Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Sustainable ecotourism indicators with fuzzy Delphi method – A Philippine T

perspective
⁎
Lanndon Ocampoa, , Junine Angela Ebisab, Jefferson Ombeb, Meredith Geen Escotob
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Cebu Technological University, Corner M.J. Cuenco Ave. & R. Palma St., Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, Philippines
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of San Carlos, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu, Philippines

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The development of sustainable tourism indicator sets is a popular strategy in current literature in order to plan
Sustainable ecotourism and manage the sustainability performance of tourism sites. Such development is contextual to the geographic
Indicators location of tourism sites due to their underlying differences in specific conditions and needs. Although eco-
Fuzzy set theory tourism lies within the border of the sustainability sphere, current studies are concerned about the negative
Delphi method
impacts of ecotourism activities not just to the sites but to the immediate local communities of the sites as well
Philippines
while limited works have been reported on the development of sustainable ecotourism indicators. Thus, this
paper attempts to advance the domain literature by (1) establishing sustainable ecotourism indicators from a
comprehensive list of sustainable tourism indicators sets, (2) exploring a new case, the Philippines – a developing
country where the debate on the efficacy of ecotourism activities is widely pronounced, which has never been
studied in the past and (3) presenting a methodology that addresses various stakeholders’ interests while cap-
turing uncertainty which is inherent in decision-making process. This work adopts a fuzzy Delphi method in
establishing sustainable ecotourism indicators where fuzzy set theory is used to address vagueness and un-
certainty of judgments and the group decision-making process is handled by the Delphi method. From the 666
indicators generated from literature, 59 indicators are considered relevant to sustainable ecotourism. Using the
fuzzy Delphi approach, the list of 39 sustainable ecotourism indicators for the Philippine perspective is reported
in this work. The proposed approach provides greater tractability due to its straightforward approach and
flexibility for decision-makers when specific case conditions require an increase or decrease of the number of
indicators. The sustainable ecotourism indicators are expected to provide the government sufficient information
granules crucial for resource allocation and policy-making in the conservation of the ecotourism sites as well as
in improving the welfare and inclusiveness of the local communities. Future works are also identified and re-
ported.

1. Introduction
Several countries consider the tourism industry as a vital con-
tributor to their economies as it generates jobs and can be considered as
the perfect avenue of opportunities for development (World Tourism
Organization, 2016). Due to the negative impacts brought about by
thriving tourism, there is a sense of urgency relating to the issue of
sustainable tourism (Wang et al., 2016). It is thus crucial that tourism
activities initiated in prospect destinations must meet the tourists’ sa-
tisfaction while not compromising the sites’ natural resources (Blancas
et al., 2015). Among several approaches to sustainable tourism, eco-
tourism emerges with the largest potential following the definition set
forth by Blangy and Wood (1993; p. 32) as the “responsible travel to
natural areas that conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of
local people’’. This definition is consistent with the sustainable devel-
opment outcomes which include, among others, proper resource man-
agement (World Tourism Organization, 2000). This has brought eco-
tourism at the forefront of sustainable tourism following its impact
conservation and development (Wood, 2002). However, Wall (1997)
posed that sustainable tourism and ecotourism should not be taken as
synonymous concepts such that many forms of ecotourism may not be
sustainable. In order for ecotourism to support sustainable develop-
ment, that is reaping perpetual economic benefits while promoting
nature conservation, it must undergo careful planning and management
(Wall, 1997; Baral, 2015).
Despite the rich literature on this topic, the current direction of
ecotourism poses challenges to sustainable development. In fact, prac-
tices that are supposedly carried out to help achieve the goals of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lanndonocampo@gmail.com (L. Ocampo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.060
Received 5 November 2017; Received in revised form 23 May 2018; Accepted 24 May 2018
1470-160X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Ocampo et al.
ecotourism are worsening the situation of the potential ecotourism sites
which may be brought about by differences in stakeholders’ perspec-
tives (e.g., tourists, entrepreneurs, locals, and government) (Wall,
1997). While excellent frameworks have been proposed attempting to
link stakeholders together toward ecotourism in the most effective
manner initially explored by Buckley (1994) and refined by Boley and
Green (2016), Mathis and Rose (2016) and Thompson et al. (2018),
recent debates on the efficacy of ecotourism are pointing out that most
practices that are actually implemented tend to neglect the interests of
local communities and residents. While recent reports on the impacts of
ecotourism on socioeconomic development of local communities have
been published in domain literature (Arun et al., 2015; Afenyo and
Amuquandoh, 2014; Gezon 2014; Hunt et al., 2015), Cobbinah (2015)
observed that local communities are often the most overlooked element
while they tend to be at the receiving end of both positive and negative
outcomes. As a result, the protection of social well-being of local
people, a goal of ecotourism, is compromised. It has been supported by
Das and Chatterjee (2015) who argued that local communities receive
low net benefits, and sometimes negative, from ecotourism activities.
This is due to factors such as the biased distribution of economic ben-
efits in the community, land insecurity, little control of the local people
over tourism and an increase of inflow of tourists (Counsell, 2005; Coria
and Calfucura, 2012). On the other hand, if not managed sustainably,
the impacts of ecotourism on the environment would be devastating
such as increasing noise, air, and water pollution, decreasing biodi-
versity, draining of wetlands, and destruction of coral reefs (Ghorbani
et al., 2015). Some organizations listed ecotourism as one of the
emerging threats to natural landscapes (Ghorbani et al., 2015). With
this, the domain literature increasingly cautioned the growth of eco-
tourism such that its pattern must conform to the sustainable tourism
front (Tepelus and Cordobci, 2005; Balmford et al., 2002). Thus, there
is a need to assess the ecotourism activities and their relationships with
sustainability which is crucial in planning and managing the develop-
ment of ecotourism. This need coined the term “sustainable eco-
tourism” which a kind of ecotourism that conforms to sustainable
tourism.
One popular approach in literature to address the assessment pro-
cess is through the construction of a measurement system through
sustainable indicator sets widely known as sustainable tourism in-
dicators (Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002; World Tourism Organization,
2004; Park and Yoon, 2011; Tanguay et al., 2013; Lee and Hsieh 2016).
A review of the sustainable tourism indicators focusing on methodo-
logical approaches has been recently put forward by Kristjánsdóttir
et al. (2018). Sustainable tourism indicators can provide essential gui-
dance for decision-making in terms of developing priority strategies
that are essential inputs for resource allocation and medium and long-
term planning, among other activities. These sustainable tourism in-
dicators are able to aid in prioritization process, maximization of ben-
efits, and as a measurement to calibrate progress towards sustainability
objectives (Chávez-Cortés and Maya, 2010). Hoernig and Seasons
(2004) argued that while planning policies and possible outcomes can
be achieved through many different ways but establishing indicators is
the most appropriate way. Aside from this, when integrated properly
with decision-making and policy implementation, establishing in-
dicators nurtures learning with the major stakeholders which is essen-
tial in strategic planning (Tsaur et al., 2006; Palme and Tillman, 2008).
Since ecotourism contains some distinct perspectives, sustainable
tourism indicators must be contextualized. Recently, Wang et al.
(2016), Huang and Coelho (2017), and Kunasekaran et al. (2017) es-
tablished sustainable tourism indicators for different application and
location domains. Note that current literature agrees that the estab-
lishment of sustainable tourism indicators is case specific and no gen-
eral indicator set is available that will be applicable in all cases and
conditions (Agyeiwaah et al., 2017). This is brought about by the case-
specific conditions and resolutions which necessitate some degree of
customization. However, the establishment of sustainable ecotourism
875
Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888
indicators is limited in current literature and only a few heeded the call
(Li, 2004; Barzekar et al., 2011; Pasape and Anderson, 2014; Ashok
et al., 2017). Thus, this paper attempts to develop a methodology for
establishing sustainable ecotourism indicators. In this work, we propose
to highlight the Philippine perspective where no previous work has
made any attempt to explore such path and where, as most developing
countries are, local communities find ecotourism as a largely foreign
concept and is only introduced and imposed by international agencies,
NGOs and the government (Cobbinah, 2015). Following the practice of
most domain studies, the approach is only a matter of choosing which
indicators are relevant for the Philippine case. Due to the various in-
dicators that must be considered in the evaluation process a multi-cri-
teria decision making (MCDM) approach is thus proposed. Further-
more, to address the uncertainties associated with data collection and
judgment elicitation in MCDM methods, the evaluation process adopts
the fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965) which takes into account vagueness
and imprecision of data. The sustainable tourism indicators are then
sorted out using the fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) approach which is
used in other domain applications, not in the context of evaluating
sustainable ecotourism indicators. The contribution of this study is the
systematic approach of identifying sustainable ecotourism indicators
relevant to the Philippine case.
2. Literature review
2.1. Sustainable tourism
The World Tourism Organization (2004), which is now the United
Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), offers the definition of
sustainable tourism development as “meeting the needs of present tourists
and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future.
It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that
economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining
cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life
support systems.’’ (Liu, 2003; Chávez-Cortés and Maya, 2010). Essen-
tially, there is a need to develop and manage such activities for tourist
destinations which shall not sacrifice its resources – cultural or natural –
in order to attain sustainability (Blancas et al., 2015). Hence, the con-
cept of sustainable tourism development cannot be only perceived as a
holistically future-oriented system, but also an inward vision which
encompasses all aspects relating to the economy, environment, and
society, towards reaching its goal (Sharpley, 2000).
One of the emerging types of tourism destination towards sustain-
able tourism is ecotourism because its definition matches with that of
sustainability. Ecotourism emphasizes the provision of opportunities for
tourists to learn and develop a positive attitude towards sustainability
(Walker and Moscardo, 2014). According to The Ecotourism Society, a
non-profit organization dedicated to promoting ecotourism, ecotourism
or sustainable ecotourism is defined as “purposeful travel to natural areas
to understand the culture and natural history of the environment, taking care
not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem while producing economic oppor-
tunities that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local
people” (Sirakaya et al., 2000). Ecotourism is seen as a conventional
route to sustainable tourism because it generates revenue for the local
communities and to the country which will eventually create incentives
for conservation (Fennell, 2009). As part of its goal, conserving eco-
tourism sites is seen as a preventive measure to prevent further damage
to their natural environment and resources. This will also lead to some
observable advantages such as job creation, community development,
environmental conservation and education, cultural preservation and
experience, and other economic benefits (Cobbinah, 2015). However,
policies that should have been crafted to enable a positive impact are
ill-informed, unclear and not firmly implemented especially in devel-
oping countries. This is evidenced by the failure of governments and
organizations to do their job of making a positive impact towards sus-
tainability (Cobbinah, 2015). Yfantidou and Matarazzo (2017)
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

