Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Case Study

Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan’s

wetland
Tsung Hung Lee ∗ , Hsin-Pei Hsieh
Graduate School of Leisure and Exercise Studies, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123, Sec. 3, University Rd., Touliu, Yunlin 640, Taiwan

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

Article history: This study aims to identify indicators for sustainable wetland tourism. In study 1, the fuzzy Delphi method
Received 1 May 2015 was used to determine key dimensions and indicators. In study 2, the relative weights of these dimen-
Received in revised form 6 March 2016 sions and indicators were examined using the analytic hierarchy process. The empirical results revealed
Accepted 12 March 2016
141 indicators in the hierarchy for sustainable wetland tourism. At the first level, the weight of the stake-
Available online 25 April 2016
holder dimension was greater than that of the environment dimension. At the second level, the impact on
community development was the most important factor within the stakeholder dimension. Among the
Keywords:
identified indicators, the top 7.8% were respect for local traditional culture, respect for local lifestyle, com-
Environment
Indicators
pliance with destination guidelines, traffic problems, destruction of the natural environment, existence
Stakeholder of crowds at the destination, participation in cultural activities, understanding the culture, assimilation
Sustainable tourism into the local culture, overall effect of tourism, benefit–cost differential, and reduction of environmental
Wetland tourism impact. A series of management implications are drawn, including the need to use this information to
Taiwan foster stakeholder involvement and collaboration, to focus on planning for sustainable tourism develop-
ment in general, and to use these indicators for the management of wetland-based sustainable tourism
development.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One indicator represents a measurable parameter or observ-

Like other forms of nature-based tourism, wetland tourism can
be defined as a type of tourism that is directly dependent on a rela-
tively undisturbed natural area that contributes to the conservation
and management of the wetland setting (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996;
Lee, 2009a). Because of their biodiversity, wildlife habitats, eco-
logical environment, and fishing villages, wetlands can constitute
a nature-based tourism destination that offers leisure, recreation,
and tourism for tourists/recreationists (Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lee,
2009a, 2011; Chiu et al., 2014). Wetland tourism provides village-
level and small-scale accommodations so that tourists can enjoy
the natural surroundings in a friendly manner without damaging
the environment. Tourists visiting wetland destinations provide
income directly to the residents and destination and provide valu-
able local support for nature conservation. According to social
exchange theory, host residents who perceive more benefits than
costs from tourism may support the development of sustainable
tourism (Lee, 2013); in this way, wetland tourism can contribute
to the sustainable development of the wetland destination (Galley
and Clifton, 2004; Biggs et al., 2012).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 55342601.
E-mail address: thlee@yuntech.edu.tw (T.H. Lee).
able variable related to a latent variable or a phenomenon that
is difficult to capture. Indicators can be derived using qualitative
and/or quantitative approaches, and the application of indicators
can help elucidate complex realities (Holden, 2006). As an indicator,
sustainability has become a keystone for tourism, environmental
management, and environmental studies.
Indeed, sustainable tourism indicators are broadly recognized
as useful tools for planning rural or cultural tourism (Blancas et al.,
2011; Lozano-Oyola et al., 2012), managing crises (de Sausmarez,
2007), managing community tourism (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006),
assessing tourism destinations (Pérez et al., 2013), measuring
responsible behavior and tourism practices (Blackstock et al., 2008),
and selecting criteria for policy implementation and scientific
recognition (Tanguay et al., 2013).
According to stakeholder theory, numerous stakeholders,
including tourists, hosts, governments, non-government organi-
zations (NGOs), for-profit organizations, and other tourist-related
businesses may be involved in the development and implemen-
tation of sustainable tourism (Fennell, 1999). Sustainable tourism
requires both an awareness of tourism activities that have rela-
tively low impact on nature and a consideration of whether all
stakeholders’ support is warranted.
Wetland tourism typically involves nature-based tourism. This
topic has been discussed extensively in the literature in areas such

