sustainable tourism in mauritius pdf

• GSTC Mission & Impacts
• GSTC History
• Market Access Program
• GSTC Board of Directors
• Assurance Panel
• Working Groups
• GSTC Sponsors
• GSTC Members
• Recruitment
• Contact GSTC
• GSTC For the Press
• Criteria Development, Feedback & Revisions
• GSTC Early Adopter Programs
• Sustainable Tourism Glossary
• SDGs and GSTC Criteria
• GSTC Industry Criteria
• GSTC Destination Criteria
• GSTC MICE Criteria
• Criteria Translations
• GSTC-Recognized Standards for Hotels
• GSTC-Recognized Standards for Tour Operators
• GSTC-Recognized Standards for Destinations
• Recognition of Standards (for Standard Owners)
• GSTC-Committed
• Certification for Hotels
• Certification for Tour Operator
• Certification for Destination
• What is Certification? Accreditation? Recognition?
• GSTC Accreditation
• Accredited Certification Bodies
• Accreditation Documents
• Public Consultations
• GSTC Auditor Training
• Sustainable Tourism Training Program (STTP)
• Upcoming Courses
• Professional Certificate in Sustainable Tourism
• Professional Certificate in Sustainable Business Travel
• GSTC Trainers and Partners
• FAQs: GSTC Training Program
• Organization Membership Application
• Destination Membership Application
• Membership Policy
• Membership Categories & Fees
• Membership Payment Options
• Webinars for GSTC Members
• Members Log In
• Upcoming Webinars
• GSTC2024 Singapore, Nov 13-16
• Upcoming Conferences
• Past Conferences
• Destination Stewardship Report

The Mauritian Standard on Sustainable Tourism is Now a GSTC-Recognized Standard

The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) is pleased to announce that the Mauritian Standard on Sustainable Tourism has achieved the ‘GSTC-Recognized Standard’ status.

The Mauritian Standard on Sustainable Tourism (MS 165:2019) was developed to guide the sustainable development of the tourism industry in Mauritius. It is meant for any tourism business or any tourism-related activity to enhance its sustainability performance.

“We are proud to welcome Mauritius as a destination that adopts an integrated approach to sustainable tourism development through comprehensive standards that include all aspects of sustainability: management, social/community, cultural, and environmental,” says Luigi Cabrini, Chair, GSTC. “This is especially important for an island that possesses and offers to their tourists an incredible variety of resources and attractions.”

‘This GSTC recognition of our local standard is a testimony of the professional work undertook by the team from the Mauritius Standards Bureau and officers from the Ministry of Tourism and Tourism Authority,” says Khoudijah Boodoo, Director, Mauritius Tourism Authority. “We strongly believe that through this international recognition, the local stakeholders would take the best of advantages to levelling up their operations to meet best sustainability practices. In line with the ‘Sustainable Island – Mauritius Project’, the MS165:2019 has an ever prominent role to play, consolidating our positioning as a high-level tourist destination while ensuring the sustainability of the Industry.”

Yusuf Foondun, Head of Quality Assurance Unit, Mauritius Standards Bureau, says that the Tourism sector has been one of the major economic pillars of Mauritius for a long time. “We believe that adopting the Sustainable Tourism Standard – MS 165:2019 will revamp our image on the international arena as one of the most prestigious tourism destinations which takes care at protecting the biodiversity of the island and preserving its ecological balance, thus ensuring sustainable development of the tourism sector.”

Achieving the GSTC-Recognized status means that a sustainable tourism standard has been reviewed by GSTC technical experts and the GSTC Accreditation Panel and deemed equivalent to the GSTC Criteria for sustainable tourism. Additionally, an organization that meets GSTC requirements must administer the standard. GSTC Recognition does not ensure that the certification process is reliable, only that the set of standards used to certify includes the minimum elements to ensure sustainability. The purpose of the GSTC programs is to use a common and clear definition of what ‘sustainable tourism’ means, as well as to reward genuine practitioners of sustainable tourism, which in turn builds confidence and credibility with consumers.

“Mauritius is a destination of pleasure with the Mauritian hospitality composing of the rainbow and peaceful population originating from India, China, Africa, and Europe. The Sun, Sand, Sea and Pure Air is the strength of our Island, situated in the middle of the Indian Ocean.”

The Ministry of Tourism and the Tourism Authority in Mauritius have already endorsed a pilot project for the implementation of the Sustainable Tourism Standard in hotels and tours its certification by the Mauritius Standards Bureau : “The Certification of tourism operators to MS 165:2019 can take a better position in the tourism market to distinguish them from any tourist operators that may be guilty of destroying the environment, society, culture, and economy of the island and the globe.”

To date, 11 destination standards , and 32 hotels and tour operators standards have achieved GSTC-Recognized status. The completion of these step-wise programs rewards standard owners for their commitment to sustainability while offering the market a proof that these standards adhere to international norms.

The GSTC will continue to work with organizations around the world to provide GSTC Recognition of standards for sustainability in travel and tourism. GSTC Recognition does not ensure that a certification process is reliable, only that the set of standards used to certify are equivalent to the GSTC Criteria. GSTC-Recognized standard owners are encouraged to complete the Accreditation process which relates to the quality and neutrality of their certification process. Achieving a GSTC-Accredited status affirms that their certification process follows the highest international standards while further distinguishing their standards and processes amongst other certification programs. Learn more about GSTC Accreditation .

About the GSTC

The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) establishes and manages global sustainable standards, known as the GSTC Criteria. There are two sets:  Destination Criteria  for public policy-makers and destination managers, and  Industry Criteria  for hotels and tour operators. These are the guiding principles and minimum requirements that any tourism business or destination should aspire to reach in order to protect and sustain the world’s natural and cultural resources, while ensuring tourism meets its potential as a tool for conservation and poverty alleviation.

The GSTC Criteria form the foundation for GSTC’s role as the global Accreditation Body for Certification Programs that certify hotels/accommodations, tour operators, and destinations as having sustainable policies and practices in place. GSTC does not directly certify any products or services; but it accredits those that do. The GSTC is an independent and neutral USA-registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization that represents a diverse and global  membership , including UN agencies, NGO’s, national and provincial governments, leading travel companies, hotels, tour operators, individuals and communities – all striving to achieve best practices in sustainable tourism.

About Mauritius Standards Bureau

The Mauritius Standards Bureau (MSB) is the National Standards Body for the Republic of Mauritius.  It is a parastatal body set up under the Mauritius Standards Bureau Act 1993 and operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Protection and a non-profit making organisation.

The Bureau is mandated to promote and provide market-relevant standards, metrology and internationally recognised conformity assessment services for the business community, government and society at large.  It is also the custodian of national measurement standards and maintains the primary measurement standards in Mauritius to ensure their traceability with the International Systems of Units.  Moreover, the MSB is the designated WTO TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) National Enquiry Point in respect to standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures in force under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade of the World Trade Organization. MSB participates in an advisory capacity in the drafting of regulations whereby standards and/or technical requirements sourced from standards are referred in regulations. The Mauritian National Standards Body is a member of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a member of the African Organisation for Standardisation (ARSO) and participates in standards work in Southern African Developing Community (SADC) and Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA).

Mauritius Standards Bureau website: http://msb.intnet.mu

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related posts.

Travel Nevada joins Global Sustainable Tourism Council

Comune di Siena joins GSTC

GSTC Announces the Results of its 2024 Board of Directors Election

• What is Sustainable Tourism?

09 Jan What is Sustainable Tourism?

• Written by Romina Tello
• Categorised Sustainability

Sustainable Tourism in Mauritius

What is sustainable tourism? How important is it and its impact for the development of the island? Mauritius Conscious, as the sustainable travel guide of Mauritius aims to shed a light on these points and help you understand how your choices and practices can make a difference.

Photo credit: Gilliane Soupe, via My Moris

Sustainable Tourism is that one that protects the resources upon which it depends

That’s why sustainable tourism aims to use resources consciously, in ways that will preserve them for future generations. But hey, notice that “resources” are not only “natural resources”. In fact, sustainability considers 3 main areas:

• The environment (waste management, energy sources, wildlife conservation)
• The social aspect (inclusion of the local community, CSR programs and NGOs)
• The local economy (support local businesses, products, food, hire local staff)

Photo by Karl Ahnee My Moris organizes cultural tours in Mauritius villages on bicycle or by foot. Bringing travelers closer to Mauritius cultural heritage helps raise awareness of its importances and need of preservation.

2017, International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, UNWTO #IY2017

The United Nations World Travel Organization, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has made it its mission for 2017 to raise awareness on the potential of Sustainable Tourism to help develop destinations. With more than a billion international tourists travelling the world in 2015, it has become imminent for businesses, public sector and tourists to consider the 3 P’s (People, Planet and Profit) while traveling. The aim: to minimize tourism’s negative impacts on the environment and maximize the positive contributions it brings to local communities.

#IY2017 supports tourism that promotes/protects:

• Inclusive and sustainable economic growth
• Social inclusiveness, employment and poverty reduction
• Resource efficiency, environmental protection and climate change
• Cultural values, diversity and heritage
• Mutual understanding, peace and security

• المملكة العربية السعودية

Sustainable Tourism

Mauritius positions itself as a green tourism destination and has committed to develop sustainable activities and leisure during the last years. Ecology has taken on an increasingly important place at all levels and, much more than its beaches, Mauritius offers a wide range of things to see and do inland during your stay. Its various landscapes, forests, parks and reserves, fauna and flora, make the richness of this island and are waiting to be discovered by green tourism enthusiasts. Hoteliers and other tourist operators are also actively involved in this sustainable approach, involving both employees and guests. 

To reconnect with nature, there are a multitude of green zones in the island: its forests, parks and nature reserves, where you can discover the fauna and flora of Mauritius. The Black River Gorges National Park in the west coast, will offer a full immersion in nature. Several marked trails are available, some will take you to the centre of the island towards Macchabée and Pétrin; enjoy the many centenary trees and protected endemic birds that you will see there, and just appreciate the nature around. Bras d’Eau forest is another national park in the east. Like the one in Black River, it is part of a conservation program and is easily accessed from the main road. At La Vanille Reserve des Mascareignes park in Rivière des Anguilles, you will come across the Aldabra tortoises, introduced in Mauritius after the extinction of the endemic species of giant tortoises that lived here, and the impressive Mauritian bat, the only endemic mammal of the Mascarenes Islands. On the west coast, Casela Nature Parks will be the perfect place for a family outing. In addition to the walk in the park and other entertainment, you can enjoy activities in the wild such as ziplines and the Via Ferrata, or visit its endemic garden.

In Chamarel, the Ebony Forest is also to be seen, with its unique forest of endemic Ebony trees and preserved flora and fauna. You can opt for a guided hike to better understand the ecosystem; you will be stunned by the exceptional view of the western and southern part of the island from the top. End your tour with a visit at the museum on the history of ebony wood, before taking a break in the restaurant. On the south-east coast, Ile aux Aigrettes , a small island in the lagoon, is part of the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation’s (MWF) conservation program in collaboration with the government. The visit there is a must. Take the shuttle boat at Pointe Jérôme, and take a step back in time. A guide will be waiting for you on site and introduce you to the incredible wildlife there. You will learn about the remarkable conservation work done over the years, with the support of the Durell Wildlife Foundation Trust. Some species that live on Ile aux Aigrettes can only be found on this islet, such as the Telfair skink. Beautiful animal sculptures are also displayed around the island, and you’ll be surprised to see that of an owl… Yes, Mauritius was indeed home to endemic owls!