provided an excellent explanation on the failure of developing countries Table 1

to implement policies crucial to the sustainability of tourism (and List of indicators sets with their sources.
ecotourism) activities. They suggested that developing countries, in the Author(s) Reference indicators No. of generated
short term, have no alternatives to tourism in finding sources of foreign indicators
currency influx and job creation. Unless options become available,
Schianetz and Kavanagh Vester (2002) 34 indicators
governments in developing countries are inclined to support current
(2008)
tourism development, including those unsustainable ones (Yfantidou Tanguay et al. (2013) International (WTO, 2004), 20 indicators
and Matarazzo, 2017). This argument is supported by the case study of International
Regmi and Walter (2017) in Nepal which pointed out that developing (Vellas and Barioulet, 2000),
countries are taking on a modernization and capitalist approach to- European cities
(EEA, 2004)Albufera de
wards ecotourism as such the primary goal is the accumulation of
Valencia
wealth. (WTO, 2004), Balearic Island
Cobbinah (2015) claimed that ecotourism, to some extent, becomes (WTO, 2004), Canary Island
a jargon that is only used to attract tourists to potential destinations (WTO, 2004), Cape Breton
Island
because our understanding of ecotourism is not profound. Although the
(WTO, 2004), Caribbean
necessary concern for sustainable ecotourism is already addressed by Region
most governments and organizations, there is no clear progress evident (WTO, 2004), Kukijuca, Croatia
from the tourism activities which were generated from the im- (WTO, 2004)Samoan Islands
plemented policies. This is caused by the widening gap between eco- (WTO, 2004)Switzerland
(OFS, 2007)
tourism theory and its practice. This causes a misunderstanding such
Wang et al. (2016) Not stated 29 indicators
that ecotourism is often abused and misused (Courvisanos and Ameeta, Blancas et al. (2015) WTO 89 indicators
2006; Donohoe and Needham, 2006). Such narrow understanding poses Mascarenhas et al. (2015) SIDS Algarvae 49 indicators
more harm than good to the conservation of potential ecotourism sites Wang et al. (2014) International Ecotourism 49 indicators
and to the local communities; for instance, generating negative en- Society and case participants
Huang and Coelho Lozano-Oyolaet al. (2012) 10 indicators
vironmental and social impacts (Banerjee, 2010). Both positive and (2017) Marques et al. (2013)
negative impacts of ecotourism activities are inflicted on the local Perez et al. (2013)
communities. Environmental degradation, wildlife habitat destruction, UNEP (2005)
economic inequity, instability are just a few issues of ecotourism when Reddy (2008)
Blancas et al. (2011)
not planned and managed sustainably (Gulinck et al., 2001). Further-
Johnsen et al. (2008)
more, there is an ongoing debate in the domain literature on the in- UNWTO (2004)
equitable distribution of benefits to the local communities which World Bank (2015)
compromises the conservation objective of ecotourism. While Afenyo FAO (2015)
and Amuquandoh (2014), Hunt et al. (2015), and Arun et al. (2015) Global Footprint Network
(2015)
reported positive development of immediate local communities brought Asian Development Bank
about by the ecotourism sites, some contend that the benefits from (2014)
ecotourism are sometimes negative especially to the local communities Coral Triangle Initiative (2012)
(Counsell, 2005; Coria and Calfucura, 2012; Cobbinah, 2015; Das and GCRMN (2011)
Wilkinson (2008)
Chatterjee, 2015). This espouses the people-policy-wildlife conflict
Chávez-Cortés and Maya Farsari and Prastacos (2001) 34 indicators
which becomes the cause of failure of ecotourism implementation (Das (2010) Rydin et al. (2003)
and Chatterjee, 2015). Thus, there is a need to shift ecotourism to Reed and Doughill (2003)
“sustainable ecotourism” which satisfies the requirements of sustain- Twining-Ward and Butler
able tourism. A suggested route, according to Regmi and Walter (2017), (2002)
Torres-Delgado and Céron and Dubois (2003) 26 indicators
is that “planners and policymakers must ensure that social, cultural, Palomeque (2014) Choi and Sirakaya (2006)
and environmental resources are protected, and the benefits received Crabtree and Bayfield (1998)
are equally distributed among the people whose lives are most directly European Commission (2013)
affected by the development of ecotourism”. To address these issues and Gabrielsen and Bosch (2003)
Gahin et al. (2003)
to improve the granularity of understanding, sustainable tourism in-
Miller (2001)
dicators are popular in current literature. Schianetz and Kavanagh (2008)
Sirakaya et al. (2000)
2.2. Indicators of sustainable tourism Tanguay et al. (2013))
Torres-Delgado and Saarinen
(2014)
By definition, indicators of sustainable tourism are “a set of mea- White et al. (2006)
sures that provide the necessary information to better understand the Lee & Hsieh (2016) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) 131 indicators
links between the impact of tourism on the cultural and natural setting Lozano-Oyola et al. (2012)
in which this takes place and on which it is strongly independent” Tanguay et al. (2013)
Ross and Wall (1999)
(UNWTO, 1996). Establishing sustainable tourism indicators is a
Cottrell and Cutumisu (2006)
straightforward approach that indicates the state or level of a particular Tsaur et al. (2006)
activity or as a means to identify and measure the results. From the Van der Duim and Van Marwijk
perspective of sustainability, sustainable tourism indicators must ad- (2006)
dress the triple-bottom-line which includes environmental, economic, Roberts and Tribe (2008)
Laurila-Pant et al. (2015)
and social goals (Swarbrooke, 1999). According to UNWTO, there is a Ko (2005)
need to create a set of indicators to enable the tourism management to Lee (2009)
limit their indicators according to a set of priorities defined by their Yoon et al. (2001)
pertinent issues and to enable them to gain forward-looking perspec- Liu (2007)
Zhang (2017) Not stated 9 indicators
tives. A set of sustainable tourism indicators generates a plan of action
or policy that ultimately helps in achieving the objectives of the (continued on next page)

876
L. Ocampo et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Author(s) Reference indicators No. of generated
indicators
García-Melón et al. San Martín and Salcedo (2007) 13 indicators
(2012)
ecotourism destinations. Establishing such sustainable tourism in-
dicators for ecotourism management serves as early warning signals
and detection of potential future problems (Li, 2004). The selection of
indicators in general and for each tourism site, in particular, can be
performed through an agreement of stakeholders, scientists, experts,
general public or from a review of related studies (Abidin, 1999).
Multiple sustainable tourism indicator sets proposed in the literature
are incrementally derived such that they are usually from previous in-
dicator sets such as the set established by UNWTO. Other organizations
have tried to establish similar sets as well. Two of which are Global
Footprint Network and Coral Triangle Initiative. Both are specific to
their own goals and objectives but are still ultimately geared toward
sustainability (Huang and Coelho, 2017). Table 1 shows the list of
sustainable tourism indicator sets from current literature.
The leftmost-hand column of Table 1 presents the several attempts
in literature in extracting a number of indicators, shown in the last
column, which would later comprise their sustainable tourism indicator
set. The bases of their construction are the references in the second
column. With the emerging sustainable tourism indicators reported in
the current literature, Agyeiwaah et al. (2017) identified seven key
indicator themes including “job creation, business viability, quality of
life, water quality, waste management, energy conservation and
maintenance of community integrity”. Although a number of published
works in literature has been already reported, the establishment of in-
dicators in the ecotourism sector is still considered underdeveloped.
These include the works of (1) Tsaur et al. (2006) on establishing in-
dicators in indigenous ecotourism sites in Taiwan, (2) Wang et al.
(2016) in the coastal zones of Taiwan and; (3) Li (2004) in a nature
reserve in China, among others. With these works, it is apparent that
sustainable tourism indicators are case specific such that a number of
indicators from a general set have stronger relevance to the specific
cases under consideration. This is due to the specific conditions that
might exist in the case which include geopolitical, climatic, cultural and
socioeconomic conditions. Current literature provides various ap-
proaches in identifying case specific relevant sustainable tourism in-
dicators. The approach is crucial so that the resulting sustainable
tourism indicators would be able to address relevant facets of the case
under consideration.
2.3. Approaches in identifying relevant ST indicators
Current literature made several attempts in establishing sustain-
ability indicators relevant for individual communities that are em-
bedded within a common framework (Valentin and Spangenberg,
2000). Due to a large number of indicators, previous works offered
various alternatives for reducing a considerably large number of in-
dicators in order to fit for a specific case. Chávez-Cortés and Maya
(2010) in Mexico developed a value-focused thinking framework by
using a series of interviews and organizing a tree of values to attain a
path towards sustainability and how to measure progress towards it. By
doing this, it allowed a minimum number of indicators and served a
design guide to monitor plans to a sustainability perspective; however,
establishing the indicators has embedded uncertainties that were not
captured in the process (Chávez-Cortés and Maya, 2010). Tanguay et al.
(2013) in Quebec, Spain established simple seven-selection criteria that
were used to minimize indicators from a database of 507 indicators by
using primary criteria (classification, frequency of use, coverage of
main issues in tourism sustainability, and measurability over time) and
877
Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888
secondary criteria (availability of data, compatibility with the desti-
nation tourism policy, and validation of indicators by decision makers).
Through this, a trade-off between academic and policy-makers ap-
proaches made a strong core for establishing indicators.
García-Melón et al. (2012) in National Park (NP) in Venezuela
proposed a methodology which requires a participation of four types of
agents: the researchers, sustainable development experts, stakeholders
of NP, and NP managers (that are both stakeholders and decision-ma-
kers). These agents defined the strategies for development and re-
viewed the different related works in the domain literature to formulate
tourism strategies through indicators. They used the Delphi method and
the analytic network process to minimize the number of total indicators
that were used for their case problem. Blancas et al. (2015) in Europe
proposed net goal programming composite indicator in an effort to
establish European sustainable tourism labels using indicators estab-
lished by UNWTO by implementing two methods: (1) coming up with
the composite indicator and (2) for each composite indicator, provide a
specific weight and level of aspiration. A drawback of this technique is
the sensitivity of results caused by these two processes.
Mascarenhas et al. (2015) in Algarve’s regional spatial plan in
Southern Portugal used Principal Components Analysis (PCA) suc-
ceeded by sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) as
data reduction techniques. Through PCA, the number of indicators is
minimized from a previous given larger set and sensitivity analysis
using MCS was performed to ensure the stability of the results. Finally,
Lee and Hsieh (2016) in Taiwan’s wetland categorized a group of sus-
tainability indicators into systems: the human system and the eco-
system and the indicators were filtered by using the fuzzy Delphi
method to achieve a consensus. The outcome of the consensus again
decreased the results to 141 indicators. Fuzzy Delphi proved to be of
advantage in this situation because of the need to include expert’s
judgments and clear out uncertainties. Kunasekaran et al. (2017), in a
case of Mah Meri Ethnic Group in Malaysia, selected a number of works
in the literature as the bases of their 61 sustainable indigenous tourism
indicators and the priority indicators were identified using a simple
random survey and a customized weighting technique. In the case of
Tioman Island, Malaysia, Ng et al. (2017) adopted the Sustainable
Ecotourism Indicator System (SEIS) developed by Tsaur et al. (2006)
but eliminated six indicators based on relevance. With the weighting
process of SEIS, they were able to generate a single-valued score of the
sustainability status of the island. Zhang et al. (2017) gathered a
number of candidate indicators from the literature for their socially
sustainable tourism scale. Then, they conducted interviews with sta-
keholders and came up with 24 indicators. Using these indicators, ex-
ploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are then
conducted to test the case of Hongkong. From the UNWTO framework,
Blancas et al. (2018) reduced the indicator set to 65 indicators using the
following six criteria: usability, frequency of use, relevance, conceptual
coverage, temporality, and availability of statistical information. Fi-
nally, cluster analysis is used to establish dynamic sustainable tourism
measures. The drawback of this approach is the judgment uncertainty
inherent in the decision-making process.
Table 2 shows a summary of these works and their approaches.
This work attempts to advance the following gaps. First, it intends to
contribute to the literature of sustainable ecotourism by establishing
sustainable ecotourism indicators from a comprehensive list of sus-
tainable tourism indicators sets. This domain is underdeveloped in
current literature. Second, it explores a new case, the Philippines,
which has never been studied in the past. As a developing country
where the debate on the efficacy of ecotourism to the local communities
is widely pronounced, this study offers a sustainable ecotourism in-
dicator set that would be helpful to all relevant stakeholders, particu-
larly the government office on tourism, the local government units, and
the tourism industry, for policy-making and sustainability evaluation
and monitoring. Lastly, this work presents a methodology that ad-
dresses various stakeholders’ interests while capturing uncertainty
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Table 2 arrivals in Mactan Cebu International Airport is 103, 778 and a share of
Reduction Approaches. 20.64% (Philippine Tourism, 2009). This can be attributed to the rising
Reduction Approaches References development of potential ecotourism sites in Cebu which can help the
locality grow. However, ecotourism initiatives in the Philippines have
Delphi method Tsaur et al. (2006) little direct association with the sustainable tourism initiatives and
Value-Focused Thinking Chávez-Cortés and Maya (2010)
there are short-sighted policies that govern such ecotourism activities.
7 selection criteria Tanguay et al. (2013)
Analytic Network Process(ANP) García-Melón et al. (2012)
Case in point is the closure of the Boracay Island, the top ecotourism
Net Goal Programming Composite Indicator Blancas et al. (2015) destination, in April 2018 due to island’s steep ecological degradation.
Principal Component Analysis Mascarenhas et al. (2015) Thus, the country will benefit from the establishment of sustainable
Fuzzy Delphi Method Lee and Hsieh (2016) ecotourism indicators for decision and policy-making.
Customized Weighting Technique Kunasekaran et al. (2017)
Interview Zhang et al. (2017)
6 selection criteria Blancas et al. (2018) 3.2. Survey questionnaire

