Article

Tourism Economics
2019, Vol. 25(1) 109–131
Tourism and its economic impact: ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:

A literature review using sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1354816618793762
journals.sagepub.com/home/teu
bibliometric tools
Niccolò Comerio
University Carlo Cattaneo, Italy

Fernanda Strozzi
University Carlo Cattaneo, Italy

Abstract
Topics such as the relationship between tourism and economic impact, its potential benefits and
negative externalities are characterized by both vastness and heterogeneity of contents. There-
fore, it can be complex to pinpoint the seminal works of each area of study. To extract the
backbones of the research tradition, we applied the dynamic literature review method called
‘Systematic Literature Network Analysis’, which combines systematic literature review and bib-
liographic network analysis. Additionally, this methodology can help to provide a panorama of the
most developed areas of study concerning tourism, supporting newcomers to target specific topics
and therefore to link to them.

Keywords
economic growth, economic impact, externalities, literature review, systematic literature network
analysis, tourism

Introduction
Over the past decades, both the flow of international tourists and the significance of tourism
industry for the economy of many countries have steadily increased. In 2015, world leaders agreed
on a new agenda towards 2030 and tourism is now included at least in 3 of the 17 universal goals:
goal 8 on decent work and economic growth, goal 12 on responsible consumption and goal 14 on
life below water. Moreover, in 2015, the United Nation General Assembly declared 2017 as the

Corresponding author:
Niccolò Comerio, School of Economics and Management, University Carlo Cattaneo, Castellanza, Corso Matteotti 22,
Italy.
Email: ncomerio@liuc.it
110 Tourism Economics 25(1)

International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development, recognizing the potential of tourism
sector to lead ‘economic growth, social inclusion and cultural and environmental preservation’
(Annual Report 2016, World Tourism Organisation, UNWTO). Briefly recalling Marin (1992),
tourism receipts can boost the economic growth of a country through their positive influence on the
economy as a whole. Ghali (1976) and Lanza and Pigliaru (2000) were the first to investigate from
an empirical point of view the relationship between tourism and growth. Then, starting from the
first paper published in 2002 by Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordà, the so-called ‘tourism-led growth
hypothesis’ (TLGH) and its reciprocal ‘economic-led tourism hypothesis’ (ELTH) have become
two most predominant topics in tourism literature, with a proliferation of empirical studies (Perles-
Ribes et al., 2017). Pablo-Romero and Molina (2013) performed a chronological analysis of the
empirical research, classifying papers according to the methodology applied (time series, panel
data and cross-sectional data). The results of this work mostly confirm the relationship between
tourism and growth; from a sample of 87 studies, 55 found a univocal relationship, 16 identified a
bi-univocal relationship and 9 indicated that the connection goes from economic growth to tourism
and only 4 did not find any kind of linkage. TLGH and ELTH were directly derived from the
export-led growth hypothesis, according to which economic growth can be generated not only by
increasing the amount of labour and capital within the economy but also by expanding the export
(Brida et al., 2016). Foreign exchange of earnings from tourism can be used to import capital and
then to produce goods and services in situ, leading to economic growth (McKinnon, 1964) and
improving at the same time the balance of payments (Oh, 2005). This idea has been revisited by
Nowak et al. (2007) who introduced the so-called ‘TKIG hypothesis’ (tourism ! capital good
imports ! growth): following a specific path, tourism export leads capital goods import and
finally growth. Sometimes TLG and TKIG work together but findings are mixed. For example,
supportive evidence has been found for Spain (Nowak et al., 2007), but only a short-run TKIG
mechanism for Tunisia (Cortés-Jiménez et al., 2011). In addition to this, tourism can lead to other
benefits for economy, such as an increase of tax revenues, employment creation and provision of
additional sources of income (Archer, 1995; Belisle and Hoy, 1980; Davis et al., 1988; Durbarry,
2002; Khan et al., 1990; Uysal and Gitelson, 1994; West, 1993). Similarly, also mega-events such
as Soccer World Cup and Olympic Games can boost the economies of hosting nations. Several
authors sought to examine the impact of such events, placing great emphasis on the economic
benefits derived from tax revenues, employment, investments and infrastructure development (e.g.
Bohlmann and van Heerden, 2008; Kim et al., 2006; Lee and Taylor, 2005; Li and Jago, 2013) and
investigating residents’ opinions and perceptions (e.g. Kim and Petrick, 2005).
However, tourism could also have a negative effect on the economy. Its boom may lead to a
deindustrialization in other sectors (Copeland, 1991); this phenomenon is often called ‘Dutch
Disease effect’. Despite contractions of the manufacturing sector are not found in the long-run
period, the authors warn that the danger of this effect could still be valid in either short or medium
run (Song et al., 2012). Furthermore, some prior studies brought to light other types of negative
externalities driven by massive tourist arrivals, such as over-exploitation of natural resources (e.g.
Capó et al., 2007; Holzner, 2005), increased cost of living and asset bubbles (e.g. Copeland, 1991;
Sheng, 2016a; Sheng and Tsui, 2009a), environmental externalities (e.g. Briassoulis, 2002;
Brohman, 1996; Saenz-de-Miera and Rosselló, 2014; Sheng and Tsui, 2009b) and social extern-
alities (Castells, 1978; Harvey, 2008; Sheng, 2016b).
Given both the vastness and the heterogeneity of all the aforementioned topics addressing the
linkage between tourism and its economic impact, we believe that it can be useful to apply an
approach which can allow to easily pinpoint the seminal works of each area of study. Citations are
Comerio and Strozzi 111

commonly used as a proxy of relevance (Strozzi et al., 2017). However, this is not a faultless meth-
odology; papers recently published cannot achieve a large number of citations and if their content is
important, the risk of their exclusion could arise. Related to this, Dawson et al. (2014) previously
suggested that a high number of citations is not a necessary synonym of high-quality research.
To achieve our goal, we decided then to apply the dynamic literature review method called
‘Systematic Literature Network Analysis’ (SLNA) introduced by Colicchia and Strozzi (2012),
which combines systematic literature review (SLR) and bibliographic network analysis (BNA).
More in detail, a particular step of analysis of this methodology (the so-called main path) seems to
be very useful in this circumstance. Each main path constitutes the backbone of the research
tradition (De Nooy et al., 2011; Lucio-Arias and Leydesdorff, 2008), highlighting the articles that
act as hubs in reference to later works (Strozzi et al., 2017).
The successful adoption of this innovative approach to other contexts, for example, Kim et al.
(2016) and Strozzi et al. (2017), proves its potential value as a tool to identify research trends and
evolutionary trajectories.
In addition, a structured literature review like this could also provide a panorama of the most
developed areas of study concerning tourism, supporting newcomers to target specific topics and
allowing them to adopt or to link to those themes.
With these aims, this article is structured as follows. In the second section, we briefly describe
material and methodology applied. In third and fourth sections, we present and discuss, respec-
tively, the results of the first and second phase of the SLNA method. Finally, the last section
includes final remarks and suggestions.

Material and methods

The preliminary data used in this SLNA were collected from Scopus database, which is, together
with Web of Science (WoS), the most commonly used scholar citation database for field deli-
neation (Strozzi et al., 2017). The main advantage is that Scopus coverage is nearly 60% larger
than the one of WoS (Zhao and Strotmann, 2015).
SLNA consists of two phases: SLR and BNA. The first phase (SLR) includes three main steps:
definition of the scope of the analysis in order to draw the boundary lines of the study; locating
studies of ‘keywords, time, type of documents, language’; and study selection and evaluation to
isolate the most relevant papers. Papers screened and selected during the first phase constitute then
the starting point of the second phase (BNA). In particular, in this work, we will perform both a
citation network analysis (CNA) and a keywords network analysis, integrating them with com-
plementary analyses of the most cited documents.
To build networks, several software packages are available. Preliminary analysis had been
conducted using VOSviewer (http://www.vosviewer.com/), especially for network visualization
and a more in-depth co-word network analysis. Furthermore, it helped us to create the input file for
Pajek (http://mrvar.fdv.uni-lj.si/pajek/), the software required to extract the main path of the topic.
The former is complementary to the latter in the sense that it offers more varied formats of network
layouts, such as citation density maps (Strozzi et al., 2014). Finally, a third software package had
been adopted: Sci2 Tool (http://cns.iu.indiana.edu). It is a modular toolset designed for the study of
science which supports the temporal, geospatial, topical and network analysis and visualization of
data sets (Strozzi et al., 2017). Specifically, it allowed us to implement the process of normal-
ization of the keywords, preparatory to the author keywords analysis and the keyword bursts
analysis.
112 Tourism Economics 25(1)

First phase of SLNA methodology: SLR

Scope of the analysis
As already mentioned before, the dynamics of tourism as an activity and as an industry call for
continuous efforts in seeking new approaches, tools and perspectives in order to acquire new
knowledge and a greater understanding of the discipline (Song et al., 2012). From a macro-
economic perspective, tourism contributes to local, national and international economic devel-
opments as well as destination competitiveness. Many economies, especially less developed ones,
have recently increased the specific weight of tourism in their gross domestic product (GDP); as a
result, the relationship between tourism and economic growth has become one of the main research
themes in recent literature. At the same time, overgrowth of tourism may lead to negative effects in
host communities. A structured literature review could provide a panorama of the most developed
areas of study concerning tourism, supporting newcomers to target specific topics and allowing
them to adopt or to link to those themes.