The management of terrestrial biodiversity and the Mauritius ecosystem is under the aegis of the National Parks and Conservation Service (NPCS).

There are also several other parks, estates and forests as well as hiking trails across the island, and for most of them, very easy to access: the Domaine de l'Etoile in the south-east where you can practice activities such as archery and quad biking, the Vallée de Ferney , for an immersion in an almost untouched forest, the Domaine de Bel Ombre in the south-west, where you will plunge into the lush vegetation and end with a picnic at the foot of a superb waterfall.

Eco-friendly activities are also available to discover the island and its population, such as Electric-Bike outings to explore authentic villages and landscapes, or visits of localities on foot, and go deep into authentic Mauritius.

To make sure that the green tourism approach is sustainable, hoteliers have also taken the plunge and implemented several actions such as the ban of single-use plastic products inside hotels, wastewater recycling, and even the decrease of buffets in favour of set menus to reduce food waste. Some have also implemented environmental projects such as the rehabilitation of mangroves, the protection of sea turtles, or the conservation of underwater areas near the resorts, and all this with the involvement of employees and guests. Several eco-friendly accommodations have also been built, such as eco-lodges for a lower carbon footprint of your stay in Mauritius

Mauritius Conscious

Mauritius Conscious is a sustainable travel & ecotourism guide that invites travellers to discover Mauritius' uniqueness in an authentic way. We support local initiatives and eco-conscious operators, making sure that your travel dollar contributes to sustain the community you are visiting.

Visit us at www.MauritiusConscious.com

Book your card here

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 September 2024

A qualitative dynamic analysis of the relationship between tourism and human development

• Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1779-392X 1 ,
• Juan Gabriel Brida   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2319-5790 2 &
• Verónica Segarra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0436-3303 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1125 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Development studies

This study analyzes the dynamic relationship between tourism and human development in a sample of 123 countries between 1995–2019 using a symbolic time series methodological analysis, with the number of international tourist arrivals per capita as the tourism measurement variable and the Human Development Index as the development measurement variable. The objective was to determine if a higher level of tourism specialization is related to a higher level of economic development. The definition of economic regime is used and the concept of the distance between the dynamic trajectories of the different countries analyzed is introduced to create a minimum spanning tree. In this way, groups of countries are identified that display similar behavior in terms of tourism specialization and levels of human development. The results suggest that countries with a high level of tourism specialization have a higher level of development as compared to those in which tourism has a lower specific weight. However, the largest group of countries identified is characterized by low levels of tourism specialization and economic development, which appears to translate into a poverty trap. Therefore, policies related to tourism activity expansion should be created since higher tourism levels have been linked to higher levels of human development. In the case of less developed countries, however, these projects should be financed by international organizations so that these countries can escape the poverty trap in which they are currently found.

Similar content being viewed by others

Modeling the link between tourism and economic development: evidence from homogeneous panels of countries

The coordination pattern of tourism efficiency and development level in Guangdong Province under high-quality development

Analysis of spatial-temporal pattern, dynamic evolution and influencing factors of health tourism development in China

Introduction.

Traditionally, the Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP per capita) is considered the go-to variable to determine a population’s economic development and is restricted exclusively to an economic measure (Todaro and Smith, 2020 ). Recently, however, studies on development have begun incorporating other noneconomic factors, such as education and health. These factors, together with the economic criteria, provide a baseline for measuring a population’s development in broader terms (World Bank, 1991 ; Lee, 2017 ). In the search for economic activities that enable economic growth and improve the level of economic development, many countries have been especially interested in tourist activity since it is an economic activity that has a strong potential for job creation, the generation of foreign currency, and revenue increase. In short, it may be able to boost economic growth in host regions (Brida et al., 2020 ). In some cases, the development of tourism has been found to contribute to reducing inequality (Chi, 2020 ; Nguyen et al. ( 2021 )) or reducing poverty (Garza-Rodriguez ( 2019 ); Folarin, Adeniyi ( 2019 )).

In fact, what is actually important in economic policies is not only the promotion of a country’s economic growth but also, the channeling of this economic growth into improved economic development in the territory (Croes, 2012 ). This latter concept is much broader and it serves to satisfy the needs and demands of the resident population, improving its quality of life (Ranis et al., 2000 ).

In terms of the analysis of the relationship between tourism and economic growth, many studies have researched this connection. Most of them agree that a causal relationship exists between both variables, that tourism influences growth (Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordá, 2002 ; Brida et al., 2016 ), that the economic cycle influences the development of tourism (Antonakakis et al., ( 2015 ); Sokhanvar et al., 2018 ), and that there is a bidirectional relationship between tourism and economic growth (Bojanic and Lo, 2016 ; Hussain-Shahzad et al. ( 2017 )).

Given that a relationship between tourism and economic growth has been proven in the economies of host countries and national governments, despite a lack of sufficient empirical evidence, various international organizations have been promoting tourism activity as a tool to facilitate the population’s development in those host regions that attract tourist flows to their territory (OECD, 2010 ; UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( 2011 )). Such has been the case with the relationship between tourism and economic growth, with the suggestion that tourism is a tool for economic development (Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ).

Many studies have already analyzed the relationship between tourism and GDP per capita, finding long-term equilibrium relationships between the expansion of tourism and economic growth, whereby a higher level of tourists received means higher levels of economic growth (Akadiri et al., 2017 ). As previously mentioned, the economic development of a population, in a broad sense, and in addition to the economic variables, has to be linked to additional variables with a multidimensional content (Wahyuningsih et al., 2020 ). In this scenario, although some studies have measured development in a broader sense (Andergassen and Candela, 2013 ; Banerjee et al. 2018 ; Bojanic and Lo, 2016 ; Li et al., 2018 ), there is a clear lack of analysis of the relationship between tourism and economic development as a multidimensional variable.

In this regard, human development, and its measurement through the Human Development Index (HDI), is a multidimensional variable related to the living conditions of the resident population (income, education, and health), which has been used on many occasions (more than level of poverty or income inequality) to measure a country’s level of development (Cárdenas-García et al., 2015 ; Chattopadhyay et al., 2021 ; Croes et al., 2021 ). The link between tourism and human development arises from the economic growth generated by the expansion of tourist activity. This economic growth is used to develop policies that will improve the education and health levels of the host population (Alcalá-Ordóñez and Segarra, 2023 ).

This article analyzes the relationship between tourism and economic growth, measuring the economic growth of the countries in the broadest possible sense, with a link to the concept of human development (Cárdenas-García et al., 2015 ). As a novelty, a wide set of countries is used for this analysis. This overcomes the limitations of prior works that analyzed the relationship between tourism and human development using small country samples (Chattopadhyay et al., 2021 ).

Although distinct works have already analyzed the relationship between tourism and economic development, they tended to focus on the application of econometric tests to determine the type of causal relationship existing between these variables (Alcalá-Ordóñez and Segarra, 2023 ). This work takes a distinct approach, analyzing the qualitative dynamic behavior arising between tourism and human development. Different country groups are identified that have similar behavior within the group and, simultaneously, with differences as compared to the other groups. Thus it is possible to verify the relationship existing between tourism and human development in each of these country groups, to determine if a higher level of tourism specialization is linked to a higher level of human development.

This approach does not attempt to determine if a causal relationship exists by which tourism precedes the level of development. Rather, this approach of grouping countries aims to determine if, at similar levels of development, the country groups with a higher level of tourism specialization display higher levels of human development. This would suggest that tourism activity is an economic activity that promotes human development to a greater extent than other economic activities.

In this context, this study analyzes the dynamic relationship between tourism and economic development, considering development as a multidimensional variable. It uses a data panel consisting of 123 countries for the period between 1995–2019 and considers the diversity of countries in terms of tourism development and their economic development dynamics. To perform this dynamic analysis, the concept of economic regime is introduced (Brida, 2008 ; Cristelli et al., 2015 , Brida et al., 2020 ), and symbolic time series are used (Risso ( 2018 )).

This article contributes to the empirical literature examining the relationship between tourism and economic development. It analyzes the qualitative dynamic behavior of the countries without considering any particular model. Therefore, this analysis enables the identification of groups of countries with similar dynamics, for which economic models of the same type can be identified. The results of this study indicate that there are different groups of countries displaying similar dynamic behavior in terms of both tourism and development. These groups are characterized by their level of tourism specialization and economic development. Therefore, it is interesting to note the heterogeneity existing in the relationship between tourism and development, as well as the consequences that this situation has for both the empirical analysis and the political implications.

The rest of the document is organized as follows: the following section reviews the literature on the subject under study, section “Data” presents the data used, section “Methodology” details the methodology applied, section “Results” presents the results obtained, section “Discussion” includes a discussion of the paper, and, finally, section “Conclusions and policy implications” outlines the final conclusions and policy implications of the work.

Literature review

Economic growth versus economic development.

Traditionally, studies on development have focused on economic growth and have been based on the premise that the efficient allocation of resources maximizes growth and that the expansion of growth and consumption is a measure of population welfare (Easterly, 2002 ). However, the emergence of new studies at the end of the last century, beginning with the works by Sen ( 1990 , 1999 ), resulted in a change of focus for studies on development. They moved from an exclusive view of development linked to economic growth to the inclusion of new factors that connect it to the population’s living conditions (Croes et al., 2018 ).

Economic growth and development are distinct concepts that do not need to be linked. In other words, increased economic growth does not necessarily imply improved economic development (Croes et al., 2021 ). However, it is also true that economic growth, and the revenue generated, can be used to improve a population’s living conditions through better health care, infrastructures, and education (Banerjee et al., 2018 ; Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ).

In this regard, the first studies to analyze the relationship between tourist activity and the economies of host countries focused exclusively on the relationship between tourism and economic growth, using a traditional view of development that is linked to economic variables.

Tourism and economic growth

Numerous studies have analyzed the relationship between tourism and economic growth. Therefore, it is a highly relevant research area in the economic analysis of tourist activity, with three streams of perfectly defined results in which these works may be grouped (Alcalá-Ordóñez et al., 2023; Brida et al., 2016 ).

Firstly, different studies have determined that tourism development drives economic growth, identified under the tourism-led economic growth hypothesis. Both the first study to analyze this causal relationship (Balaguer and Cantavella-Jorda, 2002), as well as the later studies (Brida et al., 2016 ; Castro-Nuño et al., 2013 ; Lin et al., 2019 , Pérez-Rodríguez et al., 2021 ; Ridderstaat et al., 2016 ), have confirmed the existence of this relationship.

Secondly, other studies determined that the evolution of the economic cycle has an influence on the development of tourism, identified under the economic-driven tourism growth. These studies indicate that those economies with a greater level of investment, stability in the price level, or lower level of unemployment determine the development of tourism (Antonakakis et al. ( 2015 ); Rivera, 2017 ; Sokhanvar et al., 2018 ; Tang, Tan ( 2018 )).

