share of tourism ecosystem enterprises using two or more social media
Personnel training on
digital skills
( + )
Share of tourism ecosystem enterprises providing ICT training to their personnel
Enterprises seeking ICT
specialists
( + )
Percentage of tourism ecosystem enterprises seeking ICT specialists
Internet speed at tourism
destinations
( + )
Maximum available speed of internet connection at tourism destinations (municipality level), considering both fixed and mobile networks
Accomodations listed
online
( + )
Difference between observed number of tourist accommodation rooms (in hotel and short-term vacation rentals) listed on a key online
platform (TripAdvisor) with the expected number of listed number of rooms given known tourism demand
SOCIO-ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY
INDICATORS
Polarity with pillar
Description
Tourism intensity
( - )
Number of nights spent at tourist accommodations by the resident population
Tourism seasonality
( - )
Coefficient of variation of nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments per month
Dependence on top3
countries of origin
( - )
Share of the nights spent from the top three countries of origin for each destination country in relation to the total nights spent in the
destination country
Tourism diversity
( + )
Shannon diversity index of the distribution of tourism accommodation establishments across five geographical zones within a destination:
cities, coastal areas, rural areas, natural or mountainous areas, and snowy mountains

Volume 32, Issue I(93-109). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European Destinations
109
Contribution of tourism to
employment
( + )
Net overall effect of tourist arrivals at accommodation establishments along the value chain (direct, indirect, induced and catalytic effects in
related activities) and the whole tourism ecosystem
Average tourism
expenditure
( + )
Average economic value generated per night spent at the tourist destination
BASIC DESCRIPTORS
INDICATORS
Polarity with pillar
Description
Night spent
( + )
Total number of nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments in a destination (country or region) in a given year, from both domestic
and foreign tourists
Arrivals
( + )
Total number of arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments in a destination (country or region) in a given year, from both domestic and
foreign tourists
Tourism capacity
( + )
Number of beds available at tourism accommodation establishments available at a destination (country or region) in a given year
Occupancy rate
( + )
Percentage of time within a year that available beds within a tourist destination (country of region) are occupied by tourists
Average duration of stay
( + )
Total number of nights spent divided by the total number of tourist arrivals
Tourism density
( + )
Total number of nights spent over a year in a tourist destination (country or region) per square kilometre of land of the tourist destination
Dominant tourism
typology
( + )
The classification is first determined at NUTS3 level based on the proportions of tourism capacity (i.e., no. of rooms) across different
geographical zones. The NUTS3 classification is then aggregated to NUTS2 level by selecting the category with the highest aggregate tourism
demand (nights spent).
Share of foreign tourists
( + )
Share of nights spent by foreign tourists in relation to the total number of nights spent (domestic and foreign) in accommodation
establishments
Progress of tourism
recovery
( + )
Proportion of nights spent in a given year in relation to the equivalent period in 2019 (baseline)
Presence of blue flags
( + )
Number of “Blue Flag” awarded to beaches, marinas and tourism boats operators
UNESCO sites
( + )
Number of World Heritage Sites designated by UNESCO
Share of
protected/designated
land
( + )
Share of protected/designated land belonging to the European networks Natura 2000 or Emerald Network in relation to the total
area of the country or region
Source: Author elaboration EU tourism Dashboard data
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we
publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone,
anywhere in the world to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees,
for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long as the author and original source are properly cited.

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
110
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 110-127
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 10.04.2023
Accepted:05.08.2023
Published:15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An
Origin-Destination Matrix approach
Caterina Sciortino
Department of Economics, Statistics and Business, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze
Ed. 13, 90128 – Palermo, Italy, caterina.sciortino@unipa.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-9703-8392
Ludovica Venturella
Department of Economics, Statistics and Business, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze
Ed. 13, 90128 – Palermo, Italy, ludovica.venturella@unipa.it. ORCID: 0000-0003-0763-1449
Stefano De Cantis
Department of Economics, Statistics and Business, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze
Ed. 13, 90128 – Palermo, Italy, stefano.decantis@unipa.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-5068-6421
Abstract: This work aims to provide more clarity around the concept of proximity tourism
giving an overview of how tourist flows changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The concept
of proximity changed over the years in different ways. Indeed, if in the past it was understood
only on a geographical or physical level, today it makes sense to talk about the different
typologies of proximity such as cultural, political, and social. The economic crisis caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the growing importance of domestic tourism. We use an
Origin-Destination (O/D) Matrix approach, considering trips made to Spain in the three years
2019-2021. The idea is to build three matrices containing the coefficients of attraction. This is
the first time that this methodology is used on Spanish data to understand the dynamic behind
the different Spanish regions in terms of tourism proximity. This study is relevant in terms of
political decision-makers and can bring to stimulate tourism within the national territory and
encourage local mobility. Proximity tourism is a different way of doing tourism than foreign
travel because it allows for greater sustainability in line with the needs of the time, turns out to
be a different way of vacationing, and supports local destinations that are often vulnerable.
Keywords: COVID-19, domestic tourism, local destination, tourist attractiveness coefficient
JEL Codes: L83; Z32
1. Introduction
Starting from 2019, the world is being hit by COVID-19 through a rapid spread (WHO, 2021).
In 2020, the number of cases confirmed were 153.954.491 and deaths exceeded 3 million. The
diffusion of the virus was influenced and stimulated by the mobility of people and therefore became
a global pandemic (Li et al., 2022).

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
111
Government-imposed restrictions on long-distance travel, such as limitations on mobility,
control over seat availability in transportation, and the implementation of safety measures
pertaining to social distancing, have been implemented as part of efforts to mitigate the rapid spread
of infectious diseases. In addition, the pervading sense of apprehension and perceived risks
associated with contracting infections has significantly hindered the willingness of tourists to
embark on cross-border journeys. Consequently, these multifaceted factors have collectively
contributed to a substantial decline in revenue within the tourism sector. According to the World
Tourism Organization (UNWTO), recent data indicates that the figures pertaining to tourist arrivals
and the broader tourism industry have regressed to levels comparable to those observed in the 1990s
(UNWTO, 2020). The pandemic thus triggered a global crisis that impacted health systems first,
which collapsed due to a lack of beds and a shortage of equipment. Secondly, economic systems
and related industries were hit hard by the restrictions brought about by the proliferation of the
virus and the resulting government decisions to block the internal and external mobility of citizens.
Tourism was one of the hardest-hit sectors.
Recent WHO data (2021) describe the United States as the country with the highest number
of confirmed cases, followed by India and Brazil. Even in Europe, France, Spain, the UK, and Italy
show a high number of confirmed cases. COVID-19 caused an unprecedented crisis in Europe.
After China surpassed the peak of infections, Italy and Spain became the epicenter nations of
Europe in terms of several infected cases. Spain reached one of the highest mortality rates in the
world (Zhang et al., 2020). The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Spain was reported on 31
January 2020. It was an imported case corresponding to a tourist visiting the Canary Islands.
The impact of the pandemic on the Spanish economy has been severe, resulting in significant
losses. According to the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (INE, 2021), there has been a
notable decline in GDP growth. Specifically, in the last quarter of 2019, the GDP growth rate stood
at 2%. However, in the first quarter of 2020, Spain experienced a sharp contraction, with negative
figures reaching -5.24%. This downturn can be attributed to the state of alert imposed on March
12th, along with the implementation of strict containment measures to curb the spread of the virus.
The tourism market in Spain always played an important role in the economy of the country.
Indeed, according to OECD (2020) in 2017 tourism accounted for 11.8% of GDP, and in 2018 it
sustained 13.5% of employment. Finally, in 2019 tourism greatly contributed to GDP by 14.6%.
As a concern the international tourist flows in the last ten years, these have been growing
continuously. Indeed, before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019) Spain received 83.7 million tourists,
1.1% more than in 2018. Unfortunately, the pandemic stopped this growing trend and in 2021, only
31.1(-62%) million tourists visited Spain. The impact of COVID-19 on international tourism in
Spain can be appreciated through the following table proposed by the INE, comparing the
international tourist arrivals in 2019-2020-2021 (Table 1).
Table 1. Resident trips by country of destination: Spain or Abroad (2019-2020-2021)
YEAR
SPAIN
ABROAD
TOTAL
2019
173,754,971.00
20,119,745.00
193,874,716.00
2020
96,449,394.00
5,074,468.00
101,523,862.00
2021
135,687,709.00
7,205,752.00
142,893,461.00
Source: Author elaboration. Comparative 2019-2020-2021 (Millions)
Domestic tourism, due to its nature, was less affected by mobility restrictions concerning
international ones, and this justifies the increase in the months of July, August, and September that
coincide with the erasing of the restrictions. These two tourism markets are characterized by

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
112
different flows of tourists and different features. International tourism sometimes is preferred by
the government and destination managers due to the higher spending capacity but on this occasion,
after the pandemic, domestic tourism could play an important role in the global tourism recovery.
Indeed, according to Arbulú et al. (2021) “domestic tourism is the key driver of the tourism sector
globally” and “its importance in relieving the tourism industry crisis due to COVID-19 pandemic
cannot be underestimated”.
Only in recent times, the proximity concept has gained further importance due to COVID-19
which has forced people to stay in their countries of residence without being able to travel abroad,
despite this, the current literature on the topic of proximity tourism is severely lacking (Salmela et
al., 2021). For instance, according to Lebrun et al. (2021) with COVID-19 there has been a
considerable change in tourism, in terms of mobility, consumption habits, and free time.
Furthermore, this has led to an increase in domestic and proximity tourism because proximity and
more accessible destinations have been considered.
Given the importance of domestic tourism and the problems associated with COVID-19, the
concept of proximity tourism is more relevant today than ever before: that is, the possibility of
doing tourism without moving from national borders.
The present study endeavors to delineate the concept of proximity within the field of tourism.
In pursuit of this objective, an exhaustive examination of the existing literature on the subject was
undertaken. Additionally, given the substantial influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
tourism sector, the secondary aim of this investigation is to assess the prevailing situation in Spain
with regard to tourism, thereby furnishing policymakers with essential guidelines to enhance the
charm of tourist destinations. Moreover, by employing a coefficient of attraction, a comprehensive
overview of the alterations in tourist behavior induced by the pandemic will be provided.
To summarize, the primary objectives of this study can be outlined as follows:
• To establish a definitive definition of proximity tourism, thereby contributing to the extant
body of literature on this subject.
• To assess the contemporary framework of Spanish tourism flows through the implementation
of an O/D matrix.
• To elucidate any modifications in tourist movement patterns within destinations resulting
from the pandemic, utilizing the coefficient of attraction.
The subsequent sections of this paper are organized as follows: following a review of the
literature concerning proximity tourism and the utilization of O/D matrices, The subsequent
paragraph provides a detailed exploration of the data and methodology employed. This section
elucidates the processing of data obtained from microdata accessible on the official Spanish website
(https://www.ine.es/en/), along with the construction of three matrices corresponding to the years
2019, 2020, and 2021.
As confirmed by Alvarez-Diaz et al. (2020) the first uses of the O/D matrices are in the context
of migration between rural and urban areas of a country and travel times in relation to the mobility
of cities (Coeymans, 1983). Extensive use of the O/D matrix can be found in tourism literature
(Pérez, 2016; Gàlvez et al., 2014, Guardia and Muro, 2009).
In the work of Guardia and Muro (2009), geographical distance and the economic weight of
the territory appear to be the predominant factors in the attractiveness of a tourist destination. The
scholars investigated inter-regional tourism flows in the period 2004-2008 for Spain, establishing
which regions were the most attractive in terms of tourism. They analyzed inter and intra-regional
tourism at a descriptive level by constructing an O/D matrix. Following this, they calculated
attractiveness coefficients and determined the most attractively dense and marginalized areas,

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
113
respectively. In Guardia and Muro's (2009) study, the Autonomous Communities that attract the
most tourists from other regions were Aragon, Cantabria and Valenci.).
Alvarez-Diaz et al. (2020) using the methodology proposed by previous authors, present a
study of tourism in Colombia using data provided by the Survey of Domestic Tourist Expenditure
(Encuesta de Gasto Interno-EGIT). The author's study conducted over the period of 2012-2013,
and based on the estimation of attractiveness coefficients, reveals a predilection for intra-regional
tourism within Colombia, as opposed to inter-regional tourism. The main reason for this lies in the
distance between the regions and especially the mountainous nature that of origin-destination trips
using data from 2012-2013, as well as the estimation of attractiveness coefficients of these flows.
Once the O/D matrix is constructed, they find that domestic tourism in Colombia follows an
intraregional rather than an interregional tourism pattern. The objective of our study is to construct
three matrices comprising attraction coefficients. The anticipated outcomes are associated with the
notion that travel patterns have been altered as a result of the pandemic. Moreover, it is expected
that there has been an enhanced attractiveness of Spanish destinations over the three-year period
under examination, particularly in relation to tourism emphasizing proximity.
2. Literature review and theoretical framework on tourism proximity
The concept of proximity nowadays acquires a different meaning from the past, because if
before it was understood only on a geographical/physical level, now it might make sense to talk
about different proximities (cultural, political, social, and, organizational).
Citarella (2013) elucidated the concept of proximity by asserting that "everything is related to
everything, but the things that are near are more correlated than things far." Through this statement,
the author aimed to convey the multifaceted nature of proximity, which manifests itself in various
forms depending on the relationships involved (Citarella, 2013).
According to the author, the concept of proximity encompasses the scale of interaction
between the local and the global. At the physical-geographical level, proximity manifests itself in
the identification of individuals residing in the same geographic location and sharing a common
language. This proximity-based identification fosters relationships that are inherently influenced
by spatial proximity. Despite this, social ties are no longer only limited to "face-to-face" because
thanks to new technologies it is possible to develop relationships and, in general, international
relations, even at a distance regardless of geographical proximity (Citarella, 2013).
Today's society is steeped in the phenomenon of hypermobility), or long-distance travel that
corresponds to cosmopolitanism (Cohen and Gössling, 2015). According to Andriotis (2018),
mobility over shorter distances, along with minimal consumption is more considered in lifestyles
to date. According to Rosu (2020), there is a significant shift away from previous statements that
determined immobility as disadvantageous.
In this sense, Citarella (2013) expresses the inadequacy of geographical proximity, both at the
physical and functional level, proposing to consider the various works that have highlighted
multiple proximities other than the spatial one, namely those related to cognitive, institutional,
socio-cultural aspects (Citarella, 2013).
One of the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, which would be in line with the principles
of sustainability, has been the strengthening of local tourism at the expense of long-distance travel
(Dot Jutgla et al., 2022). This proximity tourism has many specific characteristics regarding the
organization of tourist activity. They all favor a demand in terms of short geographic distance from
the domestic tourist and, to a large extent, also from the working and middle classes (Dot Jutgla et

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
114
al., 2022). According to Gilly and Torre (2000), it is possible to define two types of proximity in
addition to the one based on Euclidean distance (the geographical-physical one): social and virtual.
The concept of social proximity has to do with tacit and codified knowledge: the former
manifesting itself on a local scale, the latter on a global scale.
Cultural proximity pertains to the interconnectedness and interplay of individuals within a
network, sharing common knowledge, values, and experiences (Boschma, 2005). On the other
hand, virtual proximity refers to the concept of proximity in the digital field, specifically within
cyberspace. This type of proximity represents a "non-place/non-space" since the internet is
perceived as a novel domain that is accessible to anyone, anytime (Citarella, 2013).
The context highlights the transformation of activities that were traditionally confined to local
contexts, which can now be conducted from any location worldwide. Within this framework,
tourism emerges as a significant aspect of people's lives, encompassing various leisure and
recreational pursuits. Consequently, tourism exhibits distinct characteristics associated with the
notion of proximity. The aforementioned context highlights the transformation of activities that
were traditionally confined to local contexts, which can now be conducted from any location
worldwide.
Some authors have attempted to define the concept of tourist proximity (Jeuring and Diaz-
Soria, 2017; Rantala et al., 2020). Jeuring and Diaz-Soria (2017) define it as a particular form of
tourism that highlights the local destination with short distances and low-carbon transportation
modes. Recent literature suggests that the concept of proximity extends beyond mere physical
distances and encompasses the notion of novelty and freshness in one's perspective (Rantala et al.,
2020).
Salmela et al. (2021) conducted a thematic literature review aimed at establishing the relevant
search terms associated with proximity tourism. The authors undertook a systematic analysis to
discern the forward-looking aspects and diverse perspectives within the field.
The literature around domestic tourism is dense and does not provide a definition or
conceptual framework for proximity tourism. “Proximate", "intraregional", "intra-regional”, “near-
home”, “nearby”, “near-by”, “short-distance”, and "home-bound" are the synonyms proposed by
the authors for the concept of proximity tourist (Salmela et al., 2021).
Diaz-Soria (2017) in his work proposes an important question: "How is it possible to visit a
place in a tourist way if that place is next to our home or feels familiar?"
In addressing this question, the author initially delves into the foundational concept of
proximity, which traditionally pertains to geographical distances. However, the author
subsequently highlights alternative perspectives, that challenges the limited perspective associated
with the geographical notion. These viewpoints argue that in our contemporary world,
characterized by high specialization and globalization, there are no longer any limits to accessing
diverse locations, individuals, and experiences.
As stated by Boschma (2005) it is a complex and multidimensional concept because it is both
physical and spatial but also has an abstract dimension based on the perception that organizations
and individuals have of distances. Furthermore, the multidisciplinary discourse revolves around the
interplay between centers and peripheries within a specific urban context, aiming to comprehend
the intricate connection between rural and urban areas (Bertacchi et al., 2021).
In pandemic times, the importance of exploring one's own city's cultural endowment due to
excessive governmental restrictions has prompted citizens to learn about their own natural riches
(Bertacchi et al., 2021).
In this sense, Jeuring and Haartsen (2017) explain that the subjective nature of the concepts

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
115
of distance and proximity holds significant importance in defining tourism activities, as they are
not purely physical parameters but rather reflect subjective perceptions and emotions. The distance
can be interpreted both in terms of time and cost, and as experience (i.e., the perception of change
in scenery and climate).
From an experiential point of view, some types and situations that are created within the
tourism experience can be considered "Proximate/Neighborhood". Considering the study
conducted by Rantala et al. (2020), they propose the concept of proximity tourism as an approach
that addresses the global environmental crisis by fostering responsible practices and choices
focused on genetic and environmental conservation (Rantala et al., 2020).
The previous discussion has elucidated the dependence of proximity tourism on the
perceptions held by institutions and individuals regarding the notion of distance and its impact on
tourism activities. Furthermore, it has been established that domestic tourism cannot be
encompassed within the scope of proximity tourism due to the frequent occurrence of domestic
trips exceeding distances of over 500 kilometers.
To provide a clearer understanding of proximity tourism to a broader audience, it is essential
to consider situations where individuals engage in proximity trips out of necessity rather than
choice. In such instances, choosing not to renounce to long-distance travel and instead opting to
explore familiar surroundings becomes crucial to maintain their tourist status, even if the activities
pursued may not strictly adhere to conventional tourism standards.
The situation just described is one that fully interprets the travel freeze due to the global
COVID-19 pandemic. Over the course of time, numerous pandemics and epidemics have impacted
the world, leading governments to implement containment measures that involved the closure of
both inbound and outbound borders. These measures were implemented to mitigate the
transmission of infectious diseases. However, with the advent of COVID-19, these measures have
assumed greater significance due to several factors. Firstly, COVID-19 represents the first global
pandemic that has affected the entire world extensively. Secondly, the rapid and unprecedented
impact of the virus on a global scale distinguishes it from previous outbreaks.
Romagosa (2020) in this regard discusses the opportunities that proximity (and sustainable)
tourism can provide in the era of crisis from COVID-19. The impact that COVID-19 has had on
tourism has been resounding change in travel habits, reorganization of spaces dedicated to
recreational activities, redistribution of space and allocation of hours and shifts in museums and
other points of interest, the emergence of remote work practices, changes in consumption patterns,
evolving health requirements, and other related factors have contributed to a shift in various aspects
of society.
However, the author (Romagosa, 2020), emphasizes the resilience of the tourism sector, which
possesses an impressive capacity to adapt and shelter from crises and disasters. Romagosa's work
views proximity tourism as a form of sustainable tourism encompassing environmental, social, and
economic dimensions. Proximity tourism entails a deliberate choice by individuals to engage in
travel activities within proximity to their residential or familiar surroundings. This conscious
decision to avoid long-distance travel minimizes the negative impact on the environment, as it
reduces carbon emissions associated with transportation. Additionally, proximity tourism promotes
social sustainability by encouraging interaction with local communities, fostering cultural
exchange, and supporting local economies. From an economic perspective, proximity tourism
generates opportunities for small-scale businesses, stimulates local employment, and enhances the
overall economic resilience of the destination. Thus, proximity tourism aligns with the principles
of sustainability by promoting responsible travel practices and contributing to the well-being of

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
116
both the environment and the host communities.
3. Materials and methods
The analysis performed is based on the microdata on national trips made in Spain in 2019,
2020, and 2021. In other words, these years represent the periods before, during, and "after"
the pandemic, although it should be noted that the year 2021 cannot be considered entirely free
from the impact of COVID-19. The idea behind the use of these three years is to obtain a full
perspective of the changing tourist behavior and travel patterns in the scope of new mobilities.
The microdata was provided by INE after downloading the data, a process of encoding
variables and value labels were successfully encoded using SPSS software. The data obtained,
have been processed into three different data matrices, for each year.
Three O/D matrices (in the next tables, 2,3 and 4) were constructed with the aim of
defining domestic tourism in Spain and excluding from the destination columns the trips
towards foreign destinations. In addition to the three matrices with the attraction coefficients,
there are also a fourth and fifth matrices-shaped by the ratio between the coefficients of 2020
and those of 2019 and, 2021-2020, respectively. We, therefore, limit ourselves to trips made by
residents from region x to region y of Spain and within the same region of origin. Spain is
divided into 17 autonomous communities, respectively: Andalusia (AND), Aragon (ARA),
Asturia Principality of (AST), Balearic Island (BAL), Canaries (CAN), Cantabria (CANT),
Castile and Leon (CAST1), Castile la Mancha, (CAST2), Catalonia (CAT), Valencian
Community (VAL), Extremadura (EXT), Galician (GAL), Madrid Community of (MAD),
Murcia Region of (MUR), Navarra Floral Community of (NAV), Basque Country (BAS) and
finally, Rioja (RIO).
The origin-destination matrix (1) has the following structure:
O/D Matrix =







     
   
   
   
 









(1)
Where:
• = number of trips originated in cell ii and within the destination in cell j;
•  = number of trips originated in cell i;
• 
 = number of trips received by cell j;
• = total trips.
In our study we replicated the methodology proposed by Guardia and Muro (2011) using
as input the flows that are generated by the O/D matrices. We focused on regions within Spain,
considering in the row the region of origin, and in the column the regions of destination.
The applications of the index in literature are very few (Torres and Monsalve, 2018;
Gàlvez and Romero, 2014; Guardia and Muro, 2011), the use of the index to assess the change
in attractiveness over time is uncommon, as most studies typically rely on matrices composed

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
117
of the averages of the time series considered instead of utilizing the index. The tourist
attractiveness index (2) is calculated as follows:
 



 (2)
Where:
•  : is the coefficient of tourist attraction between the regions (Spanish
communities) i (origin) and j (destination)
• : number of trips made by the region i (the single intersection cell, i.e., the joints
one between destination i and destination j)
• : total tourist demand of the region's residents i (the total of the single row
in the matrix),
•  : total demand flows
• : number of trips received by the region (community) j
A place, whether it is a site or an object, achieves the status of an attraction when it is
acknowledged as such by tourists. The term "attraction" refers to the correlation between a
specific place or site and the tourists who express a desire to visit it. The strength of a tourist
flow is determined by the attraction coefficient, with a coefficient greater than one indicating
a strong flow, while a coefficient less than one indicates a weak flow (Pérez, 2016). This implies
that the flow x_ij holds more significance in the overall number of trips to destination j
compared to the total number of trips originating from location i (all in relative terms) within
the total number of trips (Pérez, 2016).
4. Results
For a correct interpretation of the results, it is necessary to look at the most important facts
that have occurred in Spain with the advent of the pandemic. Spain had its first epidemic
manifestation in January 2020 due to the entry of a tourist on the Canary Island of La Gomera.
Starting in March, a state of emergency is declared, leading to the closure of all public places.
Thus, a period of first quarantine begins which will see a gradual reopening starting in May.
This is followed by a summer period with a relaxation of restrictions and subsequently, starting
from September, a further increase in infections. In 2020, therefore, travel between regions was
also quite complicated due to the bans imposed by the government, including the ban on
moving from one region to another during the Easter holidays. In addition, the Spanish
government imposed a ban on entry for non-residents in the country until May 2020. All these
pandemic-related restrictions have influenced the tourism sector and travel, especially
international travel. Indeed, looking at the absolute number of trips taken by Spanish abroad, a
sharp reduction can be observed.
Looking at the coefficient matrices, an increase from 2019 (Table 5) to 2020 (table 6) is
visible and considering the ratio between these coefficients in the two years, a concentration of
coefficients can be intercepted along the main diagonal (Table 8). As we expected, looking at
the biennium 2021-2020 (Table 9) (with respect to Table 6 and Table 7), there appears to be a
different trend in travel, as the coefficients are less concentrated along the main diagonal
compared to the previous biennium. The reason behind this reduction may be related to the

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
118
relaxation of government-imposed travel restrictions (the ratio denoted a decreased of this form
of tourism with values lesser than 1.