Locating study
Once we defined the scope of this analysis, the second step is the delineation of a set of search
strings, based on keywords, concepts or topics. The enquiry was performed as follows: using
Scopus, we looked for ‘tourism’ AND (‘economic growth’ OR ‘economic development’ OR
‘economic impact’ OR ‘GDP’), in ‘article title, abstract, keywords’. This stage of the analysis is
very critical, and results may radically change if different inputs are used. We chose the keywords
according to our prior experience and referring to the most common ones that are possible to find
reading articles inherent to this field of study. Furthermore, we deliberately decided not to include
any keyword related to statistical methodologies, due to the fact that the purpose of the study is
providing a panorama of the most developed areas of study concerning tourism, without focusing
exclusively on the empirical point of view.

Study selection and evaluation

The search was performed in January 2018. Without any restriction of the time window, we
focused only on papers already published in the subject areas of ‘Business, Management and
Accounting’ together with ‘Economics, Econometrics and Finance’, as consequences of our
intention to perform an SLNA from an economic perspective. Moreover, we concentrate only on
documents written in English. Therefore, the chosen set of keywords grants the possibility to point
out specific concepts and related issues and trends through the application of the adopted meth-
odology and its bibliographic analysis tools, in compliance with the objective of this work. This led
to obtain 1999 works as a search outcome.

Second phase of SLNA methodology: BNA

Citation network analysis
A citation network is ‘a network where the nodes are papers and the links are citations’ (Strozzi
et al., 2017). The arrows go from cited to citing papers that is like saying from the oldest to the
newest ones; this represents the flow of knowledge. Not all the 1999 papers resulting from the SLR
process are expected to be connected. Required step of the CNA is then the exclusion of all the
Comerio and Strozzi 113

isolated nodes, so of all the papers that are neither cited nor citing others in the network: basically,
their relevance in the flow of knowledge is quite small. Only 1234 of 1999 papers resulted to be
connected. We performed then the second phase of SLNA methodology focusing only on the
connected components which can be defined as ‘a set of nodes connect by links, i.e. citations’
(Strozzi et al., 2017). Considering that this field of study has many subareas, it is also appropriate
to group the papers in communities, using the Louvain method of Pajek, an algorithm which
optimizes the modularity. According to this analysis, six are the resulting clusters: cluster 1
includes 444 papers, followed by the second (379 papers) and the third (373 papers); the remaining
three communities are undoubtedly small, with 17, 14 and 3 papers, respectively. Given this huge
size of the first three identified communities, it can be useful to extract the so-called main path
(Lucio-Arias and Leydesdorff, 2008), which can be useful if a discipline has many subareas. Liu
and Lu (2012) proposed to relax some constraints of the process to build the main path by gen-
erating the so-called key route, through the main path algorithm of the software Pajek. Each main
path constitutes the backbone of the research tradition (De Nooy et al., 2011; Lucio-Arias and
Leydesdorff, 2008), highlighting the articles that act as hubs in reference to later works (Strozzi
et al., 2017). Two are the main steps to be followed in this analysis:

(1) Quantification of the citation traversal weights, using the search path count methodology
of Pajek. This step allows to weight each citation, according to the ratio between the
number of paths including the citation and the total number of paths between sources (i.e.
articles that do not cite any others) and sinks (i.e. articles that are not cited by any others).
(2) Extraction of the main path component. In this work, we used a cut-off value of 0.5 (the
default one of the software Pajek) to remove all arcs in the original citation network with a
lower value of transversal weight.

We decided to perform this kind of analysis only for the three largest clusters, which together
cover about 97% of all the connected nodes.

Cluster 1. The largest cluster among the six contains 444 papers. Both this and the third cluster
analyse the relationship between tourism and economic growth mainly from an empirical point of
view but adopting different methodologies. Twenty-four papers were extracted using the main path
algorithm of the software Pajek (Figure 1); they largely share the same methodological approach
or one of its evolutions (e.g. input–output (I/O) models and/or computable general equilibrium
(CGE) models). Generally speaking, the main purpose of this stream of literature is the explo-
ration of the interdependencies between tourism and different branches of national and/or
regional economies but also the quantification of both direct and indirect externalities due to the
expansion of tourism sector.
Fletcher (1989), Briassoulis (1991) and Johnson and Moore (1993) showed the usefulness of the
I/O analysis in the examination of the economic impact of tourism, a methodology widely applied
during that period. However, they also brought to light some serious limitations (such as sea-
sonality problems, intangible social and environmental impacts or more generic methodological
issues not limited to tourism field), overcame by Zhou et al. (1997), who introduced in this field of
study a new and alternative technique, the CGE. The comparison between the I/O analysis and the
new methodology applied to Hawaii’s economy showed a greater power of the CGE to account for
inter-sectoral resource flows and, therefore, a greater reliability. Generally speaking, a CGE model
specifies all the economic relationships in mathematical terms and put them together in a form that
114 Tourism Economics 25(1)

Figure 1. Main path of cluster 1.

allows the model to predict the change in variables such as prices, output and economic welfare
resulting from a change in economic policies, given information about technology (the inputs
required to produce a unit of output), policies and consumer preferences (Hertel et al., 2011). This
is an important turning point of this stream of literature because starting from now the majority of
the researchers adopted this new technique. Dwyer et al. (2000) looked at the applications of CGE
modelling to tourism growth in both nations and regions, praising the capacity of this new
methodology to take into account also economy-wide effects, such as the reduction of the demand
for traditional exports and import industries due to the competition with an expanding tourism
industry. In correspondence of this article, the main path splits into two branches. In the upper
branch, Dwyer et al. (2003) argued that the effects of tourism growth on destination income and
employment cannot be anticipated a priori. Thanks to the incorporation of a realistic set of
economy-wide constraints in a CGE model, it is possible to predict scenarios, supporting the
destination management organizations in their decision processes. Once again, this methodology
was seen to be the preferred technique in analysing the economic impacts of tourism compared to
the traditional I/O models (Dwyer, 2015; Dwyer et al., 2004) not only in a static way but also
including dynamic elements (Blake, 2009). Through several channels, tourism may bring poverty
relief in a broader context of economic growth (Blake et al., 2008); for many countries, tourism
development may represent a good prospect for poverty reduction, despite governments do not
take necessarily tourism seriously, failing to support a direct connection with the economic growth
(Croes and Vanegas, 2008). Tourism is seen as a vital sector of economies also for small island
developing states (SIDS); researchers (e.g. Mitchell and Li, 2017; Pratt, 2015) started to investigate
this connection especially from 2014 when United Nations declared the Year of SIDS. However,
few studies have evaluated the impact of tourism on the local economies of such countries and
potential poverty reduction (Mitchell and Li, 2017), preferring instead the estimation of expen-
ditures impact on income, employment and regional inequalities (e.g. De Santana Ribeiro et al.,
2017; Khoshkhoo et al., 2017). In the other branch of the main path, Sugiyarto et al. (2003) used a
CGE model to examine the effects of globalization on the Indonesian economy, showing how
tourism growth amplifies the positive effects of globalization shrinking conversely the adverse
ones. Blake et al. (2003) applied the same methodology to test the consequences of an exogenous
shock on the tourism expenditure. More in detail, the authors showed how the outbreak of the foot
and mouth disease in 2001 had an adverse effect on GDP of United Kingdom through the
reductions in tourism expenditure more than through other effects. Dwyer et al. (2006b) explored
Comerio and Strozzi 115