Finally, a third wave of studies determined that the relationship between the development of tourism and economic growth has a bidirectional character. These studies note that the relationship between both variables is a causal bidirectional relationship (Antonakakis et al., 2019 ; Bojanic and Lo, 2016 ; Chingarande and Saayman, 2018 ; Hussain-Shahzad et al. ( 2017 ); Ridderstaat et al., 2013 ).

Human Development as a measure of development

Since the end of the last century, the scientific literature has shown that the concept of development cannot be linked exclusively to variables of economic content. Instead, development should be considered along with other non-economic factors that are related to the population’s living conditions. Therefore, it is a multidimensional concept (Alcalá-Ordóñez and Segarra, 2023 ).

When measuring development using a multidimensional perspective, this concept is often linked to human development (Cárdenas et al., 2015 ; Chattopadhyay et al., 2021 ). In this regard, the HDI is a multidimensional indicator that, in addition to considering variables of economic content, in this case per capita income, also incorporates other non-economic factors, specifically, life expectancy and educational level of the population (United Nations Development Program, 2022 ).

The HDI offers some major advantages as a measure of development over other indicators, providing a more complete vision of society’s progress and focusing not only on economic factors but also on factors related to the population’s living conditions. This makes it possible to identify inequalities that need to be addressed to promote more equitable and sustainable development (Sharma et al., 2020 ; Tan et al., 2019 ). Moreover, since it was created by the United Nations Development Program for a large group of countries, it permits homogenous comparison-making between a broad base of countries at a global level (Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ).

Tourism and human development

The expansion of tourism activity can influence the level of human development (Croes et al., 2021 ). The common link between these two variables is the economic impact generated by the expansion of tourist activity since this is a linked process, whereby a higher level of tourists results in an increase in income generated and thus, a higher level of economic growth (Brida et al., 2016 ). Countries can take advantage of this higher level of economic growth to develop specific policies aimed at improving the living conditions of the host population, thereby improving human development (Eluwole et al., 2022 ).

This link between tourism and human development has also been highlighted by the United Nations Tourism in its Millennium Development Goals of 2000, which declared that factors such as health and education are very important in economic development. It was suggested that tourism may improve human development given that it has an influence on these non-economic factors (UN Tourism, 2006 ).

The triple component of the HDI, the most frequently used indicator to measure economic development, has been considered in most of the studies analyzing the relationship between tourism and economic development (Alcalá-Ordóñez and Segarra, 2023 ).

Distinct studies have attempted to determine whether tourism is a tool for economic growth in host countries, although most of the studies have exclusively used economic content to measure the concept of development (Wahyuningsih et al., 2020 ). Therefore, there is a major lack of empirical studies that consider whether tourism influences development and that do so while considering development to be a multidimensional variable encompassing other factors (beyond those associated with the economy).

Some of these studies have outlined that the expansion of tourism has led to an increase in the level of development for host countries. This suggests that tourism has a positive unidirectional relationship with the living conditions of the population (Meyer and Meyer, 2016 ). Fahimi et al. ( 2018 ), examining microstates, found evidence supporting the idea that the expansion of tourism leads to an improvement in human capital. Other studies have also noted that this causal relationship between tourism and development exists, but only in developed countries (Banerjee et al., 2018 ; Bojanic and Lo, 2016 ). Some studies have suggested that only the least developed countries have benefited from the tourism industry in terms of increased economic development ratios (Cárdenas-García et al., 2015 ).

However, although it has been indicated that tourism influences economic growth, some authors have noted that tourism does not have an influence on the development of host countries (Rivera, 2017 ), or simply, that the expansion of this activity does not have any effect on human development (Croes et al., 2021 ).

As an intermediate position between these two schools of thought, some works have suggested that tourism has a positive influence on the development of the resident population, but this causal relationship is only found when certain factors exist in the host countries, such as infrastructure, environment, technology, and human capital (Andergassen and Candela, 2013 ; Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ; Li et al., 2018 ).

Along these same lines, in a study using panel data from 133 countries, Chattopadhyay et al. ( 2021 ) determined that, although no global relationship exists between tourism and human development for all countries, the specific characteristics of each country (level of growth, degree of urbanization, or commercial openness) are determinants for tourism to improve human development levels.

Finally, other studies in the scientific literature have looked to determine whether the relationship between tourism and development is a bidirectional causal relationship, with papers affirming the existence of this relationship between tourism and development (Pulido-Fernández and Cárdenas-García, 2021 ).

Therefore, when examining the few studies that have analyzed the relationship between tourism and development, it may be concluded that contradictory and biased results exist. This may be due to the characteristics of the samples chosen, the variables used, and the methodology employed. Currently, there is no defined school of thought in the scientific literature with regard to the ability of tourism to improve living conditions for the resident population. This contrasts with the conclusions drawn regarding the relationship between tourism and economic growth.

This gap in the scientific literature provides an opportunity for new empirical studies that can analyze the relationship between tourism and development.

In this study, data from different sources of information were used with the objective of analyzing the relationship between tourism and economic development, in accordance with the methodology proposed in the following section. The data used in the present study are available for a total of 123 countries, covering all geographical areas worldwide. The specific data for these countries are as follows, including a web link to the availability of the data to provide greater transparency:

Tourist activity. The number of international tourists received was used as a variable for measuring tourist activity. For those countries for which this data was unavailable, the number of international visitors received was used, based on annual information provided by the United Nations Tourism between 1995 and the present (UN Tourism, 2022 ).

Data on international tourists received at a country level are available at https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/global-and-regional-tourism-performance

Economic development. The HDI, developed by the United Nations Development Program and available annually from 1990 to the present day, was used as a variable for measuring economic development (United Nations Development Program, 2022 ).

Data from the HDI for each country are available at https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI

Total population. The de facto population was used as a measurement variable and counts all residents regardless of their legal status or citizenship. This information was provided by the World Bank and is available from 1960 to the present day, on an annual basis (World Bank, 2022 ).

Data on the population of the distinct countries are available and accessible at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl .

Based on the data indicated above, the initial variables are transformed, specifically, in the case of tourism, through the use of the relativized per capita variable. A descriptive summary of the variables used in the analysis is presented in Table 1 . Finally, two variables have been used to analyze the relationship between tourism and economic development:

International tourists per inhabitant received in the country (number of international tourists / total population of the country), as a measure of tourism specialization. The unit of this variable is established at a relative value, by dividing the number of tourists by the population.

HDI of the country, as a measure of economic development. The unit of this variable is established at a relative value for each country, which, in all cases, is between 0 (lowest level of human development) and 1 (highest level of human development).

Regarding the tourist sector, the measurement of tourism is a subject that has generated great interest, and, on many occasions, the selection of different indicators leads to different results (Song and Wu, 2021 ). As a result, the results of the empirical analysis may be affected by the indicators used to represent the tourist demand (Fonseca and Sanchez-Rivero, 2020 ), with there being important differences between studies with respect to the tourism indicator. According to Rosselló-Nadal, He ( 2020 ), tourist arrivals or tourism expenditure are frequently used to measure tourist demand; however, when looking at the literature, differences in the results are found depending on the indicator considered. Indeed, in their study, which looked at 191 countries between 1998–2016, the authors found evidence that estimates may differ depending on the indicator used for the tourism demand of a destination (international tourist arrivals, or international tourist expenditure in this case). Other studies use indicators that do not measure the degree of tourist activity of a destination, as is the case for the number of tourist arrivals, the expenses, or the revenues. Instead, they consider an indicator that measures the degree of specialization that an economy has in tourism, for example, international tourist arrivals in per capita terms or expenditure or income as a percentage of GDP or exports. This work uses the number of international tourist arrivals, in relation to the population, and thus obtains the degree of tourism specialization of a destination (such as Dritsakis, 2012 ; Tang and Abosedra, 2016 ).

With regard to the measurement of economic development, the arrival of the HDI has resulted in a notable improvement in terms of GDP per capita, which is traditionally used to measure the progress of a country linked only to economic aspects (Lind, 2019 ). In fact, the HDI includes other noneconomic factors as it measures three key dimensions of development: a long and healthy life, being well-informed, and having a decent standard of living. This is why this index was created from the geometric mean of the normalized indices for each of the three dimensions indicated: (i) health: life expectancy at birth; (ii) education: years of schooling for adults and expected years of schooling for children; and (iii) standard of living: Gross National Income per capita (United Nations Development Program, 2022 ). Therefore, since the emergence of this index, there have been increasingly more studies that have incorporated HDI as a measurement of economic development. This variable has been shown to represent development better than other variables that are based exclusively on economic factors (Anand and Sen, 2000 ; Jalil and Kamaruddin, 2018 ; Ngoo and Tey, 2019 ; Ogwang and Abdou, 2003 ; Sajith and Malathi, 2020 ).

The time scale considered in this study covers the period between 1995–2019, in order to perform the broadest possible time analysis. On the one hand, there is an initial time restriction in terms of the data, given that the first data available on international tourist arrivals, provided by the United Nations Tourism, refer to the 1995 fiscal year. On the other hand, the data for the 2019 fiscal year are the latest in the time series analyzed. Therefore, the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, which may have had a different impact at the country level, as well as the level of recovery in international tourist arrivals, do not affect the results of this work.

Methodology

In this work, an analysis is carried out involving the dynamics of two variables: tourism specialization and the HDI. Each of the countries considered in the analysis is represented by a two-dimensional time series of coordinates of these two variables.

In order to compare these dynamics and thereby find homogenous country groups sharing similar dynamics, it was first necessary to introduce a metric permitting this comparison. A fundamental issue in this analysis is that the units of measurement used for each variable are different and the relationship between them is unknown since tourism is measured in the number of tourists per inhabitant while the HDI is an index that varies between 0 and 1. Therefore, the frequently used Euclidean metrics are not valid for this analysis. For this reason, in this study, the problem was analyzed within the framework of complex systems by introducing the concept of “regimes”.

In economic literature, the term “regime” is used to characterize a type of behavior exhibited by one economy, which can be qualitatively distinguished from the “regime” that characterizes another economy. In this way, one regime is distinguished and differentiated from another, so that the economy as a whole may be considered a system of multiple regimes. Intuitively, an “economic regime” may be considered a set of rules governing the economy as a system and determining certain qualitative behaviors (Boehm and Punzo, 2001 ).

Regime changes, on the other hand, are associated with qualitative changes in the dynamics of an economy. Identifying and characterizing these regimes is a complex issue. For example, when working with mathematical models, a commonly used criterion is through Markov partitions (see Adler, 1998 ). Another widely used criterion when working with data is the division of the state space using various statistical indicators, such as the mean, median, etc. (see Brida and Punzo, 2003 ).

Firstly, a distance between countries was calculated to compare their trajectories; secondly, a symbolic time series analysis was used and the concept of “regime” was incorporated; as a result, the original two-dimensional series was transformed into a one-dimensional symbolic series. Then, a metric allowing for the comparison of the dynamic trajectories of the different countries was introduced; finally, a cluster analysis was performed to group the countries based on their dynamics.

The symbolic time series analysis methodology, still quite undeveloped in the field of economics, has been used in some previous works, such as that by Brida et al. ( 2020 ) that analyzes the relationship between tourism and economic growth. All analyses have been performed using RStudio software.