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
119
Table 2. Trips of residents to Spain by autonomous community of origin and destination (2019).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
TOT
AND
21843535
92899
155494
226122
143577
83665
286590
340947
330463
536453
550673
187348
1854884
329385
52412
134965
11010
27160422
ARA
291210
3095997
26016
45495
35469
68393
252911
77494
900681
636443
28514
59998
289168
34573
98954
205946
69234
6216496
AST
159048
31083
2120671
34511
43444
178850
689875
13831
98845
87272
55705
340189
205342
6561
14384
82051
14163
4175825
BAL
210880
62957
36194
1652168
31032
13370
49298
42745
424778
147964
18260
76720
240325
10901
10646
23712
555
3052505
CAN
228970
24970
19014
20477
5084115
10227
66159
34797
129898
86795
3991
141454
490803
11455
7621
50544
5617
6416907
CANT
87137
37666
141361
16301
35022
730359
373169
14919
46357
67015
10868
53324
204514
2829
9580
88887
24615
1943923
CAST1
528883
126663
498971
45503
117137
747716
5504625
76428
209364
438897
210624
423486
1182172
29213
45724
275369
80924
10541699
CAST2
950054
128145
53364
30751
66571
105214
346362
2627111
89421
1441821
201809
60299
1352182
320088
6913
63746
5554
7849405
CAT
1100264
1287906
116978
546662
196408
112636
435388
423664
20364155
987341
127326
313143
1248220
61805
173483
366568
90252
27952199
VAL
943976
719879
98657
181294
65513
62203
289490
1362646
695936
10101877
47439
169579
737902
344118
87053
101408
60495
16069465
EXT
936756
18051
49873
11419
16453
9803
131061
156464
42622
60468
1624015
21865
442810
20292
1274
12053
2312
3557591
GAL
167416
19681
262765
46740
127698
68354
451287
50644
161177
144968
38757
6759703
446985
85088
19851
71635
7440
8930189
MAD
3682312
906012
903103
298575
420835
634769
6612456
5350820
882615
3647270
1397801
1047390
3904330
616211
232810
763359
223097
31523765
MUR
863885
59985
30171
26189
15888
20899
89009
310039
94520
719537
23122
46506
288040
1654142
16526
36101
16773
4311332
NAV
113028
237221
27315
16647
19854
65057
140997
35563
219930
186161
13880
30000
169022
2724
1007292
272160
121534
2678385
BAS
279977
477649
284306
66928
80119
1053108
1718318
61181
451415
405263
108288
252752
499921
8857
1079070
2272983
566259
9666394
RIO
57336
96958
19226
9062
7487
72531
113706
15289
110812
75531
5453
15148
104442
3228
49906
104982
332431
1193528
TOT
32444667
7423722
4843479
3274844
6506622
4037154
17550701
10994582
25252989
19771076
4466525
9998904
13661062
3541470
2913499
4926469
1632265
173240030
Source: Author elaboration
Table 3. Trips of residents to Spain by autonomous community of origin and destination (2020).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
AND
4.29
0.08
0.20
0.44
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.20
0.08
0.17
0.79
0.12
0.87
0.59
0.11
0.17
0.04
ARA
0.25
11.62
0.15
0.39
0.15
0.47
0.40
0.20
0.99
0.90
0.18
0.17
0.59
0.27
0.95
1.16
1.18
AST
0.20
0.17
18.16
0.44
0.28
1.84
1.63
0.05
0.16
0.18
0.52
1.41
0.62
0.08
0.20
0.69
0.36
BAL
0.37
0.48
0.42
28.63
0.27
0.19
0.16
0.22
0.95
0.42
0.23
0.44
1.00
0.17
0.21
0.27
0.02
CAN
0.19
0.09
0.11
0.17
21.10
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.12
0.02
0.38
0.97
0.09
0.07
0.28
0.09
CANT
0.24
0.45
2.60
0.44
0.48
16.12
1.89
0.12
0.16
0.30
0.22
0.48
1.33
0.07
0.29
1.61
1.34
CAST1
0.27
0.28
1.69
0.23
0.30
3.04
5.15
0.11
0.14
0.36
0.77
0.70
1.42
0.14
0.26
0.92
0.81
CAST2
0.65
0.38
0.24
0.21
0.23
0.58
0.44
5.27
0.08
1.61
1.00
0.13
2.18
1.99
0.05
0.29
0.08
CAT
0.21
1.08
0.15
1.03
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.24
5.00
0.31
0.18
0.19
0.57
0.11
0.37
0.46
0.34
VAL
0.31
1.05
0.22
0.60
0.11
0.17
0.18
1.34
0.30
5.51
0.11
0.18
0.58
1.05
0.32
0.22
0.40
EXT
1.41
0.12
0.50
0.17
0.12
0.12
0.36
0.69
0.08
0.15
17.71
0.11
1.58
0.28
0.02
0.12
0.07
GAL
0.10
0.05
1.05
0.28
0.38
0.33
0.50
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.17
13.11
0.63
0.47
0.13
0.28
0.09
MAD
0.62
0.67
1.02
0.50
0.36
0.86
2.07
2.67
0.19
1.01
1.72
0.58
1.57
0.96
0.44
0.85
0.75
MUR
1.07
0.32
0.25
0.32
0.10
0.21
0.20
1.13
0.15
1.46
0.21
0.19
0.85
18.77
0.23
0.29
0.41
NAV
0.23
2.07
0.36
0.33
0.20
1.04
0.52
0.21
0.56
0.61
0.20
0.19
0.80
0.05
22.36
3.57
4.82
BAS
0.15
1.15
1.05
0.37
0.22
4.67
1.75
0.10
0.32
0.37
0.43
0.45
0.66
0.04
6.64
8.27
6.22
RIO
0.26
1.90
0.58
0.40
0.17
2.61
0.94
0.20
0.64
0.55
0.18
0.22
1.11
0.13
2.49
3.09
29.56
Source: Author elaboration

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
120
Table 4. Trips of residents to Spain by autonomous community of origin and destination (2021).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
AND
4.29
0.08
0.20
0.44
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.20
0.08
0.17
0.79
0.12
0.87
0.59
0.11
0.17
0.04
ARA
0.25
11.62
0.15
0.39
0.15
0.47
0.40
0.20
0.99
0.90
0.18
0.17
0.59
0.27
0.95
1.16
1.18
AST
0.20
0.17
18.16
0.44
0.28
1.84
1.63
0.05
0.16
0.18
0.52
1.41
0.62
0.08
0.20
0.69
0.36
BAL
0.37
0.48
0.42
28.63
0.27
0.19
0.16
0.22
0.95
0.42
0.23
0.44
1.00
0.17
0.21
0.27
0.02
CAN
0.19
0.09
0.11
0.17
21.10
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.12
0.02
0.38
0.97
0.09
0.07
0.28
0.09
CANT
0.24
0.45
2.60
0.44
0.48
16.12
1.89
0.12
0.16
0.30
0.22
0.48
1.33
0.07
0.29
1.61
1.34
CAST1
0.27
0.28
1.69
0.23
0.30
3.04
5.15
0.11
0.14
0.36
0.77
0.70
1.42
0.14
0.26
0.92
0.81
CAST2
0.65
0.38
0.24
0.21
0.23
0.58
0.44
5.27
0.08
1.61
1.00
0.13
2.18
1.99
0.05
0.29
0.08
CAT
0.21
1.08
0.15
1.03
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.24
5.00
0.31
0.18
0.19
0.57
0.11
0.37
0.46
0.34
VAL
0.31
1.05
0.22
0.60
0.11
0.17
0.18
1.34
0.30
5.51
0.11
0.18
0.58
1.05
0.32
0.22
0.40
EXT
1.41
0.12
0.50
0.17
0.12
0.12
0.36
0.69
0.08
0.15
17.71
0.11
1.58
0.28
0.02
0.12
0.07
GAL
0.10
0.05
1.05
0.28
0.38
0.33
0.50
0.09
0.12
0.14
0.17
13.11
0.63
0.47
0.13
0.28
0.09
MAD
0.62
0.67
1.02
0.50
0.36
0.86
2.07
2.67
0.19
1.01
1.72
0.58
1.57
0.96
0.44
0.85
0.75
MUR
1.07
0.32
0.25
0.32
0.10
0.21
0.20
1.13
0.15
1.46
0.21
0.19
0.85
18.77
0.23
0.29
0.41
NAV
0.23
2.07
0.36
0.33
0.20
1.04
0.52
0.21
0.56
0.61
0.20
0.19
0.80
0.05
22.36
3.57
4.82
BAS
0.15
1.15
1.05
0.37
0.22
4.67
1.75
0.10
0.32
0.37
0.43
0.45
0.66
0.04
6.64
8.27
6.22
RIO
0.26
1.90
0.58
0.40
0.17
2.61
0.94
0.20
0.64
0.55
0.18
0.22
1.11
0.13
2.49
3.09
29.56
Source: Author elaboration
Table 5. The coefficients of tourist attraction between the regions (Spanish communities) i (origin) and j (destination) (2019).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
AND
4.52
0.10
0.07
0.22
0.11
0.05
0.09
0.14
0.05
0.09
0.65
0.10
0.53
0.33
0.07
0.10
0.00
ARA
0.13
14.02
0.14
0.17
0.07
0.42
0.37
0.32
0.81
0.79
0.23
0.18
0.55
0.12
1.48
0.66
0.89
AST
0.12
0.07
20.83
0.12
0.08
1.20
1.71
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.14
1.20
0.57
0.15
0.02
0.96
0.53
BAL
0.30
0.39
0.26
32.06
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.61
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.69
0.13
0.17
0.03
0.18
CAN
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.06
20.42
0.03
0.11
0.03
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.19
0.54
0.04
0.09
0.19
0.06
CANT
0.17
0.19
2.71
0.24
0.18
18.62
1.67
0.07
0.12
0.14
0.35
0.42
1.41
0.00
0.04
2.63
0.91
CAST1
0.17
0.21
1.49
0.21
0.17
1.89
6.58
0.29
0.08
0.20
0.85
0.42
1.14
0.09
0.30
0.57
0.72
CAST2
0.39
0.23
0.38
0.20
0.04
0.29
0.46
6.76
0.06
1.48
0.60
0.18
2.55
1.23
0.10
0.17
0.11
CAT
0.15
1.26
0.18
1.01
0.13
0.20
0.12
0.13
5.50
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.35
0.12
0.44
0.34
0.41
VAL
0.25
0.89
0.21
0.52
0.04
0.17
0.10
1.12
0.17
5.80
0.06
0.09
0.53
1.49
0.25
0.25
0.23
EXT
0.92
0.10
0.11
0.04
0.00
0.09
0.34
0.29
0.09
0.08
22.63
0.02
2.07
0.13
0.19
0.14
0.03
GAL
0.07
0.09
0.55
0.20
0.21
0.14
0.40
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.14
15.05
0.40
0.00
0.08
0.59
0.01
MAD
0.58
0.57
1.24
0.58
0.29
1.27
1.81
2.58
0.22
0.94
1.37
0.68
2.38
0.95
0.68
0.69
0.46
MUR
0.72
0.16
0.34
0.18
0.08
0.25
0.18
1.74
0.09
1.41
0.19
0.15
0.75
21.38
0.07
0.12
0.07
NAV
0.18
1.80
0.43
0.24
0.20
1.73
0.67
0.02
0.55
0.40
0.10
0.25
0.68
0.05
22.76
2.99
8.75
BAS
0.20
0.82
1.26
0.43
0.25
5.13
1.72
0.07
0.26
0.36
0.22
0.25
0.50
0.23
5.24
10.18
5.96
RIO
0.14
1.82
0.35
0.14
0.07
3.31
1.36
0.21
0.34
0.59
0.06
0.20
0.71
0.00
2.37
3.11
37.58
Source: Author elaboration

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
121
Table 6. The coefficients of tourist attraction between the regions (Spanish communities) i (origin) and j (destination) (2020).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
TOT
AND
18449860
70053
99520
142675
125880
35900
197637
266018
185412
383648
400425
199870
828147
203257
17868
80641
22612
21709423
ARA
118760
2640969
14665
61098
33540
42822
145218
56509
656050
438240
13102
42749
167016
19214
94219
70050
37680
4651901
AST
113279
18823
1363435
19791
37745
153172
451139
5193
47322
79735
20483
258936
157332
6122
4587
57582
3204
2797880
BAL
161308
15672
7959
2187388
23891
4046
20957
27854
199870
150966
10310
40992
206019
10574
10794
13266
0
3091866
CAN
98880
14944
32189
8791
4134041
5183
67950
18672
86702
60668
4073
66032
285052
10543
5696
26654
0
4926070
CANT
62223
17909
96823
19137
14941
863214
261316
9034
26554
36053
15188
42170
163203
3926
12714
63292
28416
1736113
CAST1
331236
45168
288546
60750
35009
379296
4511907
137927
158894
311463
117593
329894
840125
18457
19083
155344
53805
7794497
CAST2
642671
104190
66219
27719
35849
59955
255725
2443760
97466
982163
174539
83120
620290
204626
12854
36548
612
5848306
CAT
864544
1378115
94123
595015
189936
78098
304810
175874
16716168
959477
100047
239607
684056
127050
117591
377102
98804
23100417
VAL
785114
533498
61927
169841
62018
38574
83057
907508
760931
9357234
37268
116367
481118
255665
26487
128860
21918
13827385
EXT
660506
35129
23964
27256
4107
18124
155699
88600
34123
22603
1277240
45829
337287
4150
3790
15599
1818
2755824
GAL
125182
4359
129597
40129
73729
65248
224792
34354
86231
64070
43418
5774858
289505
4407
7809
57274
5966
7030928
MAD
2393193
467450
663034
245429
288569
458423
4439552
3957758
854634
2725472
1089997
784532
3246877
336138
140044
356229
121674
22569005
MUR
517749
62032
24819
35361
23236
26379
48275
268234
73006
592605
8893
38357
301987
1490422
15363
14411
0
3541129
NAV
69673
145543
13316
15167
14742
46823
155221
10058
232696
121414
10926
40817
109508
20270
962705
208977
26378
2204234
BAS
291432
233802
162324
86921
56383
953966
1102984
75071
296403
344139
127221
192974
402038
9917
430076
1406380
569467
6741498
RIO
38734
105944
13771
6548
4007
52808
83669
6094
78555
65393
6638
22385
57805
10763
48280
65611
332294
999299
TOT
25724344
5893600
3156231
3749016
5157623
3282031
12509908
8488518
20591017
16695343
3457361
8319489
9177365
2735501
1929960
3133820
1324648
135325775
Source: Author elaboration
Table 7. The coefficients of tourist attraction between the regions (Spanish communities) i (origin) and j (destination) (2021).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
AND
4.47
0.07
0.20
0.24
0.15
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.06
0.14
0.72
0.15
0.56
0.46
0.06
0.16
0.11
ARA
0.13
13.04
0.14
0.47
0.19
0.38
0.34
0.19
0.93
0.76
0.11
0.15
0.53
0.20
1.42
0.65
0.83
AST
0.21
0.15
20.89
0.26
0.35
2.26
1.74
0.03
0.11
0.23
0.29
1.51
0.83
0.11
0.11
0.89
0.12
BAL
0.27
0.12
0.11
25.54
0.20
0.05
0.07
0.14
0.42
0.40
0.13
0.22
0.98
0.17
0.24
0.19
0.00
CAN
0.11
0.07
0.28
0.06
22.02
0.04
0.15
0.06
0.12
0.10
0.03
0.22
0.85
0.11
0.08
0.23
0.00
CANT
0.19
0.24
2.39
0.40
0.23
20.50
1.63
0.08
0.10
0.17
0.34
0.40
1.39
0.11
0.51
1.57
1.67
CAST1
0.22
0.13
1.59
0.28
0.12
2.01
6.26
0.28
0.13
0.32
0.59
0.69
1.59
0.12
0.17
0.86
0.71
CAST2
0.58
0.41
0.49
0.17
0.16
0.42
0.47
6.66
0.11
1.36
1.17
0.23
1.56
1.73
0.15
0.27
0.01
CAT
0.20
1.37
0.17
0.93
0.22
0.14
0.14
0.12
4.76
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.44
0.27
0.36
0.70
0.44
VAL
0.30
0.89
0.19
0.44
0.12
0.12
0.06
1.05
0.36
5.49
0.11
0.14
0.51
0.91
0.13
0.40
0.16
EXT
1.26
0.29
0.37
0.36
0.04
0.27
0.61
0.51
0.08
0.07
18.14
0.27
1.80
0.07
0.10
0.24
0.07
GAL
0.09
0.01
0.79
0.21
0.28
0.38
0.35
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.24
13.36
0.61
0.03
0.08
0.35
0.09
MAD
0.56
0.48
1.26
0.39
0.34
0.84
2.13
2.80
0.25
0.98
1.89
0.57
2.12
0.74
0.44
0.68
0.55
MUR
0.77
0.40
0.30
0.36
0.17
0.31
0.15
1.21
0.14
1.36
0.10
0.18
1.26
20.82
0.30
0.18
0.00
NAV
0.17
1.52
0.26
0.25
0.18
0.88
0.76
0.07
0.69
0.45
0.19
0.30
0.73
0.45
30.62
4.09
1.22
BAS
0.23
0.80
1.03
0.47
0.22
5.83
1.77
0.18
0.29
0.41
0.74
0.47
0.88
0.07
4.47
9.01
8.63
RIO
0.20
2.43
0.59
0.24
0.11
2.18
0.91
0.10
0.52
0.53
0.26
0.36
0.85
0.53
3.39
2.84
33.97
Source: Author elaboration

Volume 32, Issue I(110-127). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
122
Table 8. Coefficient Ratio (2020-2019).
O/D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
AND
1.04
1.22
0.33
0.48
0.79
0.41
0.90
0.71
0.63
0.49
0.81
0.83
0.60
0.55
0.62
0.57
0.00
ARA
0.52
1.19
0.90
0.43
0.44
0.87
0.90
1.60
0.81
0.87
1.28
1.03
0.92
0.42
1.54
0.56
0.74
AST
0.56
0.42
1.12
0.26
0.30
0.64
1.03
1.18
0.59
0.66
0.27
0.83
0.89
1.97
0.12
1.36
1.45
BAL
0.84
0.82
0.63
1.15
0.81
0.75
0.68
0.59
0.65
0.94
1.68
0.89
0.71
0.77
0.85
0.12
9.78
CAN
0.50
0.13
0.13
0.35
0.96
0.41
1.04
0.34
0.47
0.39
2.73
0.50
0.56
0.40
1.24
0.68
0.67
CANT
0.70
0.42
1.04
0.53
0.36
1.15
0.88
0.58
0.70
0.45
1.60
0.88
1.05
0.00
0.13
1.62
0.67
CAST1
0.61
0.73
0.86
0.90
0.56
0.60
1.24
2.47
0.60
0.54
1.07
0.58
0.78
0.62
1.13
0.60
0.86
CAST2
0.60
0.59
1.56
0.95
0.16
0.51
1.04
1.27
0.70
0.91
0.60
1.32
1.16
0.61
1.88
0.60
1.49
CAT
0.71
1.20
1.23
1.00
0.71
1.19
0.82
0.55
1.13
0.79
1.25
1.28
0.63
1.10
1.22
0.76
1.22
VAL
0.80
0.85
0.96
0.87
0.39
1.01
0.57
0.83
0.59
1.05
0.55
0.47
0.91
1.42
0.78
1.14
0.57
EXT
0.64
0.80
0.21
0.23
0.00
0.72
0.93
0.41
1.07
0.53
1.25
0.18
1.29
0.44
8.56
1.19
0.36
GAL
0.71
1.70
0.51
0.71
0.53
0.42
0.79
0.82
0.64
0.53
0.84
1.13
0.62
0.00
0.59
2.06
0.13
MAD
0.94
0.86
1.22
1.16
0.83
1.49
0.88
0.98
1.16
0.94
0.80
1.19
1.53
1.01
1.55
0.82
0.63
MUR
0.67
0.49
1.34
0.56
0.84
1.19
0.90
1.53
0.62
0.96
0.90
0.77
0.88
1.13
0.29
0.39
0.17
NAV
0.80
0.88
1.19
0.73
1.05
1.67
1.30
0.12
0.98
0.66
0.49
1.28
0.85
1.11
1.03
0.84
1.83
BAS
1.29
0.70
1.17
1.15
1.09
1.08
0.96
0.71
0.79
0.97
0.50
0.54
0.75
5.03
0.78
1.21
0.94
RIO
0.53
0.95
0.60
0.36
0.42
1.26
1.43
1.05
0.52
1.06
0.33
0.89
0.63
0.00
0.94
1.00
1.26
Source: Author elaboration
Table 9. Coefficient Ratio (2021-2020).
O\D
AND
ARA
AST
BAL
CAN
CANT
CAST1
CAST2
CAT
VAL
EXT
GAL
MAD
MUR
NAV
BAS
RIO
AND
0.99
0.75
2.83
1.10
1.35
1.25
1.04
1.37
1.05
1.66
1.11
1.50
1.07
1.40
0.80
1.58
/
ARA
1.03
0.93
0.99
2.79
2.78
0.91
0.92
0.61
1.14
0.97
0.48
0.85
0.97
1.76
0.96
0.99
0.93
AST
1.83
2.07
1.00
2.16
4.17
1.88
1.02
0.47
1.13
1.86
1.99
1.25
1.46
0.70
4.69
0.92
0.22
BAL
0.91
0.30
0.42
0.80
0.95
0.39
0.70
1.12
0.70
1.01
0.34
0.57
1.41
1.28
1.43
5.78
0.00
CAN
1.11
5.91
19.58
1.07
1.08
1.55
1.41
2.10
1.75
2.12
0.49
1.14
1.57
3.00
0.92
1.23
0.00
CANT
1.11
1.24
0.88
1.68
1.29
1.10
0.98
1.17
0.87
1.22
0.98
0.94
0.98
/
13.06
0.60
1.84
CAST1
1.32
0.63
1.06
1.34
0.69
1.06
0.95
0.98
1.59
1.59
0.69
1.65
1.39
1.36
0.57
1.51
0.98
CAST2
1.49
1.81
1.27
0.86
4.33
1.44
1.04
0.98
1.98
0.92
1.95
1.30
0.61
1.41
1.55
1.58
0.09
CAT
1.36
1.08
0.97
0.92
1.67
0.69
1.16
0.96
0.87
1.42
0.79
0.69
1.25
2.35
0.81
2.07
1.07
VAL
1.18
1.00
0.91
0.85
2.76
0.68
0.64
0.94
2.07
0.95
1.67
1.57
0.96
0.61
0.54
1.58
0.71
EXT
1.37
3.03
3.54
9.01
/
3.14
1.77
1.76
0.91
0.82
0.80
13.82
0.87
0.59
0.52
1.70
2.68
GAL
1.30
0.16
1.45
1.03
1.33
2.74
0.87
1.04
0.99
0.96
1.68
0.89
1.50
/
0.98
0.59
7.28
MAD
0.96
0.83
1.02
0.68
1.15
0.66
1.18
1.08
1.13
1.04
1.38
0.84
0.89
0.77
0.64
0.99
1.19
MUR
1.06
2.51
0.89
1.98
2.07
1.23
0.80
0.69
1.43
0.96
0.52
1.21
1.67
0.97
4.50
1.51
0.00
NAV
0.93
0.84
0.60
1.04
0.86
0.51
1.13
3.04
1.27
1.12
1.97
1.23
1.08
8.33
1.35
1.37
0.14
BAS
1.12
0.97
0.82
1.09
0.90
1.14
1.03
2.47
1.13
1.14
3.33
1.87
1.76
0.32
0.85
0.89
1.45
RIO
1.49
1.34
1.70
1.64
1.49
0.66
0.66
0.46
1.54
0.89
4.45
1.83
1.20
/
1.43
0.91
0.90
Source: Author elaboration