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.023
1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
780 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787
as the assessment of a behavioral theoretical framework for wet-
land tourism (Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lee, 2009b, 2011; Wang et al.,
2012; Chiu et al., 2014), support for host residents in tourism devel-
opment (Zhang and Lei, 2012; Lee, 2013), and the management of
sustainable tourism (Shikida et al., 2010). However, there is a lack
of studies integrating dimensions related to various stakeholders
and environmental management to develop indicators for sustain-
able tourism that will facilitate wetland tourism management and
planning.
To address this research gap, this study sought to develop indi-
cators of sustainable wetland tourism. For this purpose, study 1
aimed to develop a framework for the stakeholders and natural
environment of wetland tourism and study 2 aimed to assess and
calculate the relative weights of each sustainable tourism indicator.
2. Theoretical framework
Tourism development has typically been determined by dimen-
sions of economic, environmental, social, cultural, and institutional
perspectives that facilitate sustainability (Edén et al., 2000; Yoon
et al., 2001; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Bhuiyan et al., 2015). Ross
and Wall (1999a) have established a framework for sustainable
tourism development by assessing the relationships among the
local community, tourism, and resources. This study thus applies
a framework integrating perspectives of local communities, bio-
logical diversity, and tourism to assess sustainability indicators of
wetland sustainable development.
2.1. Stakeholder theory
Scholars have identified five main stakeholders in the tourism
context: tourists, residents, industries, government officials (pol-
icy makers), and NGOs (Miller and Twining-Ward, 2005; Choi and
Sirakaya, 2006; Tsaur et al., 2006; Liu, 2007). According to stake-
holder theory (Freeman, 1984), all stakeholder groups should be
involved in the entire tourism development process (Goeldner and
Ritchie, 2009), and the sustainability of tourism development is
determined by the perspective of the stakeholder, for example,
by including residents, tourism entrepreneurs, governments, and
tourists (Lynch et al., 2011; Hallak et al., 2012; Lee, 2013; Lee
et al., 2015b). Stakeholder theory has been widely adopted and
debated in research on policy making and planning for local tourism
(D’Angella and Go, 2009), residents’ attitudes toward tourism (Lee,
2013), attendees’ support for tourism development (Lee et al.,
2015a), and the management of stakeholder groups (Sautter and
Leisen, 1999).
Previous research has shown that the application of stakeholder
theory to sustainable tourism can elucidate concerns related to pro-
tected area partnerships and the assessment of sustainable tourism
indicators (Sautter and Leisen, 1999). In related research, Ross
and Wall (1999a,b) have established a framework to assess the
stakeholders of local communities, tourism, and biological diver-
sity. Furthermore, to evaluate ecotourism sustainability, Tsaur et al.
(2006) have used subjective measures to assess the relation among
resources, community, and tourism in the context of a sustain-
able approach to ecotourism, and Choi and Sirakaya (2006) have
used stakeholder participation in a community to assess indicators
of sustainable community-based tourism development. However,
indicators for wetland tourism have rare been examined in the
literature, necessitating further study.
2.2. Indicators of sustainable tourism
Sustainable development refers to development that meets the
current generation’s needs without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their needs (WCED, 1987). Nature-based
destinations with abundant natural resources provide various
tourist attractions such as wildlife habitats, coral reefs, intertidal
zones, and wetlands (Madin and Fenton, 2004; Lee, 2009a,b; Lee
et al., 2015b), all of which offer opportunities for recreational expe-
riences, environmental education, and entertainment, generating
support for environmental conservation (Ballantyne et al., 2011a,b;
Lee, 2011). Thus, the development of nature-based tourism can
benefit struggling local economies (Bramwell and Lane, 1993;
Andersson, 2007; Lee, 2009b) and play an important role in sus-
tainable development (Andersson, 2007; Lee, 2009b; Nyaupane
and Chhetri, 2009). Consequently, nature-based tourism is a rapid-
growth sector world-wide (Fennell, 1999; Karanth and DeFries,
2011).
Tourism development may nevertheless engender several nega-
tive effects, such as negative environmental (Needham and Szuster,
2011), economic (Wagner, 1997), social (Logar, 2010), cultural
(Logar, 2010), and seasonal income/employment (Logar, 2010)
impacts. In particular, adverse environmental effects from the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel, accommodations,
and recreational activities have been hotly debated (Gössling and
Schumacher, 2010). It is thus crucial to develop sustainable tourism,
increase its benefits, and minimize any harmful effects. For this pur-
pose, sustainable tourism indicators can facilitate the assessment
of the sustainability of tourism development.
Scholars in previous studies have used social, economic, and
environmental indicators of sustainability to assess sustainable
tourism practices, and their findings suggest that sustainable
tourism indicators are necessary to objectively measure the degree
of such practices’ sustainability (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Lozano-
Oyola et al., 2012). Tanguay et al. (2013) have reviewed 11 case
studies assessing between 9 and 768 sustainable tourism indicators
to select criteria for policy implementation and scientific recogni-
tion related to a case study of the Gaspésie region in Québec. Those
authors have identified 507 expert-recognized indicators, includ-
ing indicators related to environmental, economic, and cultural
aspects.
No consensus has been reached as to how each sustainability
indicator contributes to the goal of sustainable tourism. Singh et al.
(2009) have suggested that the use of equal weighting for sustaina-
bility indicators facilitates the interpretation of each indicator. In
contrast, Choi and Sirakaya (2006) have employed a Delphi survey
in which 36 tourism experts assessed 125 indicators on a five-point
Likert scale to weight the relative importance of each indicator.
Applying the Delphi technique, Tsaur et al. (2006) have utilized
stakeholder perceptions to determine the sustainable tourism per-
formance of an indigenous ecotourism destination, with the results
indicating that natural resources and the environment are the most
important factors for ensuring sustainable tourism.
The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method proposed by
Saaty (1977) is widely used to evaluate respondents’ expressed
preferences or opinions because it allows scholars to effectively
structure complex problems, such as the relative importance of sus-
tainable tourism indicators in the form of hierarchical data (Park
and Yoon, 2011; Day and Cai, 2012; Mikulić et al., 2015). Thus,
the AHP constitutes an effective approach to assessing the rela-
tive importance of sustainable tourism indicators (Park and Yoon,
2011).
3. The survey
3.1. Study 1
3.1.1. Study site
This study was conducted in the Cigu wetland (120◦ 5 17 E,
◦
23 7 8 N), which is situated in the Southwest Coast National Scenic
Area, Taiwan. This area is famous for its rich and diverse birdlife,
 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787 781