Time series symbolization

To identify the qualitatively relevant characteristics, the concepts of regime and regime dynamics were introduced (Brida, 2008 ; Brida et al., 2020 ). Each regime had its own economic performance model that made it qualitatively different from the rest. The partitioning of the space of tourism states and the development was established by means of annual averages of international arrivals per capita (x) and the HDI (y). The space was divided into four regions, which were determined by the annual averages of tourism and economic development, \({\bar{x}}_{t}\) and \({\bar{y}}_{t}\) respectively, with \(t=1,\ldots ,25\) . Using this partitioning of the states space into regimes, two types of dynamics are distinguished: one within each of the regimes and one of change between regimes. While the dynamic observed in each regime determines a performance model that differs from the models that act in the others, the dynamics of change from one region to another indicate where an economy is at each temporal moment. This dynamic describes performance in terms of tourism specialization and economic development in a qualitative way.

A change of regime of course signals some qualitative transformation. To explore these qualitative changes for every country, let us substitute a bi-dimensional time series \(\left\{\left({x}_{1},{y}_{1}\right),\,\left({x}_{2},{y}_{2}\right),\,\ldots ,\,\left({x}_{{\rm{T}}},{y}_{{\rm{T}}}\right)\right\}\) , by a sequence of symbols: \(s=\left\{{s}_{1},{s}_{2},\ldots ,{s}_{T}\right\}\) , such that \({s}_{t}=j\) if and only if \(\left({x}_{t},{y}_{t}\right)\) belongs to a selected state space region, \(\,{R}_{j}\) . It is defined four regions in the following way:

Regime 1: countries with above-average HDI and tourism specialization. In this regime, the most developed economies specializing in tourism are expected to be found. The majority of European countries are expected to be found in this regime; countries in other regions with a high level of tourism specialization could also be included.

Regime 2: countries with high HDI and low tourism specialization. In this regime, the most developed economies, but in which tourism activity has a less important weight in their economic base, are expected to be found. Some large countries such as the US and Germany are expected to be found in this regime. Other countries may also be found here even if they do not present similar levels of development as European countries, for example, they have higher levels in relative terms (above the sample average).

Regime 3: countries with low HDI and low tourism specialization. In this regime, economies with a lower level of development and where tourism activity is not relevant to their economic activity, are expected to be found. Countries such as China, other Asian countries, countries on the African continent, and countries in South America are expected to be included in this regime.

Regime 4: countries with low HDI and high tourism specialization. Countries with a lower level of development and a high level of tourism specialization, such as Caribbean countries and some island countries, are expected to be found in this regime.

Once the one-dimensional symbolic series is obtained, a metric is introduced that allows comparing the dynamics of the countries, and which in turn allows for obtaining homogeneous groups. Given the symbolic sequences \({\left\{{s}_{{it}}\right\}}_{t=1}^{t=T}\) and \({\{{s}_{{jt}}\}}_{t=1}^{t=T}\) the distance between two countries, i and j is given by.

Intuitively, the distance between two countries measures the number of years of regime non-coincidence during the period. If the distance between two countries is zero, the countries have been in the same regime for the entire period. On the contrary, if the distance between two countries is T, the countries have not coincided for any time during the analyzed period. If the distance between two countries is α, it means that they have not coincided for α years during the period. In other words, they have coincided for T-α years.

Using the defined distance, the hierarchical tree was created using the nearest neighbor cluster analysis method (Mantegna, 1999 ; Mantegna and Stanley, 2000 ). Using the algorithm by Kruskal ( 1956 ), the minimum spanning tree (MST) was created. This tree was created progressively, joining all the countries from the sample using a minimum distance. According to this algorithm, in the first step, the two countries whose series had the shortest distances were connected. In the second step, the countries with the second shortest distance were connected. This pattern continued until all countries were connected in one tree.

Symbolic time series analysis

Figure 1 shows the point cloud corresponding to 2019, with the respective averages of each variable. Each point represents a country in this year with its coordinates (Tourism, HDI). As is expected, the points are distributed in the four regions, showing that qualitatively the countries perform differently. A clustering in the second and third quadrants can be observed, indicating a clustering in the sections with a low level of tourism specialization, and, in turn, there are not many countries in the fourth quadrant. In other words, few countries have been considered to have a high level of tourism specialization but low levels of development, in the last year (Belize, Fiji, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, the Maldives, and Samoa).

Cloud of points of the 123 countries for the year 2019.

Table 2 shows the percentage of time spent by each of the 123 countries analyzed in each of the previously defined regimes, showing that the large majority of the countries (80 countries) remained in the same regime for the entire period or, at least, for three-quarters of the period analyzed in the same regime (16 countries). In this regard, using the symbolization of the series, 4 clear groups were identified, made up of countries that remained in the same regime for the entire period:

Group 1: made up of countries that are in regime 1 for the entire period (high level of tourism specialization and high level of development): Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Switzerland, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Singapore.

Group 2: made up of countries that are in regime 2 for the entire period (low level of tourism specialization and high level of development): Germany, Argentina, Australia, Chile, South Korea, Costa Rica, Cuba, the United States, Russia, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Panama, United Kingdom, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine.

Group 3: made up of countries that are in regime 3 for the entire period (low level of tourism specialization and low level of development): Azerbaijan, Benin, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Central African Republic, China, Congo, Algeria, Egypt, Gambia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Haiti, Indonesia, India, Cambodia, Laos, Lesotho, Morocco, Mali, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Nicaragua, Nepal, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Sudan, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, Togo, Tuvalu, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Finally, Group 4, made up of Belize and the Maldives, which are in regime 4 for the entire period (high level of tourism specialization and low level of development):

It is worth noting that according to the results obtained, regime changes can be difficult to observe. This could be a result of the fact that a regime change implies a structural change in the economy and in such a period as the one analyzed in this study (25 years), the observation of a structural change may be circumstantial in nature. In other words, the timing of structural changes seems to be slower than the tick of the chosen clock; in this case, an annual tick.

Within the group of countries that always remain in regime 1, two groups of countries can be identified. One of the groups is that in which tourism is an essential sector for the economy (like in the case of the Bahamas or Barbados, which have tourism contribution rates to GDP of above 25%), and in which tourism seems to have an influence in the high level of development. The other group is that in which, while tourism is not necessarily an essential sector for the economy, due to the existence of other economic activities, it is an important sector for development (such as Spain or Portugal, with tourism contribution rates to GDP of above 10%).

Within the group of countries that always remain in regime 2, there are fundamentally countries in which tourism has a marginal weight in relation to the level of population (like in the case of Germany, the US, and Japan), due to the lack of or little exploitation of the country’s tourism resources, which would result in development seeming to be related to other economic activities.

Within the group of countries that always remain in regime 3, there is a large group consisting of 41 countries (a third of the sample) that seem to be in a poverty trap, due to the low level of development and low level of tourism specialization. This is in such a way that the low level of development hinders the expansion of tourism activity, and, in turn, this lack of tourism development makes it difficult to increase the levels of development.

Finally, within the group of countries that always remain in regime 4, there are only two countries found, which are characterized by a high level of tourism specialization but have not transformed this into an improvement in development, possibly due to the existence of certain factors that hinder this relationship.

Therefore, the first issue to note is the little mobility that countries have in terms of their classification between the different regimes, given that 80 countries (two-thirds of the sample) remained in the same regime during the 25 years analyzed, which seems to show that the variables are somewhat stable, and thus justifies the fact that no major changes were observed during the period analyzed. This behavior reveals that the homogeneity in the tourism and development dynamic is the rule and not the exception.

In fact, only 27 countries, out of the 123 countries analyzed, are in a different regime for at least a quarter of the period: Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Brazil, Botswana, Canada, Colombia, Slovakia, Eswatini, Finland, Fiji, Hungary, Jamaica, Jordan, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Saint Lucia, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, and Samoa.

In this regard, Fig. 2 shows the time evolution of the symbolic series for some selected countries. As can be noted, there are some countries, like Brazil, that always have a low level of tourism specialization and alternate between periods of high and low economic development, with it seeming as though there is consolidation as being a low HDI country in recent years (until 2002, Brazil had an above average level of development but, after it was hit by a crisis, the country moved to the low development regime. Then, in 2013, it managed to return to the high HDI regime, albeit temporarily as in 2016, in the midst of a political and economic crisis, it returned to the low development regime, where it currently remains). This is similar to what happened in Fiji, insofar as it was almost always specialized in tourism and alternated HDI, consolidating itself in Regime 4 of the low HDI. As such, it seems as though certain countries define their behavior according to the degree of tourism specialization; in this case, not particularly specialized countries.

Top panel: Brazil (left) and Fiji (right). Bottom panel: Latvia (left) and Eswatini (right).

However, the behavior of Latvia or Eswatini seems to be determined by HDI and not by tourism specialization. As to be expected, Latvia remained always in regimes 1 and 2 with a high HDI while Eswatini remained in regimes 3 and 4 with a low HDI. In both cases, they alternated periods of high and low specialization in tourism.

Grouping homogeneous countries

In the case analyzed, there are many countries with zero distance. These are the countries that have the same symbolic representation, that is, the regimes dynamics are coincidental given that these countries always remain in the same regime. Therefore, there are three groups that start to form with countries that have zero distance (countries that are always placed in regimes 1, 2, and 3), and a small group, formed by Belize and the Maldives, which are the only countries that remained in regime 4 for the entire period analyzed. According to this algorithm, 6 groups were obtained, while some countries were not included in any of the groups as they were considered to be “outliers”.

Specifically, there was a graph with 123 nodes corresponding to each country and 122 links; however, given that there were several countries with the same dynamic (the distance between these countries is zero), each of these groups is represented in a single node; that is, the countries that always remained in regime 1 were considered together as one single node, with the same happening for the remaining three groups of countries with identical dynamics (groups 2, 3, and 4). Therefore, in this case, there is a node representing 18 countries from group A and another node (both pink) that represents multiple countries; the Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Mauritius, and Slovenia, which all share the same dynamic (they always remain in regime 1, except in 1995). There is a node representing 19 countries from group B (light blue), another node representing 41 countries from group C (green), and a final node representing Belize and Maldives in group D. In this way, 80 countries are represented in four nodes. To complete the tree, 38 other nodes, each corresponding to a country, were established. Using Kruskal’s algorithm ( 1956 ), the MST is built, in which all nodes are connected in a single tree from the minimum distances. In this way, a tree is created having links that connect the nodes to represent the minimum distances between them (a longer arrow indicates a longer distance).

Figure 3 shows the MST. It is worth noting the central position that these multiple nodes have within the groups, that is, nodes that represent a group of countries with the same dynamics. The structure of the MST seems to be almost linear; moreover, while group C (green) is the most numerous, it is also the most compact of the large groups.

(Nodes: Pink group A/Light blue group B/Green group C/Yellow group D/Orange group E/Blue group F/Red Outliers. Distances according to arrow color: black 1/red 2/light blue 3/green 4/blue 5/orange 6/pink 7/gray 8/violet 9).

Figure 4 shows the geographic distribution of the different groups. There are 6 groups (3 large and 3 small), while some countries are not included in any of these groups, as they are considered to be “outliers”:

Group A: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bahamas, Barbados, Switzerland, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Mauritius, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Uruguay. This group is made up of countries that predominantly remained in regime 1, that is, in general, these are countries with a high tourism specialization and high economic development.