In the survey questionnaire, decision-makers were asked to elicit

which is inherent in the decision-making process. These manoeuvres
are consistent with the findings of Kristjánsdóttir et al. (2018) on their
review of sustainability indicators where they found out that proposing
new methodologies and treating the indicators as a system are pre-
valent approaches in the current literature.
In this work, we adopt the Delphi process to identify the sustainable
ecotourism indicators. Delphi has been widely used in numerous
tourism domain works to achieve a consensus among a group of people
to establish sustainable ecotourism indicators (Barzekar et al., 2011;
Lee and Hsieh, 2016). It is most appropriate when a group consensus is
required on the rationale that a group of experts is better than one
expert when exact knowledge is not available (Kaynak and Macaulay,
1984). However, due to the iterative process of the Delphi method and
due to the difficulty of gathering experts in a single setting as well as the
vagueness and uncertainty in the decision-making process, the tradi-
tional Delphi method may not be appropriate for this work. To deal
with this, current literature applies fuzzy set theory to the Delphi and
coins the term fuzzy Delphi Method. The fuzzy set theory was devel-
oped by Zadeh (1965) to address situations where humans cannot
precisely describe. The fuzzy set theory is used to overcome short-
comings by avoiding the distortion of individual expert opinions, cap-
turing the semantic structure of predicted items, and considering the
unclear nature of the data gathering/interview process (Lee and Hsieh,
2016).
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Case study: the Philippine perspective
The Philippines, as an archipelago, is rich in natural resources that
are relevant to the tourism industry. The tourism industry has been an
important sector of the Philippine economy. The travel and tourism
industry contributed 10.60% to the country’s Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in 2015 (Villegas, 2016). Focusing on Cebu alone, the fifth lar-
gest city in the Philippines, its major economic drivers in the recent
years have been the Tourism and Information Technology (IT) sectors.
Within Central Visayas, the designated Region VII of the Philippines,
Cebu is the most dominant and prosperous province. The tourist arrival
statistics in Central Visayas is close to three million, with a growth rate
of almost 13% in 2012. The biggest percentage of tourist arrivals is in
Cebu with 76%. Foreign tourists account for 40% of total tourist arri-
vals in Cebu (Sicat, 2014). In August 2016, the volume of visitor
judgment on the degree of importance of each sustainable tourism in-
dicator to the Philippine context. They were asked to rate the using
fuzzy linguistic scale as shown in Table 3. This survey questionnaire
establishes the relevant sustainable tourism indicators from the col-
lected indicator sets from current literature for the Philippine case
study.
3.3. Expert respondents
Listed in Table 4 are the qualifications of the experts who were
asked to answer the survey questionnaire. The number of experts as-
signed for the questionnaire does not necessarily need to be high. There
is no strong relation between number and the quality of the decisions
that could be generated from the group. Adding more experts who are
less experienced may weaken the accuracy of the results (Saaty and
Özdemir, 2014). The experts should have the following qualifications:
(1) practical experience in developing ecotourism or a demonstrated
interest in doing so, (2) at least five years’ professional experience in
ecotourism domain, (3) good knowledge in ecotourism as shown with
the quality of trainings and projects conducted, (4) facilitated or or-
ganized projects or activities geared towards eco-tourism.
The experts were from two government agencies and the academe.
There were four respondents from the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), one respondent from Department of
Tourism (DOT) and two from the Department of Hospitality
Management (DHM) of the University of San Carlos, one of the top
universities in the country. They can provide reliable judgments about
ecotourism and majority of them have visited the potential ecotourism
sites of the country. Shown in Table 4 are the positions of the experts
from the different offices.
3.4. Data collection
Data in the form of sustainable tourism indicators were generated
from a literature review of 15 indicator sets as shown in Table 1. A total
of 666 sustainable tourism indicators were collected. Each indicator
was then assessed according to its relevance in sustainable ecotourism.
Afterward, each indicator is checked with redundancy. These two
processes generated 58 candidate indicators. These indicators were
then submitted to the expert group for verification. The final step was
done through a survey in the context of the fuzzy Delphi method. Note
that the mathematical background of the fuzzy set theory and the

Table 3
Linguistic Evaluation Scale for the Fuzzy Delphi Method (adopted from Zhang 2017).
Linguistic variable Code Positive TFN Description

Very Important VI (7,9,9) Very Important indicates that the indicator is very significant in sustainable tourism
Important I (5,7,9) Important indicates that the indicator is significant in sustainable tourism
Moderate M (3,5,7) Moderate indicates that the indicator is moderately significant in sustainable tourism
Unimportant U (1,3,5) Unimportant indicates that the indicator is insignificant in sustainable tourism
Very Unimportant VU (1,1,3) Very Unimportant indicates that the indicator is very insignificant in sustainable tourism

878
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Table 4 Delphi method is shown in Appendix A. The survey questionnaires were

Experts and their position.
Office
Department of Tourism (DOT), Office of the
President, Republic of the Philippines
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), Office of the
President, Republic of the Philippines
Department of Hospitality Management,
School of Business & Economics,
University of San Carlos
Start
Review the domain literature that establishes
indicators for tourism
Is the literature
specific to No Decline the adoption
sustainable
tourism?
Yes
Extract and compile the sustainable tourism
indicators
Is the indicator
No Decline the adoption
relevant to
ecotourism?
Yes
Review the sustainable ecotourism indicators
for redundancy and duplication
Position
Tourism Operations Assistant
Senior Science Research
Specialist
Officer-in-Charge, Provincial
Environment, and Natural
Resources Officer
Bio Conservation Section Head
Biologist/ Ecotourism Officer
Allied Tourism Services
Coordinator
Banquet and Catering
Supervisor-Training Hotel
of the reference
of the indicator
distributed to the experts personally. Questions arising from the survey
were immediately addressed. The average time to complete each survey
is one hour and for each decision, experts were asked for their reason of
rating a particular value on an indicator. We took notes of their reasons.
The data collection procedure is shown in Fig. 1. The flow Diagram of
Fig. 1.
3.5. Computational procedure
In general, the procedure of carrying out the establishment of sus-
tainable ecotourism indicators is as follows:
1) Gather various sources from domain literature which proposed
sustainability indicators for tourism. Indicators that do not focus on
ecotourism are discarded.
2) Compile the gathered sustainable tourism indicators and filter them
through generalization and redundancy. This means that indicators
can be combined if they refer to the same concept or idea. This
process generates the candidate sustainable tourism indicator set.
This set is used in the fuzzy Delphi method.
3) Gather data obtained from different identified experts through the
questionnaire. Decision-makers are asked to rate the importance of
each candidate sustainable tourism indicator on sustainable tourism
∼k
using the linguistic scale found in Table 3. Let bi = (biLk , biM
k k
, biU )
denotes the importance of each candidate sustainable tourism in-
dicator i elicited by the kth decision-maker in TFN. To aggregate
judgments of all K decision-makers, Eq. (1) will be used:
K
∼ ⎛ k ⎞
bi = (biL , biM , biU ) = ⎜mink biLk , (1/ K ) ∑ biM k
, max k biU ⎟
⎝ k = 1 ⎠ (1)
∼
where bi = is the aggregate TFN.
∼
4) Defuzzify bij using the center-of-gravity method as shown in Eq. (2).
biL + biM + biU
bi =
3 (2)
where bi is a crisp score which denotes the aggregate importance of
each candidate sustainable tourism indicator i.
5) Set a desired value of α such that desired average bi by the experts.
If bi < α , decline the candidate sustainable tourism indicator i as
part of the final list of sustainable tourism indicators.
If bi ⩾ α , accept the candidate sustainable tourism indicator i as part
of the final list of sustainable tourism indicators.