lagoons, and sandbars and is the focus of wetland tourism develop-
ment. We chose this wetland as the study area for several reasons.
First, this area has recently been developed into a nature-based
tourism site. Second, because Cigu is a popular nature-based desti-
nation, several scholars have assessed the behavior of nature-based
tourists (Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lee, 2009a, 2011) and the support
of residents for tourism development in that area (Lee, 2013). Third,
Cigu is in the process of transitioning from an economy based on
traditional agriculture to an economy based on tourism.
3.1.2. Identification of sustainable tourism indicator
By conducting a literature review and considering the
recreational resources and sustainable nature-based tourism
development (Ross and Wall, 1999a,b; Choi and Sirakaya, 2006;
Cottrell and Cutumisu, 2006; Tsaur et al., 2006; Van der Duim and
Van Marwijk, 2006; Roberts and Tribe, 2008; Laurila-Pant et al.,
2015), tourism sustainability may be assessed in terms of human
activities and the biological diversity of the environment. To make
this assessment, Ko (2005) has used two systems: the human
system (i.e., the stakeholder) and the ecosystem (i.e., the environ-
ment) as the conceptual framework for tourism sustainability. We
thus identified two dimensions for sustainable tourism indicators:
stakeholder and environment. The stakeholder dimension included
five sub-dimensions: tourists (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Lee, 2009a),
residents (Yoon et al., 2001), for-profit organizations (Liu, 2007),
governments (Choi and Sirakaya, 2006; Liu, 2007), and NGOs (Choi
and Sirakaya, 2006; Tsaur et al., 2006; Liu, 2007). The environ-
ment dimension included six sub-dimensions: loss of renewable
resources, rate of ecosystem degradation, environmental impact of
tourism activity, rate of reuse/recycling, health of the human pop-
ulation, and loss of non-renewable resources (Choi and Sirakaya,
2006). In total, we identified 143 sustainable tourism indicators.
technique, a survey is conducted via a series of questionnaires. It
is then interspersed with controlled opinion feedback and used
to forecast future events by reaching a consensus (Woudenberg,
1991). Although traditional Delphi methods have merit, ambiguity
and uncertainty remain. Fuzzy set theory can correct the short-
comings of this method by decreasing questionnaire survey times,
avoiding the distortion of individual expert opinions, clearly cap-
turing the semantic structure of predicted items, and considering
the fuzzy nature of the interview process (Kaufmann and Gupta,
1988). In previous research, Cheng and Lin (2002) successfully used
fuzzy Delphi method applications to achieve a consensus among
expert opinions using fuzzy numbers. Therefore, to assess each
sustainable tourism indicators, this study employed a fuzzy Delphi
method to obtain interspersed consensus with controlled opinion
feedback.
Twenty-eight panel members were selected from three differ-
ent groups: academic scholars in the field of sustainable tourism
management (9), recreational areas managers in the Cigu wetland
(11), and officers in tourism-related government bureaus (8). In
total, 28 experts were invited to participate in the survey. However,
12 experts refused to participate because they were not interested
(N = 3), not convinced of the real benefit of the project (N = 3), did not
have enough time to answer the questions (N = 4), or did not wish
to participate in a research project (N = 2). The expert questionnaire
survey was conducted from December 18, 2010 to April 11, 2011, in
two-round surveys conducted via e-mail or mail. Three question-
naires were invalid. Consequently, a total of 13 experts completed
the expert questionnaire survey. The panel members seem likely
to be unbiased and representative because they include scholars of
tourism management (4), recreational area managers in the Cigu
wetland (5), and officers in tourism-related government bureaus
(4).

3.1.3. Fuzzy Delphi survey 3.1.4. Results

The Delphi method is a useful survey technique based on a struc- The sustainable tourism indicators identified based on the
tured, typically five-round process of surveying experts. With this expert panel using the fuzzy Delphi method was evaluated after

Table 1
Indicators of sustainable wetland Tourism.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Stakeholder Visitor Recreation experience 11 (2)b

Respect for the local culture 4 (1)
Enhanced economic development 5 (1)
Sustainable tourism 5 (0)
Residenta Environmental impact 4 (4)
Cultural impact 4 (2)
Social impact 6 (2)
Economic impact 8 (1)
Integrated development impact 2 (1)
Tourism support 5 (2)
For-profit organization Tourism support service 6 (4)
Ecological conservation 8 (2)
Government Locally oriented control policy 8 (8)
Political participation 6 (6)
Local planning policya 9 (7)
Tourism support at all levels of government 7 (4)
Technology 3 (2)
Non-government organization Sustainable development 7 (0)
Industry activation 5 (0)
Community alliance 5 (0)
Environment Loss of renewable resources 4 (1)
Rate of ecosystem degradationa 3 (3)
Environmental impact of tourism activitya 3 (0)
Rate of reuse/recycle/reduction 4 (2)
Loss of non-renewable resourcesa 2 (1)
Health of the human health 6 (3)
Level of biodiversity 3 (0)
Total 143 (59)
a
The construct did not reach the threshold value of consensus in the first round.
b
The numbers in parentheses indicate the number of indicators that did not reach the threshold value of consensus in the first round.
782 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