Group B: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Germany, Ecuador, United Kingdom, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Kuwait, Sri Lanka, Mexico, North Macedonia, Panama, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United States. This group is made up of countries that predominantly remained in regime 2, that is, in general, these are countries with a low tourism specialization and high economic development.

Group C: Azerbaijan, Benin, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Central African Republic, China, Congo, Dominican Republic, Algeria, Egypt, Gambia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Haiti, Indonesia, India, Cambodia, Laos, Lesotho, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, Nicaragua, Nepal, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Sudan, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, Togo, Tuvalu, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. This group is made up of countries that remained the majority of the time in regime 3, that is, in general, these are countries with a low tourism specialization and low economic development. With the exception of the Dominican Republic and South Africa (96% and 92%, respectively), all countries remained in regime 3 for the entire period.

Group D: Belize and the Maldives. This group is made up of the two countries that always remained in regime 4, that is, in general, these are countries with a high tourism specialization and low economic development.

Group E: Armenia, Moldova, Thailand, and Turkey. This group has the particular characteristic of having low tourism specialization throughout the period but alternating between a high level of development (regime 2) and a low level of development (regime 3).

Group F: Botswana, Jamaica, and Tunisia. This group is made up of countries that fundamentally remained in regime 4, that is, these are countries with a high tourism specialization and low economic development, however, unlike group D, they moved during the period analyzed through other regimes.

Outliers: Canada, Fiji, Saint Lucia, Sweden, Eswatini, and Samoa. These countries presented different dynamics and were not integrated into any of the previously-defined groups.

(Note: Pink: group A/Light blue: group B/Green: group C/Yellow: group D/Orange: group E/Blue: group F/Red: Outliers).

As can be seen, group A, which consists of countries with a high tourism specialization and high economic development, is basically made up of European countries, some Asian countries, and Uruguay (the only country in the Americas to be part of this group).

The countries in group B, that is, those countries with a good level of economic development, but a low specialization in the sector, are more geographically dispersed. This group consists of some European countries (in particular, Eastern European countries), a large part of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the US, Australia, and some Asian countries.

Group C, that is, those countries with a low tourism specialization and low economic development, consists of the vast majority of African countries, as well as a significant number of Asian countries, in addition to Bolivia and Paraguay in Latin America, as well as some countries in Central America.

The countries in Group D, that is, those countries that had a high tourism specialization but a low level of economic development throughout the period analyzed, as well as those in Group F, which were also in this regime for most of the period, do not have a uniform geographic pattern, since they are located on different continents.

Finally, the countries in Group E, that is, those countries with a low tourism specialization and alternating levels of economic development, are also geographically dispersed between Europe and Asia.

As can be seen in Table 3 both Group A and Group B are made up of countries with a high level of development; however, the countries in Group A, which also have a high level of tourism specialization, on average, have a significantly higher level of development than the countries in Group B, where the level of tourism specialization is low. These results appear to show that in terms of those countries specialized in tourism (Group A), the link with development is higher than for those countries that have achieved high levels of development due to the development of other economic activities.

Similar results can be found when comparing the data from Group C (countries with a low level of tourism specialization and low level of economic development) with the data from Groups D and F (countries with a high level of tourism specialization and low level of economic development). This is because, despite the level of development being low in all the countries, in the Group D and F countries, the level of development is significantly higher than in Group C countries. This appears to show that for those countries specialized in tourism (Groups D and F), the link with development is greater than for those countries that rely on other sectors as the basis of their economy.

Tourism’s relevance lies not only in its contribution to economic growth but also in the fact that the improved economic growth generated by the expansion of tourism activity may translate into improved living conditions for the host population. Due to this chained process, many countries have opted for this economic activity with the aim of improving income, education, and health. In short, they hope to increase their levels of human development.

Although distinct works have analyzed the relationship between tourism and human development by applying causality tests to determine the type of relationship between these variables, this study adopts a different approach. It analyzes the qualitative dynamic behavior between tourism and human development, to identify clusters of countries that display similar behavior with regard to this relationship.

Firstly, it is necessary to note the little movement there is of the countries between the different regimes, which indicates great stability, given that 80 countries (two-thirds of the sample) remained in the same regime throughout the entire period analyzed (1995–2019). These results regarding the stability of the countries in the different regimes differ significantly from the results obtained in other studies that have used the same technique for the analysis of the dynamic relationship between variables (Brida et al., 2020 ). This is because even when there is a movement of the countries between regimes, this happens, at most, between two or three regimes (Jordan and Samoa are the only exceptions, passing through all four regimes).

Furthermore, the results appear to show that groups of countries with a higher level of tourism specialization have higher levels of human development. Therefore, tourism is configured as an effective tool to improve development levels, as previously stated in works such as that of Cárdenas-García et al. ( 2015 ) conducting a joint analysis with data from 144 countries or Bojanic and Lo ( 2016 ), whose global analysis referred to a sample of 187 countries.

Specifically, these results are found both in the group of countries with the highest level of development, (countries of Group A versus the countries of Group B), as previously revealed in works such as that of Meyer and Meyer ( 2016 ) analyzing South Africa and that of Tan et al. ( 2019 ) analyzing Malaysia. These results were also found in the case of countries with a lower level of development (countries of Group D and F as compared to the countries of Group C), as previously suggested by works, such as that of Sharma et al. ( 2020 ) examining India or Croes ( 2012 ) analyzing Nicaragua.

However, despite these majority results, countries have been identified that, despite having an important tourism specialization (Belize, Botswana, Jamaica, Maldives, and Tunisia), had a low level of human development. This has not allowed for the high level of tourism specialization to become a tool to improve the living conditions of the population in these countries.

This exception may be due to the link between tourism and human development, which, in addition to being affected by the level of tourism specialization, also depends on the destination’s characteristics. These characteristics include the provision of infrastructure, the level of education, and the existing investment climate in the receiving countries, as previously suggested by Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández ( 2019 ), or by the level of economic growth, the development of the urbanization process, or the degree of commercial openness of the receiving countries, as identified by Chattopadhyay et al. ( 2021 ).

Conclusions and policy implications

Distinct international organizations have shown that what is really important is not the contribution of tourism to economic growth, but rather, that this economic growth generated by the expansion of tourism activity permits the improvement of living conditions of the host population (EC, 2018 ; IADB - Inter-American Development Bank ( 2020 ); UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( 2020 )).

Given the importance of economic development for the host countries, empirical studies that analyze the relationship between tourism and economic development have begun to emerge. These works mainly link the multidimensional concept of development with human development, measured by the HDI. Here, the link between tourism and human development is produced through the economic growth generated by the expansion of tourism activity. This economic growth is used to develop policies to improve the host population’s education and health levels.

However, few such studies exist, and the scientific literature does not reveal a defined trend with regard to this relationship. Furthermore, most of these existing works rely on causality analyses to determine whether there is a relationship between tourism and human development. They do not analyze whether having a higher degree of tourism specialization, for groups of countries with similar levels of development, implies a higher level of human development, which would suggest that tourism promotes development to a greater extent than other economic activities.

Due to the methodology used, this empirical work cannot determine the type of relationship existing between tourism and development, that is, whether there is a unidirectional or bidirectional relationship between both variables. However, it does allow us to determine if countries with a higher level of tourism specialization have a higher level of development than those specializing in other productive activities.

This study aimed to contribute to the empirical discussion about the relationship between tourism and development through the use of a non-parametric and non-linear approach; specifically, the qualitative dynamic behavior of these two variables was compared using the definition of economic regime and clustering tools based on the concept of hierarchical and MST (Mantegna, 1999 ; Kruskal, 1956 ).

The results seem to indicate that tourism is an economic activity that can promote human development more than other economic activities. Indeed, at similar levels of human development, both in the case of countries with a high level of development (countries in Group A versus countries in Group B) and in the case of countries with a low level of development (countries in Groups D-F versus countries in Group C), the country groups with a higher level of tourism specialization have higher human development values than those countries specialized in other productive activities.

Therefore, public administrations should develop specific actions to increase the level of tourism specialization since tourism is a strategic tool that improves human development levels, as compared to other economic activities. It is necessary to invest in the improvement and expansion of tourism infrastructure, including the improvement of transportation systems in host destinations, increasing and improving the supply of accommodations and basic tourism-related services. Moreover, an attractive offer should be provided, both in terms of resources and attraction factors. This includes complementary services to attract a greater number of tourist flows, while developing destination promotion campaigns and, therefore, ensuring greater tourism specialization.

It should also be noted that, of the identified country groups, the most numerous one is that which includes countries from Group C, which is made up of 43 countries (approximately a third of the sample). This cluster is characterized by low tourism specialization and a low level of economic development, which seems to translate into a poverty trap, given that the low level of development prevents the expansion of the tourism activity, and, in turn, this lack of tourism development makes it difficult to increase the levels of development.

Policies should be developed that consider the lack of financial resources of these countries to carry out investment projects. International organizations and institutions linked to development, such as the United Nations Development Program, Inter-American Development Bank, or World Bank, should finance specific projects so that these countries may receive investments related to the improvement and expansion of tourism infrastructure, so as to improve human development through this activity. Suitable regulatory frameworks should be established in these countries, to encourage public-private collaboration for the development of tourism projects. In this way, private investments could make up for the lack of public financing in these destinations.

The analysis performed in this work has also identified groups of countries that, despite their high degree of tourism specialization, do not have high levels of human development (Belize, Botswana, Jamaica, Maldives, and Tunisia). This highlights the importance of identifying factors or characteristics that provide the destination with ideal initial conditions to permit the economic impacts generated by the expansion of tourism to be channeled into an improvement in human development. In addition to being conditioned by the host country’s level of tourism specialization, the link between tourism and human development also depends on infrastructure provision, education level, investment climate, urbanization level, and the degree of commercial openness. Although this current of scientific literature has not been widely studied, it has been addressed by some works analyzing the relationship between tourism and human development (Cárdenas-García and Pulido-Fernández, 2019 ; Chattopadhyay et al., 2021 ).

Policies established by public administrations should consider a dual objective: on the one hand, investing in the improvement and expansion of the tourism infrastructure and, on the other hand, increasing and improving the factors found to be determinant in configuring tourism as a tool for human development. Given that there are entities investing in projects linked to tourism aimed at improving the living conditions of the resident population, the failure to act on the determinant factors of this relationship could result in inefficient policies in terms of the allocation of resources linked to improved development.

Finally, this study has certain limitations, including the variables used to measure tourism specialization and economic development. With regard to tourism, it has been shown that changing the indicator used leads to differences in the results obtained. In terms of economic development, while other factors such as poverty level, quality of life, or income inequality are related to development, human development, and its measurement through HDI, is the most frequently used indicator to measure it. Moreover, the short period analyzed (1995–2019) is another limitation. There is a restriction in the initial period used since it is the first year in which data were available on development and this may determine the small variability between countries among the different regimes. Another limitation lies in the fact that it does not analyze the characteristics of the destination as a determinant in the relationship between tourism and human development, in accordance with the new current of the scientific literature. In terms of methodology, the choice of the measure used for the symbolization of the series can affect the results. For example, the mean may be influenced by outliers in the data, and this can be relevant for certain variables, such as tourism, which displays a high degree of variation. It would be interesting to perform the same exercise using other measures for the symbolization of the series, such as the truncated mean, the median, or some type of threshold.