Expert decision-makers elicit judgment of 4. Results

the relevance of the sustainable ecotourism
indicators in the Philippine context There were 58 candidate sustainable ecotourism indicators gener-
ated from the literature after the two filtration processes as discussed in
Analyze the survey results using the fuzzy Section 3. After the experts were asked to validate the list of candidate
Delphi process sustainable ecotourism indicators and after an expert added “carrying
capacity” to the list which was concurred by other experts, the final list
Store the final list of of candidate sustainable ecotourism indicators can be found in
sustainable Appendix B. Appendix B also shows an example of how each expert
ecotourism answered the survey questionnaire. The specific question that was
indicators asked of the experts is: “What is the degree of importance of each in-
dicator for sustainable ecotourism in the Philippines?”. The rating scale
is shown in Table 3. A sample judgment elicitation in TFNs is also
shown in Appendix B.
∼
TFNs were aggregated using Eq. (1) and the aggregates bi are shown
in Table 5.
End ∼
The aggregates bi were then defuzzified using Eq. (2) in order to
Fig. 1. The flow Diagram of the Methodology. obtain the crisp scores bi . As shown in Table 6, the highest bi was found
to be 8.333.
After each bi was found, an α must be set up to determine the
threshold value desired by experts as explained in Step 5 of Section 3.5.

879
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Table 5
Aggregate fuzzy judgments.
Candidate Sustainable Ecotourism Indicators Aggregate Fuzzy numbers

1. Maintenance of the integrity of the ecological system (7,9,9)

2. Treatment and prevention of wastes caused by tourism (7,9,9)
3. Pollution accidents (1,7.286,9)
4. Active remediation and Reduction of the damage and interference in areas caused by the tourist activities (5,8.714,9)
5. Accidents of poaching or others destroying environment caused by tourists (1,7,9)
6. Performance of tourism academic research and creation of an environmental monitoring system (5,7.571,9)
7. Planning and diversification of coastal, land and forest use (5,8.429,9)
8. The increase of employment opportunities for local residents (3,7.571,9)
9. Financial subsidization and compensation for local residents (3,6.714,9)
10. Tourist expenditure (3,7.286,9)
11. Average annual gross income in tourism jobs (3,6.714,9)
12. Taxes on land, buildings and other structures (3,6.714,9)
13. Charging of the users and establishment of a development association and proper use and distribution of the funds from income (3,6.714,9)
14. Cost of maintaining tourism operation (5,7.857,9)
15. Overall planning of local tourism industries (3,7.857,9)
16. The existence of integrated tourism and environment plan (7,9,9)
17. Frequency, the capacity of services, or level of use of local medical and transportation systems and living quality (5,8.429,9)
18. Promotion and education of conservation and sustainable concepts that leads to awareness and implications (5,8.714,9)
19. Protection and understanding of local culture and heritage sites (7,9,9)
20. Enhancement of social identification through tourism and environmental protection for local residents (5,8.143,9)
21. Training and development of local tourism personnel and provision of educational opportunities (5,8.429,9)
22. Cleanliness and quality of tourism facilities (5,8.714,9)
23. Amount of garbage per visitors (1,6.714,9)
24. Population with access to drainage and wastewater treatment system (5,8.143,9)
25. The attitude of the locals toward satisfaction, service, quality, and training mechanisms (5,7.571,9)
26. Overall service quality of the amount of local business and potential ones (5,7.857,9)
27. Tourist satisfaction with related activities (5,8.143,9)
28. Local interaction and development towards tourists (5,7.857,9)
29. Reinforcement of executive abilities, and ban, and control of available and developed policies (5,8.143,9)
30. Assistance and partnerships from local coaches, guides, and advisory through the guidance of offering more tourism and recreation information (5,7.571,9)
31. Management for efficiency for tourism and recreational activities and integration and planning of long-term management tasks (5,8.143,9)
32. Local residents and community involvement and participation in the management of tourism (5,8.143,9)
33. Climate and weather (3,6.429,9)
34. Protected natural, environmental and wildlife area (5,7.857,9)
35. Potential of new real estate developments intended for tourism (1,5.857,9)
36. The volume of tourist, returning tourists and seasonality (5,8.429,9)
37. Amount of native, threatened, or endangered species (3,7.571,9)
38. Percentage obtained and consumed of energy, water, and material (3,7,9)
39. Percentage of renewable energy consumption with respect to the total attributable to tourism (3,7,9)
40. Implementation or application of green design technology and recycling (5,7.571,9)
41. Implementation and use of permaculture principles and revegetation areas (5,7,9)
42. Community health (availability of health policy related to tourism) (3,6.714,9)
43. Sex tourism (1,3.571,9)
44. Foreign involvement in business and ownership of establishments (1,5,9)
45. Crime rates, accidents and visitor safety and security (5,8.143,9)
46. Legal compliance (prosecutions, fines, etc) (5,7.857,9)
47. Benchmarking—generic and competitive (input/output efficiency) (3,7.286,9)
48. Animal biodiversity, Plant biodiversity, Wetland biodiversity experience (3,8.429,9)
49. Quality of air, water, and land (5,8.429,9)
50. Vacancies in official tourism accommodation establishments per inhabitant (3,6.429,9)
51. Quality of tourism employment (5,7.571,9)
52. Percentage of population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion after social transfers (3,7.286,9)
53. The average length of stay of tourists (3,7,9)
54. The average occupancy rate for official tourism accommodation establishments (3,7,9)
55. Accessibility to recreational facilities (5,7.571,9)
56. Ability to attract more investment (3,7,9)
57. Development of nature-based tourists (5,8.429,9)
58. Formulates ethics in tourism (5,7.857,9)
59. Carrying Capacity (7,9,9)

It was calculated by obtaining the average of the desired α of each
respondent as shown in Table 7.
If bi ⩾ averageα , then the candidate sustainable ecotourism indicator
i is included in the final list of sustainable ecotourism indicators as
shown in Table 8.
The final list was then submitted to the experts to check if they
agree with the inclusion of each indicator. All experts eventually agreed
on the final list with no objections. Sensitivity analysis was conducted
to see how the list changes if there is a change in the average α of
experts. From the original α of 6.483, 6.483 ± 1 was used to state
illustrate the difference. As shown in Table 9, drastic changes can be
seen in the total number of accepted sustainable ecotourism indicators.
With an α of 5.483, 56 indicators were accepted. While with an α of
7.483, only 8 indicators were accepted. This implies that the α of ex-
perts has a significant impact on the final list of sustainable ecotourism
indicators.
5. Discussion and concluding remarks
This paper attempts to establish sustainable ecotourism indicators
for the Philippine ecotourism sites. From the 666 sustainable tourism
indicators found in literature, it was narrowed down to 59 candidate

880
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Table 6
List of accepted and rejected sustainable ecotourism indicators.
Sustainable Indicators b Decision

1. Maintenance of the integrity of the ecological system 8.333 Accepted

2. Treatment and prevention of wastes caused by tourism 8.333 Accepted
3. Pollution accidents 5.762 Rejected
4. Active remediation and Reduction of the damage and interference in areas caused by the tourist activities 7.571 Accepted
5. Accidents of poaching or others destroying environment caused by tourists 5.667 Rejected
6. Performance of tourism academic research and creation of an environmental monitoring system 7.190 Accepted
7. Planning and diversification of coastal, land and forest use 7.476 Accepted
8. The increase of employment opportunities for local residents 6.524 Accepted
9. Financial subsidization and compensation for local residents 6.238 Rejected
10. Tourist expenditure 6.429 Rejected
11. Average annual gross income in tourism jobs 6.238 Rejected
12. Taxes on land, buildings and other structures 6.238 Rejected
13. Charging of the users and establishment of a development association and proper use and distribution of the funds from income 6.238 Rejected
14. Cost of maintaining tourism operation 7.286 Accepted
15. Overall planning of local tourism industries 6.619 Accepted
16. The existence of integrated tourism and environment plan 8.333 Accepted
17. Frequency, the capacity of services, or level of use of local medical and transportation systems and living quality 7.476 Accepted
18. Promotion and education of conservation and sustainable concepts that leads to awareness and implications 7.571 Accepted
19. Protection and understanding of local culture and heritage sites 8.333 Accepted
20. Enhancement of social identification through tourism and environmental protection for local residents 7.381 Accepted
21. Training and development of local tourism personnel and provision of educational opportunities 7.476 Accepted
22. Cleanliness and quality of tourism facilities 7.571 Accepted
23. Amount of garbage per visitors 5.571 Rejected
24. Population with access to drainage and wastewater treatment system 7.381 Accepted
5. The attitude of the locals toward satisfaction, service, quality, and training mechanisms 7.190 Accepted
26. Overall service quality of the amount of local business and potential ones 7.286 Accepted
27. Tourist satisfaction with related activities 7.381 Accepted
28. Local interaction and development towards tourists 7.286 Accepted
29. Reinforcement of executive abilities, and ban, and control of available and developed policies 7.381 Accepted
30. Assistance and partnerships from local coaches, guides, and advisory through the guidance of offering more tourism and recreation information 7.190 Accepted
31. Management for efficiency for tourism and recreational activities and integration and planning of long-term management tasks 7.381 Accepted
32. Local residents and community involvement and participation in the management of tourism 7.381 Accepted
33. Climate and weather 6.143 Rejected
34. Protected natural, environmental and wildlife area 7.286 Accepted
35. Potential of new real estate developments intended for tourism 5.286 Rejected
36. The volume of tourist, returning tourists and seasonality 7.476 Accepted
37. Amount of native, threatened, or endangered species 6.524 Accepted
38. Percentage obtained and consumed of energy, water, and material 6.333 Rejected
39. Percentage of renewable energy consumption with respect to the total attributable to tourism 6.333 Rejected
40. Implementation or application of green design technology and recycling 7.190 Accepted
41. Implementation and use of permaculture principles and revegetation areas 7.000 Accepted
42. Community health (availability of health policy related to tourism) 6.238 Rejected
43. Sex tourism 4.524 Rejected
44. Foreign involvement in business and ownership of establishments 5.000 Rejected
45. Crime rates, accidents and visitor safety and security 7.381 Accepted
46. Legal compliance (prosecutions, fines, etc.) 7.286 Accepted
47. Benchmarking—generic and competitive (input/output efficiency) 6.429 Rejected
48. Animal biodiversity, Plant biodiversity, Wetland biodiversity experience 6.810 Accepted
49. Quality of air, water, and land 7.476 Accepted
50. Vacancies in official tourism accommodation establishments per inhabitant 6.143 Rejected
51. Quality of tourism employment 7.190 Accepted
52. Percentage of population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion after social transfers 6.429 Rejected
53. The average length of stay of tourists 6.333 Rejected
54. The average occupancy rate for official tourism accommodation establishments 6.333 Rejected
55. Accessibility to recreational facilities 7.190 Accepted
56. Ability to attract more investment 6.333 Rejected
57. Development of nature-based tourists 7.476 Accepted
58. Formulates ethics in tourism 7.286 Accepted
59. Carrying Capacity 8.333 Accepted

