Chapter 23

Predictors of Sustainable Tourism in Holland and China

Executive Summary

Construct validity of four dimensions of sustainability on local residents’ satisfaction with tourism
is examined.Data came from communities bordering Hoge VeluweNational Park (HVNP) in
Holland (n=142) andChongdugou Village in China (n=400). As suggested by prior research, we
hypothesized that economic,socio-cultural, ecological, and institutional dimensions of
sustainable tourism would influence resident satisfaction with tourism. Dimensions were based
on three to six survey items with reliability coefficientsranging from 0.55 to 0.75. Perceived
satisfaction, dichotomous variable, measured resident satisfaction with tourism in their area.
From a logistic regression, two dimensions were statistically significant for HVNP and all four for
Chongdugou. The HVNP model correctlyclassified 81 percent of respondents and 70 percent
forChongdugou. The socio-cultural component was the strongest predictor for HVNP and the
institutional forChongdugou. The results supported the hypothesis that the four dimensions can
contribute to residents' satisfaction with sustainable tourism, however, the relative contribution
of each varies depending on the site context. We argue for improving the measurement of
sustainable tourism indicators and the developing standards associated with each indicator

Introduction

Construct validity of four dimensions of sustainability on local residents’ satisfaction

with tourism is examined. Data came from communities bordering Hoge Veluwe National Park
(HVNP) in Holland (n = 142) and Chongdugou Village in China (n = 400).
As suggested by prior research, we hypothesized that economic, socio-cultural, ecological, and
institutional dimensions of sustainable tourism would influence resident
satisfaction with tourism. Dimensions were based on three to six survey items with reliability
coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.75. Perceived satisfaction, a dichotomous
variable, measured resident satisfaction with tourism in their area. From a logistic
regression, two dimensions were statistically significant for HVNP and all four for
Chongdugou. The HVNP model correctly classified 81% of respondents and 70% for
Chongdugou. The socio-cultural component was the strongest predictor for HVNP and
the institutional for Chongdugou. The results supported the hypotheses that the four
dimensions can contribute to resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism, however,
the relative contribution of each varies depending on the site context. We argue for
improving the measurement of sustainable tourism indicators and the developing standards
associated with each indicator.
“Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). Sustainable
tourism can play an important role in community development, especially in areas
abundant in natural capital, yet lacking fi nancial resources or ability to pursue other
avenues of growth. Any tourism promotional effort, however, can have positive and
negative ecological, economic, and socio-cultural consequences. Achieving a balance
among these three classic dimensions of sustainable tourism is diffi cult to realize,
however, without an institutional perspective to manage, mediate and facilitate growth
(Eden et al., 2000; Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999). This fourth
institutional dimension emphasizes participatory decision-making processes such as
public participation and involvement. The German Wuppertal Institute combined these
four dimensions into a single framework called the “prism of sustainability” (Figure
1) with clearly defined links among the dimensions (Spangenberg and Valentin, 1999).
This study examined the construct validity of these four indicators of sustainability on
local residents’ satisfaction with tourism in communities bordering HVNP in Holland
and Chongdugou Village in China.
Analysis

For HVNP, Cronbach reliability alphas were 0.56 for a three-item institutional dimension,
0.65 for a three-item economic, 0.71 for a four-item ecological, and 0.75 for a six-item
socio-cultural dimension (Table 1). For Chongdugou Village, alpha scores were 0.53
for the three-item ecological dimension, 0.59 for a four-item institutional, 0.64 for a
three-item socio-cultural, and 0.70 for a five-item economic dimension. An additive
index of was computed as the mean of items per dimension.
Alternatives and Decision Criteria

Agenda 21, the document outlining principles for sustainable development adopted
during the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro (Twining-Ward and Butler, 2002),
called for coordinated efforts to develop sustainable development indicators at local, regional,
national, and global levels. In response, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD) launched a program to develop indicators
of sustainable development in 1995. Five years later, highly aggregated indicators
were completed and applied in many countries. These indicators, however, primarily
concentrated on regional, national, and global levels and focused on the physical environment. The
World Tourism Organization (WTO in Dymond, 1997), for example,

identified 11 core indicators for sustainable tourism categorized as ecological, social, economic, and
planning. Nine of the 11 were physical indicators (e.g., site protection, development control, waste
management planning process). Only two core indicators were psychological (e.g., local satisfaction
with tourism) (Dymond, 1997). Although the WTO effort provided a useful starting point, it failed to
justify the choice of indicators, lacked clear stakeholder participation, did not consider local level
indicators, and did not offer a monitoring framework for translating indicator information into
management action (Twining-Ward and Butler 2002). In response, research has focused on
developing practical sustainable tourism indicators, emphasizing the importance of local community
involvement during sustainable indicator creation (Sirakaya et al., 2001; Spangenberg, 2002; Valentin
and Spangenberg, 2000). Yuan, James, Hodgson, Hutchinson, and Shi (2003), for example, examined
local indicator development in a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai, China. Similar work has
been conducted by others (Dymond, 1997; Hughes, 2002; Innes and Booher, 2000; Miller, 2001). Not
all indicators, however, are relevant to every community (Valentin and Spangenberg, 2000). Each
community should develop an individual set of indicators within a common structure (Spangenberg,
2002). This approach (common structure, different indicators) allows for community comparisons
without ignoring their specifi c needs and situations. If the four dimensions of sustainable tourism
(ecological, economic, socio-cultural, and institutional) are generalizable as suggested by prior
research (Berg et al., 2004; Coccossis et al., 2001; Cottrell, et al., 2004; Cutumisu, 2003;
Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg, and Valentin, 1999), all four predictors should infl uence local
residents’ satisfaction with tourism. This chapter examined the relative contribution of the four
indicators to explaining satisfaction with tourism development in two study locations (i.e., a Dutch
National Park and a Chinese tourism village).