Future lines of research may highlight the fact that this study consists of an analysis at the country level, although it is clear that the impacts of tourism are produced in the territory at the regional and local levels. As a result, it may be interesting to replicate this work at the regional level using different countries as an analysis, depending on the availability of such data.

Moreover, as a continuation of this study, in addition to the degree of tourism specialization, it may be interesting to analyze the type of tourism received by each of the groups of countries that have been identified. In other words, to examine whether the characteristics of the type of tourism received (accommodations, motivations, or level of expenditure) in each cluster also determine the relationship between tourism and human development. Furthermore, it may be interesting to introduce the influence of other factors on the relationship between tourism and development into the analysis of this relationship, as discussed previously in the limitations.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Adler R (1998) Symbolic dynamics and Markov partitions. Bull Am Math Soc 35(1):1–56

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Alcalá-Ordóñez A, Segarra V (2023) Tourism and economic development: a literature review to highlight main empirical findings. Tour Econ. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166231219638

Akadiri SS, Akadiri AC, Alola UV (2017) Is there growth impact of tourism? Evidence from selected small island states. Curr Issues Tour 22(12):1480–1498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1381947

Article   Google Scholar  

Anand S, Sen A (2000) The income component of the human development index. J Hum Dev 1(1):83–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880050008782

Andergassen R, Candela G (2013) Less developed countries, tourism investments and local economic development. Rev Dev Econ 17(1):16–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12012

Antonakakis N, Dragouni M, Filis G (2015) How strong is the linkage between tourism and economic growth in Europe? Econ Model 44:142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.018

Antonakakis N, Dragouni M, Eeckels B, Filis G (2019) The tourism and economic growth enigma: examining an ambiguous relationship through multiple prisms. J Travel Res 58(1):3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517744671

Balaguer J, Cantavella-Jordá M (2002) Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: the Spanish case. Appl Econ 34:877–884. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840110058923

Banerjee O, Cicowiez M, Morris EJ, Moreda A (2018) Boosting tourism’s contribution to growth and development: analysis of the evidence. Rev Dev Econ 22(3):1296–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12385

Boehm B, Punzo LF (2001) Investment-productivity fluctuations and structural change. in Punzo, L.F. (ed), Cycles, growth and structural change, Routledge, London

Bojanic DC, Lo M (2016) A comparison of the moderating effect of tourism reliance on the economic development for islands and other countries. Tour Manag 53:207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.006

Brida JG, Punzo LF (2003) Symbolic time series analysis and dynamic regimes. Struct Change Econ Dyn 14(2):159–183

Brida JG (2008) The dynamic regime concept in Economics. Int J Econ Res 5(1):55–76

ADS   Google Scholar  

Brida JG, Cortes-Jimenez I, Pulina M (2016) Has the tourism-led growth hypothesis been validated? A literature review. Curr Issues Tour 19(5):394–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.868414

Brida JG, Matesanz-Gómez M, Segarra V (2020) On the empirical relationship between tourism and economic growth. Tour Manag 81:104131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104131

Cárdenas-García PJ, Pulido-Fernández JI (2019) Tourism as an economic development tool. Key factors. Curr Issues Tour 22(17):2082–2108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1420042

Cárdenas-García PJ, Sánchez-Rivero M, Pulido-Fernández JI (2015) Does tourism growth influence economic development? J Travel Res 54(2):206–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513514297

Castro-Nuño M, Molina-Toucedo JA, Pablo-Romero MP (2013) Tourism and GDP: a meta-analysis of panel data studies. J Travel Res 52(6):745–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478500

Chattopadhyay M, Kumar A, Ali S, Mitra SK (2021) Human development and tourism growth’s relationship across countries: a panel threshold analysis. J Sustain Tour 30(6):1384–1402. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1949017

Chi J (2020) Revisiting the tourism-inequality nexus: evidence from a panel of developed and developing economies. Curr Issues Tour 24(6):755–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1743243

Chingarande A, Saayman A (2018) Critical success factors for tourism‐led growth. Int J Tour Res 20(6):800–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2233

Cristelli M, Tacchella A, Pietronero L (2015) The heterogeneous dynamics of economic complexity. PloS One 10(2):e0117174. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117174

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Croes R (2012) Assessing tourism development from Sen’s capability approach. J Travel Res 51(5):542–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287511431323

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Croes R, Ridderstaat J, Van Niekerk M (2018) Connecting quality of life, tourism specialization, and economic growth in small island destinations: The case of Malta. Tour Manag 65:212–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.10.010

Croes R, Ridderstaat J, Bak M, Zientara P (2021) Tourism specialization, economic growth, human development and transition economies: the case of Poland. Tour Manag 82:104181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104181

Dritsakis N (2012) Tourism development and economic growth in seven Mediterranean countries: a panel data approach. Tour Econ 18(4):801–816. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2012.0140

Easterly W (2002) The elusive quest for growth: Economists’ adventures and misadventures in the tropics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Google Scholar  

EC - European Commission (2018) Tourism and Transport: Key to Development. Luxembourg: European Commission

Eluwole KK, Bekun FV, Lasisi TT (2022) Fresh insights into tourism-led economic growth nexus: a systematic literature network analysis approach. Asia Pac J Tour Res 27(4):374–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2022.2075775

Fahimi A, Akadiri SS, Seraj M, Akadiri AC (2018) Testing the role of tourism and human capital development in economic growth. A panel causality study of micro states. Tour Manag Perspect 28:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.08.004

Folarin O, Adeniyi O (2019) Does tourism reduce poverty in sub-Saharan African Countries? J Travel Res 59(1):140–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518821736

Fonseca N, Sánchez Rivero M (2020) Granger causality between tourism and income: a meta-regression analysis. J Travel Res 59(4):642–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519851189

Garza-Rodriguez J (2019) Tourism and poverty reduction in Mexico: an ARDL cointegration approach. Sustainability 11:845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030845

Hussain-Shahzad SJ, Shahbaz M, Ferrer R, Kumar RR (2017) Tourism-led growth hypothesis in the top ten tourist destinations: new evidence using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Tour Manag 60:223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.006

IADB - Inter-American Development Bank (2020) Tourism Sector Assessment, Strategy, and Road Map for Development of the Caribbean Region. IADB, Washington DC

Jalil SA, Kamaruddin MN (2018) Examining the relationship between human development index and socio-economic variables: a panel data analysis. J Int Bus Econ Entrep 3(2):37–44. https://doi.org/10.24191/jibe.v3i2.14431

Kruskal JB (1956) On the shortest spanning tree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc Am Math Soc 7:48–50

Lee YS (2017) General theory of law and development. Cornell Int Law Rev 50(3):432–435

CAS   Google Scholar  

Li KX, Jin M, Shi W (2018) Tourism as an important impetus to promoting economic growth: a critical review. Tour Manag Perspect 26:135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.10.002

Lin VS, Yang Y, Li G (2019) Where can tourism-led growth and economy-driven tourism growth occur? J Travel Res 58(5):760–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518773919

Lind N (2019) A development of the human development index. Soc Indic Res 146:409–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02133-90

Mantegna RN (1999) Hierarchical structure in financial markets. Eur Phys J B 11:193–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100510050929

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Mantegna RN, Stanley HE (2000) An introduction to Econophysics: Correlations and complexity in finance. Cambridge University Press, UK

Meyer DF, Meyer N (2016) The relationship between the tourism sector and local economic development (Led): the case of the Vaal Triangle region, South Africa. J Environ Manag Tour 3(15):466–472

Ngoo YT, Tey NP (2019) Human development index as a predictor of life satisfaction. J Popul Soc Stud 27(1):70–86. https://doi.org/10.25133/JPSSV27N1.005

Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Su T, Chong F (2021) The influence of tourism on income inequality. J Travel Res 60(7):1426–1444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520954538

OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010) Tourism Trends & Policies 2010. OECD, Paris

Ogwang T, Abdou A (2003) The choice of principal variables for computing some measures of human well-being. Soc Indic Res 64(1):139–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024788123572

Pérez-Rodríguez J, Rachinger H, Santana-Gallego M (2021) Testing the validity of the tourism-led growth hypothesis under long-range dependence. Curr Issues Tour 24(6):768–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1744537

Pulido-Fernández JI, Cárdenas-García PJ (2021) Analyzing the bidirectional relationship between tourism growth and economic development. J Travel Res 60(3):583–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520922316

Ranis G, Stewart F, Ramirez A (2000) Economic growth and human development. World Dev 28(2):197–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00131-X

Ridderstaat J, Croes R, Nijkamp P (2013) Tourism and long-run economic growth in Aruba. Int J Tour Res 16(5):472–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1941

Ridderstaat J, Croes R, Nijkamp P (2016) The tourism development–quality of life nexus in a small island destination. J Travel Res 55(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514532372

Risso WA (2018) Tourism and economic growth: a worldwide study. Tour Anal 23(1):123–135. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354218X15143857349828

Rivera MA (2017) The synergies between human development, economic growth, and tourism within a developing country: an empirical model for Ecuador. J Destination Mark Manag 6:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.04.002

Rosselló-Nadal J, He J (2020) Tourist arrivals versus tourist expenditures in modelling tourism demand. Tour Econ 26(8):1311–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619867810

Sajith GG, Malathi K (2020) Applicability of human development index for measuring economic well-being: a study on GDP and HDI indicators from Indian context. Indian Econ J 68(4):554–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019466221998620

Sen A (1990) Development as capability expansion. In Griffin K, Knight J (Eds.), Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s (pp. 41–58). London, UK: McMillan

Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Anchor Books, New York, NY

Sharma M, Mohapatra G, Giri AK (2020) Beyond growth: does tourism promote human development in India? Evidence from time series analysis. J Asian Financ Econ Bus 7(12):693–702. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.693

Sokhanvar A, Çiftçioğlu S, Javid E (2018) Another look at tourism- economic development nexus. Tour Manag Perspect 26:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.03.002

Song H, Wu DC (2021) A critique of tourism-led economic growth studies. J Travel Res 61(4):719–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728752110185

Tang C, Abosedra S (2016) Does tourism expansion effectively spur economic growth in Morocco and Tunisia? Evidence from time series and panel data. J Policy Res Tour Leis Events 8(2):127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2015.1113980

Tang CF, Tan EC (2018) Tourism-led growth hypothesis: a new global evidence. Cornell Hosp Q 59(3):304–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965517735743

Tan YT, Gan PT, Hussin MYM, Ramli N (2019) The relationship between human development, tourism and economic growth: Evidence from Malaysia. Res World Econ 10(5):96–103. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v10n5p96

Todaro MP, Smith SC (2020) Economic Development. 13th Edition. Addison Wesley, Boston

UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2011) Fourth United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries. UNCTAD, Istanbul

UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2020) Economic Development in Africa Report 2020: Tackling Illicit Financial Flows for Sustainable Development in Africa. UNCTAD, Geneva

Book   Google Scholar  

United Nations Development Programme (2022) Human Development Reports 2021/2022. United Nations Development Programme, New York

UN Tourism (2006) UNWTO’s declaration on tourism and the millennium goals: Harnessing tourism for the millennium development goals. United Nations Tourism, Madrid