Table 7 sustainable ecotourism indicators. The huge cut is due to the number of
Desired α of each Expert. indicators that are not related or weakly related to sustainable eco-
Expert Desired α
tourism. Using fuzzy Delphi method, the final list of sustainable eco-
tourism indicators comprises 39 indicators. The use of fuzzy set theory
Expert 1 4.524 addresses the ambiguity of the decision-making process experts im-
Expert 2 6.524 plemented in carrying out their judgment on each candidate indicator.
Expert 3 7.286
Expert 4 5.000
The Delphi process enables the determination of a group consensus.
Expert 5 6.524 These 39 indicators are now representatives of the interests of the dif-
Expert 6 7.190 ferent stakeholders (i.e., policy-makers, academics) who are high-level
Expert 7 8.333 decision-makers with vast experiences in the tourism industry.
Average α 6.483
Decision-makers provided strong motivations for the inclusion of each

881
L. Ocampo et al.
Table 8
List of final sustainable ecotourism indicators for the Philippine case.
Sustainable Ecotourism Indicators
Maintenance of the integrity of the ecological system
Treatment and prevention of wastes caused by tourism
Active remediation and Reduction of the damage and interference in areas caused by
the tourist activities
Performance of tourism academic research and creation of an environmental
monitoring system
Planning and diversification of coastal, land and forest use
The increase of employment opportunities for local residents
Cost of maintaining tourism operation
Overall planning of local tourism industries
The existence of integrated tourism and environment plan
Frequency, the capacity of services, or level of use of local medical and transportation
systems and living quality
Promotion and education of conservation and sustainable concepts that leads to
awareness and implications
Protection and understanding of local culture and heritage sites
Enhancement of social identification through tourism and environmental protection
for local residents
Training and development of local tourism personnel and provision of educational
opportunities
Cleanliness and quality of tourism facilities
Population with access to drainage and wastewater treatment system
The attitude of the locals toward satisfaction, service, quality, and training
mechanisms
Overall service quality of the amount of local business and potential ones
Tourist satisfaction with related activities
Local interaction and development towards tourists
Reinforcement of executive abilities, and ban, and control of available and developed
policies
Assistance and partnerships from local coaches, guides, and advisory through the
guidance of offering more tourism and recreation information
Management for efficiency for tourism and recreational activities and integration and
planning of long-term management tasks
Local residents and community involvement and participation in the management of
tourism
Protected natural, environmental and wildlife area
The volume of tourist, returning tourists and seasonality
Amount of native, threatened, or endangered species
Implementation or application of green design technology and recycling
Implementation and use of permaculture principles and revegetation areas
Crime rates, accidents and visitor safety and security
Legal compliance (prosecutions, fines, etc.)
Animal biodiversity, Plant biodiversity, Wetland biodiversity experience
Quality of air, water, and land
Quality of tourism employment
Accessibility to recreational facilities
Development of nature-based tourists
Formulates ethics in tourism
Carrying Capacity
indicator as observed during the interviews. They also mentioned spe-
cific instances where each indicator is relevant to the Philippines. Thus,
while they were judging on the inclusion of an indicator in the sus-
tainable ecotourism agenda as a construct, they were also relating the
same indicator in the Philippine context as to its socioeconomic, geo-
graphic, and political relevance, among others. The list of indicators
can be also applied to a developing country with similar conditions of
the Philippines. This work also contributes to the existing body of
knowledge as it attempts to propose an approach is straightforward and
can be used by non-technical experts with minimum mathematical
background especially those working for the government who are the
major stakeholders of a sustainable ecotourism indicator set.
Furthermore, the proposed approach has a higher degree of tractability
which is an important element of a computational process. Due to its
straightforward approach, a non-technical expert can tract the required
computations and replicate the process for future case applications.
Although the final list of indicators is highly dependent on the value of
α; however, on a positive note, this allows greater flexibility for expert
decision-makers as they could still associate a certain degree of control
related to the direction of their offices and the future conditions that
882
Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888
may exist in the country. Note that lower values of α generate higher
number of indicators to be included in the evaluation set. Decision-
makers may change the value of α depending on several factors such as
the necessity of the specific indicators, capability of the government to
track the performance of each indicator, and the comprehensiveness
appetite of the decision-makers. These factors must be taken into ac-
count before commencing the implementation.
Experts from the Department of Tourism and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, both of the Office of the President
of the Republic of the Philippines, are highly considering the list to be
included in their policy-making process. With the indicators in the list,
the government can now monitor the performance of each ecotourism
site. They can form a committee or an evaluation panel which will
monitor each site’s performance. From there, the government will have
now an access on what particular indicator a site is performing well or
performing badly and how it can improve the sustainability of the site.
This granularity of information is crucial in budget allocation and
policy-making of the government in order to preserve its ecotourism
sites as well as improve the welfare and inclusiveness of the local
community where each site belongs. These activities are crucial in
setting up sustainable development in the long run as governments play
a critical role in providing support in terms of infrastructure, leader-
ship, legislative and financial support (Yfantidou and Matarazzo, 2017).
These policies may be related to infrastructure development in terms of
roads, highways and transport terminals for greater access to the sites,
tax incentives and penalties to the tourism businesses and safety and
security issues of the sites. Since these local communities have direct
access to the sites and have an excellent information about the condi-
tions and specifics of the sites, the Philippine government can partner
local government units (LGUs) by allocating them incentives based on
the performance of their ecotourism sites. Yfantidou and Matarazzo
(2017) believed that LGUs must be “empowered not only politically and
legally, but also financially” especially on projects for community de-
velopment. In this manner, the national government will not be heavily
burdened in improving all ecotourism sites which run in tens of thou-
sands across the country. With regular updates on the performance of
their ecotourism sites, this delegation of responsibilities will also pro-
mote a sense of responsibility and accountability of LGUs for a more
inclusive development. Finally, this scheme can motivate LGUs to im-
prove their tourism activities in order to gain the proposed incentives.
A number of future works can be implemented from this study. First,
identifying measurement scales and units of measurements for each
indicator in the set may be identified. To make the indicator set op-
erational, measurement scales and units of measurement, which will
provide numerical values for better assessment and comparison, must
be established. Secondly, future work can possibly focus on the appli-
cation of multi-attribute decision-making methods such as analytic
hierarchy process (AHP), analytic network process, Technique for
Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), VIKOR,
among others, in ranking the importance of sustainable ecotourism
indicators. This approach may be appropriate if the required logistics
and resources constrained decision-makers to implement the 39 in-
dicators. Indicators on top of the rank may become priority indicators
for implementation and decision-makers will now be focusing on the
most crucial few. Third, an integrated methodological framework based
on the 39 indicators may be developed in assessing the sustainability
performance of each ecotourism site. Finally, the development of a
composite index from these indicators which will provide a single-va-
lued score that represents the sustainable ecotourism status of different
spatial levels is also a good candidate for a future work. The process
proposed by Tsaur et al. (2006) may be a starting point.
Supplementary materials
Datasets are available at the following link:
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Table 9
Sensitivity analysis of the change of the desired α of experts.
Sustainable Indicators Original α α = 5.483 α = 7.483

1. Maintenance of the integrity of the ecological system Accepted Accepted Accepted

2. Treatment and prevention of wastes caused by tourism Accepted Accepted Accepted
3. Pollution accidents Rejected Accepted Rejected
4. Active remediation and Reduction of the damage and interference in areas caused by the tourist activities Accepted Accepted Accepted
5. Accidents of poaching or others destroying environment caused by tourists Rejected Accepted Rejected
6. Performance of tourism academic research and creation of an environmental monitoring system Accepted Accepted Rejected
7. Planning and diversification of coastal, land and forest use Accepted Accepted Rejected
8. The increase of employment opportunities for local residents Accepted Accepted Rejected
9. Financial subsidization and compensation for local residents Rejected Accepted Rejected
10. Tourist expenditure Rejected Accepted Rejected
11. Average annual gross income in tourism jobs Rejected Accepted Rejected
12. Taxes on land, buildings and other structures Rejected Accepted Rejected
13. Charging of the users and establishment of a development association and proper use and distribution of the funds from income Rejected Accepted Rejected
14. Cost of maintaining tourism operation Accepted Accepted Rejected
15. Overall planning of local tourism industries Accepted Accepted Rejected
16. The existence of integrated tourism and environment plan Accepted Accepted Accepted
17. Frequency, the capacity of services, or level of use of local medical and transportation systems and living quality Accepted Accepted Rejected
18. Promotion and education of conservation and sustainable concepts that leads to awareness and implications Accepted Accepted Accepted
19. Protection and understanding of local culture and heritage sites Accepted Accepted Accepted
20. Enhancement of social identification through tourism and environmental protection for local residents Accepted Accepted Accepted
21. Training and development of local tourism personnel and provision of educational opportunities Accepted Accepted Accepted
22. Cleanliness and quality of tourism facilities Accepted Accepted Accepted
23. Amount of garbage per visitors Rejected Accepted Rejected
24. Population with access to drainage and wastewater treatment system Accepted Accepted Rejected
25. The attitude of the locals toward satisfaction, service, quality, and training mechanisms Accepted Accepted Rejected
26. Overall service quality of the amount of local business and potential ones Accepted Accepted Rejected
27. Tourist satisfaction with related activities Accepted Accepted Rejected
28. Local interaction and development towards tourists Accepted Accepted Rejected
29. Reinforcement of executive abilities, and ban, and control of available and developed policies Accepted Accepted Rejected
30. Assistance and partnerships from local coaches, guides, and advisory through the guidance of offering more tourism and recreation Accepted Accepted Rejected
information
31. Management for efficiency for tourism and recreational activities and integration and planning of long-term management tasks Accepted Accepted Rejected
32. Local residents and community involvement and participation in the management of tourism Accepted Accepted Rejected
33. Climate and weather Rejected Accepted Rejected
34. Protected natural, environmental and wildlife area Accepted Accepted Rejected
35. Potential of new real estate developments intended for tourism Rejected Rejected Rejected
36. The volume of tourist, returning tourists and seasonality Accepted Accepted Rejected
37. Amount of native, threatened, or endangered species Accepted Accepted Rejected
38. Percentage obtained and consumed of energy, water, and material Rejected Accepted Rejected
39. Percentage of renewable energy consumption with respect to the total attributable to tourism Rejected Accepted Rejected
40. Implementation or application of green design technology and recycling Accepted Accepted Rejected
41. Implementation and use of permaculture principles and revegetation areas Accepted Accepted Rejected
42. Community health (availability of health policy related to tourism) Rejected Accepted Rejected
43. Sex tourism Rejected Rejected Rejected
44. Foreign involvement in business and ownership of establishments Rejected Rejected Rejected
45. Crime rates, accidents and visitor safety and security Accepted Accepted Rejected
46. Legal compliance (prosecutions, fines, etc.) Accepted Accepted Rejected
47. Benchmarking—generic and competitive (input/output efficiency) Rejected Accepted Rejected
48. Animal biodiversity, Plant biodiversity, Wetland biodiversity experience Accepted Accepted Rejected
49. Quality of air, water, and land Accepted Accepted Rejected
50. Vacancies in official tourism accommodation establishments per inhabitant Rejected Accepted Rejected
51. Quality of tourism employment Accepted Accepted Rejected
52. Percentage of population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion after social transfers Rejected Accepted Rejected
53. The average length of stay of tourists Rejected Accepted Rejected
54. The average occupancy rate for official tourism accommodation establishments Rejected Accepted Rejected
55. Accessibility to recreational facilities Accepted Accepted Rejected
56. Ability to attract more investment Rejected Accepted Rejected
57. Development of nature-based tourists Accepted Accepted Rejected
58. Formulates ethics in tourism Accepted Accepted Rejected
59. Carrying Capacity Accepted Accepted Accepted

Total number of accepted sustainable ecotourism indicators 39 56 8

1. Compilation of experts’ responses: https://drive.google.com/open?

id=0B2cMgYpLdq0Ta0NfZzdhcE5HQlU.