the use of the CGE analysis in the evaluation of the economic impacts of special events; the article
showed how this methodology is flexible enough to be adapted to estimate fiscal impacts,
intraregional effects, event subsidies, multistate and displacement effects of such events. Pro-
ceeding along this branch of the main path, Li and Blake (2009) introduced the ‘Olympic-related
investment and expenditure framework’ in order to analyse the economic impact of this type of
event and its distributional effects between the host city and the rest of an economy, with reference
specifically to the Beijing 2008 Olympics. Using this framework and applying the CGE metho-
dology, Li et al. (2011) forecasted the economic contribution of tourism generated by the Beijing
Olympics, including both ex ante and ex post estimations. Furthermore, Li et al. (2013) imple-
mented the prior model analysing the data under the condition of imperfect competition, an
approach widespread in another context, such as international trade. Finally, Sun and Pratt (2014),
Hadjikakou et al. (2015) and Sun (2016) investigated the environmental consequences of tourism.
Using the calculation approach of the environmentally extended input–output (EEIO) model
together with scenario analysis of CGE model and/or tourism satellite account (TSA) methodol-
ogy, they developed frameworks in order to quantify both direct and indirect economic impact of
tourism on water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and to identify the dynamics between
economic growth, technological efficiency and environmental externalities. As already mentioned
before, the United Nation General Assembly declared 2017 as the International Year of Sustain-
able Tourism for Development, underlining the importance of the environmental preservation
beside the merely economic growth. As a result, the examination of selected environmental effects
of tourism consumption may have a universal relevance for tourism policymakers (Jones and
Munday, 2007). At the same time, the imposition of form of taxations to offer social and economic
benefits (such as the Carbon Tax) may determine a significant contraction of tourism industry
(Dwyer et al., 2013) and, as a result, negative consequences on employment and economic growth.
To sum up, researchers employ several types of analyses to make estimates of the economic
impact of changes in tourism expenditure; I/O and EEIO analysis, CGE analysis and TSA seem to
be the most widespread.
Each method shows advantages and disadvantages; for this reason, they have to be considered
as complementary and not exclusive. For example, according to Jones and Munday (2008), TSAs
can be ideally used as a basis for CGE modelling, which is perceived to be the most complete and
comprehensive one (Song et al., 2012).
The development of TSA is of a great importance in order to accurately measure the impact of
tourism phenomenon, which should be regarded as being made up of many different industrial
sectors (Hara, 2008); as a result, the contribution of the tourism to the economy as a whole cannot
be fully quantified without the implementation of a TSA (Khoshkhoo et al., 2017). In fact, this
approach allows the measurement of the direct economic contributions of tourism activities to a
national economy (Frechtling, 2010) which is seen to be comparable across countries, consistent
over time and compatible with the standard measures of national economy (Frechtling, 1999).
Furthermore, in order to provide a common reference framework to be used in the compilation of
tourism statistics, in March 2008, the United Nations Statistical Commission adopted the Inter-
national Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS, 2008), which presents a system of
definitions, concepts, classifications and indicators that facilitate the link to the conceptual fra-
meworks of the TSA (Frechtling, 2010). Jointly, CGE method has been implemented to overcome
some of the restrictive assumption that I/O analysis has, such as a perfectly elastic aggregate supply
curve, and infinitive or zero substitution effects and no price mechanism (Dwyer et al., 2004). As a
116 Tourism Economics 25(1)

Figure 2. Main path (chain A) of cluster 2.

result, they are extensively used to estimate economic impacts of a wide variety of changes and
policies across most sectors (Dwyer et al., 2004).

Cluster 2. A total of 379 documents is included in this second cluster. Generally speaking, authors
of this cluster are concerned about the assessment of intangible social and environmental impacts,
such as tourism sustainability or the coexistence of tourists and host communities’ inhabitants.
Pajek’s algorithm extracted two main paths (chains A and B) which will be described separately.
Chain A (Figure 2) consists of 10 papers which mainly focus on resident perceptions of tourism
impact within host communities. Long et al. (1990) and Johnson et al. (1994) concentrated on rural
areas. Both these papers achieved similar conclusions. Residents initially show high expectations
for tourism development and their predisposition to accept tourists increase; however, at certain
point, their attitudes become less favourable, decreasing over time after the achievement of a
threshold level. Snepenger et al. (1995) found that travel-stimulated entrepreneurial migration
contributes to business formation and diversity of firms competing in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Then, Snepenger et al. (1998) investigated the perceived impacts of tourism devel-
opment on downtown in a rural community, formulating a ‘downtown tourism life cycle model’
based on five stages which are intended to illustrate how downtown evolves together with the
increase of the number of tourists. However, a generalization of such type of frameworks is not
simple due to the fact that nature of the relationship between host communities’ attitudes and
support for tourism development differs across communities (Andereck and Vogt, 2000). Gen-
erally speaking, residents are able to recognize both positive and negative consequences of the
tourism industry; broad-based education and awareness campaigns may be useful tools to increase
the predisposition to accept a greater number of tourists (Andereck et al., 2005). Diedrich and
Garcı́a-Buades (2009) successfully explored the possibility to use local perceptions of tourism as
indicators of destination decline, applying to the Belizean communities a tourism area life cycle
derived from social science literature. Haddock-Fraser and Hampton (2012) and Daldeniz and
Hampton (2013) investigated the economic impacts and the environmental sustainability of dive
tourism industry at host sites; similar examples are also included in the chain B of this cluster. They
pointed out the existence of different interest groups, often conflicting and polarized within
communities, widening the field of study of social externalities as consequence of tourism. Finally,
Hampton et al. (2018) highlighted how the growth of labour market as a result of tourism sector
may lead to more vulnerability, uncertainty and contingency, especially among ethnic minorities.
Among the 12 papers of chain B (Figure 3), Rodenburg (1980) and Joppe (1996) emphasized
the possibility that goals of different economic players are not always convergent: objectives and
Comerio and Strozzi 117

Figure 3. Main path (chain B) of cluster 2.

social and/or economic effects of large enterprises, small enterprises and craft tourism may
diverge, as well as government and communities’ interests. Other authors principally focused from
a qualitative point of view on many facets of tourism and its potential to boost the economic growth
(Booth, 1990; Hall, 1987) especially during the transition from a manufacturing to a service
economy. The existence of large attractions, such as heritage sites, may generate benefits for the
local communities without forgetting related costs (Hampton, 2005). Hampton (1998) and
Scheyvens (2002) showed how particular typologies of tourism, in this case, backpacker, may
alleviate some of the excesses of international mass flows and reduce negative externalities.
Awareness to sustainability has increased over time. Another trend topic that we have already seen
in cluster 1 from a quantitative point of view is the nexus tourism poverty. Several authors of this
community have been investigated this connection (e.g. Hummel and van der Duim, 2011;
Scheyvens, 2007; Truong, 2013), emphasizing the possibility to alleviate poverty through suitable
policies. More in general, the global boom of tourism industry has proved to be an engine not only
for developed countries but also for developing ones; even single regions within them may benefit
from investment in this sector. Spatial spillover and spatial heterogeneity between neighbouring
regions (Yang and Fik, 2014b) and strong inter-sectoral linkages (Thomas-Francois et al., 2017)
have been identified as a crucial driver of regional tourism growth.

Cluster 3. A large body of literature has been devoted to validating the assumption of economic-
driven tourism growth; related to this topic, in cluster 3, we can find several papers which have
been already detected in the chronological analysis of the empirical research performed by Pablo-
Romero and Molina (2013). All these papers share the same methodological approach, which can
be divided into three groups: time series, panel data and cross-sectional data. Figure 4 shows the
result of the main path extraction through Pajek algorithm.
Tourism expenditure drives the host country’s economy in three ways: direct-multiplier effect
(through direct expenditures of visiting tourists), indirect-multiplier effect (through the money
spent by the recipients of direct expenditures) and induced-multiplier effect (through the purchases
of goods and services done by beneficiaries of the two previous effects). Khan et al. (1995)
demonstrated the tourism’s contribution to Singapore’s economy via the three multiplier effects
aforementioned and its increase over time. Lim and Mcaleer (2000) and Payne and Mervar (2002)
deepened the seasonal pattern of the tourist arrivals phenomenon, focusing, respectively, on
Australia and Croatia. Furthermore, Payne and Mervar (2002) brought to light the fact that political
instability may have an adverse effect on tourism revenues. Thanks to the paper of Balaguer and
118 Tourism Economics 25(1)

Figure 4. Main path of cluster 3.