Volume 32, Issue I(107-). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
123
Looking at domestic tourism within regions, there is a coefficient greater than one in all regions, while
in other (not all), this ratio is lower (Tables 5,6 and 7, respectively). This suggests that residents of the
regions, influenced by COVID-19 restrictions, preferred to travel within their region of residence
rather than move to different regions. However, in contrast to the concentration on the main diagonal,
there are some cases.
In fact, in the matrix of relationships between coefficients, it is possible to identify a ratio of 2.5
(Table 8) caused by residents of Castile and León (the largest Spanish autonomous community) who
have traveled to the Castilla-La Mancha region. This could be explained by geographical reasons since
the two regions are neighboring and it is easily possible to travel by car.
Looking at the attraction coefficients for the year 2021, what often emerges is that the coefficient
tends to return to pre-2020 levels. Looking at the attraction coefficients of the Cantabria region for
residents in Navarra, we find coefficients of 1.04 (2019), 1.73 (2020), and 0.88 (2021). In addition to
these coefficients, others seem to approach their original values after 2020, which could mean a return
to travel habits even though 2021 is still too immature a year to talk about post-pandemic. Indeed, the
reasons for these two regions presenting high attraction coefficients are not clear.
Finally, what emerges from the results is certainly a trend for residents to travel within their region,
but there doesn't seem to be a great tendency to travel to nearby areas. The significance of domestic
tourism has been acknowledged considering the pandemic, leading some regions to prioritize national
tourism by temporarily suspending international promotion efforts and emphasizing the concept of
high-quality tourism without overcrowding. Among these regions are Asturias, Galicia, Cantabria, and
the Basque Country, all territories of the so-called "Green Spain" circuit that extends along the northern
coast of Spain and is loved for the nature that constitutes one of its main resources.
5. Discussion, conclusions, and future implications
Today, more than ever, the importance of domestic tourism has grown exponentially. The
pandemic crisis has trained international travel, and as an immediate consequence, there has been a
substantial drop in tourist flows. During the most restrictive periods of the pandemic situation, travel
was not even allowed domestically, borders were closed for months, and all this led to a new way of
thinking about tourism. Proximity tourism was therefore a key turning point for the recovery of the
tourism sector: the recovery of regional and domestic travel allowed for a limited recovery of tourism
in general in 2019-2020-2021.
The work conducted explained the situation in Spain in terms of proximity tourism, also
considering how the global crisis has affected not only the tourism sector but all economic, social, and
political sectors. Spain was one of the European countries hardest hit by the crisis and the Spanish
tourism market, which has always been recognized as internationally renowned, suffered substantial
losses.
The use of the O/D matrix has demonstrated to be a valuable tool for analyzing domestic tourist
flows within Spain. While international demand has received more attention in research, the study of
domestic demand has been relatively overlooked. Therefore, the authors believe that this methodology
could be applied in various countries to enable comparisons of proximity tourism within Europe and
worldwide. The fundamental concept remains the same; only the geopolitical structure of the country’s
changes, which does not limit the implementation of this methodology. In this context, the contribution
of this study is limited to the pandemic years. The primary objective of the authors was to provide an

Volume 32, Issue I(107-). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
124
overview of internal flows, focusing on understanding changes in domestic demand and the impact of
COVID-19 on travel patterns.
Another point to consider is the possibility of expanding the methodology by proposing contiguity
matrices or matrices of distances from the centroids that can capture the aspect of geographic distance,
which is not sufficiently considered in this study. Future lines of research will indeed be oriented
towards considering the distance between regions as a significant variable in explaining attraction
coefficients, and to do so, the methodologies could be useful.
The study's findings could potentially support policymakers' decisions, with a general perspective
of enhancing destination experiences, promoting local tourism, and supporting local accommodations.
The utilization of the proximity concept during lockdowns has a dual added value: on one hand, there
is a community interest in fostering domestic tourism during challenging and crisis-ridden times like
the COVID-19 pandemic; on the other hand, the use of this methodology could benefit domestic
tourism campaigns, territorial marketing, and tourism networks.
Another aspect that could be further explored relates to the findings of the study regarding the
need to improve connectivity between regions for better tourist flow utilization. In this regard,
understanding the infrastructure of countries and assessing their strengths and weaknesses could
facilitate internal policies and enhance tourist flows.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
Alvarez‐Diaz, M., D'Hombres, B., Ghisetti, C., & Pontarollo, N. (2020). Analysing domestic tourism
flows at the provincial level in Spain by using spatial gravity models. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 22(4), 403-415. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2380
Arbulú, I., Razumova, M., Rey-Maquieira, J., & Sastre, F. (2021). Can domestic tourism relieve the
COVID-19 tourist industry crisis? The case of Spain. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 20, 100568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100568
Bertacchini, E., Nuccio, M., & Durio, A. (2021). Proximity tourism and cultural amenities: Evidence
from a regional museum card. Tourism Economics, 27(1), 187-204.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619858761
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Coeymans, J. E. (1983). Determinantes de la migración rural-urbana en Chile según origen y destino.
Cuadernos de Economía, 43-64.
Citarella, F. (2013). Prossimità e innovazione per il vantaggio competitivo dei sistemi turistici locali.
Oltre la Globalizzazione Prossimità/Proximity, 91.

Volume 32, Issue I(107-). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
125
Diaz-Soria, I. (2017). Being a tourist is a chosen experience in a proximity destination. Tourism
Geographies, 19(1), 96-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1258453
Dot Jutglà, E., Romagosa Casals, F., & Noguera Noguera, M. (2022). El incremento del turismo de
proximidad en Cataluña en el verano de 2020: una oportunidad para la consolidación del turismo rural
como forma de turismo sostenible y segura. Investigaciones Turísticas, (23), 162-185.
https://doi.org/10.14198/INTURI2022.23.8
El País: Martín, A. (2020). La atracción turística de España en cifras. El País.
Gálvez, T. G., Romero, J. M., & Devesa, M. J. S. (2014). Measuring and analysing domestic tourism:
the importance of an origin and destination matrix. Tourism Economics, 20(3), 451-472.
https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0337
Gálvez, T. G., & Muro, J. (2009). Modelo de Análisis de las Estadísticas de Demanda Turística en
España. In Actas do IX Congreso Galego de Estatística e Investigación de Operacións: Ourense, 12-
13-14 novembro de 2009 (pp. 21-26). Universidade de Vigo.
Guardia Gálvez, T., & Muro Romero, J. (2011). Polarization, second home and insularity in domestic
tourist flows in Spain. Description and analysis from a gravity model. Estudios Turísticos, (189), 77-
94.
Gilly, J. P., & Torre, A. (2000). Proximity relations. Elements for an analytical framework. Industrial
networks and proximity, 1-16.
Höckert, E. M., Rantala, O., & Jóhannesson, G. T. (2021). Sensitive communication with proximate
messmates. Tourism Culture & Communication.
https://doi.org/10.3727/109830421X16329967732226
INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística). (2021). Impacto económico de la pandemia en España.
Itagnol: Staff Writer. (2021, March). Pasqua 2021, Spagna: confermato divieto spostamenti tra regioni.
Itagnol.
Itagnol: Staff Writer. (2020, May). Estate 2020: si potrà viaggiare fra Italia e Spagna? Itagnol.
Jeuring, J., & Diaz-Soria, I. (2017). Introduction: proximity and intraregional aspects of tourism.
Tourism Geographies, 19(1), 4-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1258454
Jeuring, J. H. G., & Haartsen, T. (2017). The challenge of proximity: the (un)attractiveness of near-
home tourism destinations. Tourism Geographies, 19(1), 118-141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1258456
Jeuring, J. H. (2018). Pluralizing touristic production and consumption roles of residents? An SME

Volume 32, Issue I(107-). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
126
perspective on proximity tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 43(2), 147-160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017.1369629
Klaniczay, J. (2022). The Resilience of Proximity Tourism During the Pandemic: Local Walking Tours
of Budapest. International Journal of Tour Guiding Research, 3(1), 3.
https://doi.org/10.47912/ijtgr2022.3.1.31
Lebrun, A. M., Corbel, R., & Bouchet, P. (2021). Impacts of Covid-19 on travel intention for summer
2020: A trend in proximity tourism mediated by an attitude towards Covid-19. Service Business, 1-33.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-021-00424-6
Li, L., Tao, Z., Lu, L., Liu, H., Zhang, J., & Zhang, M. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on the regional
tourism flow network: An empirical study in Hubei Province. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(2), 287-
302. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1829817
Sánchez, M., Linares Gómez del Pulgar, M., & Tejedor Cabrera, A. (2022). Perspectives on proximity
tourism planning in peri-urban areas. European Planning Studies, 30(12), 2456-2473.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2034931
Moreno-Luna, L., Robina-Ramírez, R., Sánchez, M. S. O., & Castro-Serrano, J. (2021). Tourism and
sustainability in times of COVID-19: The case of Spain. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1859. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041859
Nevala, H. (2020). Proximity tourism: A thematic literature review. SISÄLLYSLUETTELO /
CONTENTS, 46.
OECD. (2020). Economic impact of tourism in OECD countries.
Pérez, M. D. (2016). Domestic tourism in Uruguay: a matrix approach. www. pasosonline. org, 14(4),
811.
Rantala, O., Salmela, T., Valtonen, A., & Höckert, E. (2020). Envisioning tourism and proximity after
the Anthropocene. Sustainability, 12(10), 3948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103948
Romagosa, F. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis: Opportunities for sustainable and proximity tourism.
Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 690-694. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1744918
Rosu, A. (2020). Making sense of distance. Mobility in staycation as a case of proximity tourism.
Salmela, T., Nevala, H., Nousiainen, M., & Rantala, O. (2021). Proximity tourism: A thematic literature
review. Matkailututkimus, 17(1), 46-63. https://doi.org/10.30671/mktutu.106614
Soria, I. D., & Coit, J. C. L. (2013). Thoughts about proximity tourism as a strategy for local
development. Cuadernos de Turismo, 32, 303-305.

Volume 32, Issue I(107-). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach
127
Turismo Italianews. (2020). La Spagna pensa al dopo Coronavirus: Asturie, Galizia, Cantabria e Paesi
Baschi decidono di puntare sul turismo interno.
UNWTO (World Tourism Organization). (2020). World Tourism Barometer, Issue 3.
WHO-World Health Organization. (2021). Global status of COVID-19.
Zhang, D., Hu, M., & Ji, Q. (2020). Financial markets under the global pandemic of COVID-19.
Finance Research Letters, 36.
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license
lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone, anywhere in the world
to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without
permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long
as the author and original source are properly cited.

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
128
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 128-149
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 06.04.2023
Accepted: 25.07.2023
Published:15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised
areas. Insights from two best practices in Southern Italy.
Matilde Ferrero
Department of Law, Economics and Sociology, University Magna Graecia at Catanzaro, Viale
Europa – 88100 Germaneto, Catanzaro, Italy, matilde.ferrero@studenti.unicz.it. ORCID: 0009-
0006-9031-7184
Irene Pinto
Department of Law, Economics and Sociology, University Magna Graecia at Catanzaro, Viale
Europa – 88100 Germaneto, Catanzaro, Italy, irene.pinto@studenti.unicz.it. ORCID: 0009-0007-
2968-8936
Abstract: In recent years, travel habits, needs and desires have been gradually changing and
influencing both demand and supply in the tourism industry. Macro-phenomena like the pandemic, the
climate change with consequent environmental issues, and the digital turn have been introducing new
trends and directions. In this view, the need of addressing tourism towards new itineraries is proving
crucial for activating processes of regenerative tourism, which acts as a transformational approach and
aims to identify the potential of places to create net positive effects. The focus of the paper is on
marginalised areas, specifically on areas with low population density, distant from the main hotspots
and endowed with significant environmental assets and cultural heritage. The paper chooses to employ
the concept of regenerative tourism for investigating the conditions that foster and sustain the
development of these communities. To this aim, the analysis of two Italian best practices is meant to
provide a new approach to brand-identity, tourism and local industry in marginalised areas. The case
of “Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi” (“Widespread Museum of the 5 Senses”) identifies new itineraries and
builds new economies in a village in Sicily through the reconnection of the local community with its
land. The case of “Sea Working Brindisi” reevaluates a marginalised area as a destination for nomad
workers and works for the activation of innovative economies in the South of Italy. The analysis
conducted will be based on online material (i.e. website, social media, journal articles) and literature
review (when available). Based on this material, the paper will analyse the two cases along the value
chain ecosystem-intuition-design-action-dissemination. The value chain will help identify the
connection of each practice to the territory and to the local community as well as their potential to
enhance the tourist attractiveness of the area. The analysis of the two successful cases, explored
through the lens of regenerative tourism, has the merit to define the connection between regenerative
tourism and the development of marginalised communities, providing directions to realise successful
practices in other areas. The acknowledgment of the two cases as contemporary forms of tourism will
help foster further practices and outline incentives that enhance tailored projects based on the
uniqueness of each place.
Keywords: regenerative tourism; community resilience; community empowerment; local
entrepreneurship; marginalised communities

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
129
JEL Codes: O18; O35; Z32
1. Introduction
Sustainability, creativity, co-creation, immersive experiences are some of the recurring terms in
the field of tourism. Meanwhile, tourism practices are evolving fast and in connection with
contemporary events which are marked by fast variables (e.g. economic crisis) and slow change
variables (e.g. climate change or economic migrations) (Lew, 2013). In this context, new approaches
of research in the field and in tourism practices have emerged (Davoudi, 2012), and all encompass a
vision that goes beyond the sustainable approach. This paper aims to contribute to the innovation in
the field through the analysis of a contemporary model of tourism that promotes the development of
marginalised areas, whose potential represents a tool for strengthening the national strategy on tourism
and improving their recovery and resilience through collective policy actions (Ottomano Palmisano et
al., 2022). To this aim, two case studies were selected in order to present the conditions for the
relationship between regenerative tourism and the development of marginalised communities to
originate and thrive. The case studies are located in Southern Italy, where inner areas have remarkable
and extensive development potential tied to their environmental, economic, and social capital (Barca
et al., 2014). The paper adopts a theoretical framework for the exploration, that is regenerative tourism,
a recent concept that proves useful to frame the cases. The concept of regenerative tourism was chosen
as a framework because it describes practices rather than providing labels. As such, it helps identify
and extract key elements and features of the cases in order to promote their replicability, yet taking
into account their distinctiveness. To build on the theoretical framework, the paper employs an
analytical approach for the analysis of the cases, that is the value chain applied to the creative sector
(Santagata, 2009). Findings will resume and develop the conditions for tourism to create regenerative
processes in marginalised communities, and will act as a ground for forthcoming practices. The cases
will prove that a recovered sense of the identity of places in inner areas creates local empowerment
and foster new forms of entrepreneurship, acting as a regenerative force for communities. Based on
the findings, the paper will give directions and guidelines for the development of regenerative tourism
in marginalised areas.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 From sustainable development to regenerative tourism
The sustainable development paradigm, promoted by the United Nations-led sustainable
development agenda, opens the path to various approaches, theorisations and labels. In the tourism
sector, sustainable development is commonly read as sustainable tourism, a concept that has been
evolving over time since 1988, when the World Tourism Organization offered the first definition:
“Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts,
addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (Sustainable
development | UNWTO, n.d.).
The concept of sustainable tourism is broad. For this reason, new terms and practices have been
originating over time, and other definitions have been evolving and further developing the concept of
sustainable tourism. The aim of the paper is to investigate the beneficial relation between regenerative
tourism and the development of marginalised areas, to find which are the conditions that foster and
sustain the relationship. The analysis stands within the broader concept of sustainable tourism,
however, it focuses on one branch, that is regenerative tourism. The following part will explain the
determination of regenerative tourism as the most appropriate theoretical framework for the analysis
of the conditions that generate the social, cultural and economic development.

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
130
Regenerative tourism will be here identified as a counterpart of another branch of sustainable
tourism, which may seem appropriate for the present analysis, yet carries significant limitations:
creative tourism. The concept of creative tourism was first defined by Richards & Raymond as a
‘‘tourism which offers visitors the opportunity to develop their creative potential through active
participation in courses and learning experiences which are characteristic of the holiday destination
where they are undertaken’’ (2000, p.4). Later, the concept was defined by UNESCO as “travel
directed toward an engaged and authentic experience, with participative learning in the arts, heritage,
or special character of a place, and it provides a connection with those who reside in this place and
create this living culture” (UNESCO, 2006, p.3). Studies have been expanding on the topic, hence
following two paths: on the one hand, on the nature of alternative tourism that offers visitors the
opportunity to self-develop through participation in creative activities (workshops, courses) that are
typical of the place where they are undertaken (Marques & Richards, 2014; Richards, 2017; Bieliková
& Palenčíková, 2021). On the other hand, they have been relying on the opportunity to see creative
tourism as an extension of cultural tourism that engages local communities to provide interactive,
immersive and experiential activities for tourists (Tan et al., 2013; Lee, 2015; Richards, 2020; Amaral
& Rodrigues, 2020; Roque, 2022).
Regenerative tourism, as well as creative tourism, has been emerging as a branch of sustainable
tourism. However, the two concepts present some significant differences. The term has appeared in
discourses around tourism as a niche subject pioneered by three non-Indigenous practitioner groups
based in the UK, USA and Chile (Dwyer, 2018; Mang & Reed, 2012; Pollock, 2012; Teruel, 2018),
aiming to improve and transform social-ecological systems where tourism practices occur (Hes &
Coenen, 2018). Studies on regenerative tourism include (Mang & Haggard, 2016) regenerative
agriculture (Regenerative Travel(b), 2020) and regenerative economies (Lovins, 2020; Raworth,
2017), climate change, urbanisation, justice and inequality (Caniglia et al., 2020). Beyond pure
conceptualisations of the term, the transformative potential of the regenerative paradigm has been
investigated by Bellato et al., (2022). According to them, the concept of regenerative tourism was
initially born from practice and then implemented at local or regional levels. Also, two international
alliances have emerged: The Global Initiative for Regenerative Tourism was established in Latin
America in 2015 (Araneda, 2019), while The Regenerative Travel Alliance was initiated in 2019
(Regenerative Travel, 2020). As opposed to creative tourism, regenerative tourism originated from
practice, hence a universal definition is yet to be adopted. Recently, Bellato et al. (2022) have sought
to identify the attributes, in order to better define the concept:
Regenerative tourism is a transformational approach that aims to fulfill the potential of
tourism places to flourish and create net positive effects through increasing the
regenerative capacity of human societies and ecosystems. Derived from the ecological
worldview, it weaves Indigenous and Western science perspectives and knowledge.
Tourism systems are regarded as inseparable from nature and obligated to respect Earth’s
principles and laws. In addition, regenerative tourism approaches evolve and vary across
places over the long term, thereby harmonizing practices with the regeneration of nested
living systems (p.9).
Moreover, some authors define regenerative tourism as opposed to sustainable tourism. In brief,
“the sustainable tourism regime primarily regards tourism as an industry and tends to prioritise top-
down, standardised and compartmentalised interventions. In contrast, regenerative tourism approaches
reflect and are co-created within place contexts. Regenerative tourism aligns with living systems to
work at local levels and prioritises equitable and inclusive co-creation in multiple domains and
harmony with economic development. While both approaches promote the wellbeing of future
generations, sustainable tourism strives to minimise social-ecological damage. In contrast,
regenerative tourism seeks to create net positive social-ecological systems effects” (p. 10). As such,

