1. Introduction
Traditional tourism, characterized by mass tourism and unsustainable practices, has resulted in numerous negative environmental impacts [1]. Overcrowding at popular tourist destinations leads to excessive foot traffic, noise, and congestion, straining natural areas and causing habitat destruction, soil erosion, and ecosystem damage [2]. The industry’s resource-intensive nature often leads to the overuse of vital resources such as water, energy, and raw materials, putting significant pressure on local environments and depleting these resources [3]. Additionally, the influx of tourists contributes to increased pollution through litter, wastewater, and air pollution, thereby harming air and water quality and local ecosystems [4]. The construction of tourism infrastructure, including hotels and roads, frequently destroys natural habitats, particularly affecting wetlands, forests, and coastal areas, with detrimental effects on wildlife [5]. The energy-intensive transportation and accommodation associated with traditional tourism significantly contribute to global climate change by emitting greenhouse gasses, which affect local environments through rising temperatures, sea-level rise, and altered weather patterns.
Moreover, the industry generates substantial waste, including non-biodegradable materials, and improper disposal leads to land and water pollution, negatively impacting ecosystems and wildlife [4]. Cultural insensitivity and the commercialization of local traditions often disrupt local cultures and lead to cultural erosion. Certain tourism activities, such as overfishing, result in the exploitation of natural resources, depleting fish stocks and harming marine ecosystems [6]. In water-scarce regions, increased water demand from tourism exacerbates water scarcity issues, affecting both local communities and ecosystems [4]. Invasive species introduced by tourism disrupt local environments and outcompete native flora and fauna. Human activity and development associated with traditional tourism cause soil erosion and land degradation, impacting soil quality and local agriculture [7]. In short, tourism often disrupts natural habitats, negatively affecting local wildlife through noise, pollution, and habitat destruction, leading to wildlife displacement and stress.
Sustainable rural tourism development is critical for socio-economic upliftment and environmental sustainability in rural regions in China [8]. Balancing economic growth, social well-being, and environmental responsibility lies at the heart of this endeavor. However, several recurring drivers impede progress in this direction. Limited access to resources, such as clean water, arable land, and renewable energy sources, poses significant challenges for rural communities in China [9]. This scarcity often forces a focus on immediate survival over environmentally responsible practices.
Inadequate infrastructure, including transportation networks and utilities, isolates rural communities, limiting their access to eco-friendly technologies and markets, thus hampering sustainable development efforts. Persistent poverty and economic disparities in rural areas further divert attention from long-term sustainable practices as residents prioritize immediate economic needs. Land degradation, caused by factors like soil depletion and deforestation, complicates the adoption of environmentally responsible agricultural practices and land management [10]. Water scarcity, driven by climate-related factors and resource competition, threatens livelihoods and sustainable practices in rural China. Additionally, limited education and awareness about sustainable practices and environmental responsibility hinder the adoption of eco-friendly technologies and behaviors in rural areas. Inconsistent, outdated, or conflicting policies and regulations at local and national levels discourage investments in environmentally responsible initiatives, creating uncertainty among rural stakeholders. The vulnerability of rural China to climate change’s adverse impacts, including extreme weather events, disrupts agricultural practices and exacerbates environmental challenges [11,12].
Despite these barriers, rural areas remain vital to the nation’s economy, serving as centers for agriculture, resource extraction, and cultural heritage. Ensuring sustainable rural tourism development, with a strong emphasis on environmental responsibility, presents a multifaceted and crucial challenge. This development aims to balance economic, social, and environmental objectives, ensuring that rural communities prosper without compromising natural resources and ecosystems. While the challenges faced by rural regions in China may differ from those in other parts of the world, the recurring drivers impede progress toward sustainable rural tourism development.
In recent years, Chinese tourism has witnessed remarkable growth, displaying double digit annual increases until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the industry’s setback due to the pandemic, China maintained its global leadership in both domestic tourism spending and outbound traveler numbers, with approximately 6 billion domestic trips and 155 million outbound trips, resulting in around $1 trillion in travel expenditures. As optimism regarding post-pandemic tourism recovery grows, recent reports emphasize the necessity for sustainable practices in China’s travel sector. With tourism resuming its upward trajectory, addressing the industry’s environmental footprint becomes increasingly pressing, given the significant collective impact of various stakeholders and activities across its value chain.