Cantavella-Jordà (2002), the ‘TLGH’ became one of the most relevant topics in tourism literature.
More in detail, through integration and causality test, they demonstrated the existence of a con-
nection between international tourism and economic expansion, at least in the Spanish market.
Starting from now, several authors investigated the validity of such connection in different
countries all over the world, with mixed findings. Dritsakis (2004) focused on the Greek economy,
demonstrating the existence of a ‘strong Granger causal’ relationship between international
earnings and economic growth. This connection was seen to be unidirectional from tourism and
real exchange to GDP in Chile (Brida and Risso, 2009) and bidirectional in Taiwan (Kim et al.,
2006) and Tunisia (Belloumi, 2010) which is likely to say economic growth contributes to the
sectoral development of tourism but also vice versa. More recently, TLGH has been empirically
confirmed in Lebanon (Tang and Abosedra, 2014), Malaysia (Tang and Tan, 2015) and Mada-
gascar (Rakotondramaro and Andriamasy, 2016). On the contrary, Oh (2005) using an Engle and
Granger two-stage approach and a bivariate vector autoregression model did not find any con-
firmation of the TLGH in the long-run period for South Korea. Conflicting conclusions may be
reached even analysing the same country. Gunduz and Hatemi (2005) and Ongan and Demiroz
(2005) found, respectively, a unidirectional and bidirectional relationship between the develop-
ment of tourism and economic growth in Turkey. However, few years later, Katircioglu (2009)
rejected the TLGH for the Turkish economy since no cointegration was found in the long term.
Nowak et al. (2007) revisited the ‘TKIG hypothesis’ (tourism, capital goods import and growth);
inbound tourism may be seen as an alternative form of capital import which can potentially sustain
economic growth of a country. Sometimes, TLG and TKIG work together but findings are mixed.
For example, supportive evidence has been found for Spain (Nowak et al., 2007), but only a short-
run TKIG mechanism for Tunisia (Cortés-Jiménez et al., 2011).
Together with the above-mentioned time series analyses, several papers have been published
using panel data econometric techniques, which allow dealing with a larger data sample. Lee and
Chang (2008) applied a panel cointegration for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries, finding a unidirectional causality relationship
between tourism and GDP in the former group of nations and a bidirectional relationship (and more
powerful) in the latter. Furthermore, Asian countries showed a weaker link between the two
variables; on the contrary, the impact was greater in Sub-Sahara African area. Qureshi et al. (2017)
validated the TLGH using a generalized method of moment estimator in a panel of 80 international
tourist destination cities. They add to the model other variables, such as energy demand, health
expenditure and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, to take into consideration also other externalities
related to the tourism besides the merely economic growth. Through the quantile-on-quantile
Comerio and Strozzi 119

methodology recently introduced by Sim and Zhou (2015), Shahzad et al. (2017) found a positive
relation between tourism and economic growth in the top 10 tourism destinations in the world
(China, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United
States), showing also a weaker links in those countries in which the importance of tourism sector is
lower. Finally, Nimanussornkul and Do (2017) highlighted the volatility of international tourism
receipts and their vulnerability to possible exogenous shocks, such as the fluctuation of the foreign
exchange rate, the inflation ratio and the crude oil price. Moreover, low expected international
tourism receipts are caused by the high risk on international tourism receipts.

GCS analysis
Global citation score (GCS) analysis can be very useful to localize seminal studies; papers with a
high number of citations in Scopus can be considered as the most influent into a specific stream of
literature (Knoke and Yang, 2008). Table 1 reports the 10 most cited papers ranked according to
their GCS, equals the total number of citations in Scopus.
Through the comparison between the GCS and the CNA, it is possible to identify seminal works
that are not included in the citation network but with a considerable amount of citations in the whole
Scopus database. Table 1 confirms how some of the papers inserted in the main paths are indeed
relevant works in their field, and not only within the citation network. Moreover, only three addi-
tional papers not included in any of the main paths (rank numbers 4, 8 and 9) have been found,
demonstrating the capability of the CNA in the detection of the most relevant works. These three
papers corroborate the relevance of tourism as a trending topic, confirming themes already discussed
before, such as the importance of tourism for the development of rural and marginalized areas
(Briedenhann and Wickens, 2004), but also pointing out the existence of other issues. For example,
Richards and Wilson (2006) highlighted the need for creativity in developing new products and
services also in the tourism industry to attract more tourists in this competition-driven market. The
creation and the introduction of innovative products often come from entrepreneurs who invest in
tourism sector not for economic purposes but as ‘lifestyle’ (Atelijevic and Doorne, 2000).

Author keywords analysis

The CNA already performed together with the GCS analysis is certainly powerful instrument for
the exploration of the state of the art of a topic. However, additional investigations can be useful in
order to identify the most recent trends shared among all the papers. In this paragraph, we explore
also the author keywords network (Ding et al., 2001) of the whole set of papers resulting from the
SLR process; this allows us to include in our analysis also the isolated nodes of the connected
component, which is like saying all the papers that are neither cited nor citing others in the network
(765 of 1999 papers).

Co-occurrence analysis of authors’ keywords

The main assumption of a co-occurrence (or co-word) analysis is that authors’ keywords constitute
an adequate proxy of the papers’ content or of the relationship that the paper establishes among
investigated problems (Strozzi et al., 2017). The co-occurrences around the same word of a pair of
words may correspond to a research theme, suggesting the existence of patterns and trends in a
specific discipline (Ding et al., 2001). To perform a co-occurrence analysis of authors’ keywords,
120 Tourism Economics 25(1)

Table 1. GCS of the 10 most cited papers.

Main
Rank Title Author Journal Year GCS path Cluster

1 Residents’ perceptions of community Andereck Journal of Travel 2005 406 x 2A

tourism impacts et al. Research
2 Tourism as a long-run economic growth Balaguer and Applied 2002 356 x 3
factor: The Spanish case Cantavella- Economics
Jordà
3 The contribution of tourism Oh Tourism 2005 287 x 3
development to economic growth in Management
the Korean economy
4 Developing creativity in tourist Richards and Tourism 2006 264
experiences: A solution to the serial Wilson Management
reproduction of culture?
5 The relationship between residents’ Andereck Journal of Travel 2000 259 x 2A
attitudes towards tourism and tourism and Vogt Research
development options
6 Tourism as a long-run economic growth Dritsakis Tourism 2004 253 x 3
factor: An empirical investigation for Economics
Greece using causality analysis
7 Tourism development and economic Lee and Tourism 2008 251 x 3
growth: A closer look at panels Chang Management
8 ‘Staying within the fence’: Lifestyle Ateljevic and Journal of 2000 248
entrepreneurship in tourism? Doorne Sustainable
Tourism
9 Tourism routes as a tool for the Briedenhann Tourism 2004 248
economic development of rural areas– and Management
vibrant hope or impossible dream? Wickens
10 Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: Dwyer et al. Tourism 2004 242 x 1
New and old approaches Management

Note: GCS: global citation score.

two steps are needed. First of all, we extracted the authors’ keywords of the same 1999 papers
selected in Scopus for the SLR phase. Then, a co-word network was built and analysed using
VOSviewer software (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010). VOS mapping determines the locations of
items in a map by minimizing a function depending on a similarity measures (ASij) between items
defined as
cij
ASij ¼
ci cj
Where cij is the measure of the occurrence of the keywords i and j in the same document and ci
and cj are the expected numbers of co-occurrences of i and j under the assumption that the
co-occurrences of i and j are statistically independent (Van Eck and Waltman, 2009).
Figure 5 shows the results obtained analysing the author keywords of the 1999 papers extracted
from Scopus. Starting from a total of 4419 author keywords, the VOS algorithm detected three
main clusters, which reflect the three clusters previously analysed through the CNA. As a
Comerio and Strozzi 121

Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of author keywords.