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
131
its deep interconnection with community resilience becomes evident. Indeed, the resilience planning
approach is gradually substituting the more established sustainable development paradigm. In fact,
while sustainability actions are limited to maintaining resources above a safe level in order to mitigate
or prevent change, a resilience planning approach allows industries and communities to adapt to
change by building capacity to return to a desired and previously existing state, requiring different
modes of response according to the rate of change (Lew, 2013). As one of the most diffused social
practices, tourism is now encompassed within community resilience research. More specifically,
community resilience applies to regenerative tourism practices that by definition aim to increase the
regenerative capacity of local communities and ecosystems through fulfilling the potential of tourist
destinations to thrive and create net effects (Bellato et al., 2022).
In this view, even though both the concepts of creative and regenerative tourism derive from
sustainable tourism yet evolving and developing it, the former is formulated on a more theoretical
basis, while the latter originate from practice. Moreover, while the former was first formulated in 2000
by Richards & Raymond and later rephrased on contemporary needs and practices, the latter was
crafted and implemented for and within contemporary practices. Also, based on their attributes and
definitions, the latter deepens, modernises and actualises the former, eventually turning into practice
and concrete directions those labels which are typically associated with creative tourism, such as
creativity, co-creation, interaction, participation.
2.2 Entrepreneurship defines new itineraries
In contemporary discourses on tourism, “co-production” and “co-creation” are recurring terms
that involve the perceived needs of tourists within a mass tourism perception more than a true exchange
with the local community (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Binkhorst, 2005; Prebensen et al., 2013;
Navarro et al., 2015; Rihova et al. 2018; Sugathan & Ranjan, 2019). This logic implies that tourists
are the main actors of an industry replicating the mechanisms of manufacturing standardised
production. On the other side, research has been focusing on the need to foster the offering of local
products and activities, a practice which is commonly labeled as “tourism social entrepreneurship”, a
strategy that responds to the call for community-centric tourism development (Higgins-Desbiolles et
al., 2019), initiated in its preliminary form of social entrepreneurship by Dees, (1998) and recently
employed by non-governmental organisations (Dahles et al., 2020). Tourism social entrepreneurship
is intended as a new kind of tourism that capitalises on local resources, knowledge, skills, and social
structures (Alvord et al., 2004), making changes in the tourism experience and in the life of host
communities (Aquino, 2022). As well as for creative tourism, the label of tourism social
entrepreneurship eventually delineates strict boundaries to an idea that proves low application.
According to Jørgensen et al. (2021), the existing literature has established that many examples of
tourism social entrepreneurship “exist in and for marginalized communities” (Aquino et al., 2018, p.
24), but a limited understanding of marginalised communities has been applied, and the focus has been
mostly on the tourism social entrepreneurship in developing countries (i.e. Biddulph, 2018;
Kokkranikal & Morrison, 2011; Laeis & Lemke, 2016; Porter et al., 2018; Sigala, 2016; Sloan et al.,
2014; Stenvall et al., 2017). Moreover, studies do not make clear who the entrepreneur is, focusing on
one actor rather than the community itself (Jørgensen et al., 2021). In this view, Jørgensen et al. analyse
two cases of marginalised communities that use tourism as a means for collective action in Denmark,
and ask for a more collective perspective on social entrepreneurship in the tourism field (p. 16). The
insight of Jørgensen et al. is in fact needed to highlight the multifaceted nature of the employment of
entrepreneurship and tourism when intertwined with the development of local communities. The
definition must be collective since successful cases of entrepreneurship in marginalised areas differ
widely and never lead to a model.
Labels like “tourism social entrepreneurship” represent a self-contradiction in a way that narrows
the boundaries of a phenomenon that is supposed to extract the unique values and hallmarks of an area,

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
132
with the close involvement of its community. Entrepreneurship as a tool to revalue marginalised areas
should consider the involvement of local communities as a first step towards the rediscovery of local
uniqueness. In ancient times and middle ages traveling was intended as a deep and extended activity
that put voyagers in direct contact with local habits, people, commerce and products (e.g. Odysseus’
journey in literature, pilgrimage in traditional practices). Later, the “Grand Tour” paved the way for
the emergence of a widespread phenomenon characterizing contemporary mobility: mass tourism. The
latter refers to the movement of a large number of people towards popular holiday destinations. This
phenomenon goes together with mass consumption and with the use of standardized tourist packages
(Poon, 1993). Then, in the second half of the twentieth century, the increase of spending power and
personal mobility, the improvement of public transport and infrastructures, and the growing
globalisation and internationalisation of societies led to a substantial increase of leisure travel
(Bramwell, 2004). Holidays started to be considered as recreational experiences in leisure resorts.
Initially, tourist flows came from industrial regions to the seaside destinations in France and UK and
to winter resorts in the Alps, but in the post-war period many coastal areas in Spain and Italy have
developed tourist infrastructures, followed by other Southern European countries. The range of mass
tourism destinations has increased over the years, including North Africa and Middle-Eastern
countries. In the last decades, the development of accessible air transport and charter flights have
contributed to popularising long-haul destinations, such as Indonesia, Thailand, Maldives, and so on
(Naumov & Green, 2015). A further push to mass tourism practices has been favored by the
implementation of online reservation systems that made the travellers increasingly autonomous in
organising their trips. The rapid development of mass tourism, on the one hand, has favored greater
economic accessibility of travel, job creation and increased income as well as foreign exchange
earnings. On the other hand, it has brought to the loss of identity and of cultural specificity, and to the
overexploitation of natural and cultural resources (Page, 2012; Poon, 1993). These negative impacts
have constituted the breeding ground for the emergence of alternative and more sustainable forms of
tourism. In this sense, some practices of contemporary tourism are seeking to reestablish a true
connection between tourists and the communities. In this view, the concept of regenerative tourism
helps identify a sustainable form of tourism that is beyond mass tourism since it does not drain
resources and territories, but rather creates net positive effects through increasing the regenerative
capacity of human societies and ecosystems (Bellato et al., 2022). Regeneration occurs with
transformation, and originates as a bottom-up process, it prioritises inclusive co-creation in multiple
domains and in harmony with economic development. Even though regenerative tourism does not
define entrepreneurship in detail, it provides a wider and more useful approach to the development of
entrepreneurship in connection with tourism in marginalised areas. In this context, practices of
valorisation of cultural heritage and preservation of local culture through the development of new
forms of entrepreneurship have been analysed. One example based on the enhancement of
entrepreneurship in marginal areas is the valorisation of Cultural Routes, as in the case of the via
Francigena, where the impact generated by the Routes prove relevant from an economic point of view,
but also on a cultural, social and environmental level. Moreover, the analysis of the impacts generated
by the route shows a direct correlation between its development and the enhancement of local
enterprises (Splendiani et al., 2022).
As the cases analysed in this paper will try to prove, the concept of regenerative tourism in this
sort of practices lies in the creation of a circular economy that emerges as a bottom-up process, to the
valorisation of local products and the development of local infrastructures and services both for tourists
and citizens. In the two cases, the harmonisation of tourism with the community through the creation
of new forms of local entrepreneurship proves to be a tool for the regeneration of inner and neglected
lands, products and communities.

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
133
3. Methodology
Based on the theoretical framework, the paper chooses to employ the concept of regenerative
tourism for investigating the conditions that foster and sustain the development of marginalised
communities. The concept is employed as a series of practices that serve as a theoretical framework
for the analysis of two best practices, the “Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi” (“Widespread Museum of the
5 Senses”) in Sciacca, Sicily, and the “Sea Working Brindisi” project in Brindisi, Puglia. These cases
were selected because they are located in Southern Italy, a country where the North-South divide has
been lasting since country unification because of asymmetries in productive performance (e.g., per
capita GDP) (Daniele and Malanima, 2014; Felice, 2019; Iuzzolino et al., 2011). Since the 70s, Italy
has been divided into three Italies: the industrialised North, the few industrial districts in the South
(medium enterprises operating in isolated industrial districts), and the rest of the Mezzogiorno
(Bagnasco, 1977). Since then, events like the stagflation, the progressive structural change from manu-
facturing to service sectors, and the reductions in public investment for the South from 13% to 8% of
the Italian GDP (Daniele & Malanima, 2011) totally halted the development of the South. This was
the scenario before the Great Recession of 2007–2008 (Lagravinese, 2015; Petraglia, 2019) and the
pandemic crisis (Dosi, Fanti et al., 2020), which further deepened the dilemma of the North-South gap
in Italy. Moreover, Southern Italy has been experiencing significant variations as a destination for
tourism. According to Mileti et al. (2022), tourist knowledge of Italian regions focuses mainly on
Sicily, Tuscany (in the North), and Sardinia. In general, the interest of tourists addresses few, mostly
fixed centers. The rate of tourism in Campania, for instance, is concentrated around specific sites such
as Pompei, Vesuvius and Capri, yet other parts of the region are little explored. On one side, tourism
in Southern Italy has generated economic returns, on the other the growth of tourist infrastructure, such
as coastal resorts, has been the subject of uncontrolled planning and development (Inskeep, 1991).
Moreover, as mentioned, the distribution of tourism appears rather unbalanced towards a few regions
and areas, mostly urban areas or heritage sites.
In this context, we chose to analyse two best practices that, though in different ways, aim to counter
these tendencies by broadening the opportunities of cooperation between tourists and the local
communities, and enhance the attractiveness and sustainable development of two different areas. The
cases of “Museo Diffuso dei Cinque Sensi” in Sciacca and “Sea Working Brindisi” belong to two
different regions, Sicily and Puglia. According to the data Mileti et al. (2022) report in their study,
Sicily has reached a consistent interest in tourists (54% of the interviewee would choose Sicily as a
destination), while Puglia has less recognition (18% of the interviewee would choose Puglia). Even
though located in Sicily, Sciacca, the city involved in the first case, has a small population (according
to Istat, 39.000 in December 2022) and does not represent a typical tourist destination in Italy, yet
presents the features of marginalised areas (Casalini, 2022). On the other hand, the city of Brindisi has
a larger population (according to Istat, 87.773 in December 2022), yet it does not represent a typical
tourist destination.
The analysis conducted will be based on online material (i.e., official website, official social media
pages, the main online press news) and on literature review when available. Although conscious of
web-based material's limited reliability, we decided to base our research on the findings that emerged
from a variety of online materials for two main reasons. On the one hand, the projects’ websites and
social media pages allowed us to have an up-to-date idea of the initiatives seen through their own lens,
deepening the vision that the projects themselves want to transmit. On the other hand, we decided to
use newspaper articles to explore the external perception of the project from multiple sources. Looking
for newspaper articles dealing with the two projects has also allowed us to become aware of its degree
of dissemination. By combining together the findings from all web-based material used, we were able
to build our own value-oriented vision on the two projects. Indeed, the paper will analyse the two cases

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
134
along the value chain ecosystem-intuition-design-action-dissemination, following Santagata’s (2009)
theorisation of the creation of value in the creative industry.
Figure 1 - The value chain ecosystem-intuition-design-action-dissemination, built on Santagata’s
(2009) theorisation of the creation of value in the creative industry. Source: authors’ figure.
In this case, the value chain will allow us to identify the strong connection of the practices to their
territory and local community and, at the same time, its potential to enhance the tourist attractiveness
of the destination. The paper will then provide some useful insights that emerge from the analysis and
that could be applied to other creative contexts and other destinations with similar features. To this
aim, some guidelines will be eventually provided to practitioners and policy makers to develop
community-based policies, tailored projects and regenerative tourism practices.
When analysed together, relying on the same theoretical framework and adopting the same value
chain, these two case studies constitute a significant example of how very different projects and
experiences sharing an interest in the development and regeneration of a community and a territory
can open the path for further replications of the value chain in other projects. Indeed, the value chain
proposed can be applied to a variety of experiences that, thanks to the combination of a favorable
ecosystem, a peculiar intuition, a functional design and action, and a positive dissemination, could be
potential value generators.
4. Case studies and empirical findings
4.1. A diffused experience of tourism in Sciacca
The construction of the “Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi” (trad. “Widespread Museum of the 5 Senses”)
in Sciacca, Sicily, tells the story of an ecosystem that is specific to inner areas in Southern Italy: a
neglected land, a marginal area of Sicily with a low percentage of tourism (Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi,
n.d.). An area that was eventually rehabilitated by its community through an operational cooperation
combining many people: different in age, profession, way of thinking and living, working for the future
of their land, brought together by the awareness of the great value of the territory, products and
traditions making their land unique.
Today, the community works as a cooperative, but the intuition began in February 2019 when all
the representatives of the “Sciacca produ(A)ttiva” sat around a table, from residents to restaurant
owners, from commercial activity managers to craftsmen, from potters to accommodation business
managers, from event organizers to cultural operators, from tour guides to museum managers. The
purpose was to deal with the emergency of the historic center which in Sciacca, as in many other Italian
villages and cities, has been drained of traditional commercial, economic, social and human presence.
The entrepreneurs around the table had to tell the element that characterises Sciacca and identifies it
among all other cities. Eventually, it became clear that Sciacca has so many identities that it was
certainly not possible to choose one in particular.
At that precise moment a project aimed at tourists, residents, entrepreneurs and the entire
hinterland of Sciacca was being designed: the idea consisted of an open-air museum, displaying all
and conceived for all. A project that was meant to enhance Sciacca, its traditions, its historic center,
its territory, and to become the brand identity of the city. A magical place, where emotions are
perceived with the five senses and where the five entrance doors of the city are transformed into
entrance doors to the diffused museum, a museum of experiences, a sensory museum. The streets
become the corridors of the museum, the squares become the exhibition halls, the monuments are the

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
135
attractions, and the shops, housing facilities and restaurants complete the picture of sensory
experiences. And Sciacca retrieves its community.
In March 2019, the action began, and the concept of the museum was presented to the city through
the description of about two months of work. The concept was ready, and the museum as well, a
museum that has always been there for all to see, yet still hidden to be perceived by everybody. Two
weeks after the presentation, the vision of a community that takes action and focuses on a new idea of
tourism for the sustainable development of its territory, and the mission of a city that aims to become
a destination were illustrated at TravelExpo in Sicily, being a huge success. From that moment, the
project started to be identified as best practice. On 18 April 2019 the association “Ecomuseo dei 5
Sensi” (trad. “Ecomuseo of the 5 Senses”) was established in Sciacca, social media and the website
started to share the project, and on May 18, the synergy of all the main characters of the Diffused
Museum was tested during the Night of the Museums, an occasion to work on the five senses, involving
residents and tourists. It was an evening dedicated to culture and sensory experiences, which turned
out to be a huge success with the public who will repeatedly ask to repeat it.
Meanwhile, the dissemination began and a collaboration between the Museum and the institutions
was signed with two important protocols, one with the Municipality of Sciacca and one with the
Regional Tourist Office of Agrigento, and the President of the Sicily Region declared appreciation for
the work done in Sciacca. The approval at the local and regional level eventually materialised with the
sponsorships received from the Municipality of Sciacca, the Libero Consortium of Agrigento, the
Regional Tourism Department and the Sicilian Regional Assembly. During summer, the Museum
enriched the quality and quantity of experiences already presented in March, proposing a package of
offers related to painting, the processing of Coral, the modeling of Ceramics and Papier-mâché. The
2019/2020 school year began, an opportunity for the Museum to be launched in educational institutions
through a project aimed at constructing identity narratives, with the goal to push young people to
narrate their land and hallmarks, hence exploiting the imagination and creativity of children and
teenagers. Thus originated, over time, the need to support the association with an operating structure
that was able to do business, seek funds, support initiatives, interact with investors, and promote with
professionalism and competence Sciacca in the world. Therefore, they created the Identity and Beauty
Cooperative in January 2020, following the will of an entire community that once again intended to
network and focus on new tools and challenges. Today, the Cooperative is made of artisans, traders,
accommodation facilities, restaurants, cultural associations, educational and cultural institutions and
local boards of residents. Viviana Rizzuto, President and founder, is the community manager, a
contemporary role that is extremely useful in the process of valorisation of territories, alongside local
administrations. The Cooperative is then managed by a board of directors and a management board.
The role of Viviana and the Cooperative is to keep involving the community, the local institutions and
entrepreneurs in a process of cooperation and connection for a continuum of ideas, connections and
offering of experiences for voyagers (Casalini, 2022). The process of dissemination has been also
realised through social media (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, YouTube) and the action of Viviana
Rizzuto, who actively engages the community on social media. From the analysis of social media
channels, it emerges that the communication is mostly in Italian, hence preventing foreign tourism to
include the museum within their itineraries. In general, it would prove interesting to assess the actual
increase of tourism in the area, but the general upheaval in tourism trends generated by COVID-19
makes it difficult to measure it.
The analysis of the case on the value chain helps assess the development of the “Museo Diffuso
dei 5 Sensi” as an effort made by its community to keep tourism sustainable through a stable focus on
the community needs, on the awareness of the territory’s values, and on the valorisation of local
traditions for attracting voyagers and temporary citizens. A museum without walls was conceived in
order to materialise something that was already there, and to create a brand identity for the community
and the passengers. The effort created strong connections, social cohesion and an integrated range of
services and activities that ended up increasing the value of the overall supply. Moreover, a certain

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
136
level of tourist carrying capacity has been defined and monitored, in order to preserve the territory
with its people and generate emotions that go beyond what we understand as modern tourism. In
Sciacca, the modern concept of tourism, the massification and commodification, are left behind and
replaced with a collective vision that works to create a welcoming, beautiful, usable place for everyone,
travelers and residents.
The weakness of the museum stands in the last part of the value chain, that concerns the
dissemination. The reason is twofold: on one side, the project is recent hence more developed on the
first part of the value chain; on the other side, the tools for communicating a brand’s new way of
experiencing tourism may suffer from the lack of a traditional and standardised model for building the
communication and the diffusion of the project. Future research and forthcoming practices may deepen
and develop this part of the chain.
For now, the impact of the Museum can only be supposed for three main reasons. First, regional
and provincial data provided at a national (Istat) and regional level (Osservatorio Turistico Regione
Sicilia, 2023) have not been updated for the years following the pandemic. The second reason is that
the success of a project based on the development of tourism starting in 2020 will need an assessment
of tourism flow that does not cover the first years following the pandemic. In this sense, a proper
assessment will need to be constructed starting from 2023. The third reason is that both national and
regional data consider indicators which need to be updated according to the latest research in the field
of sustainable tourism, matching the success of emerging practices in tourism with new criteria
measuring economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts (Splendiani et al., 2022).
4.2. A future for the repopulation of neglected areas in Brindisi
A unique seaside city, whose two-thousand-year history is closely linked to its port, the city of
Brindisi is home to “Sea Working Brindisi” (Sea Brindisi, n.d.), a project launched by Emma Taveri,
Councilor for Tourism of the Municipality of Brindisi, during the pandemic to reposition a marginal
area as a destination for nomad workers and for the relocation of companies in the South of Italy. The
ecosystem in which the project takes place is hence a buzzing port city, also recognised as a Monument
of Hospitality and Peace by Unesco and constitutes a crossroads between the sea and the hinterland,
soaked in different cultures.
The intuition behind this project came to Emma Taveri, a passionate nomad who decided to return
to Brindisi during the pandemic, with the objective of bringing a change to her homeland and of making
her skills available to the city. For this reason, as an important recognition for her commitment, she
received the title of Councilor for Tourism, Territorial Marketing and Creativity in the area where she
was implementing her project, which was based on the new needs of the travelers and aimed at making
Brindisi more and more a smart, adaptive and attractive destination for new travelers and holiday
workers. Among others, the initiative is conceived and promoted by Destination Makers, a consultancy
company specialising in destination marketing and management, with the support of a network that
includes the Municipality of Brindisi and other institutional entities, businesses and the world of
associations. The project aimed at reinforcing the city’s identity and at increasing its appeal as a “south
working” destination.
As regards the design, the project started as a contest named “Sea Working, Win an office on the
sea” that gave one person the opportunity to live and work for ten days, from 3 to 13 October 2020, on
a sailboat moored in the port and experience recreational and cultural experiences that include
kitesurfing courses, tastings and guided tours. Massimiliano Frattoloni, a 26-year-old computer
consultant from Lombardia region, was the winner of the contest and was selected out of 764
applications, both from Italy and from foreign countries (including overseas ones). While participating
in the programme, he got the chance to immerse in the Brindisi culture, having various experiences
outside working hours aimed at increasing productivity and quality of life of the city, such as yoga,
horseback riding, tasting of typical products and experiences related to the sea such as surfing, kite

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
137
surfing or sailing trips. This is because “Sea Working Brindisi” implies a deep connection with the
place people work from. The sea worker can enter a territory from which one has always left, trying to
imagine a new future together with the local community where one can decide to return and stay
(Brindisi Report, 2020).
Following the initial contest, the project consists in the possibility to apply to the programme
through a specific section of the project website (Sea Brindisi, n.d.). Once one gets accepted, he or she
receives the “Sea Work & Live” card to get a number of benefits, e.g., special discount in restaurants,
gyms, shopping centers, sport courses, and free workspaces. There are three main criteria for selection:
the travelers/workers must reside outside the Puglia region, they must be 18 or above and they must
be available to move to Brindisi (including its province) for at least one month. The contest, indeed, is
part of a larger project that aims to develop smart working in the area. The project captures the city’s
desire to open up to smart workers and, more precisely, to “south workers”. The action of the project
consists indeed in the involvement of people who are able to work remotely and wish to extend their
holidays beyond the usual summer holidays, settling down for a few weeks in areas where the
relationship between cost and quality of life is more favorable than in the big cities of the center-north.
Smart working tools are thus developed in the area, involving institutions and companies in the co-
design of a series of incentives and additional services (such as tax relief, dedicated packages and
discounts, creation of co-working hubs) to potential users. In May 2022 Brindisi also participated in
the Airbnb call “Live and Work Anywhere” dedicated to smart working destinations, reaching a
positive outcome thanks to this project. The objective of the call was to select a small group of smart
working destinations at an international level, which Airbnb will promote to travelers from all over the
world through a free promotion campaign and the improvement of local services. Through this project,
Brindisi became recognised as one of the two Italian Airbnb’s top destinations to work remotely (L’Ora
di Brindisi, 2022).
The dissemination of the project occurred through the main local and national press and through
the main social media platforms. All these tools could be further exploited to foster the link with local
entrepreneurship, which is crucial and unavoidable, and to seasonally adjust tourism and tourists’
presence in the South. The presence of smart workers should in fact have positive implications on the
territory because, in addition to generating a direct economic induced, it would trigger a virtuous
process of service innovation and bring flows of new residents, even permanent ones in the future, and
encourage the return of the “natives” that had previously left for work reasons. It is a potentially
beneficial evolution that seeks to ride rather than undergo the social and cultural changes - as well as
labor regulations - imposed by Covid 19 (Manager Italia, 2020). The “Sea Working” project is also
paving the way for a restored positive exchange between the local population and voyagers,
encouraging the latter to stay longer in a certain place, not necessarily in the high season, and giving
them the opportunity to work from there.
To sum up, the project aims to build a new culture of hospitality in the city of Brindisi, and to
propose it as a privileged destination for digital nomads and for people who travel in “bleisure” mode
(i.e. both for vacation and for work), while enhancing structures and tourist services with a view to
seasonal adjustment and thus bring new life to the territory. In such a way, the melting cultures deriving
from this project would bring a renewed sense of authenticity to the city, also contributing to re-shape
its identity, thus enhancing its attractiveness and competitiveness throughout the years and not just in
the high season. The main weakness of the project is that no international press article was found about
this project, and a few Italian national journals have mentioned it. Moreover, the Facebook page,
though updated, does not count on a significant number of followers and interactivity. The Instagram
page, instead, is not even active. These gaps highlight how the dissemination tools are not fully
contributing to spreading the project inside and outside the area.
As regards the impact of the project on tourist flows in Brindisi, we can make some considerations
based on the data collected through Agenzia Regionale del Turismo (Osservatorio di
PugliaPromozione, 2022). The report highlights how the arrivals and presences to the province of