Appendix A. Background of the methods

A.1. Fuzzy set theory

Fuzzy Set Theory was first introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with uncertainties in decisions wherein human language cannot precisely describe

883
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

or measure. Zimmermann (2010) added that it provides a strict mathematical framework in which vague theories in solving problems, with activities
that are subjective and imprecise, can be correctly and thoroughly studied. The following basic definitions of the fuzzy set theory are presented.
In a set of collection of objects denoted by x ∈ X where X is the universe of discourse, A ⊆ X defines a membership of x ∈ A or x ∉ A in the
classical set theory with truth values defined in Eq. (3) as a membership function.A is a crisp set if μA (x ): X → {0, 1} .

μA (x ) = { 1 x∈A
0 x∉A } (3)
A is a standard fuzzy set if ∃ a membership function μA (x ) such that μA (x ): X → [0, 1]. The set of 2-tuple A = {x , μA (x ): x ∈ [0, 1]} is a fuzzy set
where x ∈ A and μA (x ) is the membership function of x ∈ A..
Fuzzy numbers are fuzzy subsets of  . Fuzzy number foundations and their arithmetic operations were introduced by Zadeh (1965). A fuzzy
number is defined as a convex normalized fuzzy set in  with membership function which is piecewise continuous.
In numerous applications, a left-right (L-R) fuzzy number is commonly adopted. A fuzzy number A is of L-R type if ∃ membership functions for left
and for right with l, r ∈  , and l, r ⩾ 0 with
L ((M −x )/ l) x ⩽ M ⎫
μA (x ) = ⎧
⎨
⎩ R ((x −M )/ r ) x ⩾ M ⎬
⎭ (4)
where M ∈  is the modal value of A and l, r ∈ R are the left and right spreads of A. Because of its popularity and ease of implementation, an L-R
type triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is adopted in this study. A TFN expresses the strength of each pair of elements in the same group and can be
denoted as
A = (l, m , u) (5)
where
l ⩽ m ⩽ u and l, m , u ∈ 
A membership function μA (x ) of a TFN A = (l, m , u) can be defined in Eq. (6).

⎧ 0 x<l ⎫
⎪ (x −l)/(m−l) l ⩽ x ⩽ m ⎪
μA (x ) =
⎨ (u−x )/(u−m) m ⩽ x ⩽ u ⎬
⎪ 0 x>u ⎪ (6)
⎩ ⎭
where μA (x ) → [0, 1]and X is the universe of discourse.
Fig. 2 shows these parameters in a triangular fuzzy scale graph.
The arithmetic operations of two TFN denoted by A = (a1, a2 , a3) and B = (b1, b2 , b2) are shown in Eqs. (7)–(10).
A ⊕ B = (a1 + b1, a2 + b2 , a3 + b3) (7)

A ⊖ B = (a1−b3, a2−b2 , a3−b1) (8)

A ⊗ B = (a1 b1, a2 b2 , a3 b3) (9)

AøB = (a1/ b3, a2 / b2 , a3/ b1) (10)

A.2. Delphi method

The Delphi method was developed in the 1950s by the Rand Corporation. It is based on surveys structured towards the use of the intuition of
expert participants (Pill, 1971). Hence, it is an expert group decision-making method that aims at obtaining consensus regarding a specific issue. The
Delphi method not only enables the collection of evaluation standards but also maintains the quality of individual expert judgments. However, since
judgments are often expressed as “not” or “very”, some level of vagueness is likely to result from a Delphi process (Wang et al., 2016).
The Delphi Method normally composes of 4 rounds (Hsu and Sandford, 2007):

μm

1.0

0.0 M
l m u

Fig. 2. Fuzzy Triangular Scale Graph.

884
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

Round 1: Delphi Method begins with an open-ended questionnaire. It serves as the keystone of asking specific information about a subject from the
experts (Custer et al., 1999). The results are then converted into a well-structured questionnaire which will serve as the questionnaire in
Round 2.
Round 2: Each expert receives the second questionnaire and is asked to review the results summarized by the researchers from the information
provided in Round 1. Hence, there are areas of disagreement and agreement (Ludwig, 1994).
Round 3: Each expert receives a third questionnaire that includes the items and ratings summarized by the researchers in Round 2 and are tasked to
revise their judgment or to clarify remaining consensus (Pfeiffer, 1968).
Round 4: In the final round, the list of remaining items, their ratings, minority opinions, and items achieving consensus are distributed to the experts
for the opportunity to revise their judgments.

In addition, Delphi method can integrate the expert’s knowledge, the anonymity of participants and regular feedback. The weakness of the
traditional Delphi method is its subjectivity and time-consuming features (Pill, 1971).

Appendix B. Sample data for the fuzzy Delphi process

Sample judgment elicitation of an expert in linguistic scale.

Candidate Sustainable Ecotourism Indicators Rating

1. Maintenance of the integrity of the ecological system VI

2. Treatment and prevention of wastes caused by tourism VI
3. Pollution accidents M
4. Active remediation and Reduction of the damage and interference in areas caused by the tourist activities VI
5. Accidents of poaching or others destroying environment caused by tourists M
6. Performance of tourism academic research and creation of an environmental monitoring system VI
7. Planning and diversification of coastal, land and forest use VI
8. The increase of employment opportunities for local residents VI
9. Financial subsidization and compensation for local residents M
10. Tourist expenditure M
11. Average annual gross income in tourism jobs M
12. Taxes on land, buildings and other structures VI
13. Charging of the users and establishment of a development association and proper use and distribution of the funds from income VI
14. Cost of maintaining tourism operation VI
15. Overall planning of local tourism industries VI
16. The existence of integrated tourism and environment plan VI
17. Frequency, the capacity of services, or level of use of local medical and transportation systems and living quality VI
18. Promotion and education of conservation and sustainable concepts that leads to awareness and implications VI
19. Protection and understanding of local culture and heritage sites VI
20. Enhancement of social identification through tourism and environmental protection for local residents I
21. Training and development of local tourism personnel and provision of educational opportunities VI
22. Cleanliness and quality of tourism facilities VI
23. Amount of garbage per visitors I
24. Population with access to drainage and wastewater treatment system VI
25. The attitude of the locals toward satisfaction, service, quality, and training mechanisms VI
26. Overall service quality of the amount of local business and potential ones VI
27. Tourist satisfaction with related activities VI
28. Local interaction and development towards tourists I
29. Reinforcement of executive abilities, and ban, and control of available and developed policies VI
30. Assistance and partnerships from local coaches, guides, and advisory through the guidance of offering more tourism and recreation VI
information
31. Management for efficiency for tourism and recreational activities and integration and planning of long-term management tasks VI
32. Local residents and community involvement and participation in the management of tourism VI
33. Climate and weather I
34. Protected natural, environmental and wildlife area VI
35. Potential of new real estate developments intended for tourism I
36. The volume of tourist, returning tourists and seasonality VI
37. Amount of native, threatened, or endangered species VI
38. Percentage obtained and consumed of energy, water, and material VI
39. Percentage of renewable energy consumption with respect to the total attributable to tourism VI
40. Implementation or application of green design technology and recycling VI
41. Implementation and use of permaculture principles and revegetation areas I
42. Community health (availability of health policy related to tourism) I
43. Sex tourism U
44. Foreign involvement in business and ownership of establishments U
45. Crime rates, accidents and visitor safety and security VI
46. Legal compliance (prosecutions, fines, etc) I

885
L. Ocampo et al. Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888

47. Benchmarking—generic and competitive (input/output efficiency) VI

48. Animal biodiversity, Plant biodiversity, Wetland biodiversity experience VI
49. Quality of air, water, and land VI
50. Vacancies in official tourism accommodation establishments per inhabitant M
51. Quality of tourism employment VI
52. Percentage of population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion after social transfers I
53. The average length of stay of tourists VI
54. The average occupancy rate for official tourism accommodation establishments I
55. Accessibility to recreational facilities I
56. Ability to attract more investment M
57. Development of nature-based tourists VI
58. Formulates ethics in tourism I
59. Carrying capacity VI

Sample judgment elicitation of an expert in TFNs.

Candidate Sustainable Ecotourism Indicators Rating

1. Maintenance of the integrity of the ecological system (7,9,9)

2. Treatment and prevention of wastes caused by tourism (7,9,9)
3. Pollution accidents (3,5,7)
4. Active remediation and Reduction of the damage and interference in areas caused by the tourist activities (7,9,9)
5. Accidents of poaching or others destroying environment caused by tourists (3,5,7)
6. Performance of tourism academic research and creation of an environmental monitoring system (7,9,9)
7. Planning and diversification of coastal, land and forest use (7,9,9)
8. The increase of employment opportunities for local residents (7,9,9)
9. Financial subsidization and compensation for local residents (3,5,7)
10. Tourist expenditure (3,5,7)
11. Average annual gross income in tourism jobs (3,5,7)
12. Taxes on land, buildings and other structures (7,9,9)
13. Charging of the users and establishment of a development association and proper use and distribution of the funds from income (7,9,9)
14. Cost of maintaining tourism operation (7,9,9)
15. Overall planning of local tourism industries (7,9,9)
16. The existence of integrated tourism and environment plan (7,9,9)
17. Frequency, the capacity of services, or level of use of local medical and transportation systems and living quality (7,9,9)
18. Promotion and education of conservation and sustainable concepts that leads to awareness and implications (7,9,9)
19. Protection and understanding of local culture and heritage sites (7,9,9)
20. Enhancement of social identification through tourism and environmental protection for local residents (5,7,9)
21. Training and development of local tourism personnel and provision of educational opportunities (7,9,9)
22. Cleanliness and quality of tourism facilities (7,9,9)
23. Amount of garbage per visitors (5,7,9)
24. Population with access to drainage and wastewater treatment system (7,9,9)
25. The attitude of the locals toward satisfaction, service, quality, and training mechanisms (7,9,9)
26. Overall service quality of the amount of local business and potential ones (7,9,9)
27. Tourist satisfaction with related activities (7,9,9)
28. Local interaction and development towards tourists (5,7,9)
29. Reinforcement of executive abilities, and ban, and control of available and developed policies (7,9,9)
30. Assistance and partnerships from local coaches, guides, and advisory through the guidance of offering more tourism and recreation (7,9,9)
information
31. Management for efficiency for tourism and recreational activities and integration and planning of long-term management tasks (7,9,9)
32. Local residents and community involvement and participation in the management of tourism (7,9,9)
33. Climate and weather (5,7,9)
34. Protected natural, environmental and wildlife area (7,9,9)
35. Potential of new real estate developments intended for tourism (5,7,9)
36. The volume of tourist, returning tourists and seasonality (7,9,9)
37. Amount of native, threatened, or endangered species (7,9,9)
38. Percentage obtained and consumed of energy, water, and material (7,9,9)
39. Percentage of renewable energy consumption with respect to the total attributable to tourism (7,9,9)
40. Implementation or application of green design technology and recycling (7,9,9)
41. Implementation and use of permaculture principles and revegetation areas (5,7,9)
42. Community health (availability of health policy related to tourism) (5,7,9)
43. Sex tourism (1,3,5)
44. Foreign involvement in business and ownership of establishments (1,3,5)
45. Crime rates, accidents and visitor safety and security (7,9,9)
46. Legal compliance (prosecutions, fines, etc) (5,7,9)
47. Benchmarking—generic and competitive (input/output efficiency) (7,9,9)