parameter, we chose a minimum number of occurrences of keywords equal to 25. A value too small
does not give enough significance to the analysis, leading to the inclusion also of keywords not
relevant; a value too high is not optimal as well because it will determine the exclusion of the most
recent keywords, which do not have yet enough co-occurrences. A minimum number of 25 looks
adequate, considering both our prior knowledge about the topic and the methodology. Size of each
circle is determined by the number of repetition of the keyword (or set of keywords) among all the
papers: the larger is the circle, the more common is the keyword (or set of keywords). Furthermore,
the weight of each link shows the total strength of a keyword in comparison with others: the thicker
is the line, the stronger is the link.
‘Tourism’ is the centrepiece keyword of cluster 1, and if we consider the circle’s size, it is also
the most important keyword of the net as a whole. ‘I/O analysis’ (and its evolutions such as EEIO,
CGE and TSA) is one of the widest techniques used in this field of study, as already described in
the CNA aforementioned. ‘Economic impacts’ and ‘climate change’ are some of the possible
applications of such methodologies, in order to test the interdependencies between tourism and
different branches of national and/or regional economies but also the quantification of both direct
and indirect externalities due to the expansion of tourism sector. Cluster 2 is certainly the most
heterogeneous among all. Keywords’ net suggests a connection between ‘economic development’
and ‘tourism development’ and potential negative externalities which governments have to take
into account whenever they decide to invest in the tourism sector to boost the economic growth of
their countries. As already mentioned before, the United Nation General Assembly declared 2017
as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development and in fact, in this cluster, we
can find keywords such as ‘sustainable tourism’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainability’ and
‘ecotourism’. For many developing countries (Croes and Vanegas, 2008) and rural and margin-
alized areas (Briedenhann and Wickens, 2004), tourism may also represent a good prospect for
122 Tourism Economics 25(1)

Figure 6. Kleinberg’s burst detection algorithm.

poverty reduction and economic growth (‘rural tourism’). The keyword ‘tourism’ of cluster 1 is
directly connected with ‘economic growth’, which is the most relevant pair of keywords of cluster
3. ‘Cointegration’ and ‘Granger causality’ are two of the favourite methodologies by researchers to
verify the existence of the so-called ‘TLGH’, introduced for the first time with the paper of
Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordà (2002). From a geographical point of view, Asia and Pacific
regions are the most examined by researchers (32 studies have been found by Brida et al. in a
literature review performed in 2016); as a result, ‘Malaysia’ is one of the most common keywords
of this cluster.

Kleinberg’s burst detection algorithm

A helpful tool for the analysis of the evolution over time of author keywords network is the so-
called Kleinberg’s burst detection algorithm. A ‘burst of activity’ is often the signal of the
appearance of a new topic in a document stream (Strozzi et al., 2017) and it allows them to identify
the increase in the frequency of use of certain keywords by authors (Kleinberg, 2003).
The output of Kleinberg’s algorithm is a list of the word bursts, ranked according to the burst
weight, together with the time in which these bursts took place. Due to the fact that the metho-
dology is case-sensitive, it is necessary to start from normalized keywords. The process of nor-
malization implemented in Sci2 separates the text into token words, normalizes in lowercase,
removes the ‘s’ at the end of words and the dots from acronyms (if any) and deletes stop words. At
this point, using the software Sci2, the Kleinberg’s algorithm was applied to the normalized
keywords (as in Strozzi et al., 2014, 2017).
The results of the implementation of the burst detection algorithm are shown in Figure 6. The
main bursts took place between 2004 and 2008; ‘impact’, ‘sport’ and ‘event’ are the three most
 Table 2. Main summaries of the CNA, author keywords analysis, burst detection algorithm and future research directions.

Cluster Relationship with author Relationship with burst

(number) Content from CNA keywords analysis detection Future research directions

1  Exploration of interdependencies  I/O analysis (from  Output, input  Implementation of more complex CGE
between tourism and different ‘green cluster’) (from 1984), as methodologies to overcome limitations
branches of national and/or regional  Climate change part of ‘I/O of the I/O models
economies (from ‘green models’  Development of TSAs to better quantify
 Quantification of both direct and cluster’)  Sport (from the contribution of tourism
indirect externalities connected to  Sustainable tourism 2004)  Development of more sophisticated
tourism sector development (from ‘red cluster’)  Event (from EEIO models which allow to capture
 Evaluation of the economic impacts of 2006) both environmental and economic
special events (such as sport events)  Climate, change impacts
(from 2012)  Contribution of tourism to a broad-
 Energies, emission based development of developing
(from 2016) countries (such as SIDS)
2  Assessment of intangible social and  Rural tourism (from  Climate, change  More in deep studies concerning
environmental impacts of tourism (e.g. ‘red cluster’) (from 2012) sustainable development themes (such
the relationship between host  Sustainable tourism  Energies, emission as local participation, partnership, value
communities and tourists) (from ‘red cluster’) (from 2016) chain, inter-sectoral linkages and private
 Nexus tourism poverty: tourism as a  Sustainable sector participation)
tool to reduce poverty and inequalities development (from  Equity and poverty reduction
through suitable policies ‘red cluster’)  Worker sustainability, labour
 Inter-sectoral linkages as crucial driver precariousness and empowerment of
of regional tourism growth local communities
3  Empirical validation of the assumption  Cointegration (from  Test (from 2006),  Empirical evaluation of the potential of
of economic-driven tourism growth ‘blue cluster’) as part of tourism at regional level
(the so-called TLGH and its reciprocal  Granger causality ‘Granger  Relationship between tourism
ELTH) (from ‘blue cluster’) Causality test’ specialization and other economic
 Economic growth sectors
(from ‘blue cluster’)  Implementation of nonlinear tests to
confirm the results already obtained
through classic techniques
 Connection between TLGH and
development of a sustainable tourism

Note: CNA: citation network analysis; I/O: input–output; TLGH: tourism-led growth hypothesis; ELTH: economic-led tourism hypothesis; CGE: computable general equilibrium; TSA:

123
tourism satellite account; EEIO: environmentally extended input–output; SIDS: small island developing states.
124 Tourism Economics 25(1)

relevant normalized keywords detected by the algorithm. This is an additional confirmation of the
CNA earlier described. In fact, several papers of cluster 1 aforementioned focused on the poten-
tiality of mega-events (such as Soccer World Cup and Olympic Games) to boost the economies of
hosting nations, through the increase of the number of tourists, advertising and tax revenues,
employment, investments and infrastructure development. The second group of bursts stood out
between 2010 and 2015, focusing mainly on the development of a sustainable tourism and taking
into consideration also negative externalities of the touristic phenomenon (such as climate change)
beside the merely economic growth. An evolution of this trajectory emerged with a third burst in
2016; the normalized keywords ‘energi’ and ‘emiss’ suggest that in the last few years, researchers
have paid attention to topics related to over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental
externalities, such as energy consumption and emissions of CO2. These two last bursts almost
confirm both the co-occurrence analysis of authors’ keywords and the CNA; several studies
concerning the environmental preservation have emerged, also in accordance with the designation
of 2017 as the International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development by the United Nation
General Assembly and more in general with a greater awareness about global warming, considered
now one of the most important environmental issues ever to confront humanity.

Conclusions
In this literature review, a quantitative bibliometric analysis has been performed, relying on both
algorithms and software tools which allowed us to carry out a dynamic representation of the flow
of knowledge evolution over time. We combined the outcomes of such analyses to provide an
overall view of the state of the art and of the research trajectories of the knowledge on tourism and
its economic impact. Furthermore, given the vastness and the heterogeneity of all the related
topics, the main path analysis demonstrated considerable usefulness to localize the seminal works
of each field of study. In fact, the main path constitutes the backbone of the research tradition (De
Nooy et al., 2011; Lucio-Arias and Leydesdorff, 2008), highlighting the articles that act as hubs in
reference to later works (Strozzi et al., 2017). Lastly, the identified fields of study allow drawing
some consideration about some directions in an agenda for future research, supporting newcomers
to target specific topics and helping them to link to those themes. As a summary, Table 2 shows the
main findings of this SLNA, including also some potential future research directions.
Generally speaking, tourism is seen to be as a way for boosting countries’ economic growth,
thanks to its positive influence on the economy as a whole. Several authors of cluster 1 explored the
interdependencies between tourism and different branches of national and/or regional economies
together with the quantification of both direct and indirect externalities due to the expansion of
tourism sector, mainly using CGE and I/O models. A particular niche of study concentrates on the
impact of large sport events, such as Olympic Games (e.g. Li and Blake, 2009; Li et al., 2011,
2013) or Soccer World Cup (e.g. Kim et al., 2006; Lee and Taylor, 2005); results of the Kleinberg’s
burst detection algorithm provide an additional evidence of this, with an increase in the frequency
of use of keywords event and sport, especially from 2004 to 2008. In a broader sense, CGE
modelling has influenced many debates in international development, such as trade policy,
migration, climate change, carbon trading, food prices and pro-poor economic growth policies
(Devarajan and Robinson, 2002). We can say that all these techniques have commonly entered the
arsenal of applied economic policy analysis in tourism field of study. However, despite being a
very powerful tool, they are not empirical in the sense of econometric modelling (Hertel et al.,
2011). To overcome such limitations, a large body of literature (cluster 3) has been devoted to
Comerio and Strozzi 125