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
138
Brindisi increased from 2019 to 2022 by 5% and 6%. There is no proof that this increase has been
influenced by SeaBrindisi, but there is a certain chance that the latter has contributed to improve the
city’s reputation as a tourist destination and a livable place. It is also crucial to highlight that in 2022,
in the whole Puglia region the number of employees grew by +10% compared to 2019, while the
companies involved in the tourism sector increased by +6%. As regards the variation in the population
living in Brindisi, it is too early to evaluate the impacts of this project, considering that the most
updated data available are related to 2021, and show a decreasing trend (Tuttitalia.it, n.d.).
4.3 Regenerative tourism practices re-establish the identity of places and empower local communities
Some global macro-phenomena are influencing behavioral patterns and consumption habits of
tourists, favoring the emergence of new kinds of tourist attractions, as opposed to mass tourism. The
Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated a process, initiated some years before due to the environmental
issue and climate change, of gradual shift towards more sustainable ways of traveling (Gssling et al.,
2020; Pang et al., 2013; Pencarelli, 2020). A renewed attention towards the preservation of the
environment and of local cultures as well as the revaluation of rural areas and little hamlets is currently
taking place. In many cases, however, this shift towards eco-friendly destinations, and the attention
towards local communities, is mostly theoretical or put in practice as a niche phenomenon and does
not bring any actual benefit to the destination (Bâc, 2014). However, the two best practices analysed
demonstrate that some steps forward are being done, even from a practical point of view, in line with
the emergence of regenerative tourism literature in the last few years.
The analysis of the two experiences, both taking place in marginalised areas, is framed within a
regenerative tourism approach. One of the main features emerging from the analysis is the will of both
cases to create a positive impact on the places through the engagement of the local community. This
urgency had been already identified by Owen (2007a; 2007b), while describing regenerative tourism.
Applying it to ecotourism facilities, the architecture scholar moved from the exclusive focus of
ecotourism facilities in the external and natural environment to highlight the need to reinforce the
image and the identity of a place also through human cultural artifacts. The traditional ecotourism
approach, as Owen states, misses the opportunity to actively engage with the place and to build a
regenerative relationship with it. A regenerative tourism approach, instead, would create a positive
impact, contributing to reconnect the human with nature and taking into consideration the socio-
political dimension, contrarily to the sustainability discourse which is entirely focused on
environmentalism. These considerations can be seen as the starting point for the re-establishment of
the identity of a place through a major internal and external awareness that comes from regenerative
tourism practices such as the experiences of Sciacca and Brindisi.
In the case of the “Museo dei Cinque Sensi” in Sciacca, the local population is involved in a variety
of activities that aim to regenerate the area, to contribute to its sustainable development, and to build
a stronger sense of community in the city through the creation of networks. Moreover, it aims to
strengthen the citizens’ sense of belonging to the same territory, history and culture. Once the local
inhabitants become aware of the value of their city and of the need to valorise its multiple identities
and meanings, Sciacca could indeed acquire a greater tourist attractiveness and reputation. Indeed, the
widespread museum actually shapes the new brand identity of the city.
In the case of Brindisi, the “Sea Working” project aims to repopulate a marginalised area by
attracting temporary citizens to work and live in the area. To do so, the project is activating a
sustainable offer of services in the area, contributing to their regeneration. As a result, Brindisi has
been recognised as one of the two Italian Airbnb’s top destinations to work remotely.
In general, the identity of places is gradually losing ground, also due to the depopulation of villages
which are not considered among the top mainstream destinations. The two projects analysed
demonstrate how it is possible to turn the tide by simultaneously fostering community resilience and
developing the tourism industry through regenerative tourism practices that see the involvement and

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
139
empowerment of the local population. Supporting and involving the local community, in fact, is the
only way to foster tourism that, in the future, would become synonymous with cultural growth,
economic development and environmental protection (Davolio & Somoza, 2016). In other words, it is
important to empower local communities through effective cooperation between tourists, local
administrations and the hosting community. To sum up, both projects highlight the need to work on
the re-establishment of the identity of marginalised areas working in synergy with the local
community, local industries and institutions, in order to make them more attractive both for the local
community and for tourists.
5. Limitations of the research, conclusions and guidelines for the development of tourism in
marginalised communities
The analysis of the two cases proves that the development (i.e. the creation of infrastructure and
services conceived for tourists, such as B&Bs) and enhancement (i.e. selling local products or fostering
local services, such as restaurants or gyms, for welcoming nomads) of local entrepreneurship is the
key to a new sense of traveling that creates a deeply-rooted connection between hosts and guests. As
such, extra charges and high seasonality are replaced by a different economy for places, where tourism
is not a draining and unbalanced force, but rather a transformative and enriching experience for the
area. The starting point is represented by local actions of consolidation of communities and territories,
led by single entrepreneurs and/or local administrations. The actions of consolidation aim at fostering
exchanges, connections, circular economies and a sense of a common identity. The whole community
must be resolute, self-confident, and visionary in order to invest in their territories, rediscover their
traditional hallmarks, and valorise local products and handicraft to rebuild cultural heritage and local
identity. Through the creation of a new identity to be communicated and the valorisation of the
territory’s activities supported by the action of every member of the community, the process of
revitalisation of places can be intense and rooted, offering the opportunity for a deep exploration.
Through the analysis, features and tools for the establishment of a renovated form of tourism were
identified. The cases of Sciacca and Brindisi do not aim to function as models, but rather to give
insights and tools to work towards a more spread and shared redefinition of traveling that deeply and
genuinely connects with local communities, fostering the regeneration of local economies. In recent
years, travel habits, needs and desires have been gradually changing and influencing both demand and
supply in the tourism industry. Macro-phenomena like the pandemic (Gssling et al., 2020), the climate
change with consequent environmental issues (Pang et al., 2013), and the digital turn (Pencarelli, 2020)
have been introducing new trends and directions. Accordingly, the need of addressing tourism towards
new itineraries and specifically marginalised areas is becoming crucial for activating processes of
regenerative tourism (Bellato et al., 2022), which acts as a transformational approach whose aim is to
identify the potential of places to create net positive effects (Bellato et al., 2022). In this regard, the
analysis of two best practices in the South of Italy highlighted the need to identify and fulfil the identity
of destinations by entirely exploiting the potential of both tourists and local communities’ expertise,
experience, and local economy. The limitations of the analysis concern the scarcity of existing
academic literature on the cases and the almost exclusive reliance on non-scientific journal articles.
Moreover, due to the outbreak of the pandemic (especially in the case of Sciacca) and to the fact that
the two projects are still in a pioneering phase, a primary analysis based on reliable data has not been
developed yet. Thus, the regenerative impact of the projects is not based on empirical measurements
and can only be deduced from a theoretical analysis. The table, based on the categories proposed by
Bellato et al. (2022) to build the concept of regenerative tourism (2022), provides a summary of the
analysis through the lens of our empirical findings:

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
140
Table 1. The cases of Sciacca and Bridisi through the lens of regenerative tourism [based on Bellato
et al.’ categories building the concept (2022)].
Regenerative Tourism
“Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi”,
Sciacca (Sicily)
"Sea Working Brindisi",
Brindisi (Puglia)
Purpose
To build the capacity of
support systems for net
positive impact and
sustainability of social,
economic and ecological
systems
Potential
Place-based development
designed for realising potential
The local population is involved in a
variety of activities that aim to regenerate
the area, to contribute to its sustainable
development, and to build a stronger
sense of community in the city through
the creation of networks. Moreover, it
aims to strengthen the citizens’ sense of
belonging to the same territory, history
and culture. Once the local inhabitants
become aware of the value of their city
and of the need to valorise its multiple
identities, Sciacca could indeed acquire a
greater tourist attractiveness and
reputation.
A museum without walls was conceived
in order to materialise something that
was already there, and to create a brand
identity for the community and the
passengers. The effort created strong
connections, social cohesion and an
integrated range of services and activities
that ended up increasing the value of the
overall supply.
The project aimed at reinforcing the
city’s identity and at increasing its appeal
as a “south working” destination. It is
activating a sustainable offer of services
in the area, contributing to their
regeneration.
The presence of smart workers should
have positive implications on the
territory because, in addition to
generating a direct economic induced, it
would trigger a virtuous process of
service innovation and bring flows of
new residents, even permanent ones in
the future, and encourage the return of
the “natives” that had previously left for
work reasons.
Systems
Adopts whole systems, living
systems thinking; Social,
cultural environmental,
economic, political, spiritual
and ecological elements are
interrelated
Stakeholder Relations
Humans and nature are
interconnected and co-
evolving, relations based on
reciprocity, respecting
planetary boundaries
A project that is meant to enhance
Sciacca, its traditions, its historic center,
its territory and nature, and to become
the brand identity of the city.
Sciacca is the vision of a community that
takes action and focuses on a new idea of
tourism for the sustainable development
of its territory, and the mission of a city
that aims to become a destination.
The project enhances structures and
tourist services with a view to seasonal
adjustment and thus bring new life to the
territory. In such a way, the melting
cultures deriving from this project would
bring a renewed sense of authenticity to
the city, also contributing to re-shape its
identity, thus enhancing its attractiveness
and competitiveness throughout the years
and not just in the high season.
Smart working tools are thus developed
in the area, involving institutions and
companies in the co-design of a series of
incentives and additional services (such
as tax relief, dedicated packages and
discounts, creation of co-working hubs)
to potential users.
Change Agents
Hosts and local communities
are integral
agents of change; change
comes from interventions at
An area that was eventually rehabilitated
by its community through an operational
cooperation combining many people:
different in age, profession, way of
thinking and living, working for the
future of their land, brought together by
The “Sea Working” project is also paving
the way for a restored positive exchange
between the local population and
voyagers, encouraging the latter to stay
longer in a certain place, not necessarily

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
141
the edges of intersecting
systems
Power and Colonial
Relations
Power and colonial relations
transform
through including all
stakeholders and
diverse expertise at multiple
levels, including grassroots
leadership
Participation and
Collaboration
Diverse stakeholders
participate & collaborate;
community-level focus
the awareness of the great value of the
territory, products and traditions making
their land unique.
A collaboration between the Museum
and the institutions was signed with two
important protocols, one with the
Municipality of Sciacca and one with the
Regional Tourist Office of Agrigento,
and the President of the Sicily Region
declared appreciation for the work done
in Sciacca.
Today, the Cooperative is made of
artisans, traders, accommodation
facilities, restaurants, cultural
associations, educational and cultural
institutions and local boards of residents.
Viviana Rizzuto, President and founder,
is the community manager, a
contemporary role that is extremely
useful in the process of valorisation of
territories, alongside local
administrations. The role of Viviana and
the Cooperative is to keep involving the
community, the local institutions and
entrepreneurs in a process of cooperation
and connection for a continuum of ideas,
connections and offering of experiences
for voyagers.
in the high season, and giving them the
opportunity to work from there.
The project was launched by Emma
Taveri, Councilor for Tourism of the
Municipality of Brindisi, during the
pandemic to reposition a marginal area as
a destination for nomad workers and for
the relocation of companies in the South
of Italy.
Taveri’s objective was bringing a change
to her homeland and of making her skills
available to the city. For this reason, as
an important recognition for her
commitment, she received the title of
Councilor for Tourism, Territorial
Marketing and Creativity in the area
where she was implementing her project,
which was based on the new needs of the
travelers and aimed at making Brindisi
more and more a smart, adaptive and
attractive destination for new travelers
and holiday workers. Among others, the
initiative is conceived and promoted by
Destination Makers, a consultancy
company specialising in destination
marketing and management, with the
support of a network that includes the
Municipality of Brindisi and other
institutional entities, businesses and the
world of associations.
Source: authors’ elaboration
Based on the analysis and on the empirical findings, the paper provides guidelines to address future
practices in the field of tourism and eventually transform the tourists’ approach to travelling. These
guidelines identify a general process able to extract specific values and craft innovative and tailored
economies. The first stage of the process entails the (re-)creation of local communities, their
involvement in well-defined projects that clearly identify the hallmarks of territories rather than copy-
pasting others’ best practices. After the project has been defined in strong connection with territories
and communities, the key is to highlight and communicate to residents those elements retrieving and
revaluing local activities, services and products. In this way, projects should be built on a strong circle
of people, a devoted community, which is brought together by common traits and pursues a common
objective. A further level of involvement is represented by the cooperation among the community, the
voyagers and the local institutions. To mobilise communities, to create locally-sourced experiences
addressed to people that are still unrelated to the territory represents an opportunity for the
enhancement of identity awareness, for the development of situations for exchanging ideas and
competences, and for the creation of connections and social cohesion. Once a connected community
is established, the value of the overall offer increases through the formation and connection of ideas,
and the actions of each individual generate multiple results on the economic and social growth of the
territory. For instance, the B&Bs of the Diffused Museum in Sciacca are replacing soap bars with
dispensers that are made by local potters who customise them for each room. Besides avoiding the
wasting of materials, the B&Bs thus increase the quality of the offer, and the craftsman benefits from
the promotion of their products that can be purchased or created by the B&Bs’ guests. Everyone
supports the other and connections generate ideas (Casalini, 2022). Third point is the seasonal

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
142
adjustment of tourism flows through the extension of the journey to a longer period of time, an idea
that recalls the ancient and medieval conceptualisation of travelling, when the journey was protracted
and not yet classified as leisure. This view, shared by the community and the voyagers, should foster
a new sense of exploration, awareness and dialogue, leading to innovative local economies and the
development of localised services. The fourth and last phase of the process proves vital for the
preservation of territories and communities. The development of “regenerative indicators” thus
becomes necessary to assess the economic, social, cultural and environmental impact of the growth
resulting from the regenerative project, and to monitor the numbers of tourism carrying capacity,
defined by World Tourism Organization as “the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist
destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic, socio-cultural
environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors’ satisfaction” (UNWTO, 1981,
p.4).
The whole process is functional to re-address tourism towards an innovative path that retrieves
and extends the original sense of travel. On a practical level, the paper suggests that connecting
communities, creating awareness, empowering, and developing small local economies based on
entrepreneurship brings value to contemporary societies, and should represent a new model for the
whole travel industry rather than being limited to address niche tourism. Only if this process is tailored
on territories and eventually accomplished, communities can thrive and voyagers can fully exploit the
economic, social and cultural value of travelling, which is represented by its transformative ability.
The paper’s ultimate aim is to contribute to studies on regenerative tourism on one side and to
enhance a new sense of local entrepreneurship on the other. he study advances the understanding of
regenerative tourism development in marginalised areas, starting from its conceptualisation (Dwyer,
2018; Mang & Reed, 2012; Pollock, 2012; Teruel, 2018; Hes & Coenen, 2018; Bellato et al., 2022)
and giving directions for its practical implications adopting a value-based approach. Moreover, the
study provides a framework for further research in the field of tourism that goes beyond the concept
of tourism social entrepreneurship as yet theorised (Biddulph, 2018; Kokkranikal & Morrison, 2011;
Laeis & Lemke, 2016; Porter et al., 2018; Sigala, 2016; Sloan et al., 2014; Stenvall et al., 2017;
Jørgensen et al., 2021).
Acknowledgments
The authors have shared this research with many colleagues from whom they have gained
important insights. In particular, they are thankful to Michele Trimarchi.
Conflict of interest
None.
References
Airbnb. (2021). “Vivi e lavora a Brindisi, in Puglia. Cambia aria.”. [accessed
https://www.airbnb.it/d/liveandworkanywherebrindisi; consulted on 01/04/2023].
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. The journal of applied behavioral science, 40(3), 260-282. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304266847
Amaral, M. I., & Rodrigues, A. I. (2020). The importance of social media for the improvement of the
tourist experience offered by rural tourism enterprises: the case of the Alentejo. In Handbook of
Research on Social Media Applications for the Tourism and Hospitality Sector (pp. 309-333). IGI
Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1947-9.ch018

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
143
Araneda, M. (2019). Regenerative experiences design. [accessed
https://www.brindisireport.it/attualita/sea-working-brindisi-proclamato-vincitore.html; consulted on
01/04/2023].
Aquino, R. S. (2022). Community change through tourism social entrepreneurship. Annals of Tourism
Research, 95, 103442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103442
Aquino, R. S., Lück, M., & Schänzel, H. A. (2018). A conceptual framework of tourism social
entrepreneurship for sustainable community development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 37, 23-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.09.001
Bâc, D. P. (2014). The emergence of sustainable tourism-A literature review. QUAESTUS
Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 4, 131-140.
Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie: la problematica territoriale dello sviluppo italiano. (No Title).
Barca, F., Casavola, P., & Lucatelli, S. (2014). A strategy for inner areas in Italy: definition, objectives,
tools and governance. Materiali Uval Series, 31, 2014.
Bellato, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Nygaard, C. A. (2023). Regenerative tourism: a conceptual framework
leveraging theory and practice. Tourism Geographies, 25(4), 1026-1046. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2022.2044376
Betti, I. (2022). (“‘Altro che smart working. Qui facciamo sea working dalla barca’. Airbnb sceglie
Brindisi come ‘hub’ per i nomadi digitali.” Huffington Post. [accessed
https://www.huffingtonpost.it/life/2022/07/17/news/brindisi_come_bali_e_i_caraibi_airbnb_la_scegl
ie_come_hub_per_i_nomadi_digitali_qui_facciamo_sea_working_dalla_barca-9857235/; consulted
01/04/2023].
Biddulph, R. (2018). Social enterprise and inclusive tourism. Five cases in Siem Reap, Cambodia.
Tourism Geographies, 20(4), 610–629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1417471
Bieliková, H., & Palenčíková, Z. (2021). Sustainable Tourism Development in Times of the COVID-
19 Pandemic: Case Study of Slovakia. In Handbook of Research on the Impacts and Implications of
COVID-19 on the Tourism Industry (pp. 823-842). IGI Global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-
7998-8231-2.ch040
Binkhorst, E. (2005). The experience economy and creativity, towards the co-creation tourism
experience?. In ATLAS annual conference 2005: Tourism, creativity and development: Barcelona,
Spain 2-4 November 2005: abstract book. ATLAS annual conference 2005.
Bramwell, B. (2004). Mass tourism, diversification and sustainability in Southern Europe's coastal
regions. Coastal mass tourism: Diversification and sustainable development in Southern Europe, 1-
31.
Brindisi Report. (2020). “Sea Working Brindisi, proclamato il vincitore: lavorerà da una barca a vela”.
[accessed https://www.brindisireport.it/attualita/sea-working-brindisi-proclamato-vincitore.html;
consulted 01/04/2023].

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
144
Caniglia, B. S., Frank, B., Knott Jr, J. L., Sagendorf, K. S., & Wilkerson, E. A. (Eds.).
(2020). Regenerative urban development, climate change and the common good. Routledge.
Emilio, C. (2022). The Diffused Museum of the Five Senses of Sciacca in Sicily. Aware, competent
and connected communities as accelerators of wellbeing, development and democracy. Economia
della Cultura, (1), 123-128.
Città di Brindisi. (2021). “Presentata Destinazione Brindisi”. [accessed
https://www.comune.brindisi.it/brindisi/po/mostra_news.php?id=1183&area=H; consulted
01/04/2023].
Dahles, H., Khieng, S., Verver, M., & Manders, I. (2020). Social entrepreneurship and tourism in
Cambodia: Advancing community engagement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(6), 816-833. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1706544
Daniele, V., & Malanima, P. (2011). Il divario Nord-Sud in Italia. Rubbettino Editore.
Daniele, V., & Malanima, P. (2014). Falling disparities and persisting dualism: Regional development
and industrialisation in Italy, 1891–2001. Investigaciones de Historia Economica - Economic History
Research, 10, 165–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihe.2013.07.001
Davolio, M., & Somoza, A. L. (2016). Il viaggio e l'incontro: che cos' è il turismo responsabile. Altra
economia.
Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., ... & Davoudi, S.
(2012). Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end?“Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning
theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in
Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful
concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note: edited
by Simin Davoudi and Libby Porter. Planning theory & practice, 13(2), 299-333. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.677124
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of ‘social entrepreneurship’. Kauffman Foundation and Stanford
University.
Dosi, G., Fanti, L., & Virgillito, M. E. (2020). Unequal societies in usual times, unjust societies in
pandemic ones. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 47, 371-389. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-00173-8
Dwyer, L. (2018). Saluting while the ship sinks: the necessity for tourism paradigm change. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 29-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1308372
Felice, E. (2019). The roots of a dual equilibrium: GDP, productivity, and structural change in the
Italian regions in the long run (1871–2011). European Review of Economic History, 23(4), 499-528.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ereh/hey018
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid
assessment of COVID-19. Journal of sustainable tourism, 29(1), 1-20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
145
Hes, D., & Coenen, L. (2018). Regenerative development and transitions thinking. Enabling eco-
cities: Defining, planning, and creating a thriving future, 9-20.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F., Carnicelli, S., Krolikowski, C., Wijesinghe, G., & Boluk, K. (2019).
Degrowing tourism: Rethinking tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1601732
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. John
Wiley & Sons.
Istat. (2023). Istituto Nazionale di Statistica [accessed: https://demo.istat.it; consulted on 22 March
2023].
Iuzzolino, G., Pellegrini, G., & Viesti, G. (2011). Convergence among Italian regions, 1861-
2011. Bank of Italy Economic History Working Paper, (22). DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2239019
Jørgensen, M. T., Hansen, A. V., Sørensen, F., Fuglsang, L., Sundbo, J., & Jensen, J. F. (2021).
Collective tourism social entrepreneurship: A means for community mobilization and social
transformation. Annals of Tourism Research, 88, 103171. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103171
Kokkranikal, J., & Morrison, A. (2011). Community networks and sustainable livelihoods in tourism:
The role of entrepreneurial innovation. Tourism planning & development, 8(2), 137-156.DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2011.573914
L’Ora di Brindisi. (2022). “Colpaccio dell’assessore Taveri: Brindisi scelta da Airbnb per diventare
meta del Sea Working”. [accessed https://www.loradibrindisi.it/2022/07/colpaccio-dellassessore-
taveri-brindisi-scelta-da-airbnb-per-diventare-meta-del-sea-working/; consulted 01/04/2023].
Laeis, G. C., & Lemke, S. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: Applying sustainable livelihoods
approaches. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1076-1093. DOI:
Lagravinese, R. (2015). Economic crisis and rising gaps North–South: evidence from the Italian
regions. Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 8(2), 331-342. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsv006
Lee, Y. J. (2015). Creative experience and revisit intention of handmade oriental parasol umbrella in
Kaohsiung. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(8), 2926-2929. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1109563
Lew, A.A. (2013). Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning. Tourism
Geographies, 16(1), 14-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.864325
Lovins, L. H. (2019). 8 Regenerative economics1. Regenerative urban development, climate change
and the common good, 136.
Manager Italia. (2020). “Sea Working: Brindisi vuol attirare i nomadi digitali”. [Accessed
https://www.manageritalia.it/it/management/turismo-sea-working-brindisi; consulted 01/04/2023]

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
146
Mang, P., & Haggard, B. (2016). Regenerative development and design: A framework for evolving
sustainability. (No Title).
Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2020). Regenerative development and design. Sustainable built environments,
115-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_303-4
Marques, L. É. N. I. A., & Richards, G. (2014). Creative districts around the world. Creative Districts
(2014th ed.). Breda: NHTV, Breda.
Mileti, F. A., Miranda, P., Langella, G., Pacciarelli, M., De Michele, C., Manna, P., & Terribile, F.
(2022). A geospatial decision support system for ecotourism: a case study in the Campania region of
Italy. Land Use Policy, 118, 106131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106131
Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi. (n.d.). Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi [accessed https://www.sciacca5sensi.it;
consulted on 23/11/2022].
Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi. (n.d.). Facebook [accessed
https://www.facebook.com/sciaccacittadei5sensi/?locale=it_IT; consulted on 01/04/2023].
Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi Sciacca. (n.d.). YouTube [accessed
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuxjrqBQtCZ7Vs40h5hEA1w; consulted on 01/04/2023].
Museo Diffuso dei 5 Sensi, (n.d.). LinkedIn [accessed https://www.linkedin.com/company/museo-
diffuso-dei-5-sensi-sciacca/?originalSubdomain=it; consulted on 01/04/2023].
Naumov, N., & Green, D. R. (2015). Mass tourism. Naumov, N. & Green, D.(2015) Mass tourism. In
Jafari, J. & Xiao, H.(Eds.) Encyclopedia of Tourism., Springer, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-01669-6_378-1
Navarro, S., Garzón, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Co-creation in hotel–disable customer
interactions. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1630-1634. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.007
Osservatorio Turistico Regione Sicilia. (2023). [accessed
https://osservatorioturistico.regione.sicilia.it/public/default; consulted on 19/06/2023].
Osservatorio di PugliaPromozione. (2023). [accessed https://aret.regione.puglia.it; consulted on
22/06/23].
Ottomano Palmisano, G., Sardaro, R., & La Sala, P. (2022). Recovery and Resilience of the Inner
Areas: Identifying Collective Policy Actions through PROMETHEE II. Land, 11(8), 1181. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081181
Owen, C. (2007a). Regenerative tourism: A case study of the resort town Yulara. open house
international, 32(4), 42-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-04-2007-B0005
Owen, C. (2007b). Regenerative tourism–Re-placing the design of ecotourism facilities. The
International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3(2), 175-181.