In Figure 1, Chinese public sentiment regarding the adverse environmental impact of tourism is compared to that of other major countries worldwide. In addition, Chinese public perception on tourism’s environmental impact supports stronger sustainable policies, aligning governmental actions with community values. This alignment fosters accountability and collective responsibility for preserving China’s rural and urban environments. In contrast to the extensive research on resident perceptions of tourism development, there is a notable gap regarding residents’ emotional responses. Zheng, Ritchie, Benckendorff, and Bao [13] utilize cognitive appraisal theory to explore the causes and consequences of resident emotions towards Tourism Performing Arts (TPA) developments in both urban and rural communities. Employing a quota sampling method, surveys were conducted with 438 residents in Hangzhou (urban) and 435 residents in Yangshuo (rural) to gather insights. The findings indicated that rural residents experienced a greater intensity of positive emotions and demonstrated stronger support for TPA development. Positive emotions, such as happiness, love, and gratitude, were elicited by factors like outcome desirability, fairness, and perceived coping potential, while negative emotions arose differently between the two contexts. Notably, complex emotions, rather than isolated feelings, were linked to behavioral intentions regarding TPA development. These insights highlight the importance of targeted strategies, such as promoting TPA initiatives in urban areas and ensuring preferential local access for rural communities, to enhance sustainable rural tourism development.
Table 1 shows the comparison between Hangzhou and Yangshuo, and highlights significant differences in their tourism dynamics, emphasizing the theme of “Balancing Growth and Preservation: Strategic Pathways for Sustainable Rural Tourism in China’s Environmental Landscape”. While Hangzhou’s metropolitan advantages support diverse tourism offerings, Yangshuo’s smaller, underdeveloped context necessitates a focus on sustainable practices and community engagement. The economic reliance on tourism in Yangshuo makes it vulnerable, underscoring the need for alternative economic activities. Tailored strategies are essential for both regions: Hangzhou should leverage its resources for sustainable development, while Yangshuo must prioritize cultural preservation and resilience. Overall, understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering sustainable rural tourism that benefits local communities and environmental integrity.
Over the last decade, tourism has emerged as one of the most dynamic industries globally, surpassing growth rates in nearly every other economic sector [14]. Although traditionally associated with urban areas [15], it has become evident that rural regions play a crucial role in sustaining the industry’s expansion [16]. Like in China’s context, recent developments in tourism have renewed interest in rural tourism as a driver of socio-economic progress and the rejuvenation of rural areas [17], particularly in regions experiencing declines in agricultural or light industrial activities [18]. Its importance as a promoter of sustainable development [19] largely stems from the fact that local attractions, whether natural or cultural, already exist, requiring relatively modest investment for their incorporation into the tourism framework [20]. Many of these cultural resources are rooted in “traditional ways of life and cultures that align with the post-modern tourists’ desire for authenticity” [21].
This paper systematically prioritizes the key drivers essential for the successful implementation of sustainable rural tourism development using the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and MICMAC analysis methodologies. By identifying and categorizing the fundamental drivers influencing sustainable rural tourism, this study provides a robust framework to inform strategic decision-making in promoting sustainable rural tourism development in China.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Tourism as a Driver of Sustainable Rural Development
Several studies have demonstrated that tourism activities bring about a range of positive effects on rural areas. These include economic growth, economic diversification [22], population stabilization [23], increased economic value for food products, and the stimulation of agricultural development [24]. Tourism also enhances socio-economic well-being [22] and the establishment or expansion of local businesses [25]. Additionally, it contributes to an overall improvement in the quality of life for residents [26] and helps support rural sustainable development while curbing outward migration [27]. Tourism is a mechanism for retaining the population, particularly among the youth, who are more susceptible to emigration, thanks to its ability to generate new jobs rapidly and with relatively low entry requirements [28].
Moreover, the workforce employed in tourism can transition from existing sectors like agriculture, light industry, or craftsmanship with cost-effective retraining. It is not surprising that in regions of Southern Europe facing demographic decline, a reversal of emigration has been observed as tourism activities flourish, despite occasional dualistic or short-term effects [29]. Tayebi, Babaki, and Jabari [30] have demonstrated a link between the tourism industry and economic growth in low- and middle-income countries in Latin America, while Kim and Chen [31] have identified a long-term equilibrium relationship between tourism and economic growth in Taiwan. Further, various studies have highlighted another positive aspect of tourism activities in sensitive, predominantly rural areas: they motivate residents to preserve local heritage, whether natural or cultural, and enhance the quality of visitors’ experiences [32,33]. Furthermore, rural tourism induces sustainable economic growth in neighboring rural areas through a well-known contagion effect, thus contributing to sustainable regional development [34].
Tourism activities lead to increased revenues, job creation, modernization of facilities, female employment in rural areas, higher living standards for residents, and improved quality of life [34]. It also bolsters the growth of local handicrafts and fosters pride in local and national culture [35]. Besides this, national and local authorities worldwide have promoted tourism policies and strategies to rejuvenate struggling rural areas [36], with rural tourism being viewed as a comprehensive solution for numerous challenges faced by rural economies [37].