886
L. Ocampo et al.
48. Animal biodiversity, Plant biodiversity, Wetland biodiversity experience
49. Quality of air, water, and land
50. Vacancies in official tourism accommodation establishments per inhabitant
51. Quality of tourism employment
52. Percentage of population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion after social transfers
53. The average length of stay of tourists
54. The average occupancy rate for official tourism accommodation establishments
55. Accessibility to recreational facilities
56. Ability to attract more investment
57. Development of nature-based tourists
58. Formulates ethics in tourism
59. Carrying capacity
References
Abidin, Z.Z., 1999. The identification of criteria and indicators for the sustainable man-
agement of ecotourism in Taman Negara National Park, Malaysia: a Delphi con-
sensus. Ph.D. Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA.
Afenyo, E.A., Amuquandoh, F.E., 2014. Who benefits from community-based ecotourism
development? Insights from Tafi Atome, Ghana. Tourism Plann. Dev. 11 (2),
179–190.
Agyeiwaah, E., McKercher, B., Suntikul, W., 2017. Identifying core indicators of sus-
tainable tourism: a path forward? Tourism Manage. Perspect. 24, 26–33.
Arun, K.C., Rijal, K., Sapkota, R.P., 2015. Role of ecotourism in environmental con-
servation and socioeconomic development in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal.
Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol. 22 (3), 251–258.
Ashok, S., Tewari, H.R., Behera, M.D., Majumdar, A., 2017. Development of ecotourism
sustainability assessment framework employing Delphi, C&I and participatory
methods: A case study of KBR, West Sikkim, India. Tourism Manage. Perspect. 21,
24–41.
Asian Development Bank, Regional state of the Coral Triangle marine resources: Their
status, economies, and management of the Coral Triangle, Retrieved from: http://
www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/42393/regional-statecoral-triangle.
pdf, (Accessed 10.08.17), 2014.
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., et al., 2002.
Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297 (5583), 950–953.
Banerjee, A., 2010. Tourism in protected areas: worsening prospects for tigers? Econ.
Political Weekly 45 (10), 27–29.
Baral, N., 2015. Assessing the temporal stability of the ecotourism evaluation scale:
testing the role and value of replication studies as a reliable management tool. J.
Sustainable Tourism 23 (2), 280–293.
Barzekar, G., Aziz, A., Mariapan, M., Ismail, M.H., Hosseni, S.M., 2011. Delphi technique
for generating criteria and indicators in monitoring ecotourism sustainability in
Northern forests of Iran: Case study on Dohezar and Sehezar Watersheds. Folia For.
Polonica Ser. A 53 (2), 130–141.
Blancas, F.J., Lozano-Oyola, M., Gonzalez, 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. 412–413, 28–45.
Blancas, F.J., Lozano-Oyola, M., González, M., 2015. A European Sustainable Tourism
Labels proposal using a composite indicator. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 54, 39–54.
Blancas, F.J., Lozano-Oyola, M., González, M., Caballero, R., 2018. A dynamic sustainable
tourism evaluation using multiple benchmarks. J. Cleaner Prod. 174, 1190–1203.
Blangy, S., Wood, M.E., 1993. Developing and implementing ecotourism guidelines for
wildlands and neighboring communities, In: Lindberg, K., Hawkins, D.E., (Eds.),
Ecotourism: a Guide for Planners and Managers, Vermont, North Bennington, pp.
32–54.
Boley, B.B., Green, G.T., 2016. Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: the ‘po-
tential’ for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. J. Ecotourism 15 (1), 36–50.
Buckley, R., 1994. A framework for ecotourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 21 (3), 661–669.
Céron, J.P., Dubois, G., 2003. Tourism and sustainable development indicators: the gap
between theoretical demands and practical achievements. Curr. Issues Tourism 6 (1),
54–75.
Chávez-Cortés, M., Maya, J.A.A., 2010. Identifying and structuring values to guide the
choice of sustainability indicators for tourism development. Sustainability 2 (9),
3074–3099.
Choi, H.C., Sirakaya, E., 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism.
Tourism Manage. 27 (6), 1274–1289.
Cobbinah, P.B., 2015. Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tourism Manage.
Perspect. 16, 179–189.
Coral Triangle Initiative, Retrieved from: http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/,
(Accessed 10.08.17), 2012.
Coria, J., Calfucura, E., 2012. Ecotourism and the development of indigenous commu-
nities: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecol. Econ. 73, 47–55.
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. Tourism 6 (2),
150–167.
Counsell, S., 2005. “Greenbacks in the Garden of Eden. Linking Circles, IV: International
Funders for Indigenous Peoples.” In: Conference Report. New York, pp. 94–104.
Courvisanos, J., Ameeta, J., 2006. A framework for sustainable ecotourism: application to
887
Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888
(7,9,9)
(7,9,9)
(3,5,7)
(7,9,9)
(5,7,9)
(7,9,9)
(5,7,9)
(5,7,9)
(3,5,7)
(7,9,9)
(5,7,9)
(7,9,9)
Costa Rica. Tourism Hosp. Plann. Dev. 3 (2), 131–142.
Crabtree, R., Bayfield, N., 1998. Developing sustainability indicators for mountain eco-
systems: a study of the Cairngorms Scotland. J. Environ. Manage. 52 (1), 1–14.
Custer, R.L., Scarcella, J.A., Stewart, B.R., 1999. The modified Delphi technique - A ro-
tational modification. J. Career Tech. Educ. 15 (2), 1–10.
Das, M., Chatterjee, B., 2015. Ecotourism: a panacea or a predicament? Tourism Manage.
Perspect. 14, 3–16.
Donohoe, H.M., Needham, R.D., 2006. Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary defini-
tion. J. Ecotourism 5 (3), 192–210.
European Commission, The European tourism indicator system. Toolkit for Sustainable
Destinations. Luxembourg: European Union, 2013.
Farsari, Y., Prastacos, P., 2001. Sustainable tourism indicators for Mediterranean estab-
lished destinations. Tourism Today 1 (1), 103–121.
Fennell, D.A., 2009. “Ecotourism.” International Encyclopedia of Human Geography.
372–376.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO). (2015). Statistics division
(FAOSTAT). Retrieved from: http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E (Accessed 10.08.17),
2015.
Gabrielsen, P., Bosch, P., 2003. Environmental Indicators: Typology and use in Reporting.
European Environment Agency, Denmark.
Gahin, R., Veleva, V., Hart, M., 2003. Do indicators help create sustainable communities?
Local Environ. 8 (6), 661–666.
García-Melón, M., Gómez-Navarro, T., Acuña-Dutra, S., 2012. A combined ANP-Delphi
approach to evaluate sustainable tourism. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 34, 41–50.
Gezon, L.L., 2014. Who wins and who loses? Unpacking the “local people” concept in
ecotourism: a longitudinal study of community equity in Ankarana, Madagascar. J.
Sustainable Tourism 22 (5), 821–838.
Ghorbani, A., Raufirad, V., Rafiaani, P., Azadi, H., 2015. Ecotourism sustainable devel-
opment strategies using SWOT and QSPM model: A case study of Kaji Namakzar
Wetland, South Khorasan Province, Iran. Tourism Manage. Perspect. 16, 290–297.
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), Status of coral reefs of the Pacific and
outlook: 2011, Retrieved from: http://www.icriforum.org/sites/default/files/Pacific-
Coral-Reefs-2011.pdf, (Accessed 10.08.17), 2011.
Global Footprint Network, National footprint accounts. Retrieved from: http://www.
footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/licenses1/. (Accessed 10.08.16),
2015.
Gulinck, H., Vyverman, N., Van Bouchout, K., Gobin, A., 2001. Landscape as framework
for integrating local subsistence and ecotourism: a case study in Zimbabwe.
Landscape Urban Plann. 53 (1–4), 173–182.
Hoernig, H., Seasons, M., 2004. Monitoring of indicators in local and regional planning
practice: concepts and issues. Plann. Pract. Res. 19 (1), 81–99.
Hsu, C.-C, Sandford, B.A., 2007. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract.
Assess. Res. Eval. 12 (10), 1–8.
Huang, Y., Coelho, V.R., 2017. Sustainability performance assessment focusing on coral
reef protection by the tourism industry in the Coral Triangle Region. Tourism
Manage. 59, 510–527.
Hunt, C.A., Durham, W.H., Driscoll, L., Honey, M., 2015. Can ecotourism deliver real
economic, social, and environmental benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa
Rica. J. Sustainable Tourism 23 (3), 339–357.
Johnsen, J., Bieger, T., Scherer, R., 2008. Indicator-based strategies for sustainable
tourism development. Mt. Res. Dev. 28 (2), 116–121.
Kaynak, E., Macaulay, J.A., 1984. The Delphi technique in the measurement of tourism
market potential: The case of Nova Scotia. Tourism Manage. 5 (2), 87–101.
Ko, T.G., 2005. Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a con-
ceptual approach. Tourism Manage. 26 (3), 431–445.
Kristjánsdóttir, K.R., Ólafsdóttir, R., Ragnarsdóttir, K.V., 2018. Reviewing integrated
sustainability indicators for tourism. J. Sustainable Tourism 26 (4), 583–599.
Kunasekaran, P., Gill, S.S., Ramachandran, S., Shuib, A., Baum, T., Afandi, S.H.M., 2017.
Measuring sustainable indigenous tourism indicators: A case of Mah Meri ethnic
group in Carey Island, Malaysia. Sustainability. 9 (7), 1256. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/su9071256. 1-20.
Laurila-Pant, M., Lehikoinen, A., Uusitalo, L., Venesjärvi, R., 2015. How to value biodi-
versity in environmental management? Ecol. Indic. 55, 1–11.
Lee, T.H., 2009. 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., Hsieh, H.-P., 2016. Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a
Taiwan’s wetland. Ecol. Indic. 67, 779–787.
L. Ocampo et al.
Li, W., 2004. Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China’s nature
reserves: A case study in Tianmushan Nature Reserve. Tourism Manage. 25 (5),
559–564.
Liu, Z., 2003. Sustainable tourism development : a critique. J. Sustainable Tourism 11 (6),
459–475.
Liu, C.R., 2007. A study on sustainable development evaluation indictors in Alishan’s
Dabang ecotourism destination. J. Tourism Leis. Stud. 13 (3), 235–264 (in Chinese