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
147
Pang, S. F., McKercher, B., & Prideaux, B. (2013). Climate change and tourism: An overview. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1-2), 4-20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.688509
Pencarelli, T. (2020). The digital revolution in the travel and tourism industry. Information Technology
& Tourism, 22(3), 455-476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-019-00160-3
Petraglia, C. (2019). Il Mezzogiorno nella nuova geografia europea delle disuguaglianze. In Rapporto
2019 sull'economia e la società del Mezzogiorno (pp. 3-10). Il Mulino.
Pollock, A. (2012, September). Conscious travel: Signposts towards a new model for tourism.
In Contribution to the 2nd UNWTO Ethics and Tourism Congress Conscious Tourism for a New Era,
September 12th, Quito.
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. CAB international.
Porter, B. A., Orams, M. B., & Lück, M. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship tourism: An alternative
development approach for remote coastal communities where awareness of tourism is low. Tourism
Planning & Development, 15(2), 149-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2017.1312507
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
Prebensen, N. K., Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation significance of tourist
resources. Annals of tourism Research, 42, 240-261. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.012
Raworth, K. A. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist.
Random House Business Books.
Regenerative Travel(a). (2020). Regenerative travel principles for hospitality [accessed
https://www.regenerativetravel.com/principles-whitepaper/; consulted on 22/02/2023].
Regenerative Travel(b). (2020). The climate change solution lies in nature: Regenerative agriculture
at Finca Luna Nueva [accessed https://www.regenerativetravel.com/impact/the-climate-change-
solution-lies-in-nature-regenerative-agriculture-at-finca-luna-nueva/; consulted on 22/02/2023].
Richards, G. & Raymond, C. (2000). Creative tourism. ATLAS News, 23.
Richards, G. (2017). The development of creative tourism in Asia. InC. Silver, L. Marques, H. Hanan,
& I. Widiastuti (Eds.). Imagining Experience: Creative Tourism and the making of Place (pp. ix–xiv).
New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Richards, G. (2020). Designing creative places: The role of creative tourism. Annals of tourism
research, 85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102922
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Gouthro, M. B., & Moital, M. (2018). Customer-to-customer co-creation
practices in tourism: Lessons from Customer-Dominant logic. Tourism Management, 67, 362-375.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.010

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
148
Roque, M. I. (2022). Storytelling in cultural heritage: tourism and community engagement. In Global
Perspectives on Strategic Storytelling in Destination Marketing (pp. 22-37). IGI Global.
Santagata, W. (2011). Libro bianco sulla creatività: per un modello italiano di sviluppo. EGEA spa.
sciacca5sensi. (n.d.). Instagram [accessed https://www.instagram.com/sciacca5sensi/?hl=it; consulted
on 01/04/2023].
Sea.Brindisi. (n.d.). Facebook [accessed https://www.facebook.com/sea.brindisi; consulted on
01/04/2023].
Sea.Brindisi. (n.d.). Instagram [accessed https://www.instagram.com/sea.brindisi/; consulted on
01/04/2023].
Sea Brindisi. (n.d.). Sea Work [accessed https://www.sea.brindisi.it/work/; consulted on 01/04/2023].
Sigala, M. (2016). Learning with the market: A market approach and framework for developing social
entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 28(6), 1245-1286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2014-0285
Sloan, P., Legrand, W., & Simons-Kaufmann, C. (2014). A survey of social entrepreneurial
community-based hospitality and tourism initiatives in developing economies: A new business
approach for industry. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1), 51-61. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-11-2013-0045
South Working. (n.d.). South Working [accessed https://www.southworking.org; consulted
01/04/2023].
Splendiani, S., Forlani, F., Picciotti, A., & Presenza, A. (2022). Social Innovation Project and Tourism
Lifestyle Entrepreneurship to Revitalize the Marginal Areas. The Case of the via Francigena Cultural
Route. Tourism Planning & Development, 1-17. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2022.2161616
Stenvall, A., Laven, D., & Gelbman, A. (2017). The influence of social entrepreneurship in tourism on
an Arab village in Israel. Social entrepreneurship and tourism: Philosophy and practice, 279-293.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0_17
Sugathan, P., & Ranjan, K. R. (2019). Co-creating the tourism experience. Journal of Business
Research, 100, 207-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.032
Sustainable development | UNWTO. (n.d.). UNWTO | World Tourism Organization a UN Specialized
Agency. [accessed https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development; consulted on 22/03/2023].
Tan, S. K., Kung, S. F., & Luh, D. B. (2013). A model of ‘creative experience’in creative
tourism. Annals of tourism research, 41, 153-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.002
Teruel, S. A. (2018). Analysis and approach to the definition of regenerative tourism paradigm.
Universidad Para La Cooperacion Internacional [(UCI)].

Volume 32, Issue 1(128-149). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised areas. Insights from
two best practices in Southern Italy.
149
Tuttitalia.it. (n.d.). Popolazione Provincia di Brindisi (2001-2021) Grafici Dati Istat. [accessed
https://www.tuttitalia.it/puglia/provincia-di-brindisi/statistiche/popolazione-andamento-demografico;
consulted on 22/06/2023].
UNESCO. (2006, October). Towards sustainable strategies for creative tourism. In Discussion Report
of the Planning Meeting for 2008 International Conference on Creative Tourism (pp. 25-27).
UNWTO. (1981). Saturation of Tourist Destinations: Report of the Secretary General. Madrid: World
Tourism Organization.
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license
lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone, anywhere in the world
to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without
permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long
as the author and original source are properly cited.

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
150
TIJT, Volume 32(1): 150-176
ISSN: 1974-2207
Received: 30.05.2023
Accepted: 03.06.2023
Published: 15.09.2023
Academic Research Paper
The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment,
involvement, loyalty attitudes, and environmentally responsible
behavior toward a cultural destination
Roberta De Cicco
Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies, University of
Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Saffi, 15, Urbino, Italy, roberta.decicco@uniurb.it. ORCID: 0000-0001-7835-
2274
Mauro Dini
Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies, University of
Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Saffi, 15, Urbino, Italy, mauro.dini@uniurb.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-0359-
9552
Ilaria Curina
Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies, University of
Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Saffi, 15, Urbino, Italy, ilaria.curina@uniurb.it. ORCID: 0000-0001-7702-
7664
Barbara Francioni
Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies, University of
Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Saffi, 15, Urbino, Italy, barbara.francioni@uniurb.it. ORCID: 0000-0001-
8782-6814
Marco Cioppi
Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies, University of
Urbino Carlo Bo, Via Saffi, 15, Urbino, Italy, marco.cioppi@uniurb.it. ORCID: 0000-0002-4488-
435X
Abstract: Tourist demand is very diverse and there are many alternatives for segmentation, with
even basic demographic factors not only effectively discriminating in some markets but serving as a
valuable starting point for creating market segmentation methods. Against this perspective, this
study aims to provide a deeper analysis into whether and how socio-demographic factors, in terms
of nationality, age, gender, and education explain tourists’ place attachment, in terms of place
dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging, both online and onsite activity involvement,
recommendation and revisit intentions, and environmentally responsible behavior (ERB) toward a
cultural Italian destination. Data were collected from 384 tourists participating in a cultural heritage
tourism experience. Descriptive statistics were analyzed and reported, and a series of ANOVAs were
performed using SPSS to analyze possible differences among nationality, age, gender, and education,
regarding the variables of interest. According to the literature, factors that may affect tourists'

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
151
perceptions include socio-demographic data. However, current research on cultural tourism lacks an
in-depth investigation of the relationships between various socio-demographic factors and tourists’
perceptions and behavior. While studies have looked at how these elements affect marketing in
general, more data is still required to forecast cultural visitors’ feelings of attachment, involvement,
intention, and environmental behavior toward a cultural destination. Results highlight that tourists
of an Italian cultural destination have varying levels of education, age, and gender, and are partly
represented by foreign visitors. Findings mainly confirm that the variables of interest can be
influenced by the socio-demographic characteristics of tourists, with a major impact coming from
nationality, age, and education. Moreover, they showed that the main differences were recorded for
place identity, sense of belonging, onsite and online activity involvement, revisit intention, and
responsible behavior, with only nationality and age respectively affecting place identity and
recommendation intention.
Keywords: Cultural tourism, Place attachment, Activity involvement, Intentions, Environmentally
responsible behavior, Socio-demographics
JEL Codes: M2; M3
1. Introduction
Prior to COVID-19, global tourism had been expanding quickly for several years and emerged as a
major force in global trade to such an extent that, since the late 1990s, the number of destinations
generating $1 billion or more in US dollars from foreign tourism had nearly doubled and in 2019
tourism injected $8.9 trillion into the global economy (UNESCO, 2021). Businesses experienced a
sudden and extraordinary disruption due to the COVID-19 epidemic as policymakers limited the flow of
people worldwide (Temperini et al., 2022). Tourism has historically experienced crises (Blake and
Sinclair 2003; Sönmez et al. 1999), however, the impact of COVID-19 has been more tragic than any
previous crisis in recent memory, at least from an economic perspective (Hall et al. 2020; UNWTO
2021). As a result, the crisis has raised fresh concerns about how the travel and tourism sector is reacting
to and recovering from this crisis and, eventually, how it will change as a socio-economic activity in our
society (Gretzel et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has opened up to a more environmentally and
socially conscious global travel market and unprecedented potentialities for slow and proximity tourism
leading (UNESCO, 2021).
Social distancing policies, travel restrictions, and ban on public meetings for cultural events all had
a negative impact on cultural tourism (Mitrică et al., 2022). In this context, restarting cultural tourism, in
addition to being a major concern for governments around the world, represents critical challenges as
well as market opportunities for cultural tourism managers. In fact, one of the side effects of the
pandemic is the need for sustainable, calm, quiet, and safe spaces, leading to a search for a new “slow
living” lifestyle, representing a valuable chance for cultural tourism (Rodríguez-Vázquez et al., 2023).
Although no real consensus on the definition of cultural tourism and cultural tourists exists (among
others: Hughes, 1996; Ashworth & Tunbridge, 2000; Cuccia & Rizzo, 2011), it can reasonably state that
a tourist's primary objective in engaging in cultural tourism is not just to consume but also, to learn
about, explore, and experience both tangible and intangible cultural attractions and products in a travel

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
152
location (Richards, 2018).
Cultural tourists typically have a larger budget to spend on local high-quality goods rather than on
mass-manufactured ones, participate in arts-related activities, and visit museums, monuments, and
historical sites, thus making cultural tourism a tool for differentiating the country's tourism product and
reduce seasonality (Vergori & Arima, 2020). Market data reveal a total expenditure of 16.1 billion euros
in 2019 which decreased to 3.3 in 2021 and 115.2 million overnight stays against 23.9 million in 2021
(Eagan, 2023). By looking at these data, we entail the central role of cultural tourism in driving
economic growth in the tourism sector and the urgency to return and outweigh pre-pandemic levels.
Cultural tourism, being one of the fastest-growing segments of the tourism industry and accounting for
an estimated 40% of all tourism worldwide (UNESCO, 2021), is a powerful element of attraction that
can function as a locomotive of tourist demand. Also in Italy, the cultural products are a point of strength
of the tourist offer, capable of attracting a large number of tourists, internationally known, representing
the strategic offer segment for the entire tourist system of the Country (Assoturismo-Confesercenti,
2022). However, it is necessary to identify the key elements that allow for understanding the potential of
cultural tourism and its response to the demands of new post-pandemic tourist behavior (Rodríguez-
Vázquez et al., 2023). Within this scenario, cultural tourism has attracted greater interest from
researchers (Cerquetti and Romagnoli, 2022; Carreira et al., 2022; Du Cros and McKercher, 2020;
Richards, 2018). Research seeks to understand why people engage in cultural tourism through studies of
motivation and related factors such as satisfaction and loyalty (Richards, 2018), authenticity and
destination image (Carreira et al., 2022).
Heritage, and especially the destination of ‘World Heritage Sites’ (WHS), being one of the
fundaments of cultural tourism, is where most of research is focused on (Richards, 2018). Literature
comparing cultural and non-cultural tourists, through a series of socio-economic-demographic variables,
highlights that a “new cultural tourism” is emerging in Italy, and that demographic aspects (i.a., age and
education) are often stereotypes deeply rooted in the literature or variables taken for granted (Tangeland
et al., 2013) than empirically confirmed propositions (Vergori & Arima, 2020). Due to their ability to
facilitate understanding, managing, and promoting a destination and/or facility, as well as discriminating
well in certain markets (Mohsin, 2008), socio-demographic variables are of major importance for
stakeholders of tourism including the research communities (Gössling et al. 2020; Hall et al. 2020;
Jamal and Budke 2020), especially in light of their use in market segmentation strategies (Weaver et al.,
1994). Against this background, the present study aims at integrating socio-demographic characteristics
as independent variables (exogenous variables) and perceptions and intentions toward a cultural
destination as dependent variables (endogenous variables). We fall within the scope of cultural heritage
tourism studies (Magliacani e Francesconi, 2022), focusing on an Italian UNESCO WHS (World
Heritage Site) by attempting to understand which socio-demographic factors help explain tourists’
feelings, experiences during their visit, as well as behavioral intentions.
The study examines variables that signify attachment and involvement to a cultural destination
because such connections bear significant positive implications for visitors’ behavioral intents, such as
revisiting and recommending intentions (Dwyer et al. 2019; Amaro & Duarte, 2015). The study also
covers a topic related to environmental sustainability, with the inclusion of a construct, namely
Environmentally Responsible Behavior (ERB), which represents the best indicator for sustainable
tourism in destination management (Kafyri et al., 2012). Specifically, this exploratory research provides
a deeper analysis into whether and how nationality, age, gender, and education explain tourists’
attachment (in the form of place dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging), activity

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
153
involvement (both online and onsite), recommendation and revisit intentions, and ERB. The paper is
organized as follows. First, a review of the literature presenting the theoretical background and the
research questions is provided. In the subsequent section, the methodology is described, followed by
statistical analyses of the data. Finally, we discuss the findings and propose conclusions, implications,
and suggested avenues for future research.
2. Literature review and theoretical framework
2.1. Socio-demographic characteristics and tourism: a brief overview
Socio-demographic factors are employed as segmentation criteria for a variety of reasons,
including their cost effectiveness, simplicity of understanding, and suitability for usage in commercial
settings, while offering a foundation for deeper, more intricate studies (Tangeland et al., 2013).
Thus, it comes as no surprise that individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics such as age,
gender, race, tenure, and education have long been considered important variables in research, especially
in psychological studies (Zedeck & Cascio, 1984). This line of research has produced findings showing
that demographic variables are significantly associated with characteristics, perceptions, attitudes, and
work outcomes (Tsui & O’Really, 1989). In recent tourism literature, researchers have argued that there
is a relation between individuals’ demographic profiles and the types of travel experiences they seek
(Goodrich 1980; Weaver et al., 1994). Buckley and Papadopoulos (1986) highlighted that greater
attention must be paid to the characteristics of visitors when trying to develop a more rational marketing
strategy: a clear market segment should be identified, and an investigation made of the buying decision
factors that predominate in that segment with the aim of aligning tourism products with the client profile.
Since the tourist demand is very diverse and there are innumerable alternatives for segmentation,
with even basic demographic factors, like age and gender, effectively discriminating in some markets,
serving as a valuable starting point for creating market segmentation methods (Mitchell & Haggett,
1997), many are the studies that have focused on the analysis of socio-demographic factors when
exploring tourists’ attitudes and behaviors. Uysal et al. (1994), in their study of Australian visitors to U.S.
national parks and natural areas, analyzed demographic characteristics and found that college graduates,
professionals, and high-income groups have a higher propensity to visit national parks and natural areas.
In a similar vein, Huang and Xiao (2000) argued that demographic research is important because it has
the potential to both broaden the understanding of tourist behavior and improve destination management
and planning. Their research shows that gender differences and professional composition have a
substantial impact on Changchun leisure travelers' behavior patterns and attraction preferences. A very
recent study from Yang et al. (2023) examined how demographic factors affect the quality of cultural
perception and found interesting results from an age, gender, and education perspective.
Generally speaking, the geographical, demographic, and economic dimensions are important
research variables to understand the motivation of tourists (Almeida, 2020). More specifically, there are
many potential differences in the determinant factors affecting perceptions and selection of cultural
heritage attractions among visitors with different demographic characteristics (Siriphanich, 2007). Based
on this, the main objective of this study is to analyze how the socio-demographic characteristics of
tourists influence perceptions and intentions toward a cultural heritage destination.

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
154
2.2. Tourists’ attachment: place dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging
To better understand the connections between people and places, as well as to manage and market
tourist attractions, place attachment has been extensively researched across disciplines (Dwyer et al.,
2019). Place attachment is not only an immediate sensory response but a deeper reflective resonance
with specific locations (Rishbeth & Powell, 2013). It is a multidimensional construct, with roots in
environmental psychology and tourism, that captures the complexity of the meanings that both visitors
and locals attribute to their physical surroundings (Dwyer et al., 2019). Usually, researchers identify two
main cognitive dimensions of place attachment, namely place identity and place dependence (Chen &
Dwyer, 2018). More recent works in environmental psychology propose affective attachment as another
key dimension of place attachment (Hidalgo and Hernández, 2001; Jorgensen and Stedman 2001),
making belongingness or social bond another dimension of place attachment (Chen & Dwyer, 2018).
Place dependence is an outcome of the cognitive justification process that involves an individual
attachment to a place for functional reasons. Generic place-dependent individuals can be attached to
areas that they have never visited because the area may afford them a unique setting in which to
accomplish their goals (White et al., 2008). Place identity is an outcome of a cognitive justification
process that reflects an individual’s personal identity defined in relation to the physical environment,
influenced by conscious and unconscious ideals, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals, and
behavioral tendencies and skills (Proshansky, 1978). The sense of belonging is an enduring reaction that
implies a tourist’s feeling of identification with or attachment to a cultural tourism destination that they
have visited (Lin et al., 2014). Tourists’ attachment adds value to cultural and heritage tourism and place
marketing research and is grabbing researchers' and practitioners’ attention because of its potential for
interpreting behaviors (Chen & Dwyer, 2018). Indeed, attachment has a beneficial impact not only on
tourists’ willingness to revisit the destination but also on their disposition to promote the place (Dwyer et
al. 2019). In light of this, we believe it is important to explore how socio-demographic factors affect this
concept in its cognitive and affective dimensions. Thus, the first research question is:
RQ1. What differences in place dependence, place attachment, and sense of belonging emerge across
nationality, age, gender, and education?
2.3. Tourists' involvement: online and onsite activity involvement
According to Havitz Dimanche (1997, p. 246), involvement is described as an “unobservable state
of motivation, arousal or interest towards a product or activity evoked by a stimulus or situation” that
affects tourist’s perceptions and perceived value (Prebensen et al., 2013). By highlighting both mental
state and a behavioral process behind involvement, Stone (1984) defined it as the time and/or intensity
of effort expended in pursuing a particular activity. Kim and Ritchie (2014) noted that involvement can
have a significant impact on tourism experiences (Forlani, 2018), not only when travelers plan for their
trips (i.e., planning phase) but also when travelers are at their destinations. Thus, it should not be
surprising that researchers have agreed that the importance of tourist involvement has increased due to
its impact on tourists' experiences (Hung et al., 2019;), especially because a higher level of experience
involvement brings a more memorable and meaningful experience to the consumer (Cioppi et al., 2022;
Zatori et al., 2018).
Grounded on Rothschild’s (1984) definition of involvement, the current study defines onsite

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
155
involvement as a person’s level of interest, emotional attachment, or arousal with both websites and
social media (Splendiani et al., 2023). Travelers may be more passive or active when they receive
advertising communication, and limit or expand their processing of this information, depending on their
level of involvement (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985). As a result, online participation is a helpful tool for
online travel marketers to adjust to these variances. In the same vein, the influence of onsite activities,
defined as the extent to which a tourist is interested and engaged in activities hosted by a cultural
tourism destination (Lee & Chang, 2012), should equally be considered when examining tourists'
consumption, especially of cultural destinations, which offer a greater number of activities than other
types of tourism destinations (Hung et al., 2019). If the present tourism literature puts a great emphasis
on the influence of involvement during the planning phase (Kim & Ritchie, 2014; Lu et al., 2015),
researchers have also noted that immersion in onsite activities could have a profound impact on tourists'
actual experiences (Hung et al., 2019). Thus, following Amaro and Duarte (2015), the study focuses its
attention on the analysis of tourists’ involvement both onsite and online as travelers who feel more
involved might have different characteristics that could be fruitfully used to target and customize both
online and offline touristic activities. This leads us to the second research question:
RQ2. What differences in online activity involvement and onsite activity involvement emerge across
nationality, age, gender, and education?
2.4. Tourists’ intentions: revisit and recommend
Behavioral intention is one of the most important concepts in marketing and consumer behavior, as
consumers' behavioral intentions for a product or service are likely to translate into actual purchase or
consumption behaviors (Oliver, 2010), being this the most proximal and salient determinant of their
actual behaviors (Ajzen, 1991).
Scholars in heterogeneous contexts agree that the repurchase/revisit and recommendation
intentions are the two major constituents of behavioral intentions (Choo et al., 2016). From a different
perspective, repurchase/revisit intentions and recommendations to others are the most commonly used
measures of loyalty, which is an indicator of long-term satisfaction and interest in a brand or a
destination (Eusébio & Vieira 2013; Horng et al. 2012). What is certain is that both revisiting and
recommending intentions are of high relevance in tourism research (Han et al., 2019). When placed in a
tourist context, behavioral intentions refer to tourists’ willingness or perceived likelihood of engaging in
revisit and word-of-mouth behaviors for the community-based tourism destination (Han et al., 2019).
Visitors who perceive a higher value in a holiday destination are more likely to revisit and recommend it
(Quintal & Polczynski, 2010). As much as customers form post-purchase intentions and engage in
repurchase or recommendation behaviors based on their appraisal of product/service performance
(Oliver, 2010), travelers form their revisit and recommending intentions according to their assessment of
the overall experience.
Given that boosting visitors’ favorable decisions/behaviors is one of the essential requisites for
successful sustainable destination development under the competitive market environment, tourism
companies are invited to pay attention also to tourists’ socio-demographic characteristics in order to
match them with their value proposals and increase tourists’ motivation (Hassan et al., 2023). Thus the
third research question is:

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
156
RQ3. What differences in revisit intention and recommending intention emerge across nationality, age,
gender, and education?
2.5. Environmentally Responsible Behavior
ERB represents people’s environmental concerns, beliefs, and ecological knowledge concerning
the reduction of environmental problems (Chiu et al., 2014), and reflects actions to minimize negative
impacts on the environment (Lin & Lee, 2020; Lee & Jan, 2015). The term is used interchangeably with
“ecological/environmental/sustainable behavior” or “environmentally concerned or significant behavior”
(Lee et al., 2013).
Tourists, either consciously or unconsciously, might add to environmental destruction, for example
by picking flowers (Chang, 2010); interfering with wildlife (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Chen, 2011); by
increasing pollution activity (Logar, 2010; Teh & Cabanban, 2007); or by simply overcrowding
destinations (Dickinson & Robbins, 2008; Poitras & Getz, 2006). However, individuals who manifest
environmentally responsible behavior can reduce the harmful impact and create a positive effect on the
natural surroundings (Wang & Zhang, 2020; Barbaro and Pickett, 2016). Therefore, as suggested by Lin
and Lee (2020), ERB plays a pivotal role in reducing environmental problems (Sivek & Hungerford,
1990) by minimizing impacts on the environment (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002), and improving
environmental sustainability (Meijers & Stapel, 2011). Also, researchers report that tourists’ ERB has
been pointed out as the best indicator for sustainable tourism in destination management (Kafyri et al.,
2012; Lin &Lee, 2020).
As such, we believe that the understanding of how socio-demographic antecedents shape tourists'
environmental responsibility (Luo et al., 2020) is necessary because of their role in facilitating
segmentation and targeting, and thus enhancing the formulation of strategic marketing communication
efforts. In this respect, we formulate our last research question:
RQ4. What differences in environmentally responsible behavior emerge across nationality, age, gender,
and education?
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Data collection and measures
The research aimed to develop an exploratory analysis (Malhotra and Grover, 1998) to discern
which demographic factors affect key variables for cultural and sustainable tourism: place
dependence and identity, sense of belonging, online and onsite activity involvement, intentions, and
environmentally responsible behavior.
During summer 2022, tourists were asked to fill out the questionnaire at Urbino's old town, a
significant UNESCO World Heritage site. Other studies have already previously analyzed this
context of study with respect to the cultural tourism dimension (Vesci et al., 2020; Conti et al., 2020;
Pencarelli et al, 2017). The study used a non-random sampling approach. Participants at the end of
the visit to Urbino, received a tablet with a link to the Google Form with the survey displayed on it
for them to complete on their own. Participants were informed about the overall storage and

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
157
processing of data according to Regulation (EU) 2016/ 679 GDPR and expressed their explicit
consent to participate in the study. Following the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of
Helsinki, participants were informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw
consent to participate at any time without negative consequences.
The survey was conducted in several languages using a translation-back translation technique.
We collected 384 valid replies after removing respondents with consistent response styles and
incomplete responses. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first related to individuals’
demographic aspects taken into consideration: nationality, age, gender, and level of education. The
second section recorded individuals’ evaluations regarding the statements of the constructs of
interest.
We used pre-existing, empirically validated scales to operationalize the constructs. Using a
seven-point Likert scale, from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7), participants were asked to
indicate the extent they agreed or disagreed with each of the questions. The measures for place
dependence (4 items, e.g. “I enjoy recreating in Urbino more than any other cultural
area/destination”) and place identity (5 items, e.g. “Urbino means a lot to me”) were taken from
White et al. (2008). The measures for sense of belonging (4 items, e.g. “I feel a strong sense of
belonging to Urbino”), online activity involvement (4 items, e.g. “While visiting Urbino, I search
for travel information on its social media websites”), and onsite activity involvement (3 items, e.g.
“I was interested in the cultural/sustainable activities Urbino hosted”) were taken from Hung et al.
(2019). The measures for recommendation intention (3 items, e.g. “I will recommend Urbino to a
relative or friend”) and revisit intention (3 items, e.g. I intend to revisit Urbino in the future”) were
taken from Altunel and Erkurt (2015). Finally, environmentally responsible behavior (6 items, e.g.
“If there are cleaning environment activities, I am willing to attend”) was adapted from Su et al.
(2020).
3.2. Data Analysis
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed using F-tests to statistically test the equality
of means (Markowski & Markoski, 1990) and analyze differences among nationality, age, gender,
and education, regarding the variables of interest. By using SPSS v.22, a multivariate analysis of
variance was run in the system (Huberty & Olejnik, 2006) due to its ability to consider several
continuous dependent variables simultaneously, identifying significant differences due to an
independent variable while offering results for Univariate tests for each independent variable.
The ANOVA test is a statistical technique used to determine if there are significant differences
among the means of three or more groups (Markowski and Markoski, 1990). It is employed to
compare the means of multiple groups in order to evaluate whether these differences are statistically
significant or simply due to chance. The methodology of the ANOVA test involves analyzing the
variance between groups and the variance within groups. In general, the ANOVA test is based on the
null hypothesis (H0) that all group means are equal, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) asserts
that at least one mean is significantly different from the others. The ANOVA test calculates the
between-group variance and the residual variance within the groups. If the between-group variance
is much larger than the residual variance, then there are significant differences among at least two of
the groups. Conversely, if the between-group variance is similar to or smaller than the residual
variance, there are no significant differences among the groups. To assess whether the differences

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
158
between group means are significant, the ANOVA test utilizes an F statistic, which compares the
between-group variance with the residual variance. If the calculated F value exceeds a critical
threshold, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it is concluded that there are significant differences
among at least two groups.
4. Results
The study reveals that tourists of an Italian cultural heritage destination have varying levels of
education, age, and gender and are also considerably represented by foreign visitors. Our sample
includes a slightly higher number of foreign participants (197) compared to Italians (187), 195 men
and 189 women, 62 visitors with an age between 18-29, 75 visitors with an age between 30-39, 86
between 40-49, 93 between 50-59, and 69 who are more than 60. Regarding education, 131
participants have a lower level of instruction since they do not possess a bachelor, 137 participants
declared to possess a bachelor, and 116 participants report holding a master or a Ph.D.
Descriptive statistics for all the factors considered are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
Number ( N = 384)
Percentage (%)
Nationality
Italian
187
48.7
Foreign
197
51.3
Age
18-29
62
16.1
30-39
75
19.5
40-49
86
22.4
50-59
92
24.0
>60
69
18.0
Gender
M
195
50.8
F
189
49.2
Education
No Bachelor
131
34.1
Bachelor
137
35.7
Master/PhD
116
30.2
Source: Author elaboration
4.1. Feelings of Attachment: Place Dependence, Place Identity, Sense of belonging
The first research question aims to trace (any) significant differences that emerged concerning
the feelings of attachment of the different individuals’ factors considered. Respondents were asked
to evaluate, based on a seven-point Likert scale, the feeling of place dependence, place identity, and
sense of belonging. As shown in Table 2, results regarding place dependence are modest; only
nationality shows a significant difference (F(1, 382) = 32.242, p = <.001), with Italians scoring
higher (4.65) than foreigners (3.88). There are no significant differences when considering age,
gender, and education.

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
159
Table 2. Place identity in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
4.66 (1.43)
32.242
<.001
.078
Foreign
3.88 (1.25)
Age
18-29
4.31 (1.58)
1.288
.274
.013
30-39
4.04 (1.15)
40-49
4.14 (1.38)
50-59
4.32 (1.38)
>60
4.52 (1.32)
Gender
M
4.17 (1.38)
1.429
.233
.004
F
4.34 (1.41)
Education
No Bachelor
4.44 (1.39)
2.785
0.63
.014
Bachelor
4.28 (1.38)
Master/PhD
4.03 (1.40)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
Regarding place identity, as reported in Table 3, while there is no significant difference in age
and education, nationality and gender have an impact on participants’ feelings of place identity. The
effect is stronger for nationality (F(1, 382) = 16.653, p = <.001), where, on average, Italians score
significantly higher (3.85) than foreigners (3.16). Men (3.70) provided significantly higher scores
for place identity compared to women (3.28), F(1, 382) = 6.068, p = <.05.
Table 3. Place dependence in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
3.85 (1.81)
16.653
<.001
.042
Foreign
3.16 (1.45)
Age
18-29
3.11 (1.80)
2.099
.080
0.22
30-39
3.31 (1.56)
40-49
3.49 (1.52)
50-59
3.68 (1.66)
>60
3.83 (1.78)
Gender
M
3.28 (1.60)
6.068
.014
.016
F
3.70 (1.71)
Education
No Bachelor
3.49 (1.65)
.324
.723
.002
Bachelor
3.42 (1.61)
.042
Master/PhD
3.59 (1.76)
<.001
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
Interesting results emerge when we observe sense of belonging (see Table 4). In this case, only
age has not a significant influence, while nationality, gender, and education significantly impact
participants’ sense of belonging. Specifically, Italians (4.11) score higher than foreigners (2.98), F(1,
382) = 49.768, p = <.001; Men (3.73), on average, score higher than women (3.32), F(1, 382)
=5.956, p = <.05; and participants that are not possessing a bachelor (3.83) score higher than people
with a bachelor (3.51) or Master/Ph.D. (3.22), F(2, 381) = 4.287, p = <.05.

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
160
Table 4. Sense of belonging in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
4.11 (1.59)
49.768
<.001
.115
Foreign
2.98 (1.56)
Age
18-29
3.46 (1.79)
.924
.450
.010
30-39
3.30 (1.56)
40-49
3.49 (1.61)
50-59
3.58 (1.61)
>60
3.82 (1.81)
Gender
M
3.32 (1.57)
5.956
.015
.015
F
3.73 (1.74)
Education
No Bachelor
3.83 (1.61)
4.287
.014
.022
Bachelor
3.51 (1.58)
Master/PhD
3.22 (1.78)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
4.2. Involvement: Online and onsite activities
The second research question aims to identify (any) significant differences that emerged with
reference to the feelings of involvement of the different individuals’ factors considered.
Respondents were asked to evaluate, based on a seven-point Likert scale, the feeling of both online
and onsite involvement. As regards online involvement, as reported in Table 5, both education and
nationality have a significant effect, while gender and age are not statistically significant. Italians
(3.65) compared to foreigners (3.21) declare to be, on average, more involved in online activities
(F(1, 382) = 5.859, p = <.05). Similarly, participants with no bachelor (3.79) are more involved in
online activities, compared to participants with a bachelor (3.32) and Master/PhD (3.14), F(2, 381)
= 4.495, p = <.05.
Table 5. Online activity involvement in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
3.65 (1.82)
5.859
.016
.015
Foreign
3.21 (1.73)
Age
18-29
3.63 (1.74)
2.067
.084
.021
30-39
3.36 (1.76)
40-49
3.70 (1.76)
50-59
3.45 (1.76)
>60
2.93 (1.79)
Gender
M
3.48 (1.78)
.360
.549
.001
F
3.37 (1.79)
Education
No Bachelor
3.79 (1.79)
4.495
.012
.023
Bachelor
3.32 (1.72)
Master/PhD
3.14 (1.81)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
As reported in Table 6, with regard to onsite (offline) involvement, interesting results were
found for nationality, age, and education, which significantly influence this type of involvement, in
contrast to gender. In line with the other results, Italians (5.73) declare to be more involved in onsite
activities compared to foreigners (5.48) (F(1, 382) = 4.147 p = <.05). Concerning age, 18-29 (5.07)
reported the lower score compared to 30-39 (5.42), 40-49 (5.77), 50-59 (5.80), and > 60 (5.78) who

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
161
report the higher score (F(4, 379) =, 5.260 p = <.001).
Table 6. Onsite activity involvement in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
5.73 (1.19)
4.147
.042
.011
Foreign
5.48 (1.18)
Age
18-29
5.07 (1.49)
5.260
<.001
.053
30-39
5.42 (.99)
40-49
5.77 (1.02)
50-59
5.80 (1.26)
>60
5.78 (1.03)
Gender
M
5.68 (1.15)
1.684
.195
.004
F
5.52 (1.23)
Education
No Bachelor
5.62 (1.26)
4.411
.013
0.23
Bachelor
5.38 (1.21)
Master/PhD
5.82 (1.04)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
4.3. Intentions: Revisit and Recommend
As concerns the main intention variables, and more precisely revisit intentions, a clear
difference emerged for nationality and age. As reported in Table 7, a statistically significant effect of
age was detected (F(4, 379) = 4.275 p <.01) and, among the different ages, older people, on average,
reported higher scores: >60 (5.36), 50-59 (5.01), 40-49 (5.36); compared to younger people: 30-39
(4.76) and 18-29 (4.44). The effect of nationality is even stronger (F(1, 382) =22.916 p = <.001),
where Italians report higher levels of revisit intentions (5.40) compared to foreigners (4.63).
Table 7. Revisit intention in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
5.40 (1.56)
22.916
<.001
0.57
Foreign
4.63 (1.61)
Age
18-29
4.44 (1.76)
4.275
0.002
0.43
30-39
4.76 (1.64)
40-49
5.36 (1.46)
50-59
5.01 (1.60)
>60
5.36 (1.59)
Gender
M
4.95 (1.70)
.389
.533
.001
F
5.06 (1.63)
Education
No Bachelor
4.80 (1.79)
1.814
.164
.009
Bachelor
5.17 (1.55)
Master/PhD
5.05 (1.63)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
Interestingly, as reported in Table 8, regarding recommendation intentions, a very clear
difference emerged only for age (F(4, 379) =5.636 p <.001). Here, same as for revisit intentions,
lower scores were recorded for younger generations: 18-29 (5.81) and 30-39 (6.05); compared to
older generations: 40-49 (6.46), 50-59 (6.40), >60 (6.26). In contrast, none of the other factors show
significant effects on recommendation intentions.

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
162
Table 8. Recommendation intention in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
6.34 (.89)
2.493
.127
.006
Foreign
6.18 (1.15)
Age
18-29
5.81 (1.52)
5.636
<.001
.056
30-39
6.05 (.88)
40-49
6.46 (.68)
50-59
6.40 (1.09)
>60
6.26 (1.03)
Gender
M
6.27 (1.06)
.016
.900
<.000
F
6.25 (100)
Education
No Bachelor
6.21 (1.18)
2.136
.120
.011
Bachelor
6.17 (1.01)
Master/PhD
6.42 (.86)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
4.4. Environmentally responsible behavior
Finally, as shown in Table 9, regarding the environmental-related variable, namely
environmentally responsible behavior, same as place identity, we found a significant effect of both
nationality and gender. Specifically, nationality has the strongest effect (F(1, 382) =21.595 p =
<.001), with Italians scoring higher (5.87) compared to foreigners (5.41) in environmentally
responsible behavior. Although the effect is less strong (F(1, 382) =4.323 p = <.05), gender also
affects environmentally responsible behavior: in this case, women score, on average, higher (5.74)
than men (5.53).
Table 9. Environmentally responsible behavior in relation to nationality, age, gender, and education.
Factor
Item
M(SD)
F
Sig
η2
Nationality
Italian
5.87 (.94)
21.595
<.001
.054
Foreign
5.41 (1.01)
Age
18-29
5.63 (1.00)
.818
.514
.009
30-39
5.53 (.98)
40-49
5.60 (.95)
50-59
5.61 (1.03)
>60
5.82 (1.04)
Gender
M
5.74 (.88)
4.323
.038
.011
F
5.53 (1.10)
Education
No Bachelor
5.66 (1.07)
.692
.501
.004
Bachelor
5.69 (.99)
Master/PhD
5.54 (.95)
Note(s): Significantly different average scores * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001
Source: Author elaboration
5. Discussion
Despite socio-demographic variables are of major importance in tourism (Gössling et al. 2020;
Hall et al. 2020; Jamal and Budke 2020), especially in light of their application in market
segmentation and targeting strategies (Weaver et al., 1994), in Italy, there are no studies that analyze
how socio-demographic factors respond to the digital, environmental, and cultural revolution. The
present research provides a preliminary and exploratory contribution to fill this research gap by

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
163
examining how nationality, age, gender, and education explain tourists’ attachment (in the form of
place dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging), activity involvement (online and onsite),
recommendation and revisit intentions, and environmentally responsible behavior.
Overall, our results confirm that constructs outcomes can mostly and multifacetedly be
explained by socio-demographics of tourists. By examining all the feelings of attachment included
in the study, the result suggests that, interestingly, the outcomes for each construct are not always
the same. Nationality places a significant role in determining all the variables, that is, place
dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging since, not surprisingly, Italian visitors reported
significantly higher scores compared to foreign visitors. This aligns with Prayag et al. (2018) who
confirm that domestic tourists have a stronger connection to the country’s heritage than foreign
visitors. However, by having a look at gender, the significant effect holds for place identity and
sense of belonging, while it is not significant for place dependence. Men feel a stronger emotional
connection to the historical place and its community compared to women; however, such bond does
not appear to be unique as they do not perceive the place as more recreating or satisfying than other
historical sites. On the other hand, education plays a significant role only in determining a sense of
belonging. In this instance, visitors with lower levels of education present a stronger sense of
belonging and membership to the historical place compared to people with higher levels of
education. Although the scores record the same positive trend for both place dependence and place
identity, the effect is not statistically significant. It is worth mentioning that different ages do not
seem to affect any of the considered variables, meaning that the elderly do not show a particular
higher sense of attachment to the historical site compared to younger generations. This result seems
to contradict the commonly accepted stereotype of the cultural tourist (Vergori & Arima, 2020) and
agrees with Alegre and Pou's (2004) findings that the aging of a population has an ambiguous effect
on tourism demand.
All over, among the variables that were included here as a proxy for detecting a feeling of
attachment to the historical place, sense of belonging is the more attention-getting one, being highly
impacted by socio-demographic factors such as nationality, gender, and education.
Regarding activity involvement, both in the online and online form, exception done for gender,
we found considerable results regarding our socio-demographic factors. First of all, it is worth
noting that, on average, onsite activity involvement received higher scores compared to online
activity involvement. This result emphasizes how crucial sustainable offline activities are for
cultural destinations. In fact, as the world gradually recovers from the Covid-19 pandemic, after a
period of forced use of virtual platforms, the value of authentic experiences might be increasingly
appreciated bringing travelers to manifest a renewed interest and need towards onsite activities.
On the other hand, the finding regarding online activity involvement highlights the importance
of finding the right key to convey appropriate online content that can pique interest and boost online
visitors’ interaction.
Overall, our results align with Hjalager and Jensen (2012), who posit that online behavior
changes depending on the traveler’s socio-demographic characteristics. The results are also in line
with Tangeland et al. (2013), where the likelihood of participation in outdoor activities was
significantly influenced by the socio-demographic variables.
Taking into account the nationality of visitors, Italian visitors feel more involved both in online
and onsite activities compared to their foreign counterparts.
From the educational perspective, visitors with lower levels of education interact with their

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
164
social media by updating their location and enjoy reading online travel information much more than
visitors with higher levels of education, while from the onsite perspective, we found the opposite
result. In this case, it is the visitor possessing a higher level of education to engage and enjoy
cultural/sustainable onsite activities more. This result is similar to Okumus et al. (2021), who
confirmed that tourists with a higher level of education were more willing to participate in culinary
tourism experiences compared to visitors with a basic level of education.
Another interesting result was found for age. Major differences were found for onsite activity
involvement, where the younger generation scored significantly lower compared to older
generations, while for online activities the opposite trend emerges. Here people older than 60
reported a scarce interest in social media activities. This is not surprising as members of Generation
Z are also known as the digital natives, and in line with Aina and Ezeuduji (2021) and Monaco
(2018), who found that post-millennials prefer touristic places with Internet access, and find it
necessary to take pictures, upload, and submit reviews on social media regarding the tourism sites
they have visited.
With regard to intentions, while no significant results were detected for either gender (in line
with Mohsin, 2008) or education, contrary to Lu et al. (2021), we found a strong effect of age.
These results are similar to those of Pasaco-González et al. (2023) and Lu et al. (2021), who found
that loyalty did not differ according to the gender of visitors. Generally, higher scores, on average,
were recorded for recommendation intention compared to revisit intentions. In particular, with
advancing age both intentions get stronger. The fact that younger generations are less inclined to
revisit or recommend the historical destination is rather surprising, considering that Urbino is also a
major university town. Another interesting finding regarding intentions is that while nationality
significantly affects revisit intentions, with Italian visitors being more prone to revisit the historical
site, it does not turn into a factor explaining recommendation intention. In fact, although even in this
case, foreign visitors report lower scores compared to Italian visitors, the difference is not
statistically significant.
Finally, regarding ERB, we found significant effects for nationality and gender while. Contrary
to findings from Tasci et al. (2022) and Hedlund et al. (2012) where the perceived importance of
environmental sustainability in vacation choices is influenced by both age and education, we found
no significant difference in ERB for neither age nor education. Specifically, in line with most of our
results, Italian tourists seem more willing to protect the natural environment and practice cleaning
environmental activities in the cultural site compared to their foreign counterparts. In the same vein,
by harmonizing with studies demonstrating how women possess stronger attitudes towards
environmental quality and display “greener shopping habits” than their male counterparts
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003), we found that women are more willing to comply with the legal
ways not to damage the local environment compared to men, which is also in line with Tasci (2017),
who reported higher ratings of women in sustainability benchmarks.
6. Implications and future research
From a theoretical perspective, this study makes several contributions. First, following Richards’
(2018) invitation to focus on touristic experience consumption, the study contributes to the literature
on cultural tourism consumption by offering an understanding of how socio-demographic factors
impact the perception and intentions toward cultural sites. By understanding how socio-

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
165
demographic variables shape individual interests and attitudes in an experiential tourism context,
our research enriches the literature on the multivariate effects of socio-demographic variables in
different contexts (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), including tourism Hedlund et al. (2012).
Additionally, although previous studies have explored the substantial relevance of place
attachment for the nature of the tourist-place relationship and behavioral intentions and outcomes
(White et al., 2008; Dwyer et al., 2019), this work provides additional evidence about the feelings of
attachment perceived by different tourist categories in regard to cultural tourism experiences. Then,
with the inclusion of activity involvement, both online and especially onsite, this study contributes
to the body of knowledge about how immersion in onsite activities has a profound impact on
tourists' experiences (Kim & Ritchie, 2014, Hung et al., 2019) by granting an enhanced
understanding of this subject from a post Covid-19 perspective. Finally, our findings enrich
knowledge regarding intentions toward cultural destinations, also in sustainable tourism destination
management, by including a construct that plays a major role in reducing environmental issues in
touristic sites (Lin & Lee, 2020). By specifically contributing to the stream literature of sustainable
behaviors and the analysis of socio-demographic characteristics affecting ERB in the context of
cultural tourism, the study helps to a gap in the more recent literature focused on the “green”
attitudes and behaviors of travelers in the domain of cultural tourism (Throsby, 2016).
From a practical viewpoint, this research extends knowledge that could guide tourism
professionals in establishing marketing strategies appropriate to the unique needs of each market
segment, which will subsequently determine not only their attachment and engagement with the
experience but also their revisit intentions. The findings of this study offer important insights for
tourism managers, DMOs, and public policy makers regarding both online and offline marketing
practices that should be designed to convey appropriate messages for each market segment and
generate a sustainable development of tourism in cultural sites. For example, the lower level of
attachment (place dependence, place identity, and sense of belonging) in all its three components
attested by foreign visitors draws attention to a careful consideration about whether and how
services, in terms of reception and entertainment (activities carried out both online and onsite)
respond to the needs of this type of tourists (e.g., language translations). Analogously, in cultural
destinations, due to historical reasons bringing women to be less represented in published literature
and art than men, these seem to find fewer identity elements that diminish their place identity and
sense of belonging to the cultural site compared to men. Professionals in tourism management
should find the proper way to address the needs and preferences of women when designing tourism
experiences in historical sites (Conti et al., 2020).
According to our findings, destination managers should systematize a variety of both physical
and virtual components in the form of digital representations of the physical elements (Baggio &
Del Chiappa, 2014) to increase youngers’ attachment and onsite engagement. For example,
considering the attributes that generally have a greater effect on younger generations, managers
could implement gamification practices and new technologies in cultural activities. Gamification
and innovative digital practices (such as virtual reality or augmented reality) have the potential to
revolutionize the engagement of younger generations, enticing them to explore and connect with
cultural heritage (Xu et al., 2017). By incorporating gamification elements, such as quests,
challenges, and rewards, museums and UNESCO heritage sites could transform educational
experiences into immersive and interactive adventures. Virtual and augmented reality could allow
visitors to step into the past, experience historical events firsthand, and interact with artifacts in a