However, while most tourism planners and local suppliers consider tourism a driver of local sustainable development, studies on residents’ attitudes toward tourists reveal both positive and negative effects [38]. In reality, achieving all these positive effects of tourism alongside sustainability is challenging [39], as the benefits of tourism for rural areas are not always straightforward and are often overestimated [40]. The mere presence of tourist infrastructure does not automatically lead to rural tourism development [41], and typically, only specific dimensions of sustainability or certain rural areas truly benefit from tourism [42]. Identifying which dimensions or areas benefit from tourism introduction is complex and sometimes misleading. According to Butler and Clark [43], tourism promotion positively impacts already robust rural economies, but in weaker rural economies it can exacerbate income and employment disparities. However, positive perceptions of tourism development can be stronger in areas with lower to moderate levels of development [43,44]. Chang [45] suggests that tourism can only alleviate the decline in rural areas rather than significantly impact local economic growth, aligning with the short-term impact vision of Loukissas [46]. Baum [47] contends that outside traditional tourist destinations and far from major cities, tourism alone is not potent enough to drive rural economic diversification, with accessibility being the primary catalyst for tourism development [48], often more critical than local heritage [49].
The failure of traditional tourism to consider the long-term environmental consequences of its practices underscores the necessity for a transition to more sustainable tourism methods. This paper aims to systematically prioritize key drivers for the implementation of sustainable rural tourism development in China using the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and MICMAC analysis approaches. By identifying and analyzing these drivers, we seek to provide a robust framework that supports the preservation of the natural environment.
The brief explanation of each driver is discussed here, while the list of drivers is presented in Table 2. The first driver, Government Policy Support, encompasses various forms of government support, including financial incentives, subsidies, tax breaks, and grants aimed at promoting sustainable rural tourism development. Additionally, Regulatory Frameworks and zoning laws may be established to protect natural and cultural assets while encouraging responsible tourism practices. Government agencies may also facilitate stakeholder consultations and provide technical assistance to ensure that tourism initiatives align with sustainable development goals [50]. The second driver, Community Involvement, in the form of active engagement and participation of local communities, is essential for the success of sustainable rural tourism initiatives. Communities may be involved in decision-making processes, project planning, and implementation, ensuring that their needs, concerns, and aspirations are addressed. This driver emphasizes the importance of Community Empowerment, ownership, and capacity-building to foster a sense of stewardship and responsibility towards tourism resources [51]. The third driver, Environmental Conservation, focuses on efforts to conserve and protect the natural environment, including biodiversity hotspots, ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and scenic landscapes. Sustainable rural tourism development should prioritize environmental conservation through measures such as habitat restoration, waste management, pollution control, and sustainable resource use practices [50]. Meanwhile, the fourth driver is Socio-cultural Preservation. Preserving and promoting local cultures, traditions, heritage sites, and indigenous knowledge are integral to sustainable rural tourism development. This driver emphasizes the importance of respecting and celebrating cultural diversity, supporting traditional crafts and arts, and providing opportunities for cultural exchange between tourists and local communities. Cultural preservation efforts contribute to the authenticity and uniqueness of rural tourism destinations [50].
The fifth driver is Infrastructure Development. Investment in infrastructure projects is crucial for enhancing the accessibility, safety, and quality of tourism experiences in rural areas. This driver includes the development of transportation networks, accommodation facilities, visitor centers, interpretive signage, and public amenities such as toilets, parking areas, and waste disposal facilities. Infrastructure development aims to improve the overall tourism infrastructure while minimizing negative environmental impacts [50]. The sixth driver is Marketing and Promotion. Effective marketing strategies and promotional campaigns play a vital role in attracting tourists to rural destinations and shaping their perceptions of sustainable tourism experiences. This driver involves branding initiatives, digital marketing campaigns, social media engagement, and collaboration with tour operators, travel agencies, and online booking platforms. Marketing efforts should highlight the unique attractions, cultural heritage, and sustainable practices of rural tourism destinations to appeal to environmentally conscious travelers [52]. This leads to the seventh driver, which is Capacity Building. Capacity-building initiatives aim to enhance the skills, knowledge, and capabilities of local residents, tourism operators, and stakeholders involved in rural tourism development. This driver includes training programs, workshops, seminars, and educational resources focused on sustainable tourism practices, hospitality management, customer service, environmental conservation, and cultural interpretation. Capacity building empowers communities to actively participate in tourism activities and manage tourism impacts effectively [50].
The next driver, driver eight, is significant due to the role that stakeholders play. Stakeholder Collaboration and partnerships among government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector businesses, local communities, and other stakeholders are essential for achieving sustainable rural tourism goals. This driver emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, consensus-building, and collective action to address complex challenges and leverage resources effectively. Stakeholder collaboration fosters synergy, innovation, and shared responsibility for sustainable tourism development [51]. Now comes the ninth driver, Financial Investment. Adequate financial resources and investment are necessary to support the planning, development, and implementation of sustainable rural tourism projects. This driver encompasses public and private sector funding, venture capital, loans, grants, and crowdfunding initiatives aimed at financing infrastructure upgrades, marketing campaigns, community-based tourism enterprises, and conservation initiatives [51].