a two-round survey. Three levels of dimensions were obtained
(Table 1). Level 1 included two dimensions: stakeholders and the
environment. Level 2 included visitors, residents, for-profit orga-
nizations, governments, and NGOs in the stakeholder dimension;
it also included loss of renewable resources, rate of ecosystem
degradation, environmental impact of tourism activity, rate of
reuse/recycle/reduction, health of the human health, and level of
biodiversity in the environment dimension. Level 3 included 20
dimensions: recreation experience, respect for the local culture
enhanced economic development, sustainable tourism, environ-
mental impact, cultural impact, social impact economic impact,
integrated development impact, tourism support services, eco-
logical conservation, locally oriented control policy, political
participation, local planning policy, tourism support at all levels
of government, and technology. Level 4 included 141 indicators.
At level 2, the environment dimension included loss of renew-
able resources (4 indicators), rate of ecosystem degradation (3
indicators), environmental impact of tourism/recreation activity (3
indicators), rate of reuse/recycle/reduction (4 indicators), loss of
non-renewable resources (2 indicators), health of the human pop-
ulation (6 indicators), and level of biodiversity (3 indicators). Loss
of non-renewable resources (2 indicators) was removed because
the indicators did not reach the threshold value of consensus in the
two rounds of the fuzzy Delphi survey.
At level 3, the visitor dimension included the four sub-
dimensions of recreation experience (11 indicators), respect for
the local culture (4 indicators), enhanced economic development
(5 indicators), and sustainable tourism (5 indicators). The res-
ident dimension included environmental impact (4 indicators),
cultural impact (4 indicators), social impact (3 indicators), eco-
nomic impact (8 indicators), integrated development impact (2
indicators), and tourism support (5 indicators). The for-profit orga-
nization dimension included tourism service (6 indicators) and
ecological conservation (8 indicators). The government dimension
included locally oriented control policy (8 indicators), political
participation (6 indicators), local planning policy (9 indicators),
tourism support at all levels of government (7 indicators), and
technology (3 indicators). The NGO dimension included sustainable
development (7 indicators), industry activation (5 indicators), and
community alliance (5 indicators). In all, 141 sustainable tourism
indicators were identified (Appendix A).
3.2. Study 2
3.2.1. Weights for sustainable tourism indicators
Twenty-two panel members were selected from three groups:
tourism management scholars (11), tourism managers in the Cigu
wetland (5), and officers in tourism-related government bureaus
(6). In total, 22 experts were invited, all of whom agreed to partic-
ipate in the study. To determine the weight for each indicator, the
expert questionnaires survey was conducted between June and July
2011. Following the AHP methodology, we constructed a matrix by
using a proportional scale from 1 to 9 to compare pairs of weights.
The weights for each program were calculated by using Expert
Choice software (Expert Choice, 2004).
First, a hierarchical model was developed with the goal of sus-
tainable tourism development positioned at the top level. At the
first level, the weights were determined based on two dimensions:
“stakeholder” and “environment.” At the second level, the stake-
holder dimension included five sub-dimensions, i.e., tourists (4
constructs, 25 indicators), residents (6 constructs, 29 indicators),
for-profit organizations (2 constructs, 14 indicators), governments
(5 constructs, 33 indicators), and NGOs (3 constructs, 17 indicators).
The environment included six sub-dimensions: loss of renewable
resources (4 indicators), rate of ecosystem destruction (3 indica-
tors), environmental impact of tourism activity (3 indicators), rate
of reduction/reuse/recycling (4 indicators), health of residents and
tourists (6 indicators), and level of biodiversity (3 indicators).
Second, we determined the relative importance of the indica-
tors at each level by comparing all possible pairs of constructs and
indicators, beginning with the first, second, third, and fourth levels.
Third, the relative weights of these indicators were screened and
determined by using consistency tests to censure the reliability of
the results.
Finally, the weights of each indicator in the hierarchy structure
were calculated using pair-wise comparisons.

Table 2
Weights of sustainable wetland tourism indicators.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Stakeholder (0.573) Visitor (0.161) Recreation experience (0.161) 11 indicators

Respect for the local culture (0.417) 4 indicators
Enhanced economic development (0.144) 5 indicators
Sustainable tourism (0.277) 5 indicators
Resident (0.360) Environmental impact (0.218) 4 indicators
Cultural impact (0.218) 4 indicators
Social impact (0.159) 6 indicators
Economic impact (0.121) 4 indicators
Integrated development impact (0.195) 4 indicators
Tourism support (0.089) 4 indicators
For-profit organization (0.088) Tourism service (0.331) 6 indicators
Ecological conservation (0.669) 8 indicators
Government (0.152) Local oriented controlled policy (0.259) 8 indicators
Political participation (0.175) 6 indicators
Local planning policy (0.261) 9 indicators
Tourism support at all levels of government (0.182) 7 indicators
Technology (0.123) 3 indicators
Non-government organization (0.173) Sustainable development (0.650) 7 indicators
Industry activation (0.202) 5 indicators
Community alliance (0.148) 5 indicators
Environment (0.427) Loss of renewable resources (0.119) 5 indicators
Rate of ecosystem degradation (0.235) 3 indicators
Environmental impact of tourism activity (0.193) 5 indicators
Rate of reuse/recycle/reduction (0.095) 4 indicators
Health of the human health (0.155) 6 indicators
Level of biodiversity (0.203) 3 indicators