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
166
digital realm. These approaches not only foster a deeper appreciation for culture but also bridge the
generational gap, making heritage sites more appealing and accessible to younger audiences who
will be more prone to recommend such historical places to friends. The usage of these innovative
technologies, however, could offer more and more suitable solutions not only for young tourists but
for all visitors in the form of dynamic packaging that provide a wide range of experiential products
(Presenza et al., 2014).
Although this research makes several contributions to the pertinent literature and offers
significant practical implications for cultural destination managers, it is not free from limitations.
First, the cultural tourism destination investigated in this research is a town with a small historic
center. Future studies should be extended to examine visitors’ perceptions and intentions in the case
of bigger urban areas with historical sites located throughout the city. Second, although the summer
season is indeed a favorable time to study tourism in Italy due to increased travel – particularly by
foreign and younger tourists – this might have had some implications for certain groups, such as
individuals who are more vulnerable to heat or for younger people, who visited a university cultural
site during a period where the city was depopulated by students who returned home for summer
holidays. This could have affected the vibrancy and social atmosphere, potentially impacting the
overall experience and interactions.
Then, this study examined the association between demographic variables like age, gender, and
educational level. Future studies could include other variables such as income, occupation, travel
arrangements, the number of people traveling together, and the length of stay. Finally, attachment,
engagement, ERB, and behavioral intentions were considered as the outcome variables. Future
studies could analyze outcome variables associated with the personal sphere of tourists, such as
satisfaction, happiness, and well-being (Dini e Pencarelli, 2020).
Moreover, this research applied self-reported measures to collect data. However, visitors’
responses might not fully indicate their actual ERB because of the existence of biases such as the
social desirability. To resolve this possible inconsistency, future studies should apply different
methodological approaches, such as in-depth interviews, and direct behavioral observation to
identify visitors’ actual environmentally responsible behavior.
Finally, it would be interesting to determine which types of on-site cultural experiences, such as
guided tours, technology-driven experiences or food and wine experiences, are most valued by
different socio-demographic groups. Likewise, the role fulfilled by social media should be further
examined through qualitative studies, which allow a deeper understanding of the topic.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
Aina, A. O., & Ezeuduji, I. O. (2021). The influence of socio-demographic factors on perceptions of
domestic tourism: The case of generation Z. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and
Leisure, 10(4), 1503-1515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46222/ajhtl.19770720-175
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
167
processes, 50(2), 179-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alegre, J., Mateo, S., & Pou, L. (2013). Tourism participation and expenditure by Spanish
households: The effects of the economic crisis and unemployment. Tourism Management, 39, 37-49.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.04.002
Almeida, F. (2020). Exploring the impact of socio-demographic dimensions in choosing a city
touristic destination. Journal of Tourism and Heritage Research, 3(4), 120-142.
Altunel, M. C., & Erkurt, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist
experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation
intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(4), 213-221. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.06.003
Amaro, S., & Duarte, P. (2015). An integrative model of consumers' intentions to purchase travel
online. Tourism management, 46, 64-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.006
Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). The tourist-historic city. Routledge. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080519470
Assoturismo-Confesercenti (2022), “Ritorno alla Grande Bellezza – La ripartenza del turismo
culturale e delle città d’arte italiane”, [accessed: https://www.confesercenti.it/wp-
content/uploads/2022/06/15-Dossier-Citta%CC%80-DArte-Assoturismo-CST.pdf; consulted on
31/05/2023].
Baggio, R., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Real and virtual relationships in tourism digital
ecosystems. Information Technology & Tourism, 14, 3-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-
013-0001-5
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability:
Testing short-and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation
modelling. Tourism management, 32(6), 1243-1252. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003
Barbaro, N., & Pickett, S. M. (2016). Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to
nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 137-142. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003
Blake, A., & Sinclair, M. T. (2003). Tourism crisis management: US response to September
11. Annals of tourism research, 30(4), 813-832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(03)00056-2
Buckley, P. J., & Papadopoulos, S. I. (1986). Marketing Greek tourism—the planning

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
168
process. Tourism Management, 7(2), 86-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(86)90019-1
Carreira, V., González-Rodríguez, M. R., & Díaz-Fernández, M. C. (2022). The relevance of
motivation, authenticity and destination image to explain future behavioural intention in a UNESCO
World Heritage Site. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(4), 650-673. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1905617
Cerquetti, M., & Romagnoli, A. (2022). Toward Sustainable Innovation in Tourism: The Role of
Cultural Heritage and Heritage Communities. In Cultural Leadership in Transition Tourism:
Developing Innovative and Sustainable Models (pp. 33-50). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14121-8_3
Chang, L. C. (2010). The effects of moral emotions and justifications on visitors' intention to pick
flowers in a forest recreation area in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable tourism, 18(1), 137-150. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580903215154
Chen, N. C., Dwyer, L., & Firth, T. (2018). Residents' place attachment and word-of-mouth
behaviours: A tale of two cities. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 1-11. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.05.001
Chiu, Y. T. H., Lee, W. I., & Chen, T. H. (2014). Environmentally responsible behavior in
ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tourism management, 40, 321-329. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.013
Choo, H., Ahn, K., & F. Petrick, J. (2016). An integrated model of festival revisit intentions: Theory
of planned behavior and festival quality/satisfaction. International journal of contemporary
hospitality management, 28(4), 818-838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2014-0448
Cioppi, M., Curina, I., Dini, M., & Francioni, B. (2022). La soddisfazione e il senso di appartenenza
dei turisti nell’adozione di comportamenti responsabili: il ruolo del coinvolgimento on-site e social
nell’ambito del turismo culturale. In Next Generation Marketing. Place, People, Planet:
cooperation & shared value for a new era of critical marketing
(https://hdl.handle.net/11576/2705496).
Conti, E., Forlani, F., & Pencarelli, T. (2020). The visiting experience of a cultural city in the
experiential perspective: the case of Urbino. Il capitale culturale. Studies on the Value of Cultural
Heritage, (21), 391-424. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13138/2039-2362/2117
Cuccia, T., & Rizzo, I. (2011). Tourism seasonality in cultural destinations: Empirical evidence from
Sicily. Tourism Management, 32, 589–595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.008
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an
empirical investigation. Journal of Business research, 56(6), 465-480. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
169
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
Dickinson, J. E., & Robbins, D. (2008). Representations of tourism transport problems in a rural
destination. Tourism Management, 29(6), 1110-1121. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.003
Dini, M., & Pencarelli, T., (2020). Le destinazioni di benessere per lo sviluppo turistico. Le
destinazioni di benessere per lo sviluppo turistico, 1-200. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.003
Du Cros, H., & McKercher, B. (2020). Cultural tourism. 3rd Edition. Routledge. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429277498
Dwyer, L., Chen, N., & Lee, J. (2019). The role of place attachment in tourism research. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(5), 645-652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1612824
Eagan K. (2023). Cultural tourism in italy: what travelers admire most; Tourism Review, [accessed:
https://www.tourism-review.com/report-focuses-on-cultural-tourism-in-italy-news13021; consulted
on 19/05/2023].
Eusébio, C., & Vieira, A. L. (2013). Destination attributes' evaluation, satisfaction and behavioural
intentions: A structural modelling approach. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 66-
80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.877
Forlani, F. (2018). Il marketing delle esperienze turistiche. Un modello di analisi e gestione per le
imprese ei sistemi d'offerta (Vol. 1, pp. 1-232). Aracne, (https://hdl.handle.net/11391/1428991).
Goodrich, J. N. (1980). Benefit segmentation of US international travelers: an empirical study with
American Express, 133-147.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid
assessment of COVID-19. Journal of sustainable tourism, 29(1), 1-20. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Gretzel, U., Fuchs, M., Baggio, R., Hoepken, W., Law, R., Neidhardt, J., Pesonen, J., Zanker, M., &
Xiang, Z. (2020). e-Tourism beyond COVID-19: a call for transformative research. Information
Technology & Tourism, 22, 187-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00181-3
Hall, C. M., Scott, D., & Gössling, S. (2020). Pandemics, transformations and tourism: Be careful
what you wish for. Tourism geographies, 22(3), 577-598. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1759131
Hall, M. C., Prayag, G., Fieger, P., & Dyason, D. (2020). Beyond panic buying: consumption
displacement and COVID-19. Journal of Service Management, 32(1), 113-128. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
170
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0151
Han, H., Al-Ansi, A., Koseoglu, M. A., Lin, P. M., Park, J., Yu, J., & Kim, W. (2019). Halal tourism:
travel motivators and customer retention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(9), 1012-1024.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1683483
Hassan, T., Carvache-Franco, M., Carvache-Franco, O., & Carvache-Franco, W. (2023).
Sociodemographic relationships of motivations, satisfaction, and loyalty in religious tourism: A
study of the pilgrimage to the city Mecca. PloS one, 18(3), e0283720. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283720
Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1997). Leisure involvement revisited: Conceptual conundrums and
measurement advances. Journal of leisure research, 29(3), 245-278. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1997.11949796
Hedlund, T., Marell, A., & Gärling, T. (2012). The mediating effect of value orientation on the
relationship between socio-demographic factors and environmental concern in Swedish tourists’
vacation choices. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(1), 16-33. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1997.11949796
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical
questions. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(3), 273-281. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
Hjalager, A. M. & Jensen, J. M. (2012). A typology of travellers based on their propensity to go
online before, during and after the trip. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2012, (96-107) Vienna: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1142-0_9
Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Chou, H. Y., & Tsai, C. Y. (2012). Understanding the impact of culinary
brand equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions. Tourism management, 33(4), 815-824.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.004
Huang, A., & Xiao, H. (2000). Leisure‐based tourist behavior: a case study of
Changchun. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(3), 210-214. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110010320850
Huberty, C. J., & Olejnik, S. (2006). Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis. John Wiley &
Sons.
Hughes, H. L. (1996). Redefining cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 707–709. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00099-2
Hung, K. P., Peng, N., & Chen, A. (2019). Incorporating on-site activity involvement and sense of
belonging into the Mehrabian-Russell model–The experiential value of cultural tourism

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
171
destinations. Tourism Management Perspectives, 30, 43-52. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.02.003
Jamal, T., & Budke, C. (2020). Tourism in a world with pandemics: local-global responsibility and
action. Journal of tourism futures, 6(2), 181-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2020-0014
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes
toward their properties. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(3), 233-248. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
Kafyri, A., Hovardas, T., & Poirazidis, K. (2012). Determinants of visitor pro-environmental
intentions on two small Greek islands: is ecotourism possible at coastal protected
areas?. Environmental Management, 50, 64-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9856-z
Kim, J. H., & Ritchie, J. B. (2014). Cross-cultural validation of a memorable tourism experience
scale (MTES). Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 323-335. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496468
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?. Environmental education research, 8(3), 239-260.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of
marketing research, 22(1), 41-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378502200104
Lee, T. H., & Chang, Y. S. (2012). The influence of experiential marketing and activity involvement
on the loyalty intentions of wine tourists in Taiwan. Leisure studies, 31(1), 103-121. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2011.568067
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and
biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based
tourists. Environmental management, 56, 193-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0488-y
Lin, H., Fan, W., & Chau, P. Y. (2014). Determinants of users’ continuance of social networking
sites: A self-regulation perspective. Information & Management, 51(5), 595-603. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.010
Lin, Y. H., & Lee, T. H. (2020). How do recreation experiences affect visitors’ environmentally
responsible behavior? Evidence from recreationists visiting ancient trails in Taiwan. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 28(5), 705-726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1701679
Logar, I. (2010). Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: An assessment of policy
instruments. Tourism management, 31(1), 125-135. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.005

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
172
Lu, C. Y., Dean, D., Suhartanto, D., Hussein, A. S., Suwatno, Kusdibyo, L., ... & Gunawan, A. I.
(2021). Predicting tourist loyalty toward cultural creative attractions the moderating role of
demographic factors. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 22(3), 293-311. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2020.1773371
Lu, L., Chi, C. G., & Liu, Y. (2015). Authenticity, involvement, and image: Evaluating tourist
experiences at historic districts. Tourism management, 50, 85-96. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.026
Luo, W., Tang, P., Jiang, L., & Su, M. M. (2020). Influencing mechanism of tourist social
responsibility awareness on environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 271, 122565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122565
Magliacani, M., & Francesconi, A. (2022). How to feed a culturally sustainable development plan
over time: evidence from the Tuscan Mining UNESCO Global Geopark. Journal of Cultural
Heritage Management and Sustainable Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-
2021-0056
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs
to theory. Journal of operations management, 16(4), 407-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
6963(98)00021-7
Markowski, C. A., & Markowski, E. P. (1990). Conditions for the effectiveness of a preliminary test
of variance. The American Statistician, 44(4), 322-326. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1990.10475752
Meijers, M. H., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). RETRACTED: Me tomorrow, the others later: How
perspective fit increases sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 14-20.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.06.002
Mitchell, V. W., & Haggett, S. (1997). Sun‐sign astrology in market segmentation: an empirical
investigation. Journal of consumer marketing, 14(2), 113-131. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769710166756
Mitrică, B., Grigorescu, I., Mocanu, I., Şerban, P. R., Damian, N., Dumitraşcu, M., & Dumitrică, C.
(2022). COVID-19 Pandemic and Local Cultural Tourism in the Buzău Carpathians and
Subcarpathians (Romania). In Healthcare (Vol. 10, No. 12, p. 2392). Multidisciplinary Digital
Publishing Institute. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122392
Mohsin, A. (2008). Analysis of Chinese travellers' attitudes toward holidaying in New Zealand: The
impact of socio-demographic variables. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 16(1-2), 21-40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10507050802096794
Monaco, S. (2018). Tourism and the new generations: emerging trends and social implications in

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
173
Italy. Journal of Tourism Futures, 4(1), 7-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0053
Okumus, B., Shi, F., & Dedeoglu, S. B. (2021). What is the role of demographics in tourists'
attitudes towards foods?. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism, 5(4), 207-220. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3727/216929721X16105303036562
Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer: ME Sharpe. Inc., New
York.
Pasaco-González, B. S., Campón-Cerro, A. M., Moreno-Lobato, A., & Sánchez-Vargas, E. (2023).
The Role of Demographics and Previous Experience in Tourists’ Experiential
Perceptions. Sustainability, 15(4), 3768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043768
Pencarelli, T., Conti, E., & Splendiani, S. (2017). The experiential offering system of museums:
evidence from Italy. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 7(4),
430-448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-02-2017-0009
Poitras, L., & Donald, G. (2006). Sustainable wine tourism: The host community
perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5), 425-448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/jost587.0
Prayag, G., Suntikul, W., & Agyeiwaah, E. (2018). Domestic tourists to Elmina Castle, Ghana:
Motivation, tourism impacts, place attachment, and satisfaction. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 26(12), 2053-2070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1529769
Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2013). Motivation and involvement as
antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of travel research, 52(2),
253-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512461181
Presenza, A., Micera, R., Splendiani, S., & Del Chiappa, G. (2014). Stakeholder e-involvement and
participatory tourism planning: analysis of an Italian case study. International Journal of
Knowledge-Based Development 8, 5(3), 311-328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2014.065320
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and behavior, 10(2), 147-169.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578102002
Quintal, V. A., & Polczynski, A. (2010). Factors influencing tourists' revisit intentions. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 22(4), 554-578. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851011090565
Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 36, 12-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005
Rishbeth, C., & Powell, M. (2013). Place attachment and memory: Landscapes of belonging as
experienced post-migration. Landscape research, 38(2), 160-178. DOI:

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
174
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.642344
Rodríguez-Vázquez, C., Castellanos-García, P., & Martínez-Fernández, V. A. (2023). Cultural
Tourism in a Post-COVID-19 Scenario: The French Way of Saint James in Spain from the
Perspective of Promotional Communication. Societies, 13(1), 16. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13010016
Rothschild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future directions. ACR
North American Advances.
Siriphanich, S. (2007). International visitor'perception of cultural heritage for tourism development
on the Island of Phuket, Thailand: A marketing mix approach. Oklahoma State University.
Sivek, D. J., & Hungerford, H. (1990). Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three
Wisconsin conservation organizations. The Journal of environmental education, 21(2), 35-40. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1990.9941929
Splendiani, S., Dini, M., Rivetti, F., & Pencarelli, T. (2023). Exploring usage, expected benefits and
perceived usefulness of social media in travel agencies: an empirical investigation in Italy. The TQM
Journal, 35(9), 83-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2022-0312
Sönmez, S. F., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of
terrorism. Journal of travel research, 38(1), 13-18. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759903800104
Stone, R. N. (1984). The marketing characteristics of involvement. ACR North American Advances.
Su, L., Hsu, M. K., & Boostrom Jr, R. E. (2020). From recreation to responsibility: Increasing
environmentally responsible behavior in tourism. Journal of Business Research, 109, 557-573. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.055
Tangeland, T., Vennesland, B., & Nybakk, E. (2013). Second-home owners' intention to purchase
nature-based tourism activity products–A Norwegian case study. Tourism Management, 36, 364-376.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.006
Tasci, A. D. (2017). Consumer demand for sustainability benchmarks in tourism and hospitality.
Tourism Review, 72(4), 375-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2017-0087
Tasci, A. D., Fyall, A., & Woosnam, K. M. (2022). Sustainable tourism consumer: socio-
demographic, psychographic and behavioral characteristics. Tourism Review, 77(2), 341-375. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-09-2020-0435
Teh, L., & Cabanban, A. S. (2007). Planning for sustainable tourism in southern Pulau Banggi: An
assessment of biophysical conditions and their implications for future tourism development. Journal

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
175
of environmental management, 85(4), 999-1008. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.005
Temperini, V., Sabatini, A., & Fraboni, P. F. L. (2022). Covid-19 and small wineries: new challenges
in distribution channel management. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, (1). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14596/pisb.2893
Throsby, D. (2016). Tourism, heritage and cultural sustainability: Three ‘golden rules’. In Cultural
tourism and sustainable local development (pp. 31-48). Routledge.
Tsui, A. S., & O'reilly III, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of management journal, 32(2), 402-
423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/256368
Unesco (2021). Cutting Edge | Bringing cultural tourism back in the game [accessed:
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/cutting-edge-bringing-cultural-tourism-back-game; consulted on
19/05/2023].
UNWTO (2020). 2020: worst year in tourism history with 1 billion fewer international arrivals
[accessed: https://www.unwto.org/news/2020-worst-year-in-tourism-history-with-1-billion-fewer-
international-arrivals; consulted on 19/05/2023].
Uysal, M., Jurowski, C., Noe, F. P., & McDonald, C. D. (1994). Environmental attitude by trip and
visitor characteristics: US Virgin Islands National Park. Tourism Management, 15(4), 284-294. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(94)90046-9
Vergori, A. S., & Arima, S. (2020). Cultural and non-cultural tourism: Evidence from Italian
experience. Tourism Management, 78, 104058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104058
Vesci, M., Conti, E., Rossato, C., & Castellani, P. (2020). The mediating role of visitor satisfaction
in the relationship between museum experience and word of mouth: evidence from Italy. The TQM
Journal, 33(1), 141-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-02-2020-0022
Weaver, P. A., McCleary, K. W., Lapisto, L., & Damonte, L. T. (1994). The relationship of
destination selection attributes to psychological, behavioral and demographic variables. Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 2(2), 93-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v02n02_07
White, D. D., Virden, R. J., & Van Riper, C. J. (2008). Effects of place identity, place dependence,
and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental
Management, 42, 647-657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9143-1
Xu, F., Buhalis, D., & Weber, J. (2017). Serious games and the gamification of tourism. Tourism
management, 60, 244-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.020

Volume 32, Issue I(150-176). The influence of socio-demographic factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty
attitudes, and environmentally responsible behavior toward a cultural destination
176
Yang, H., Huang, X., Westervelt, D. M., Horowitz, L., & Peng, W. (2023). Socio-demographic
factors shaping the future global health burden from air pollution. Nature Sustainability, 6(1), 58-68.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00976-8
Zatori, A., Smith, M. K., & Puczko, L. (2018). Experience-involvement, memorability and
authenticity: The service provider's effect on tourist experience. Tourism management, 67, 111-126.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.013
Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W. F. (1984). Psychological issues in personnel decisions. Annual review of
psychology, 35(1), 461-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.002333
Turistica - Italian Journal of Applied Tourism (ISSN:1974-2207) applies the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license to everything we publish. Developed to facilitate Open Access, this license
lets authors maximize the impact or their research by making it available for anyone, anywhere in the
world to find, read and reuse. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for
reuse, without permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these
articles, as long as the author and original source are properly cited.

177
How to cite
Platania M. (2023). Resilience frameworks in tourism studies: a literature review. Turistica – Italian
Journal of Tourism, 32(1), 1-44.
Forlani F., Picciotti A., Splendiani S. (2023). Improving tourism resilience through Cultural Routes.
An exploratory analysis of the Italian case “Via Francigena”. Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism,
32(1), 45-70.
Gerardi L., Sfodera F. (2023). Authenticity in Historical Art Cities according to the Resilience
orientation. Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism, 32(1), 71-92.
Cesarini S., Terraglia I. (2023). Evaluating Sustainable Tourism: A Composite Index for European
Destinations. Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism, 32(1), 93-109.
Sciortino C., Venturella L., De Cantis S. (2023). Measuring proximity tourism in Spain during the
pandemic. An Origin-Destination Matrix approach. Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism, 32(1),
110-127.
Ferrero M., Pinto I. (2023). A regenerative tourism approach for the development of marginalised
areas. Insights from two best practices in Southern Italy. Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism, 32(1),
128-149.
De Cicco R., Dini M., Curina I., Francioni B., Cioppi M. (2023). The influence of socio-demographic
factors on feelings of attachment, involvement, loyalty attitudes, and environmentally responsible
behavior toward a cultural destination. Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism, 32(1), 150-176.

178
Volume reference
Turistica – Italian Journal of Tourism, Volume 32, Special Issue 1 on “Travel and Tourism.
Navigating Changes and Challenges in a Post-Pandemic World”. Edited by Giovanni Ruggieri,
available at journal’s website.