The next 10th (Ecotourism Certification) and 11th (Regulatory Frameworks) drivers cover the legal aspect of the study, and. Clear and transparent Regulatory Frameworks provide the legal foundation for sustainable rural tourism development, outlining guidelines, standards, and procedures for land use planning, environmental protection, permitting, licensing, and compliance. This driver emphasizes the importance of regulatory certainty, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability to ensure that tourism activities adhere to sustainable principles and regulations [53]. Ecotourism Certification programs and standards, such as those developed by organizations like the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), provide a framework for assessing and certifying the sustainability performance of tourism operations and destinations. This driver promotes the adoption of best practices, responsible tourism principles, and environmental management systems to minimize negative impacts and enhance positive contributions to local communities and ecosystems [54].
Next, the 12th, 13th and 14th drivers refer to Market Demand, access to technology and to the idea. Understanding and responding to Market Demand for sustainable tourism experiences is essential for the success of rural tourism development initiatives. This driver involves market research, consumer surveys, trend analysis, and product development to identify niche markets, target audiences, and emerging trends in sustainable travel. Meeting the preferences and expectations of eco-conscious travelers can drive demand for rural tourism products and services [50]. Access to technology, including information and communication technologies (ICTs), digital platforms, and online booking systems, can enhance the efficiency, competitiveness, and sustainability of rural tourism enterprises. This driver involves the adoption of digital tools for marketing, distribution, communication, customer relationship management (CRM), and online payment systems to streamline operations and reach wider audiences [50]. Meanwhile, effective risk management strategies are essential for addressing potential threats and vulnerabilities associated with rural tourism development, including natural disasters, climate change, pandemics, political instability, and socio-economic challenges. This driver encompasses risk assessment, contingency planning, crisis management, insurance coverage, and emergency response protocols to mitigate risks and ensure the resilience of tourism businesses and destinations [55].
Focusing on the core objective of the study, the 15th, 16th, and 17th drivers cover Cultural Heritage Conservation, education awareness, and destination management. Preserving and promoting cultural heritage assets, including historic sites, archeological ruins, traditional villages, and cultural festivals, contribute to the authenticity and attractiveness of rural tourism destinations. This driver emphasizes the importance of heritage conservation, interpretation, and sustainable tourism planning to safeguard cultural identity, promote intercultural dialogue, and generate economic opportunities for local communities [56]. Education and awareness-raising initiatives play a crucial role in promoting sustainable tourism practices, fostering environmental stewardship, and fostering responsible behavior among tourists, residents, and industry stakeholders. This driver involves public outreach campaigns, environmental education programs, interpretive signage, and visitor education centers to raise awareness about conservation issues, cultural sensitivities, and sustainable travel behaviors [51]. Simultaneously, effective destination management strategies are essential for coordinating and integrating tourism development efforts, balancing visitor demands with community needs, and maintaining the quality of visitor experiences. This driver encompasses destination planning, zoning, carrying capacity assessments, visitor management strategies, and sustainable tourism certification schemes to ensure the long-term viability and attractiveness of rural tourism destinations [51].
The core objective of all kinds of sustainable development is conservation of the planet Earth and the community habituated on it. Hence, the 18th and 19th drivers of this study are Community Empowerment and Collaboration with Indigenous Communities. Empowering local communities to actively participate in decision-making processes, benefit from tourism revenue, and take ownership of tourism development initiatives is crucial for fostering social inclusion, equity, and well-being. This driver involves community-based tourism initiatives, cooperative ownership models, revenue-sharing mechanisms, and capacity-building programs to enhance local livelihoods, cultural pride, and social cohesion [57]. Collaborating with indigenous communities and respecting their rights, traditions, and knowledge systems is essential for ensuring the ethical and sustainable development of rural tourism initiatives. This driver emphasizes the importance of indigenous engagement, consultation, and partnership-building to promote cultural authenticity, indigenous tourism entrepreneurship, and mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous stakeholders [58].
The estimated goals can only be achieved when they are compared to actual goals and efforts and are made to fill any discrepancy found between these goals. The last, 20th, driver is monitoring and evaluation. Establishing robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms is critical for tracking the progress, impacts, and effectiveness of sustainable rural tourism development initiatives over time. This driver involves performance indicators, data collection tools, impact assessments, and stakeholder feedback mechanisms to measure outcomes, identify best practices, and inform adaptive management strategies for continuous improvement [59].
In conclusion, achieving sustainable rural development with an environmental responsibility focus in China is a challenge that requires collective efforts from government agencies, non-governmental organizations, local communities, and the private sector. By recognizing and addressing these drivers, stakeholders can collaborate to create a more sustainable, equitable, and environmentally responsible future for rural areas in China. The list of drivers and their references are provided in the following table.