Total 141 indicators

 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787
Stakeholder (Visitor)
0.6
Environment (Bidiversity) 0.5
0.4
Environment (Health of 0.3
the populaon) 0.2
0.1
0
Environment (Rate of
reuse/recycle/reduce)
Environment (Tourism
acvity impact…
Environment (Rate of
Ecosystem degradaon)
Fig. 1. The radar chart of level 1 and level 2 for the sustainable wetland tourism.
3.2.2. Results
The weights of each sustainable tourism indicator were deter-
mined using the AHP with 28 participants (Table 2). The relative
weights of three levels of dimensions and 141 indicators were cal-
culated. At the first level, the weight of the stakeholder dimension
(0.537) was higher than that of the environment dimension (0.472).
At the second level, for the stakeholder dimension, the resident
sub-dimension (0.360) had the highest weight, and the for-profit
organization sub-dimension (0.088) had the lowest weight. For
the environment dimension, the rate of ecosystem degradation
sub-dimension (0.235) had the highest weight, and the rate of
reuse/recycle/reduction sub-dimension had the lowest weight
(0.095). The radar chart is illustrated in Fig. 1.
At the third level, for the visitor dimension, respect for the local
culture (0.417), followed by sustainable tourism (0.277), had the
highest weight; for the resident dimension, environmental impact
(0.218) and cultural impact (0.218), followed by integrated devel-
opment impact (0.195), had the highest weight. For the for-profit
organization dimension, ecological conservation had a weight of
0.669, and tourism service had a weight of 0.331. For the govern-
ment dimension, locally oriented control policy (0.259), followed
by local planning policy (0.261), had the highest weight. For the
NGOs dimension, sustainable development (0.650), followed by
industrial activities (0.202), had the highest weight.
At the fourth level, the indicators with weights greater than
0.010 were as follows: respect for local traditional culture (0.0107),
respect for local lifestyle (0.0167), compliance with destination
guidelines (0.0128), traffic problems (0.0142), destruction of the
natural environment (0.0129), crowds at the destination (0.0101),
participation in cultural activities (0.0103), understanding of the
culture (0.0110), assimilation into the local culture (0.0137), over-
all effect of tourism (0.0269), benefit–cost differential (0.0126), and
reduction of environmental impact (0.0139). These indicators com-
posed the top 7.8% of the 141 indicators.
4. Discussion
Factors related to both the environment and stakeholders are
important for sustainable development. However, this study’s
findings indicate that the stakeholder dimension is relatively more
important than the environment dimension. This study represents
the first attempt to assess the relative importance of these two
factors. Previous scholars have identified three types of human
values related to environmentalism: egoistic, social-altruistic,
and biospheric values (Stern and Dietz, 1994). Egoism causes a
person to act in opposition to environmental protection when that
individual determines that the personal costs of acting are greater
than the benefits. An individual with greater social-altruistic values
783
Stakeholder (Resident)
Stakeholder (Profit
organizaon)
Level1
Level2
Stakeholder (Goverment)
Stakeholder (Non-
government…
Environment (Local of
renewable resources)
will experience a moral obligation to protect the environment
(Schwartz, 1970). Biospheric values may explain human behavior
in the face of environmental problems (De Groot and Steg, 2007).
Thus, to foster sustainable tourism, it is important to consider
egoistic and social-altruistic values related to environmentalism
to ensure that the benefits to stakeholders are greater than the
costs of environment protection.
Achieving sustainable tourism is difficult without the support
and participation of local residents (Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004;
Nicholas et al., 2009). Indeed, the analytical findings show that the
residents’ dimension is highly weighted, indicating that the resi-
dents’ support is a critical factor in the ongoing development of
sustainable tourism.
This study identified six categories, including 25 indicators, in
line with Choi and Sirakaya’s (2006) environmental dimension. The
panel members rated ecosystem degradation as the most impor-
tant indicator related to the environment dimension. This finding
indicates that the world is facing a historically unprecedented
ecological crisis that will severely diminish opportunities for the
success of future generations (Foley et al., 2005). Thus, to achieve
sustainable tourism it is crucial to reduce the rate of ecosystem
degradation.
Respect for the local culture was the highest in the visitor
dimension. Thus, as with ecotourism or nature-based tourism, sus-
tainable tourism requires that tourists have maximum respect
for the local culture. Environmental and cultural impacts had the
highest weights in the resident dimension, implying that host resi-
dents perceive that the environmental and cultural costs of tourism
development will be considerably more important in the future
than they would be if they existed in the present.
Within the for-profit organization and NGOs dimensions, eco-
logical conservation and sustainable development, respectively, are
highly weighted, implying that pro-environment and sustainability
approaches are critical for sustainable tourism.
At the fourth level, the top-weighed 7.8% of the 141 identified
indicators were respect for local traditional culture, respect for local
lifestyle, compliance with destination guidelines, traffic problems,
destruction of the natural environment, existence of crowds at the
destination, participation in cultural activities, understanding the
culture, assimilation into the local culture, overall effect of tourism,
benefit–cost differential, and reduction of environmental impact
(0.0139). We thus recommend that wetland tourism managers
have the capacity to assess tourists’ cultural impact. For example,
to reduce the tourists’ cultural impact of tourists, wetland tourism
managers could create a cultural-awareness course to increase
understanding of different cultural norms and values. Wetland
tourism marketers could also develop environmental education
activities focusing on wetland themes, biodiversity conservation,
784 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787