validating from an econometric point of view the economic-driven tourism growth, mainly using
time series and panel data but only in few cases cross-sectional data. Starting from the first paper
published by Balaguer and Cantavella-Jordà (2002), the so-called TLGH and its reciprocal ELTH
have become two most predominant topics in tourism literature, with a proliferation of empirical
studies (Perles-Ribes et al., 2017). Several authors investigated the validity of such connection in
different countries all over the world, almost finding a confirmation of this mechanism (e.g.
Belloumi, 2010; Brida and Risso, 2009; Dritsakis, 2004; Kim et al., 2006; Oh, 2005; Rakoton-
dramaro and Andriamasy, 2016; Shahzad et al., 2017; Tang and Abosedra, 2014; Tang and Tan,
2015), but also with mixed findings even analysing the same country, as in the case of Turkey
(Gunduz and Hatemi, 2005; Katircioglu, 2009; Ongan and Demiroz, 2005). Nowak et al. (2007)
revisited the ‘TKIG hypothesis’ (tourism, capital goods import and growth); inbound tourism may
be seen as an alternative form of capital import which can potentially sustain economic growth of a
country. Sometimes TLGH and TKIG work together but findings are mixed. For example, sup-
portive evidence has been found for Spain (Nowak et al., 2007), but only a short-run TKIG
mechanism for Tunisia (Cortés-Jiménez et al., 2011). More recently, Qureshi et al. (2017) vali-
dated the TLGH adding to the model other variables, such as energy demand, health expenditure
and CO2 emissions, to take into consideration also other externalities related to the tourism besides
the merely economic growth. Generally speaking, authors of cluster 2 are concerned about the
assessment of intangible impacts of tourism. As a matter of fact, several studies brought to light a
large number of potential negative externalities driven by massive tourist arrivals, such as over-
exploitation of natural resources (e.g. Capó et al., 2007; Holzner, 2005), increased cost of living
and asset bubbles (e.g. Copeland, 1991; Sheng, 2016a; Sheng and Tsui, 2009a), environmental
externalities (e.g. Briassoulis, 2002; Brohman, 1996; Saenz-de-Miera and Rosselló, 2014; Sheng
and Tsui, 2009b) and social externalities (Castells, 1978; Harvey, 2008; Sheng, 2016b), included
resident perceptions of tourism impact (e.g. Andereck and Vogt, 2000; Andereck et al., 2005;
Johnson et al., 1994; Long et al., 1990). Last but not less important, the global boom of the tourism
industry has proved to be an engine not only for developed countries but also for developing ones.
Several authors across all the three clusters have been investigated this connection (e.g. Blake
et al., 2008; Croes and Vanegas, 2008; Hummel and van der Duim, 2011; Scheyvens, 2007;
Truong, 2013), emphasizing the possibility to alleviate poverty through suitable policies.
Besides the description of the literature’s development, this methodology allowed us also to
drawing some consideration about potential future research directions; in fact, through the main
path algorithm, it is possible to pinpoint the most recent seminal works which have not reached a
significant number of citations yet. Across all the three clusters, we found a growing concern about
the sustainability of tourism and leisure activities, partly due to the impulse coming from the
United Nation General Assembly. From cluster 1 arose the need for the development of more
sophisticated EEIO models, which allows capturing at the same time both environmental and
economic impacts of tourism (Sun and Pratt, 2014). Furthermore, in order to overcome the already
mentioned limitations of I/O models, the implementation of more complex CGE methodologies is
strongly suggested, together with the development of tourist satellite accounts (TSA) to better
quantify the contribution of tourism (Khoshkhoo et al., 2017).
Research of cluster 2 is generally more concerned about the assessment of intangible social and
environmental impacts of tourism (e.g. Hampton et al., 2018; Thomas-Francois et al., 2017). More
in deep studies connected to sustainable development themes (such as local participation, value
chain, inter-sectoral linkages and private sector participation) is strongly recommended. Moreover,
worker sustainability, labour precariousness and empowerment of local communities have to be
126 Tourism Economics 25(1)

included in further researches, especially due to the fact that tourism is seen as a potential engine of
a broad-based development of developing countries, which are more vulnerable to such issues.
Authors of cluster 3 mostly call for a deeper investigation of the connection between the TLGH
and the development of a sustainable tourism. As already highlighted in prior literature reviews
(e.g. Brida et al., 2016; Pablo-Romero and Molina, 2013), the implementation of nonlinear
empirical methodologies may confirm or not the results already obtained through classic tech-
niques, by expanding the field of study at subnational level and by including the relationship
between tourism specialization and other economic sectors.
In conclusion, the methodology applied in this article has also some limitations. The main
criticism is that citation data are retrieved from Scopus database that includes only a fraction of
scientific publications; nevertheless, its coverage is 60% larger than the one of WoS (Zhao and
Strotmann, 2015). Another issue is the so-called ‘Matthew effect’ (i.e. the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer); researchers tend to cite papers which have already received a high number of
citations because they are considered a more reliable source of information. On the contrary,
thanks to additional analysis (i.e. author keywords analysis and GCS analysis), we overcame the
problem of relying exclusively on the number of citations, which may not be completely infor-
mative about the real contribution of a paper to the flow of knowledge. Despite the discussed
limitations, this structured literature review could provide a panorama of the most developed areas
of study related to tourism, supporting newcomers to target specific topics and allowing them to
adopt or to link to those themes. Furthermore, once the main communities have been detected
(clusters 1, 2 and 3 aforementioned in the CNA), by changing the set of search strings based on
keywords, concepts or topics (i.e. the ‘locating study’), it could be possible to concentrate
exclusively on a specific area of research. For example, a common denominator often emerged in
this literature review is the methodology applied by researchers; we deliberately decided not to
include any indication to empirical techniques in order to perform a broader analysis, but it could
be possible to implement an SLNA focusing primarily on the applied techniques. Finally, from a
general point of view, the interesting output of this study is the demonstration that SLNA can be
exploited as a research tool to support dynamic analyses for drawing agendas for future research in
the tourism fields of study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Niccolò Comerio http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0592-5996

References
Andereck KL and Vogt CA (2000) The relationships between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism
development options. Journal of Travel Research 39(1): 27–36.
Andereck KL, Valentine KM, Knopf RC, et al. (2005) Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts.
Annals of Tourism Research 32(4): 1056–1076.
Comerio and Strozzi 127