Table 2Key Drivers Influencing Sustainable Rural Tourism Development.
| Sr. No. | Drivers | References |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Government Policy Support | [50] |
| 2 | Community Involvement | [51] |
| 3 | Environmental Conservation | [50] |
| 4 | Socio-cultural Preservation | [60] |
| 5 | Infrastructure Development | [61] |
| 6 | Marketing and Promotion | [52] |
| 7 | Capacity Building | [50] |
| 8 | Stakeholder Collaboration | [51] |
| 9 | Financial Investment | [51] |
| 10 | Regulatory Frameworks | [53] |
| 11 | Ecotourism Certification | [54] |
| 12 | Market Demand | [50] |
| 13 | Access to Technology | [50] |
| 14 | Risk Management | [55] |
| 15 | Cultural Heritage Conservation | [56] |
| 16 | Education and Awareness | [51] |
| 17 | Destination Management | [51] |
| 18 | Community Empowerment | [57] |
| 19 | Collaboration with Indigenous Communities | [58] |
| 20 | Monitoring and Evaluation | [59] |
2.2. Assessment of MCDM Techniques
In prior studies, various methodologies for multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) have been employed to evaluate drivers influencing sustainable rural tourism development. For example, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) studied drivers in logistic service providers [62] and procurement reasons for global projects [63]. The VIKOR technique was applied to select international sustainable suppliers [64] and to evaluate green innovation abilities in manufacturing firms [65]. Additionally, the fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) has been used for various tasks related [66] to overcoming drivers to green innovation in SMEs and sorting reverse logistic drivers [59,67]. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) analyzed drivers to green supply chain management, and Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) evaluated factors contributing to the failure of green businesses. The Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) were also employed in assessing different aspects of green performance. These approaches collectively offer insights into the complex relationships among variables influencing sustainable rural tourism development [68]. Like Farias, Santos, Gohr, Rocha [69] used ANP to assess lean and green performance.
Various MCDM methodologies, such as VIKOR, TOPSIS, AHP, FDM, ISM, and MICMAC, have been utilized in previous studies to assess green practices and their effects on firm performance. This study seeks to explore the drivers influencing sustainable rural tourism development, noting that integrating ISM-MICMAC and FDM remains unexplored for identifying these drivers. ISM emerges as a valuable tool for unveiling intricate relationships among selected variables, offering unique insights compared to other MCDM approaches.
3. Research Method
The study’s progression, excluding the literature review, is detailed within a research methods framework, as depicted in Figure 2. At the initial stage of the framework, drivers for sustainable rural tourism development are identified and subsequently presented in the second stage, where their significance is prioritized based on their functional roles. This prioritization is accomplished using the ISM-MICMAC approach, which establishes a structural relationship among the drivers. A team of seven experts, outlined in Table 3, includes three department heads from manufacturing firms in Shenzhen, China, with extensive experience in implementing maintenance policies, along with two academic researchers specializing in sustainable rural tourism development. The remaining experts consist of an industrial engineer and a policymaker. The study’s methodology is systematically illustrated in Figure 2. The ISM technique is highly regarded for its interactive nature, facilitating the assessment of various elements and the identification of relationships within complex systems. By employing transitive inference, this technique significantly reduces the need for numerous relational queries, often by 50 to 80 percent. Its primary objective is to harness the expertise and experience of experts to dissect intricate systems into more manageable components.
Understanding interconnectedness among elements is facilitated primarily through the application of ISM. Consequently, the ISM-MICMAC method assesses the strengths of elements based on their interdependence and driving influence, utilizing MIMAC. This approach holds significant value in analyzing problem conditions through structural modeling and graphical representation [70]. Many researchers have embraced this technique for their analyses due to its promising applications and high effectiveness [71,72,73]. Singh and Gupta [71] utilized the ISM-MICMAC technique to devise a framework for a sustainable maintenance system. Usmani, Wang, Waqas, and Iqbal [73] employed ISM-MICMAC to assess enablers for promoting sustainable rural tourism development within the Chinese manufacturing system. Guan, Abbasi, and Ryan [74] utilized ISM to analyze interdependencies in green building project risks.
Below are the steps for implementing Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM):
Begin by identifying a pertinent issue or challenge through extensive literature review.
Analyze pairs of factors considering their contextual relationships.
Develop the System Structural Self-Iteration Matrix (SSIM) to highlight associations among the elements.
Evaluate the transitivity of the reachability matrix derived from the SSIM, adhering to ISM’s core transitivity assumption.
Partition the reachability matrix at various levels.
Identify and record relationships from the reachability matrix-directed graph (DIGRAPH), then eliminate any transitivity links.
Transform element nodes into statements to construct the ISM.