and wetland ecotourism and establish an ecological webpage to fur- 5. Conclusion

ther enhance pro-environment and sustainable wetlands tourism.
This study offers a theoretical framework for researchers, man-
agers, and stakeholders in the field of sustainable tourism and
wetland development, thus contributing to the literature.
Despite this study’s contributions, it is not without limitations.
First, because this study focuses on assessing sustainable tourism
indicators for wetland tourism, the findings are limited to a specific
demographic group in Taiwan. Achieving sustainable tourism in
different countries may require the use of different developmental
models with respect to tourism policy and the natural environment.
Thus, future studies should conduct similar surveys on the sustain-
able development of various nature-based tourism destinations in
various countries to capture international and multicultural per-
spectives. Next, to actually monitor the sustainability of tourism,
future studies should develop a practical procedure that can be
effectively implemented based on this study’s findings. The devel-
opment of a long-term monitoring system to assess sustainable
tourism is necessary to monitor the early effects of tourism on the
environment and to adopt management strategies and action plans.
The assessment of sustainable tourism indicators can be
regarded as a useful tool for achieving sustainable wetland tourism.
Although it appears paradoxical to develop indicators for sustain-
able tourism, few satisfactory definitions for sustainable wetland
tourism exist. To fill the gap in current tourism research, this study
examined indicators for sustainable tourism based stakeholder the-
ory and environmental impact theory to integrate the roles of
stakeholders into the assessment of sustainable tourism. This study
used two empirical studies to effectively determine the relatively
weights of three levels of dimensions and 141 indicators. Thus, by
assessing the relative importance of these indicators, we can effec-
tively determine the significance of each indicator for focusing on
planning, managing, and monitoring sustainable wetland tourism,
potentially contributing to the academic literature.
Appendix A.
Dimensions and indicators of sustainable wetland tourism.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Stakeholder Visitor Recreation experience Nature and landscape experience

Wetland biodiversity experience
Wildlife watching
Lagoon’s recreation experience
Sandbar’s recreation experience
Service quality
Ecological guides
Number of encounters with other tourists
Safety equipment
Ecotourism program
Travel cost
Respect for local culture Respect for residents’ traditional culture
Respect for residents’ life-style
Compliance with tourist guidelines
Increase cultural exchange
Enhanced economic development Purchase souvenir
Employ guide
Local traffic service
Stay at bed and breakfast
Donate to local conservation funds
Sustainable tourism Overall satisfaction
Identity for sustainability
Support for sustainable tourism
Willingness to revisit
Positive word-of-mouth to others
Resident Environmental impact Traffic congestion, noise, and pollution
Damage the natural environment
Destination crowding
Access to recreational facilities
Cultural impact Participate cultural activities
Increase cultural exchange
Understand the culture and society
Identify the culture
Social impact Affect residents’ way of life
Change precious traditional culture
Disturb residents’ daily life
Improving tourist facilities is a waste of tax-payer money
Destroy community culture
Increase the crime rate
Economic impact Increase job opportunities
Attract more investment
Lead to more spending in the community
Increase standard of living
Increase service quality
Give economic benefits to local people and small business
Tourism revenues are beneficial to local government
Develop public tourist facilities
Integrated development impact Overall impacts of tourism development
Benefits of tourism are greater than costs to the people
Tourism support Development of nature-based tourism
Attractions designed for nature-based tourists
 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787 785

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Cultural or historic-based attractions

For-profit organization Tourism support services
Ecological conservation
Government Locally oriented control policy
Political participation
Local planning policy
Tourism support at all levels of
government
Outdoor recreational programs
Supporting development of the service industry
Provide travel information
Provide interpretive services
Provide medicine and emergency information system
Provide educational training programs
Satisfaction survey
Provide a visitor center
Formulate ethics in Tourism
Management of ecological carrying capacity
Maintenance of local specialties
Support for resource recycle
Energy-saving carbon reduction program
Support for sustainable tourism related research
Support for environmental monitoring
Provide the environmental conservation course
Development of control policy
Formulate legal compliance
Establish tourism planning
Create a local advisory group
Percentage of external ownership of tourism industry
Implementation of local public opinion
Intersectoral linkage at local-national level
NGOs
Resident participation in planning process
Stakeholder collaboration
Level of cooperation among stakeholders
Stakeholder partnership
Resident advisory board
Awareness and implications of sustainability
Environmental management and policy
Land policy
Tourism planning
Community-based planning
Assessment of sustainable tourism
Political feasibility of tourism
Existence of tourism plan
Permits issued
Ethical regulation
Management and administration of community-based tourism
Attitude toward development and conservation
Two-way communication between residents and government
Projects for conservation and development
Incentive programs
Development projects at national level
Affordable funding resources