with English summary).
Lozano-Oyola, M., Blancas, F.J., Gonzalez, M., Caballero, R., 2012. Sustainable tourism
indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic. 18, 659–675.
Ludwig, B.G., 1994. Internationalizing extension: an exploration of the characteristics
evident in a state university extension system that achieves internationalization.
Ph.D. Thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Marques, A.S., Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S., Costa, M.H., 2013. Adaptive-participative sus-
tainability indicators in marine protected areas: design and communication. Ocean
Coast. Manage. 72, 36–45.
Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L.M., Ramos, T.B., 2015. Selection of sustainability indicators for
planning: combining stakeholders’ participation and data reduction techniques. J.
Cleaner Prod. 92, 295–307.
Mathis, A., Rose, J., 2016. Balancing tourism, conservation, and development: a political
ecology of ecotourism on the Galapagos Islands. J. Ecotourism 15 (1), 64–77.
Miller, G., 2001. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a
Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Manage. 22 (4), 351–362.
Ng, S.I., Chia, K.W., Ho, J.A., Ramachandran, S., 2017. Seeking tourism sustainability – A
case study of Tioman Island, Malaysia. Tourism Manage. 58, 101–107.
OFS (Office Federale de la Statistique). (2007). Les indicateurs du developpement durable
dans le tourisme. Retrieved from http://www.statoo.ch/sst07/presentations/Simma.
pdf.
Van der Duim, R., Van Marwijk, R., 2006. The implementation of an environmental
management system for Dutch tour operators: an actor-network perspective. J.
Sustainable Tourism 14 (5), 449–472.
Palme, U., Tillman, A.-M., 2008. Sustainable development indicators: how are they used
in Swedish water utilities? J. Cleaner Prod. 16 (13), 1346–1357.
Park, D.-B., Yoon, Y.-S., 2011. Developing sustainable rural tourism evaluation indicators.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 13 (5), 401–415.
Pasape, L., Anderson, W., Lindi, G., 2014. Assessment of indicators of sustainable eco-
tourism in Tanzania. Anatolia: An Int. J. Tourism Hosp. Res. 26 (1), 73–84.
Perez, V., Guerrero, F., Gonzalez, M., Perez, F., Caballero, R., 2013. Composite indicator
for the assessment of sustainability: the case of Cuban nature-based tourism desti-
nations. Ecol. Indic. 29, 316–324.
Pfeiffer, J., 1968. New look at education: system analysis in our schools and colleges.
Odyssey, New York, pp. 152–153.
Philippine Tourism, 2009. “Industry Performance for Travel and Tourism | August 2016.”
Retrieved < http://www.tourism.gov.ph/pages/industryperformance.aspx > .
Pill, J., 1971. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bib-
liography. Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci. 5 (1), 57–71.
Reddy, M.V., 2008. Sustainable tourism rapid indicators for less-developed islands: an
economic perspective. Int. J. Tourism Res. 10 (6), 557–576.
Reed M.S., and Doughill A.J., Facilitating grass-roots sustainable development through
sustainability indicators: A Kahalahari case study. In: Proceedings of the Frontiers 2:
European Applications in Ecological Economics Conference, Tenerife, Spain, 12–15
February 2003, 1–19.
Regmi, K.D., Walter, P., 2017. Modernisation theory, ecotourism policy, and sustainable
development for poor countries of the global South: perspectives from Nepal. Int. J.
Sustainable Dev. World Ecol. 24 (1), 1–14.
Roberts, S., Tribe, J., 2008. Sustainability indicators for small tourism enterprises: an
exploratory perspective. J. Sustainable Tourism 16 (5), 575–594.
Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999. Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi Indonesia.
Tourism Manage. 20 (6), 673–682.
Rydin, Y., Holman, N., Wolff, E., 2003. Local sustainability indicators. Local Environ. 8
(6), 581–589.
Saaty, T.L., Özdemir, M.S., 2014. How many judges should there be in a group ? Ann.
Data Sci. 1 (3–4), 359–368.
San Martín F., Salcedo M., Turismo, Sustentabilidad y certificación: Un reto global.
Revista del Centro de Investigación. Universidad La Salle 27 (7): 2007, 77–91.
EEA (European Environmental Agency). (2004). European Environment Agency core set
of indicators: letter on consultation process on proposal, proposals for a core set of
indicators. Retrieved from http://www.eea.eu.int/coreset.
Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, L., 2008. Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: a
complex adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. J. Sustainable
Tourism 16 (6), 601–628.
Sharpley, R., 2000. Tourism and sustainable development : exploring the theoretical di-
vide. J. Sustainable Tourism 8 (1), 1–19.
Sicat, G.P. 2014. “Cebu Is Booming.” (Retrieved 19.10.16). < http://www.philstar.com/
business/2014/05/21/1325390/cebu-booming > .
888
Ecological Indicators 93 (2018) 874–888
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T.B., Choi, H.S., 2000. Developing indicators for destination sus-
tainability. In: Weaver, D.B. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, pp. 411–432.
Swarbrooke, J., 1999. Sustainable tourism management. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Therrien, M.-C., 2013. Sustainable tourism indicators :
selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. J. Sustainable
Tourism 21 (6), 862–879.
Tepelus, C.M., Cordobci, R.C., 2005. Recognition schemes in tourism—from ‘eco’ to
‘sustainability’? J. Cleaner Prod. 13 (2), 135–140.
Thompson, B.S., Gillen, J., Friess, D.A., 2018. Challenging the principles of ecotourism:
insights from entrepreneurs on environmental and economic sustainability in
Langkawi, Malaysia. J. Sustainable Tourism 26 (2), 257–276.
Torres-Delgado, A., Palomeque, F.L., 2014. Measuring sustainable tourism at the muni-
cipal level. Ann. Tourism Res. 49, 122–137.
Torres-Delgado, A., Saarinen, J., 2014. Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism
development: a review. Tourism Geographies: Int. J. Tourism Space, Place Environ.
16 (1), 31–47 PC.
Tsaur, S.-H., Lin, Y.-C., Lin, J.-H., 2006. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the
integrated perspective of resource, community, and tourism. Tourism Manage. 27 (4),
640–653.
Twining-Ward, L., Butler, R., 2002. Implementing STD on a small island: development
and use of sustainable tourism development indicators in Samoa. J. Sustainable
Tourism 10 (5), 363–387.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Making tourism more sustainable: A
guide for policy makers. Madrid: United Nations Environment Programme, Division
of Technology, Industry and Economics, World Tourism Organization, 2005.
World Tourism Organization, UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 1996 Edition, 1996, United
Nations World Tourism Organization; Madrid, Spain. – No citation
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Compendium of tourism statis-
tics: Data 2008–2012. Spain: UNWTO, 2004.
Valentin, A., Spangenberg, J.H., 2000. A guide to community sustainability indicators.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20 (3), 381–392.
Vellas, F., Barioulet, H., 2000. Checklist for tourist projects based on indicators of sus-
tainable tourism. Groupe Developpement, Le Bourget.
Vester F., Die Kunst Vernetzt Zu Denken: Ideen Und Werkzeuge Fur Einen Neuen
¨Umgang Mit Komplexitat. Der Neue Bericht an Den Club of Rome. ¨ Munchen: DTV,
2002.
Villegas, B. M. 2016. “Tourism: Next Engine of Growth.” (Retrieved 19.10.16). < http://
www.mb.com.ph/tourism-next-engine-of-growth/ > .
Walker, K., Moscardo, G., 2014. Encouraging sustainability beyond the tourist experience:
ecotourism, interpretation and values. J. Sustainable Tourism 22 (8), 1175–1196.
Wall, G., 1997. FORUM: Is ecotourism sustainable? Environ. Manage. 21 (4), 483–491.
Wang, L., Zhong, L., Zhang, Y., Zhou, B., 2014. Ecotourism environmental protection
measures and their effects on protected areas in China. Sustainability 6, 6781–6798.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6106781.
Wang, S.-H., Lee, M.-T., Château, P.-A., Chang, Y.-C., 2016. Performance indicator fra-
mework for evaluation of sustainable tourism in the Taiwan Coastal Zone.
Sustainability 8 (7), 652. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8070652. 1–13.
White, V., McCrum, G., Blackstock, K.L., Scott, A., 2006. Indicators and Sustainable
Tourism: Literature Review, Aberdeen. The Macaulay Institute, Scotland.
Wilkinson, C., Status of coral reefs of the world, 2008 (Townsville, Mc, QLD: Published on
behalf of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network by the 526 Y. Huang, V.R.
Coelho/Tourism Management 59 (2017) 510-527 Australian Institute of Marine
Science), 2008.
Wood, M.E., 2002. Ecotourism: Principle, Practices, and Policies For Sustainability.
United Nations Environmental Programme, Paris, France.
World Bank, Indicators. Retrieved from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ (Accessed
10.08.17), 2015.
World Tourism Organization, 2000. Tourism: The Year 2000 and beyond Qualitative
Aspects. Discussion Paper. World Tourism Organization.
World Tourism Organization, 2004. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism
Destinations: A Guidebook. United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid,
Spain.
World Tourism Organization, 2016. UNWTO Tourism Highlights, 2016 Edition. United
Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.
Yfantidou, G., Matarazzo, M., 2017. The future of sustainable tourism in developing
countries. Sustainable Dev. 25 (6), 459–466.
Yoon, Y., Gursoy, D., Chen, J.S., 2001. Validating a tourism development theory with
structural equation modeling. Tourism Manage. 22 (4), 363–372.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 8 (3), 338–353.
Zhang, J., 2017. Evaluating regional low-carbon tourism strategies using the fuzzy delphi
– analytic network process approach. J. Cleaner Prod. 141, 409–419.
Zhang, H.Q., Fan, D.X.F., Tse, T.S.M., King, B., 2017. Creating a scale for assessing so-
cially sustainable tourism. J. Sustainable Tourism 25 (1), 61–78.
Zimmermann, H.-J., 2010. Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Stat. 2 (3),
317–332.