Scrutinize the ISM model meticulously to identify conceptual inconsistencies and make necessary adjustments.
This framework based on ISM has been widely adopted by scholars due to its simplicity and time-saving qualities. For a more comprehensive outcome, incorporating multiple methods and consulting various experts enriches insights, bolstering authenticity and validation. The analysis of results unfolds in two phases: initially, ISM establishes a structural relationship framework, followed by MICMAC categorizing elements into linkages, drivers, autonomics, and dependents. Subsequently, an examination of the ordered elements ensues.
3.1. ISM and MICMAC-Based Analysis
The ISM-based steps involved in analysis and framework development for drivers to Sustainable rural tourism development are given as follows.
3.2. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)
A team of experts collaboratively contributed to the development of SSIM, defining the nature of associations among model elements through extensive brainstorming and utilizing various valuable techniques. The trends of associations among variables, specifically between m and n (where m is less than n), are represented using prescribed symbols.
The symbol ‘V’ is used when ‘m’ directs toward ‘n.’
The symbol ‘A’ is employed when ‘n’ directs toward ‘m’.
The symbol ‘X’ is applied when both ‘m’ and ‘n’ are directed towards each other.
The symbol ‘O’ is utilized when ‘m’ and ‘n’ do not direct towards each other.
The contextual relationship, which is the base of SSIM, is depicted in Table 4.
3.3. The Reachability Matrix
A binary matrix called the “reachability matrix” is constructed based on the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM). This matrix is formed by replacing various SSIM signs (V, A, X, and O) with either 0 or 1, according to the following rules:
Replace SSIM entry V(n,m) with 0 and (m,n) with 1.
Replace SSIM entry A(n,m) with 1 and (m,n) with 0.
Replace SSIM entry X(n,m) with 1 and (m,n) with 1.
Replace SSIM entry O(n,m) with 0 and (m,n) with 0.
Following these rules, the resulting reachability matrix (denoted in Table A1 and Table A2) is established, illustrating the relationships among elements in a directed graph (Figure 3). In the graph, the following conventions are used:
An arrow from A to B signifies A pointing to B.
A double-headed arrow between A and B indicates that A and B point to each other.
After applying the transitivity rule mentioned in Step 4, each factor’s driving and dependence powers are determined. The driving power represents the sum of factors that assist one variable in affecting another. In contrast, the dependence power indicates the total variables that contribute to the influence on that variable.
3.4. Level Partitions
We establish antecedent and reachability sets for each element using the final reachability matrix. The antecedent set encompasses the elements themselves and those contributing to their attainment, while the reachability set encompasses the elements they may assist in achieving. The intersection set is derived from the combination of these sets. Factors with the same intersection and reachability are designated upper-level components in the ISM hierarchy. An element’s segregation occurs after being identified as a top-tier factor.
Similarly, subsequent levels of the remaining factors are determined through several iterations. This process continues until all elements have been assigned a level. A summary of the attained levels for all factors is presented in Appendix A Table A3. The final model and digraph are constructed based on these identified levels.
3.5. MICMAC Analysis
To facilitate the systematic categorization of drivers, MICMAC analysis is employed to assess the interplay of variables in terms of their dependence and driving influence. To achieve this, factors are classified into four distinct groups, as depicted in Figure 4. A diagram is then constructed based on the driving and dependence powers, effectively representing the drivers impeding the adoption of sustainable rural tourism development in the Chinese manufacturing industry. The four groups of factors include:
Autonomous factors
Dependent factors
Independent factors
Linkage factors
3.6. Autonomous Factors
This cluster primarily comprises factors that stand as outliers within the system, characterized by minimal dependence and driving power levels. Consequently, they exert relatively little influence on the overall system. No element falls within the autonomous cluster in this study.
3.7. Dependent Factors
The elements positioned at the uppermost tier of the ISM model, displaying substantial dependence yet limited driving influence, are referred to as dependent factors. The independent cluster encompasses five drivers, namely D15, D12, D13, D14, and D18.
3.8. Linkage Factors
Linkage factors are the most volatile elements, characterized by high dependence and strong driving power. Any alteration in these elements can ripple through and affect other interconnected elements, also observable through feedback mechanisms. This cluster comprises a total of 10 elements, specifically D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, B11, D16, D17, D19, and 20. Management must handle linkage factors with extreme caution, as they can induce system turbulence at any moment.
3.9. The Driving Factors
These elements exhibit low dependence and strong driving power. We have identified three drivers within this cluster: D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6. Owing to their prominent status in the ISM hierarchy framework, they play a vital role in accomplishing the system’s objectives. Their influence drives the other dependent factors, underscoring the importance of prioritizing these elements.