UN Tourism (2022) Tourism Data Dashboard. United Nations Tourism, Madrid

Wahyuningsih D, Yunaningsih A, Priadana MS, Wijaya A, Darma DC, Amalia S (2020) The dynamics of economic growth and development inequality in Borneo Island, Indonesia. J Appl Econ Sci ume XV(67):135–143. https://doi.org/10.14505/jaes.v15.1(67).12 . Spring 1

World Bank (1991) World Development Report 1991: The Challenge of Development. Washington, D.C: World Bank

World Bank (2022) World Bank Open Data. Washington, D.C.: World Bank

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, University of Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, Jaén, Spain

Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García

GIDE, Faculty of Economics, University of the Republic, Gonzalo Ramírez 1926, Montevideo, Uruguay

Juan Gabriel Brida & Verónica Segarra

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

PJCG: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, project administration, validation, resources, original draft writing, final version writing. JGB: conceptualization, investigation, formal analysis, methodology, validation, visualization. VS: conceptualization, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, resources, software, validation, original draft writing, final version writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cárdenas-García, P.J., Brida, J.G. & Segarra, V. A qualitative dynamic analysis of the relationship between tourism and human development. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1125 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03663-5

Download citation

Received : 11 March 2024

Accepted : 21 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03663-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Realising Sustainable Access to Water and Sanitation in Africa: Role of Critical Institutions

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 September 2024
• pp 1309–1332
• Cite this reference work entry

• Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan 7 ,
• Irekpitan Okukpon 8 &
• Nkiruka Chidia Maduekwe 7  

Part of the book series: Implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Regional Perspectives ((IUNSDGRP))

The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report reemphasises the fact that the African continent is particularly vulnerable to the disastrous impact of climate change. The report highlights the urgent need for countries to adopt critical strategies toward ensuring the actualisation of 1.5 °C temperature. Based on low adaptive strategies and geographical location, climate change impacts further exacerbate the African continent’s inherent environmental challenges, more so, the struggle to attain poverty eradication. One of the adverse impacts of climate change is reducing access to water, thus increasing the burden on already water-scarce African countries such as South Africa and Nigeria. In cognisance that access to water and sanitation is critical towards poverty eradication and realising the kind of continent Africans want by 2063, African countries are increasingly adopting several measures to ensure citizens’ access to water. This chapter examines the current institutions and legal framework adopted by the South African Development Community (SADC) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to proffer a practical template that States in sub-Saharan Africa can adopt to resolve the challenge of the lack of access to clean, safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The chapter also discusses the existence of an adequate enforcement mechanism that ensures and provides the platform for citizens to assert and protect their right to access clean water and sanitation. Furthermore, the chapter’s focus on South Africa and Nigeria analyses the extent to which regional frameworks are being adopted, implemented, and sustained at the national level, proffering recommendations other countries can adopt within the sub-Saharan African region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adom RK, Simatele MD (2021) Analysis of public policies and programmes towards water security in post-apartheid South Africa. Water Policy 23:503–520, at 505

Article   Google Scholar  

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990) OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49

Google Scholar  

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2019) Guidelines on the right to water in Africa. Adopted during the 26th extra-ordinary session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held from 16 to the 30th of July 2019, in Banjul

African Union Commission (2015) Agenda 2063: The Africa we want. https://au.int/en/Agenda2063/popular_version . Accessed the 28th of January 2022

African Union Commission. Labor migration statistics report in Africa second edition: regional migration profile. https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/39323-doc-economic_community_of_west_african_states_ecowas.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

Alistair R-C, Ruby M, Magsig B-O (2015) Transboundary water governance and climate change adaptation – international law, policy guidelines and best practice application. UNESCO, Paris, p 17

Baird J et al (2021) The emerging scientific water paradigm: precursors, hallmarks, and trajectories. WIREs Water. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1489 . Accessed 24 Jan 2022

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Global water, sanitation, & hygiene (WASH). Sanitation & Hygiene. https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/sanitation/index.html . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

CESR General Comment No. 15 (2003) Office of the high commissioner for human rights. General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant), p1 – 18. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d11.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

Child’s Right Act (2003)

Civilian JTF & Ors v. Abdullahi & Ors [2020] LPELR-51480 [CA]

Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (2011) 2011–2015 Programme document. MRC, Phnom Penh

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

COP Ekiti State & Ors v. Aregbesola & Ors [2020] LPELR-50177[CA]

Da Silva Wells C, van Lieshout R, Uytewall E (2013) Monitoring for learning and developing capacities in the WASH sector. Water Policy 15:206

Da Silva Wells C, van Lieshout R, Uytewall E (2019) Monitoring for learning and developing capacities in the WASH sector. Water Policy 15:206–225. (2013)

Dickin S, Bayoumi M, Gine R et al (2020) Sustainable sanitation and gaps in global climate policy and financing. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0072-8 . Accessed 23 Jan 2022

Dreiss LM, Hessenauer J-M, Nathan LR (2016) Adaptive management as an effective strategy: interdisciplinary perceptions for natural resource management. Environ Manag 59:218–229

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Revised Treaty (1993)

Felter C, Robinson K (2021) Water stress: a global problem that’s getting worse. Council on Foreign Relations, 22 Apr. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/water-stress-global-problem-thats-getting-worse . Accessed 24 Jan 2022

Free Basic Services (2001) http://www.nwpg.gov.za/DDLG&TA/FBS.html#:~:text=Free%20Basic%20Services%20are%20municipal,electricity%2C%20sanitation%20and%20waste%20removal.&text=Free%20Basic%20Electricity%20(energy)%20%E2%80%93,for%20a%20grid%20energy%20system . Accessed 25 Jan 2022

Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2020) Nigeria: integration of the SDGs into national development planning second voluntary national review. The Office of the Senior Special Assistant to the President on SDGs, Abuja

Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York

Howard G, Nijhawan A, Flint A et al (2021) The how tough is WASH framework for assessing climate resilience of water and sanitation, p 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-021-00130-5.pdf . Accessed 25 Jan 2022

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. West Africa Water Resources Policy (WAWRP). https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/iucn_wawrp.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

Khan SJ et al (2019) Extreme weather events: should drinking water quality management systems adapt to changing risk profiles? Water Res 85:124–136

Kotze LJ, Fuo O (2017) Domestic manifestations of international law’s right to water: a comparative analysis of emerging rights obligations in Finland and South Africa. African Journal of International and Comparative Law 25(2):261

LASTMA v. Omosivwe [2020] LPELR-52129 [CA]

Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg and Others (2010) 3 BCLR, 239 (CC), Paras 44, 48-50, 51, 57-59, 69-76

Mekong Agreement (1995) Agreement on the cooperation for the sustainable development of the Mekong River Basin. https://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/policies/agreement-Apr95.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

MRC (Mekong River Commission) (2022). https://www.mrcmekong.org/about/mrc/history/ . Accessed 19 Jan 2022

Mudombi S (2020) Access to water and sanitation in South Africa: a renewed call for more action, 2 Apr 2020. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-04-02-access-to-water-and-sanitation-in-south-africa-a-renewed-call-for-more-action/ . Accessed 23 Jan 2022

Mwendera EJ (2003) Overcoming constraints to the implementation of water demand management in Southern Africa. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Swaziland, Luyengo

Book   Google Scholar  

National Action Plan for the Revitalisation of Nigeria’s WASH Sector (2018)

National Environmental (Sanitation and Wastes Control) Regulations (2009)

National Environmental Health Practice Regulations (2016)

National Water Act 1998 of South Africa. https://www.gov.za/documents/national-water-act . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

National Water Policy (2004)

National Water Resources Policy (2016)

National Water Sanitation Policy (2004)

NDC Explorer (2021) Climate adaptation – vulnerability: water. https://klimalog.die-gdi.de/ndc/#NDCExplorer/worldMap?NewAndUpdatedNDC??climatechangeadaptation???cat20 . Accessed 21 Jan 2022

Nigerian (1999) Constitution (as amended) 1999

Nigerian Bureau of Statistics (2019) National outcome routine mapping of water, sanitation and hygience services levels – summary of survey findings. https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pdfuploads/2019%20WASH%20NORM%20SURVEY%20FINDINGS%20-%20INFOGRAPHIC%20SUMMARY.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

OHCR Position Paper (2010) Climate change and the human rights to water and sanitation – position paper, p 8. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Water/Climate_Change_Right_Water_Sanitation.pdf . Accessed 29 Dec 2022

Okukpon I, Anozie I (2018) Justifying water rights in Nigeria: fiction or achievable panacea. Law Dev Rev Spec Issue 11(2):757–800

Permanent Framework for Coordination and Monitoring of Integrated Water Resources Management in West Africa; A/DEC.5/12/01

Pona HT, Xiaoli D, Ayantobo OO, Tetteh ND (2021) Environmental health situation in Nigeria: current status and future needs. Heliyon 7(3):e06330

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of the Women in Africa (2003)

Rakhetsi A (2021) Day Zero looms as drought continues for South Africa’s Nelson Mandela Bay. Global Citizen, 12 July 2021. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/south-africas-nelson-mandela-bay-water-crisis/ . Accessed 21 Jan 2022

Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan – Executive Summary (2012) 13 Aug 2012. https://www.sadc.int/files/7513/5293/3530/Regional_Infrastructure_Development_Master_Plan_Executive_Summary.pdf . Accessed 23 Jan 2022

Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan – Water Sector Plan (2012) Aug 2012, p 50. https://www.sadc.int/files/6313/5293/3538/Regional_Infrastructure_Development_Master_Plan_Water_Sector_Plan.pdf . Accessed 23 Jan 2022

Republic of South Africa (RSA) Constitution (1996). https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Protocol (1995) Protocol on shared watercourse systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Region 1995 [now repealed]. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mul35640.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Climate Change Adaptation in SADC – A Strategy for the Water Sector (2011), pp 11, 21, 22 and 25

SADC Declaration and Treaty (1992). https://www.sadc.int/document/declaration-treaty-sadc-1992 . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Guidelines for Strengthening River Basin Organisations (2010). https://www.sadc.int/document/sadc-guidelines-strengthening-river-basin-organisations-establishment-and-development-2010

SADC Regional Awareness and Communication Strategy for the Water Sector (2010). https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/SADC_Communication_Strategy_for_Water_Sector_2008.pdf

SADC (2012) SADC regional infrastructure development master plan – water sector plan. https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Regional_Infrastructure_Development_Master_Plan_Water_Sector_Plan.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (2005). https://www.sadc.int/pages/regional-indicative-strategic-development-plan-risdp#:~:text=The%20Regional%20Indicative%20Strategic%20Development,years%20(2005%2D2020) . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) (2020) 2020–2030. SADC Secretariat, Botswana, p 7. https://www.sadc.int/files/4716/1434/6113/RISDP_2020-2030_F.pdf . Accessed 24 Jan 2022

SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan on Integrated Water Resources Development and Management (2016) Phase IV – RSAP IV 2016–2020. SADC Secretariat, Botswana, p 1

SADC Regional Water Policy (2005). https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Regional_Water_Policy.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Regional Water Strategy (2006). https://www.sadc.int/document/regional-water-strategy-2006#:~:text=The%20Regional%20Water%20Strategy%20for,resources%20in%20the%20SADC%20region . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses (2000). https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Revised_Protocol_on_Shared_Watercourses_-_2000_-_English.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

SADC Synthesis Report on the State of Food and Nutrition Security and Vulnerability in Southern Africa (2021) p 22. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Synthesis-Report-2021_English.pdf . Accessed 18 Jan 2022