Recommendation and Implementation Plan

Sustainable Development is the central task in the international development endeavour. While
facing a sluggish world economic recovery, widening development gap between the North and the
South, the international community is also confronted with challenges like refugee crisis, terrorism,
public health threats and the climate change. All countries should work together to match words
with deeds and translate commitment into reality by earnestly implementing the 2030 Agenda, jointly
embarking on the path of equitable, open, all-round, innovation-driven and sustainable development
and improving the well-being of mankind.

As the largest developing country in the world, China has always given top priority to development.
China attaches great importance to the 2030 Agenda. The 13th Five-Year Plan was reviewed and
approved by the Fourth Session of the 12th National People’s Congress in March 2016, linking the
2030 Agenda with domestic mid-and-long term development strategies. Right now, implementation
of the 2030 Agenda is in full swing in China.

To guide and advance the implementation efforts, China formulates this China’s National Plan on
Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (hereinafter referred to as
National Plan). Drawing on the achievements and experience of China’s development, the National
Plan analyzes challenges and opportunities in implementing the 2030 agenda, lays out the guiding
thoughts, general principles and approaches for the implementation, as well as specific plans for the
implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals(SDG) and 169 targets. The National Plan
will be updated in light of the developments in due course.

Conclusion an References
The way China views its national interests – including the general stability of the Chinese
political system – make it unequivocally clear that banking on fundamental democratisation
in China is an illusion that could lead to dangerously wrong choices. Seeing the CCP not as a
credible partner but as an obstacle to desired change is to set a course towards conflict or
confrontation. It is precisely in this respect that a European approach could differentiate itself
from the traditional American approach, which fundamentally sees China as a rival. In this
context, Brussels and The Hague should ask themselves what they stand to achieve (and at
what cost) by placing the projection of their own core values at the heart of their China policy,
given that China considers one of its own ultimate core interests to be keeping out
unwelcome external political influence.
In the light of the results of this research, both geopolitical and economic considerations
argue in favour of further development of the EU-China partnership. As inhabitants of the
same land mass, it is only natural, ultimately, for their mutual ties to be permanently
strengthened. Within this context, the Chinese ‘Belt & Road’ initiative essentially offers a
logical and welcome potential basis for the embedding of such cooperation. Alongside this,
as a stepping-stone towards a future free trade agreement between the EU and China, the
bilateral investment agreement currently being negotiated could help provide sustainable
content for such a constructive, long-term partnership.

There are, however, many difficult obstacles still to overcome. Where China is profiling itself
as an advocate of global free trade and globalisation, it may be primarily interested in
boosting its own exports, relieving excess industrial capacity, and increasing access to
resources and commodities. Securing reciprocity is of great importance to the EU – not only
in relation to accessing the Chinese market, but also in terms of socially and environmentally
responsible standards for incoming investments. In spite of the shared political-economic
interest in strengthening existing ties, there are significant differences to overcome between
China’s network-based approach to inter-regional cooperation, and the rules-based approach
of the EU.
To bridge this gap, both sides will have to demonstrate a preparedness to make concessions in
their mutual engagement. For this, the EU will have to display flexibility, decisiveness and
competitiveness to ensure that the ‘win-win’ cooperation being put forward by China really
does add up to a positive outcome for Europe. In the final analysis, a successful politicaleconomic
China strategy will require a decisive and united EU capable of effectively holding
its trading partners – including China – to their responsibilities and obligations. To realise
this, the EU needs to be able to effectively manage, and finally overcome, its internal
differences.
The results of this survey underline the complex duality that characterises EU-China relations.
On the one hand, both actors are fated to work together owing to their mutual
interconnectedness, their shared interests and contemporary geopolitical realities. On the
other hand, essential differences in values and cultural traditions will remain, and it is
precisely cooperation with China that is bringing the internal divisions and weaknesses within
the EU to the surface. European leaders would do well to bear this bilateral relationship in
mind when consulting on more, less or a differentiated Europe moving at different speeds. It
is up to the EU to keep convincing China in word and especially in deed that relations with
the EU as a whole nevertheless are and will remain more efficient than relations with the
individual Member States, including the most powerful ones.
In many respects, the same applies to the Netherlands as to the EU as a whole. As a highvalue,
innovative trade and services-based country, the Netherlands stands to win more than
it could lose from a fruitful partnership with China. For this reason, it is clearly in the Dutch
interest to work in Brussels towards a strengthening of the partnership with China. Alongside
this, however, the Netherlands should be ready, when necessary, to chart its own course. In
view of this, the Netherlands must pursue a policy aimed at sustainable cooperation with
China that can be implemented effectively both within and outside the context of the EU.

Citing Sources
https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/national-documents/chinas-national-plan-implementation-
2030-agenda-sustainable-development

https://leidenasiacentre.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/LAC-report-CN-EU-NL-2017.07-final.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/17725853/
Predictors_of_sustainable_tourism_resident_perceptions_of_tourism_in_Holland_and_China