4. Results
In exploring the drivers for sustainable rural tourism in China, we categorize them into different levels based on their influence and significance. At the foundational level, Government Policy Support (D1) is paramount. It establishes the strategic framework for sustainable tourism by setting regulations and directing resources. Financial Investment (D2), Infrastructure Development (D3), Capacity Building (D4), and Access to Technology (D5) follow as enabling drivers. Financial Investment provides the essential funds for developing infrastructure and implementing technology, while Infrastructure Development enhances physical amenities critical for tourism. Capacity Building focuses on training and education to improve the skills of those involved in tourism, and Access to Technology facilitates efficient management through modern solutions.
Moving to the participation level, Community Involvement (D6) is crucial for integrating local perspectives and ensuring that tourism practices align with community needs. This is supported by Stakeholder Collaboration (D7), which fosters coordination among various tourism entities, and Regulatory Frameworks (D8), which establish the legal and operational standards necessary for sustainable management. Ecotourism Certification (D9) ensures adherence to environmental and cultural standards, enhancing the credibility of tourism practices. Market Demand (D10) drives the adaptation of tourism offerings to meet visitor preferences, while Risk Management (D11) addresses potential challenges to ensuring operational resilience. Education and Awareness (D12) play a role in promoting sustainable practices among stakeholders, and Destination Management (D13) involves planning and managing tourism destinations to enhance their appeal and sustainability. Community Empowerment (D14) and Collaboration with Indigenous Communities (D15) emphasize the importance of inclusive practices and respecting indigenous knowledge. Monitoring and Evaluation (D16) are essential for assessing the effectiveness of tourism initiatives and guiding policy adjustments.
At the advanced collaboration level, Stakeholder Collaboration (D17) remains significant, reinforcing the need for ongoing cooperative efforts. In terms of cultural and socio-cultural drivers, Socio-cultural Preservation (D18), Marketing and Promotion (D19), and Cultural Heritage Conservation (D20) ensure the protection of cultural values, enhance tourism appeal, and maintain cultural resources. Finally, Environmental Conservation (D21) stands as the highest-level driver, focusing on the protection of natural resources and promoting environmentally friendly practices essential for long-term sustainability. Considering these drivers’ hierarchical and contextual significance reveals their collective impact on sustainable rural tourism in China. This structured approach aids in formulating effective strategies and policies to achieve sustainability in the tourism sector.
Figure 5 visually depicts the hierarchical drivers for sustainable rural tourism in China, with each level distinguished by different bright colors to signify their roles and connections. At the foundational level, Government Policy Support (D1) is highlighted in bright red. This driver is crucial as it establishes the essential framework for sustainable tourism through policy formulation, regulation implementation, and resource allocation.
Moving to the second level, drivers are represented in bright orange and include Financial Investment (D2), Infrastructure Development (D3), Capacity Building (D4), and Access to Technology (D5). These drivers support the operational aspects of tourism. Financial Investment is essential for funding infrastructure and technological upgrades, while Infrastructure Development enhances tourism facilities. Capacity Building focuses on improving skills and knowledge within the community, and Access to Technology facilitates efficient management and innovation.
In the third level, depicted in bright yellow, Community Involvement (D6) is emphasized. This driver underscores the importance of engaging local communities in tourism activities and decision-making processes, ensuring that their perspectives and needs are addressed. The fourth level, shown in bright green, includes a range of drivers such as Stakeholder Collaboration (D7), Regulatory Frameworks (D8), Ecotourism Certification (D9), Market Demand (D10), Risk Management (D11), Education and Awareness (D12), Destination Management (D13), Community Empowerment (D14), Collaboration with Indigenous Communities (D15), and Monitoring and Evaluation (D16). These drivers represent various activities essential for effective tourism management and sustainability, covering aspects from regulatory compliance to ongoing evaluation and community engagement.
The fifth level, shown in bright blue, reiterates the importance of Stakeholder Collaboration (D17), emphasizing the need for continuous cooperation among stakeholders to ensure sustainable tourism practices. In the sixth level, depicted in bright purple, drivers such as Socio-cultural Preservation (D18), Marketing and Promotion (D19), and Cultural Heritage Conservation (D20) focus on preserving local cultures and promoting tourism destinations in a way that respects cultural values and historical preservation.
The top level, in bright teal, Environmental Conservation (D20), signifies the overarching goal of ensuring that all tourism practices align with environmental sustainability and conservation efforts. The arrows in the diagram illustrate the relationships and dependencies between these drivers, highlighting how higher-level drivers rely on foundational drivers to achieve effective and sustainable tourism development. The color-coded legend provides clarity on the levels and roles of each driver, making the diagram a comprehensive representation of the interconnected drivers for sustainable rural tourism.