Archer B (1995) Importance of tourism for the economy of Bermuda. Annals of Tourism Research 22(4):
918–930.
Atelijevic I and Doorne S (2000) “Staying within the fence”: Lifestyle entrepreneurship in tourism? Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 8(5): 378–392.
Balaguer J and Cantavella-Jordà M (2002) Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: the Spanish case.
Applied Economics 34: 877–884.
Belisle F and Hoy D (1980) The perceived impact of tourism by resident. Annals of Tourism Research 8:
83–97.
Belloumi M (2010) The relationship between tourism receipts, real effective exchange rate and economic
growth in Tunisia. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(5): 550–560.
Blake A (2009) The dynamics of tourism’s economic impact. Tourism Economics 15(3): 615–628.
Blake A, Arbache JS, Sinclair MT, et al. (2008) Tourism and poverty relief. Annals of Tourism Research
35(1): 107–126.
Blake A, Sinclair MT and Sugiyarto G (2003) Quantifying the impact of foot and mouth disease on tourism
and the UK economy. Tourism Economics 9(4): 449–465.
Bohlmann HR and van Heerden JH (2008). Predicting the economic impact of the 2010 FIFA World Cup on
South Africa. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 3(4): 383–396.
Booth A (1990) The tourism boom in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 26(3): 45–73.
Briassoulis H (1991) Methodological issues: tourism input-output analysis. Annals of Tourism Research
18(3): 485–495.
Briassoulis H (2002) Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Annals of Tourism Research 29:
1065–1085.
Brida JG and Risso WA (2009) Tourism as a factor of long-run economic growth: an empirical analysis for
Chile. European Journal of Tourism Research 2(2): 178–185.
Brida JG, Cortés-Jiménez I and Pulina M (2016) Has the tourism-led growth hypothesis been validated? A
literature review. Current Issues in Tourism 19(5): 394–430.
Briedenhann J and Wickens E (2004) Tourism routes as a tool for the economic development of rural areas
vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism Management 25(1): 71–79.
Brohman J (1996) New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of Tourism Research 23:
48–70.
Capó J, Riera Font A and Rosselló Nadal J (2007) Dutch disease in tourism economics: evidence from
Balearics and the Canary Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6): 615–627.
Castells M (1978) City, Class and Power. London: St. Martins Press.
Colicchia C and Strozzi F (2012) Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic
literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17(4): 403–418.
Copeland B (1991) Tourism, welfare, and de-industrialization in a small open economy. Economica 58:
515–529.
Cortés-Jiménez I, Nowak J and Sahli M (2011) Mass beach tourism and economic growth: lessons from
Tunisia. Tourism Economics 17(3): 531–547.
Croes R and Vanegas M (2008) Cointegration and causality between tourism and poverty reduction. Journal
of Travel Research 47(1): 94–103.
Daldeniz B and Hampton MP (2013) Dive tourism and local communities: Active participation or subject to
impacts? Case studies from Malaysia. International Journal of Tourism Research 15(5): 507–520.
Davis D, Allen J and Consenza RM (1988) Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests and
opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(2): 2–8.
Dawson S, Gaševic D, Siemens G, et al. (2014) Current state and future trends: a citation network analysis of
the learning analytics field. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on learning analytics
and knowledge. March 2014, pp. 231–240. New York, NY, USA: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2567574.2567585
De Nooy W, Mrvar A and Batagelj V (2011) Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Vol. 27.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
128 Tourism Economics 25(1)

De Santana Ribeiro LC, Da Silva EOV, De Lima Andrade JR, et al. (2017). Tourism and regional develop-
ment in the Brazilian Northeast. Tourism Economics 23(3): 717–727.
Devarajan S and Robinson S (2002) The Influence of Computable General Equilibrium Models on Policy.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Trade and Macroeconomics Division Washington
DC. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/61764/filename/61765.pdf
Diedrich A and Garcı́a-Buades E (2009) Local perceptions of tourism as indicators of destination decline.
Tourism Management 30(4): 512–521.
Ding Y, Chowdhury GG and Foo S (2001) Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by
using co-work analysis. Information Processing and Management 37(6): 817–842.
Dritsakis N (2004) Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: an empirical investigation for Greece using
causality analysis. Tourism Economics 10(3): 305–316.
Durbarry R (2002) The economic contribution of tourism in Mauritius. Annals of Tourism Research 29(3):
862–865.
Dwyer L (2015) Computable general equilibrium modelling: an important tool for tourism policy analysis.
Tourism and Hospitality Management 21(2): 111–126.
Dwyer L, Forsyth P and Spurr R (2003) Inter-industry effects of tourism growth: implications for destination
managers. Tourism Economics 9(2): 117–132.
Dwyer L, Forsyth P and Spurr R (2004) Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old approaches.
Tourism Management 25(3): 307–317.
Dwyer L, Forsyth P and Spurr R (2006b) Assessing the economic impacts of events: a computable general
equilibrium approach. Journal of Travel Research 45(1): 59–66.
Dwyer L, Forsyth P, Madden J, et al. (2000) Economic impacts of inbound tourism under different assump-
tions regarding the macroeconomy. Current Issues in Tourism 3(4): 325–363.
Dwyer L, Forsyth P, Spurr R, et al. (2013) Economic impacts of a carbon tax on the Australian tourism
industry. Journal of Travel Research 52(2): 143–155.
Fletcher JE (1989) Input-output analysis and tourism impact studies. Annals of Tourism Research 16(4):
514–529.
Frechtling DC (1999) The tourism satellite account: foundations, progress and issues. Tourism Management
20(1): 163–170.
Frechtling DC (2010) The tourism satellite account: a primer. Annals of Tourism Research 37(1): 136–153.
Ghali M (1976) Tourism and economic growth: an empirical study. Economic Development and Cultural
Change 24(3): 527–538.
Gunduz L and Hatemi JA (2005) Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid for Turkey? Applied Economics
Letters 12(8): 499–504.
Haddock-Fraser J and Hampton MP (2012) Multistakeholder values on the sustainability of dive tourism: case
studies of Sipadan and Perhentian Island, Malaysia. Tourism Analysis 17(1): 27–41.
Hadjikakou M, Miller G, Chenoweth J, et al. (2015) A comprehensive framework for comparing water use
intensity across different tourist types. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(10): 1445–1467.
Hall P (1987) Urban development and the future of tourism. Tourism Management 8(2): 129–130.
Hampton MP (1998) Backpacker tourism and economic development. Annals of Tourism Research 25(3):
639–660.
Hampton MP (2005) Heritage, local communities and economic development. Annals of Tourism Research
32(3): 735–759.
Hampton MP, Jeyacheya J and Lee D (2018) The political economy of dive tourism: Precarity at the periphery
in Malaysia. An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment 20(1): 107–126.
Hara T (2008) Quantitative Tourism Industry Analysis: Introduction to Input-output, Social Accounting
Matrix Modeling and Tourism Satellite Accounts. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Review 53: 23–40.
Hertel TW, Keeney R, Ivanic M, et al. (2011) Distributional effects of WTO agricultural reforms in rich and
poor countries. Economic Policy 22(50): 290–337.
Comerio and Strozzi 129

Holzner M (2005) Fear of Croatian disease: Is there a danger of a Dutch disease effect with respect to a boom
in the tourism sector in Croatia in the long run – “The Croatian case”. Doctoral thesis, WU Vienna
University in Economics and Business, Austria.
Hummel J and van der Duim R (2011) Tourism and development at work: 15 years of tourism and poverty
reduction within the SNV Netherlands development organisation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(3):
319–338.
Johnson JD, Snepenger DJ and Akis S (1994) Residents’ perceptions of tourism development. Annals of
Tourism Research 21(3): 629–642.
Johnson RL and Moore E (1993) Tourism impact estimation. Annals of Tourism Research 20(2): 279–288.
Jones C and Munday M (2007) Exploring the environmental consequences of tourism – a satellite account
approach. Journal of Travel Research 46: 164–172.
Jones C and Munday M (2008) Tourism satellite accounts and impact assessments: some considerations.
Tourism Analysis 13(1): 53–69.
Joppe M (1996) Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management 17(7):
475–479.
Katircioglu ST (2009) Revisiting the tourism-led growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and
Johansen approach for cointegration. Tourism Management 30(1): 17–20.
Khan H, Phang SY and Toh RS (1995) The multiplier effect: Singapore’s hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36(1): 64–69.
Khan H, Seng C and Cheong W (1990) Tourism multipliers effects on Singapore. Annals of Tourism Research
17: 408–418.
Khoshkhoo MHI, Alizadeh V and Pratt S (2017) The economic contribution of tourism in Iran: an input-
output approach. Tourism Analysis 22(3): 435–444.
Kim HJ, Chen MH and Jang SS (2006) Tourism expansion and economic development: the case of Taiwan.
Tourism Management 27(5): 925–933.
Kim HJ, Gursoy D and Lee SB (2006). The impact of 2002 World Cup on South Korea: comparisons of pre-
and post-games. Tourism Management 27(1): 86–96.
Kim SS and Petrick JF (2005). Residents’ perceptions on impacts of the FIFA 2002 World Cup: the case of
Seoul as a host city. Tourism Management 26(1): 25–38.
Kim S, Colicchia C and Menachof D (2016) Ethical sourcing: an analysis of the literature and implications for
future research. Journal of Business Ethics 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3266-8
Kleinberg J (2003) Burst and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 7(4):
373–397.
Knoke D and Yang S (2008) Social Network Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lanza A and Pigliaru F (2000) Tourism and economic growth: Does country’s size matter?” Rivista Inter-
nazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali 47: 77–85.
Lee CK and Taylor T (2005) Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case
of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management 26(4): 595–603.
Lee CC and Chang CP (2008) Tourism development and economic growth: a closer look to panels. Tourism
Management 29(1): 180–192.
Li S and Blake A (2009) Estimating Olympic-related investment and expenditure. International Journal of
Tourism Research 11(4): 337–356.
Li S, Blake A and Cooper C (2011) Modelling the economic impact of international tourism on the Chinese
economy: a CGE analysis of the Beijing 2008 Olympics. Tourism Economics 17(2): 279–303.
Li S, Blake A and Thomas R (2013) Modelling the economic impact of sport events: the case of the Beijing
Olympics. Economic Modelling 30: 235–244.
Li S and Jago L (2013) Evaluating economic impacts of major sports events – A meta analysis of the key
trends. Current Issues in Tourism 16(6): 591–611.
Lim C and Mcaleer M (2000) A seasonal analysis of Asian tourist arrivals to Australia. Applied Economics
32(4): 499–509.
130 Tourism Economics 25(1)