SADC Water & Sanitation. https://www.sadc.int/themes/infrastructure/water-sanitation/ . Accessed 19 Jan 2022

South African Human Rights Commission (2014) Report on the right to access sufficient water and decent sanitation in South Africa, p 13. https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/FINAL%204th%20Proof%204%20March%20-%20Water%20%20Sanitation%20low%20res%20(2).pdf . Accessed 25 Jan 2022

Southern African Development Community (SADC) (2020) Vision 2050. SADC Secretariat, Botswana, p 1. https://www.sadc.int/files/9316/1470/6253/SADC_Vision_2050.pdf . Accessed 24 Jan 2022

Southern African Vision for Water, Life and the Environment in the Twenty-first Century (2006). https://www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Southern_African_Vision_For_Water_Life_and_Environment_In_the_21st_Century.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

Stewart L, Horsten D (2009) The role of sustainability in the adjudication of the right of access to adequate water. S Afr Public Law 24(2):407, at 459

The Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation. Frequently asked questions. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Water/FAQWater_en.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

The Sustainable Development Goals Center for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2020) Africa SDG index and dashboards report 2020. SDG Center for Africa and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Kigali/New York

The United Nations World Water Development Report (2020) Water and climate change. UNESCO, Paris, p 2

UNGA Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, A/HRC/24/44 (2013). https://reliefweb.int/report/world/report-special-rapporteur-human-right-safe-drinking-water-and-sanitation-catarina-de-1 . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

UN Sustainable Development Goals’ (2022) Goal 6: Ensure access to water and sanitation for all. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ . Accessed 21 Jan 2022

UNEP (2021) Progress on integrated water resources management: global indicator 6.5.1 updates and acceleration needs. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

UNFCC NDC Registry (2021) Nigeria’s nationally determined contribution. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/pages/Party.aspx?party=NGA . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

United Nations General Assembly (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/RES/55/2

United Nations General Assembly (2010) The human right to water and sanitation, A/RES/64/292

United Nations General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, A/RES/70/1

United Nations General Assembly (2016) The human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, A/RES/70/169

United Nations, Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

United Nations Human Rights. The right to water fact sheet no. 35. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet35en.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

UN-Water (2021) Summary progress update 2021 – SDG 6 – water and sanitation for all. UN-Water, Geneva

UN-Water, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene. https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-sanitation-and-hygiene/ . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

UN-Water/Africa. The Africa Water Vision for 2025: Equitable and sustainable use of water for socioeconomic development, pp 11–12. https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Generic-Documents/african%20water%20vision%202025%20to%20be%20sent%20to%20wwf5.pdf . Accessed 21 Jan 2020

USAID (2017) Nigeria: water and development country plan. https://www.globalwaters.org/sites/default/files/nigeria_country_plan.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

Van der Zaag P, Savenije HG (2014) Principles of integrated water resource management. UNESCO – Institute for Water Education, Delft

Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishing, New York

WASH Technical Paper (2021) TP/18/2021. Understanding monitoring for SDG6 across Eastern and Southern Africa: an executive brief, p 3. https://www.unicef.org/esa/media/9556/file/WASH-TP17-SDG6-Monitoring-ESA-Exec-Summary-2021.pdf . Accessed 31 Jan 2022

Water Resources Act (1993)

Water Services Act 1997 of South Africa. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a108-97.pdf . Accessed 16 Jan 2024

Water Use and License Regulations (2016)

WaterAid (2021) Regional state hygiene-West Africa. https://washmatters.wateraid.org/sites/g/files/jkxoof256/files/regional-state-of-hygiene%2D%2D-west-africa.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

Wernecke B, Mathee A, Kunene Z, Balakirshna Y et al (2021) Tracking progress towards the sustainable development goals in four rural villages in Limpopo, South Africa. https://www.annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/10.5334/aogh.3139/ . Accessed 24 Jan 2022

West Africa Brief. http://www.west-africa-brief.org/content/en/nearly-30-west-africans-lack-access-improved-water-source#:~:text=Nearly%2030%25%20of%20the%20West%20African%20population%20does%20not%20have,are%20decreasing%2C%20significant%20gaps%20remain . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

West Africa Water Resources Policy (2008) Supplementary Act A/SA. 5/12/08

West African Water Vision. http://www.hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/polregion-1007-eng.pdf . Accessed 28 Jan 2022

Whaley L, Cleaver F (2017) Can ‘functionality’ save the community management model of rural water supply? Water Resour Rural Dev 9:56–66

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Abuja, Nigeria

Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan & Nkiruka Chidia Maduekwe

School of Law, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK

Irekpitan Okukpon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Ismaila Rimi Abubakar

Strathmore University, Nairobi, Kenya

Izael da Silva

Department of Geography, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Rudi Pretorius

American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt

Khaled Tarabieh

Section Editor information

Center for Food Security Studies, College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa Univesity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Desalegn Yayeh Ayal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Ladan, M.T., Okukpon, I., Maduekwe, N.C. (2024). Realising Sustainable Access to Water and Sanitation in Africa: Role of Critical Institutions. In: Abubakar, I.R., da Silva, I., Pretorius, R., Tarabieh, K. (eds) SDGs in Africa and the Middle East Region. Implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Regional Perspectives. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17465-0_32

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17465-0_32

Published : 01 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-17464-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-17465-0

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Reference Module Physical and Materials Science Reference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Tourists' Willingness To Pay And Sustainable Tourism Policies In Mauritius

There exists a significant gap on the issue of Willingness to Pay (WTP) studies of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), particularly those located in the South West Indian Ocean basin. Mauritius, which is a very popular tourist destination, provides no exception as regards to such gap. Hence, this paper intends to at least extend the literature and address the issue of WTP by exclusively focusing on a monetary valuation of the recreational activity of tourists in Mauritius within a context of sustainable development. The travel cost technique is applied for this purpose and our findings show that there is a potential for tourists to pay more than what they currently pay to visit the island. Hence, this offers local authorities with better scope for sustainable tourism by potentially extracting the corresponding Marginal WTP (MWTP) to conserve the fragile natural assets of this small island economy while safeguarding the coastal and marine ecosystems. Moreover, computation of the MWTP based on data from 21 different countries reveals that each tourist may be willing to pay $38 that could be used to protect tourism-based assets. This figure represents 5% over and above what a tourist actually pays on average to visit the island. Altogether, the paper makes a case for the government to extract this amount with the possibility of introducing an ecological tax. However, the latter must be worked out in such a manner to achieve the most effective conservation outcomes albeit with least distortionary impacts.

Related Papers

Sanjeev K Sobhee

In small island-economies such as Mauritius, the disappearance of native forests and decimation of endemic species of plants and animals over geologically a small time scale is astonishing. Damages to forests, and all living things within them, date back to the early colonization of the island. The introduction of sugar cane and the subsequent dependence of the economy on sugar production and exports for more than two centuries have been responsible for the conversion of forest lands into cane fields, urban and industrial lands. The influx of population, combined with intensive human activity, has concurrently led to the introduction of alien species of animals and plants over the island that have distorted the original state of native forests and threatened the habitats of indigenous flora and fauna. In recent years, economic progress has accentuated deforestation to meet residential land needs. Current macroeconomic trends and population growth will directly or indirectly impact the physical environment encompassing both terrestrial as well as marine resources.

Falade Joseph Damilola

This study was conducted in Lekki conservation center, Lagos state. Nigeria aimed at valuing Lekki conservation center monetarily using a travel cost method (TCM). The study calculate the value of the recreational site in monetary term, it identify the recreational demand and value of the recreational site and also access the factors affecting visitation rate. Both primary & secondary data types were used for collection of data. The sample size was 200 respondents based on their willingness to participate on the study. For analysis of data collected, descriptive analysis was employed. The study revealed that 40% of male and 60% of female visited the recreational site, while majority of the tourists visited for Picnicking (20.5%) and for viewing of scenic nature of the environment (28.5%). From the research it is observed that, this conservation center preserves the natural environment, cultural heritages, it enhances wildlife habitat without endangering the animal’s life through tourist’s activities, soil fertility preventing soil compaction, promotes afforestation and create’s public environmental consciousness. Also the study discuss the limitations and problems of using a Travel Cost method (TCM) approach. However, the researcher gave some recommendation in the study which if adhere to by the government and management of recreational sites will yield beautiful results.

Eric Massey

Our paper tries to fill up a specific gap in the literature on climate change and tourism. Generally speaking, research works in this area tend to focus more on the potential threats of climate change to Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and their tourism sector, in particular, through sea-level rise, loss of bays and distorted coastal morphology. However, we take a different approach by ascertaining potential marginal losses of the tourism sector for the island of Mauritius should there be an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the South West Indian Ocean. Indeed, we set two objectives to achieve our aim and to fill up this gap; firstly, we estimate an empirical demand function for tourism and, secondly, create alternative scenarios of tropical cyclone activity and derive simulated results. We apply a single-site travel cost model to derive the relevant demand function which is then estimated using panel data pertaining to tourist arrivals from 14 countries spanning across a period of 17 years (1987-2003). Our findings show that a 0.1% increase in tropical cyclone activity in this corner of the world would induce a marginal loss of $5.3mn, representing a loss of $443 per head of tourists.

Working papers

Mohamed Shumais

siti aznor ahmad

Richard Pollnac

Cesar Environmental …

Rolph Payet

Clement Tisdell

This article is primarily concerned with the economic consequences of World Heritage listing for the valuation of natural properties and the economic impacts of this listing. Australian data is used to throw light on this subject. Conceptual problems that arise in valuation are explored and several neglected limitations of the travel cost method for estimating the demand for visits to natural sites are mentioned. The importance of economic impact analysis in this context (especially its political ramifications) is given attention. The use of World Heritage listing for political purposes is discussed. It is argued that World Heritage listing favours the long-term conservation of natural properties.

RELATED PAPERS

International Forestry Review

A V Vindhya

Journal of Travel Research

Jason Draper

Marea Hatziolos , H. Naber , Glenn-marie Lange

DR. ALAA ABUKHALIFEH

Juraj Švajda

Santadas Ghosh

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)

Tessa Eka Darmayanti

Somaskanthan Maruthaiah , rosmalina abdul rashid , Shazali Johari , Romzee Ibrahim , Tiara Ara

… Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007 …

Lindsey (Ellingson) Doctorman , Andrew Seidl

nercrd.psu.edu

Lindsey (Ellingson) Doctorman , Nick Magnan , Andrew Seidl

Marine Policy

Scott F. Heron

Economic Analysis and Policy

Dr Boyd D Blackwell

Awangku Hassanal Bahar Pengiran Bagul

Katrina Brandon

Helen Suich

ZELKAR ZELL

Stephen Hynes

Masitah Muhibudin

Harold Goodwin

Environmental Conservation

Eklabya Sharma

Marine Resource …

Hans Vogelsong

Daniel Brito

Margo Longland

Rajesh K U M A R Rai , Mani Nepal, PhD , R. Kotru

Pradeep Chaudhry , V P Tewari

Nabin Baral

James Kennell

V P Tewari , Pradeep Chaudhry

Lusine Margaryan

Megan Epler Wood

Jean-Brice Herrenschmidt

Maria Ventura

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024