Technology Tourism information update

Non-government organization
Environment Loss of renewable resources
Rate of ecosystem degradation
Environmental impact of tourism
activity
New and low-impact technologies
Generic and competitive
Sustainable development Reduce environment impact
Promote environmental conservation
Survey of tourism resources
Survey of tourism impact
Assessment of environmental monitors
Promote natural destination experience
Assessing carrying capacity
Industry activation Level of development satisfaction
Formulate developmental mechanism
Regular educational training program
Regular interpretation service training
Promote environmental conservation program
Community alliance Increase community identity
Promote economic development
Community-based tourism industry to employ residents
Promote cultural conservation
Public participation and community empowerment
Assessment of air quality
Percentage of good air-quality days
Frequency of environmental accidents
Number of contaminated sites
Level of protection
Energy consumption data
Environmentally managed
Environmental impact assessment
Life-cycle analysis
Number of protected species
786 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Rate of reuse/recycle/reduction
Health of the human health
Level of biodiversity
References
Andersson, J.E., 2007. The recreational cost of coral bleaching – a stated and revealed
preference study of international tourists. Ecol. Econ. 62, 704–715.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Falk, J., 2011a. Visitors’ learning for environmental sus-
tainability: testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences
using structural equation modeling. Tour. Manage. 32 (6), 1243–1252.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Sutherland, L.A., 2011b. Visitors’ memories of wildlife
tourism: implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tour.
Manage. 32 (4), 770–779.
Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Siwar, C., Ismail, S.M., 2015. Sustainability measurement for eco-
tourism destination in Malaysia: a study on Lake Kenyir, Terengganu. Soc. Indic.
Res., 1–17.
Biggs, D., Ban, N.C., Hall, C.M., 2012. Lifestyle values, resilience, and nature-based
tourism’s contribution to conservation on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Environ.
Conserv. 39 (4), 370–379.
Blackstock, K.L., White, V., McCrum, G., Scott, A., Hunter, C., 2008. Measuring respon-
sibility: an appraisal of a Scottish National Park’s sustainable tourism indicators.
J. Sustain. Tour. 16 (3), 276–297.
Blancas, F.J., Lozano-Oyola, M., González, M., Guerrero, F.M., Caballero, R., 2011. How
to use sustainability indicators for tourism planning: the case of rural tourism
in Andalusia (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 412, 28–45.
Bramwell, B., Lane, B., 1993. Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach. J.
Sustain. Tour. 1 (1), 1–5.
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H., 1996. Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Cheng, C.H., Lin, Y., 2002. Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision
theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 142 (1), 174–186.
Chiu, Y.T.H., Lee, W.I., Chen, T.H., 2014. Environmentally responsible behavior in
ecotourism: antecedents and implications. Tour. Manage. 40, 321–329.
Choi, H.C., Sirakaya, E., 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community
tourism. Tour. Manage. 27, 1274–1289.
Cottrell, S.P., Cutumisu, N., 2006. Sustainable tourism development strategy in WWF
Pan Parks: case of a Swedish and Romanian national park. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour.
6 (2), 150–167.
D’Angella, F., Go, F.M., 2009. Tale of two cities’ collaborative tourism marketing:
towards a theory of destination stakeholder assessment. Tour. Manage. 30 (3),
429–440.
Day, J., Cai, L., 2012. Environmental and energy-related challenges to sustainable
tourism in the United States and China. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 19 (5),
379–388.
De Groot, J.I., Steg, L., 2007. Value orientations and environmental beliefs in five
countries validity of an instrument to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric
value orientations. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 38 (3), 318–332.
de Sausmarez, N., 2007. Crisis management, tourism and sustainability: the role of
indicators. J. Sustain. Tour. 15 (6), 700–714.
Edén, M., Falkheden, L., Malbert, B., 2000. The built environment and sustainable
development: research meets practice in a Scandinavian context. Plan. Theory
Pract. 1 (2), 260–272.
Expert Choice, 2004. Expert Choice Software and Manual. Expert Choice, Inc., Pitts-
burgh, PA.
Fennell, D.A., 1999. Ecotourism: An Introduction. Routledge, London.
Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S.,
Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A.,
Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K.,
2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309 (5734), 570–574.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Pub-
lishing Inc., Boston.
Galley, G., Clifton, J., 2004. The motivational and demographic characteristics of
research ecotourists: operation Wallacea volunteers in Southeast Sulawesi,
Indonesia. J. Ecotour. 3 (1), 69–82.
Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B., 2009. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 11th
edition. Wiley, London.
Gössling, S., Schumacher, K.P., 2010. Implementing carbon neutral destination poli-
cies: issues from the Seychelles. J. Sustain. Tour. 18 (3), 377–391.
Gursoy, D., Rutherford, D.G., 2004. Host attitudes toward tourism – an improved
structural model. Ann. Tour. Res. 31 (3), 495–516.
Level 4
Availability, size, and condition of urban forest
Adopting regeneration resources used
Recycling rate
Agriculture/fishery utilization
Control site development
Amount of environmental education training
Use intensity of the sites
Wastewater discharge
Group size at sites
Discharge of solid waste
Animal biodiversity
Plant biodiversity
Population stability of the indicator species
Hallak, R., Brown, G., Lindsay, N.J., 2012. The place identity–performance relation-
ship among tourism entrepreneurs: a structural equation modelling analysis.
Tour. Manage. 33 (1), 143–154.
Holden, M., 2006. Urban indicators and the integrative ideals of cities. Cities 23 (3),
170–183.
Karanth, K.K., DeFries, R., 2011. Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas: new