Liu JS and Lu LY (2012) An integrated approach for main path analysis: development of the Hirsch index
as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(3):
528–542.
Long PT, Perdue RR and Allen L (1990) Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level
of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 28(3): 3–9.
Lucio-Arias D and Leydesdorff L (2008) Main-path analysis and path-dependent transitions in HistCiteTM-
based Historiograms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(12):
1948–1962.
Marin D (1992) Is the export-led hypothesis valid for industrialized countries? The Review of Economics and
Statistics 4: 678–688.
McKinnon R (1964) Foreign exchange constrain in economic development and efficient aid allocation. The
Economic Journal 74: 388–409.
Mitchell J and Li S (2017) Autonomy found: estimating the local benefit from tourism in SIDS – the case of
Cape Verde. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 9(2): 182–200.
Nimanussornkul C and Do GQ (2017) Risk and risk premium on international tourism receipts of Asia and the
pacific region. International Journal of Economic Research 14(13): 427–437.
Nowak JJ, Sahli M and Cortés-Jiménez I (2007) Tourism, capital good imports and economic growth: theory
and evidence for Spain. Tourism Economics 13(4): 515–536.
Oh CO (2005) The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tourism
Management 26: 39–44.
Ongan S and Demiroz DM (2005) The contribution of tourism to the long-run Turkish economic growth.
Ekonomicky Casopis 53(9): 880–894.
Pablo-Romero MDP and Molina JA (2013) Tourism and economic growth: a review of empirical literature.
Tourism Management Perspectives 8: 28–41.
Payne JE and Mervar A (2002) A note on modelling tourism revenues in Croatia. Tourism Economics 8(1):
103–110.
Perles-Ribes JF, Ramón-Rodrı́guez AB, Rubia A, et al. (2017). Is the tourism-led growth hypothesis valid
after the global economic and financial crisis? The case of Spain 1957-2014. Tourism Management 61:
96–109.
Pratt S (2015) The economic impact of tourism in SIDS. Annals of Tourism Research 52: 148–160.
Qureshi MI, Hassan MA, Hishan SS, et al. (2017) Dynamic linkages between sustainable tourism, energy,
health and wealth: evidence from top 80 international tourist destination cities in 37 countries. Journal of
Cleaner Production 158: 143–155.
Rakotondramaro H and Andriamasy L (2016) Multivariate granger causality among tourism, poverty and
growth in Madagascar. Tourism Management Perspectives 20: 109–111.
Richards G and Wilson J (2006) Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial
reproduction of culture? Tourism Management 27(6): 1209–1223.
Rodenburg EE (1980) The effects of scale in economic development: tourism in Bali. Annals of Tourism
Research 7(2): 177–196.
Saenz-de-Miera O and Rosselló J (2014) Modeling tourism impacts on air pollution: the case study of PM10
in Mallorca. Tourism Management 40: 273–281.
Scheyvens R (2002) Backpacker tourism and Third World development. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1):
144–164.
Scheyvens R (2007) Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. Current Issue in Tourism 10(2-3): 231–254.
Shahzad SJH, Shahbaz M, Ferrer R, et al. (2017) Tourism-led growth hypothesis in the top ten tourist
destinations: new evidence using the quantile-on-quantile approach. Tourism Management 60: 223–232.
Sheng L (2016a) Explaining the transformation of urban island politics: the case of Macau. Island Studies
Journal 11(2): 521–536.
Sheng L (2016b) Explaining US-China economic imbalances: a social perspective. Cambridge Review of
International Affairs 29(3): 1097–1111.
Comerio and Strozzi 131

Sheng L and Tsui YM (2009a) Casino booms and local politics: the city of Macao. Cities 26(2): 67–73.
Sheng L and Tsui YM (2009b) A general equilibrium approach to tourism and welfare: the case of Macao.
Habitat International 33(4): 419–424.
Sim N and Zhou H (2015) Oil prices, US stock return, and the dependence between their quartiles. Journal of
Banking and Finance 55: 1–8.
Snepenger DJ, Johnson JD and Rasker R (1995) Travel-stimulated entrepreneurial migration. Journal of
Travel Research 34(1): 40–44.
Snepenger DJ, Reiman S, Johnson J, et al. (1998) Is downtown mainly for tourists? Journal of Travel
Research 36(3): 5–12.
Song H, Dwyer L, Li G, et al. (2012) Tourism economic research: a review and assessment. Annals of Tourism
Research 39(3): 1653–1682.
Strozzi F, Bono F and Gutierrez E (2014) Bibliometric and Citation Network Analysis: Percolation and Graph
Spectral Analysis in the Framework of Wireless Sensor Network Technology. In: EUR Scientific and
Technical Research Series, JRC92443. Luxemburg. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernanda_
Strozzi/publication/316872924_Literature_review_on_the_%27Smart_Factory%27_concept_using_bib
liometric_tools/links/5a019108aca272e53eb90dd3/Literature-review-on-the-Smart-Factory-concept-
using-bibliometric-tools.pdf
Strozzi F, Colicchia C, Creazza A, et al. (2017) Literature review on the “Smart Factory” concept using
bibliometric tools. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22): 6572–6591.
Sugiyarto G, Blake A and Sinclair MT (2003) Tourism and globalization: economic impact in Indonesia.
Annals of Tourism Research 30(3): 683–701.
Sun YY (2016) Decomposition of tourism greenhouse gas emissions: revealing the dynamic between tourism
economic growth, technological efficiency, and carbon emissions. Tourism Management 55: 326–336.
Sun YY and Pratt S (2014) The economic, carbon emission, and water impacts of Chinese Visitors to Taiwan.
Journal of Travel Research 53(6): 56(3): 733–746.
Tang CF and Abosedra S (2014) Small sample evidence on the tourism-led growth hypothesis in Lebanon.
Current Issues in Tourism 17(3): 234–246.
Tang CF and Tan EC (2015) Does tourism effectively stimulate Malaysia’s economic growth? Tourism
Management 46: 158–163.
Thomas-Francois K, von Massow M and Joppe M (2017) Service-oriented, sustainable, local food value chain
– A case study. Annals of Tourism Research 65: 83–96.
Truong VD (2013) Tourism policy development in Vietnam: a pro-poor perspective. Journal of Policy
Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 5(1): 28–45.
Uysal M and Gitelson R (1994) Assessment of economic impacts: festivals and special events. Festival
Management and Event Tourism 2(1): 3–10.
Van Eck NJ and Waltman L (2009) How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis of some well-known
similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(8):
1635–1651.
Van Eck NJ and Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric
mapping. Scientometrics 84(2): 523–538.
West GR (1993) Economic significance of tourism in Queensland. Annals of Tourism Research 20(3):
490–504.
World Tourism Organization (2008) 2008 International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics. Madrid:
World Tourism Organization.
Yang Y and Fik T (2014b) Spatial effects in regional tourism growth. Annals of Tourism Research 46:
144–162.
Zhao D and Strotmann A (2015) Analysis and visualization of citation networks. Synthesis Lectures on
Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 7(1): 1–207.
Zhou D, Yanagida JF, Chakravorty U, et al. (1997) Estimating economic impacts from tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research 24(1): 76–89.