challenges for park management. Conserv. Lett. 4 (2), 137–149.
Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M., 1988. Fuzzy Mathematical Model in Engineering and
Management Science. North-Holland Inc., New York.
Kerstetter, D.L., Hou, J.S., Lin, C.H., 2004. Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a
behavioral approach. Tour. Manage. 25, 491–498.
Ko, T.G., 2005. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a
conceptual approach. Tour. Manage. 26 (3), 431–445.
Laurila-Pant, M., Lehikoinen, A., Uusitalo, L., Venesjärvi, R., 2015. How to value bio-
diversity in environmental management? Ecol. Indic. 55, 1–11.
Lee, T.H., 2009a. A structural model to examine how destination image, attitude, and
motivation affect the future behavior of tourists. Leis. Sci. 31 (3), 215–236.
Lee, T.H., 2009b. A structural model for examining how destination image and
interpretation service affect future behavior: a case study of Taiwan’s Taomi
eco-village. J. Sustain Tour. 17 (6), 727–745.
Lee, T.H., 2011. How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation
commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. J. Sustain. Tour. 19
(7), 895–915.
Lee, T.H., 2013. Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable
tourism development. Tour. Manage. 34 (1), 37–46.
Lee, T.H., Fu, C.J., Chang, P.S., 2015a. The support of attendees for tourism develop-
ment: evidence from religious festivals, Taiwan. Tour. Geogr. 17 (2), 223–243.
Lee, T.H., Jan, F.H., Huang, G.W., 2015b. The influence of recreation experiences
on environmentally responsible behavior: the case of Liuqiu Island, Taiwan. J.
Sustain. Tour. 23 (6), 947–967.
Liu, C.R., 2007. A study on sustainable development evaluation indictors in Alishan’s
Dabang ecotourism destination. J. Tour. Leis. Stud. 13 (3), 235–264 (in Chinese
with English summary).
Logar, I., 2010. Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: an assess-
ment of policy instruments. Tour. Manage. 31, 125–135.
Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F.J., González, M., Caballero, R., 2012. Sustainable tourism
indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 18, 659–675.
Lynch, M.F., Duinker, P.N., Sheehan, L.R., Chute, J.E., 2011. The demand for Mi’kmaw
cultural tourism: tourist perspectives. Tour. Manage. 32, 977–986.
Madin, E.M., Fenton, D.M., 2004. Environmental interpretation in the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park: an assessment of programme effectiveness. J. Sustain. Tour.
12 (2), 121–137.
Mikulić, J., Kožić, I., Krešić, D., 2015. Weighting indicators of tourism sustainability:
a critical note. Ecol. Indic. 48, 312–314.
Miller, G., Twining-Ward, L., 2005. Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition:
The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators. CABI Publishing, Wallingford,
UK.
Needham, M.D., Szuster, B.W., 2011. Situational influences on normative evalua-
tions of coastal tourism and recreation management strategies in Hawai’i. Tour.
Manage. 32 (4), 732–740.
Nicholas, L., Thapa, B., Ko, Y., 2009. Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site
– the Pitons management area, St. Lucia. Ann. Tour. Res. 36 (3), 390–412.
Nyaupane, G.P., Chhetri, N., 2009. Vulnerability to climate change of nature-based
tourism in the Nepalese Himalayas. Tour. Geogr. 11 (1), 95–119.
Park, D.B., Yoon, Y.S., 2011. Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indica-
tors. Int. J. Tour. Res. 13 (5), 401–415.
Pérez, V., Guerrero, F., González, M., Pérez, F., Caballero, R., 2013. Composite indicator
for the assessment of sustainability: the case of Cuban nature-based tourism
destinations. Ecol. Indic. 29, 316–324.
Roberts, S., Tribe, J., 2008. Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises: an
exploratory perspective. J. Sustain. Tour. 16 (5), 575–594.
Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999a. Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Tour. Manage. 20 (6), 673–682.
Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999b. Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and
practice. Tour. Manage. 20 (1), 123–132.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
Psychol. 15, 234–281.
 T.H. Lee, H.-P. Hsieh / Ecological Indicators 67 (2016) 779–787
Sautter, E.T., Leisen, B., 1999. Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model.
Ann. Tour. Res. 26 (2), 312–328.
Schwartz, S.H., 1970. Moral decision making and behavior. In: Macauley, J.,
Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 127–141.
Shikida, A., Yoda, M., Kino, A., Morishige, M., 2010. Tourism relationship model and
intermediary for sustainable tourism management: case study of the Kiritappu
Wetland Trust in Hamanaka, Hokkaido. Tour. Hosp. Res. 10 (2), 105–115.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., 2009. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 9, 189–212.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues
50 (3), 65–84.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Therrien, M.C., 2013. Sustainable tourism indicators:
selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. J. Sustain.
Tour. 21 (6), 862–879.
Tsaur, S.H., Lin, Y.C., Lin, J.H., 2006. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the
integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tour. Manage. 27,
640–653.
787
Van der Duim, R., Van Marwijk, R., 2006. The implementation of an environmental
management system for Dutch tour operators: an actor-network perspective. J.
Sustain. Tour. 14 (5), 449–472.
Wagner, J.E., 1997. Estimating the economic impacts of tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 24
(3), 592–608.
Wang, W., Chen, J.S., Fan, L., Lu, J., 2012. Tourist experience and wetland parks: a
case of Zhejiang, China. Ann. Tour. Res. 39 (4), 1763–1778.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. Our Com-
mon Future (Report by United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development [Chaired by GroBrundtland]). Oxford University Press, London.
Woudenberg, F., 1991. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 40
(2), 131–150.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., Chen, J.S., 2001. Validating a tourism development theory with
structural equation modeling. Tour. Manage. 22 (4), 363–372.
Zhang, H., Lei, S.L., 2012. A structural model of residents’ intention to partici-
pate in ecotourism: the case of a wetland community. Tour. Manage. 33 (4),
916–925.