The Influence Matrix (Figure 6) for drivers of sustainable rural tourism provides a comprehensive view of how different factors interact and impact each other. At its core, the matrix outlines both direct and indirect relationships between drivers, illustrating the complex web of influences that shape sustainable tourism. For instance, foundational drivers such as Government Policy Support have a significant impact on Financial Investment and Infrastructure Development, which then affect more specific drivers like Community Involvement and Capacity Building. This hierarchical structure highlights the central role of core drivers in setting the stage for subsequent influences.
In this matrix, some drivers emerge as pivotal, appearing in multiple rows and columns, thus demonstrating their broad influence across various aspects of tourism development. Community Involvement, for example, interacts with numerous other drivers, underscoring its importance in bridging foundational support with practical outcomes in tourism. Conversely, drivers such as Education and Awareness often depend on other factors like Capacity Building and Stakeholder Collaboration, revealing their role in the broader system.
The matrix also uncovers feedback loops where certain drivers influence one another cyclically, reflecting the dynamic nature of the tourism ecosystem. This interconnectedness means that changes in one driver, such as increased Financial Investment, can reverberate throughout the system, impacting other areas like Marketing and Promotion and Cultural Heritage Conservation. Understanding these interactions is crucial for stakeholders and policymakers, as it enables them to identify which drivers are most critical and how adjustments in one area might affect the overall sustainability of rural tourism. This holistic perspective aids in crafting more effective strategies and interventions tailored to the complexities of sustainable tourism development.
5. Discussion
The primary objective of this study was to investigate whether tourism positively impacts rural areas and to determine if there is a significant correlation between the presence of tourism activities and the levels of sustainable development. This research contributes to the existing body of literature regarding the role of tourism in promoting sustainable development in rural areas. Some previous studies have identified positive social, cultural, and economic effects, while others have reported negative, dualistic, inconclusive, or geographically differentiated outcomes.
Sustainable tourism is a powerful and essential solution to many challenges traditionally plaguing the tourism industry. It represents a conscious shift from a profit-centric approach to a holistic, responsible, and long-term perspective. By doing so, it offers numerous benefits for the environment, local communities, and the overall well-being of destinations. In the following paragraphs, we will delve deeper into these advantages. Environmental conservation is a cornerstone of sustainable tourism. Traditional tourism has frequently resulted in the degradation of natural resources and ecosystems. Moreover, unsustainable practices, such as overexploitation of resources, pollution, and habitat destruction, have had detrimental effects on many popular destinations. Sustainable tourism, however, takes a completely different approach. It places a paramount emphasis on minimizing the environmental impact of travel and tourism activities. This approach means that rather than harm ecosystems, tourists and service providers alike take steps to protect and conserve them. Through responsible waste management, eco-friendly infrastructure, and the careful use of resources, sustainable tourism ensures that destinations retain their natural beauty and ecological diversity for future generations to appreciate.
Moreover, sustainable tourism generates more equitable economic benefits for local communities. Traditional tourism often concentrates financial gains in the hands of large corporations, with limited economic returns at the local level. Sustainable tourism flips this dynamic by strongly emphasizing small-scale, locally owned businesses. These businesses, including guesthouses, restaurants, and artisans, benefit from the influx of visitors and, in turn, create job opportunities within the community. It helps boost local economies and reduces the dependency on external sources of income. Hence, the money generated from sustainable tourism is more likely to circulate within the community, contributing to economic stability and improved living standards for residents. Furthermore, sustainable tourism promotes the concept of long-term viability. Traditional tourism, when not managed properly, can lead to overcrowding, environmental degradation, and eventually, a decline in the appeal of a destination. It often emphasizes short-term gains and may overlook the long-term consequences of uncontrolled growth. In contrast, sustainable tourism considers a destination’s carrying capacity, setting limits to ensure that tourism does not exceed what the environment and local communities can support. This approach aims to maintain a place’s natural and cultural assets over the long run, making it a more attractive destination for future generations. Local communities often reap the benefits of sustainable tourism initiatives through improved quality of life. Sustainable tourism promotes better education, healthcare, and infrastructure. These improvements are geared toward creating better experiences for travelers and enhancing the overall quality of life for residents. Moreover, sustainable tourism addresses one of our most pressing global issues: climate change. Traditional tourism, which relies heavily on energy-intensive transportation and accommodation, has often contributed to increased greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation. Sustainable tourism actively addresses this challenge. It encourages the use of renewable energy sources, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the adoption of eco-friendly transportation options. By integrating these measures into its operations, sustainable tourism plays a part in the global effort to combat climate change. Focusing on environmental conservation, cultural preservation, economic fairness, diversification, long-term viability, local community development, responsible traveler behavior, and climate change mitigation provides a roadmap for a more responsible and sustainable travel industry. It balances the interests of tourists, local communities, and the environment, ensuring our most cherished destinations’ long-term appeal and sustainability. Sustainable tourism is not only a solution; it is a responsible and ethical way forward that respects our world’s natural and cultural diversity while ensuring the well-being of current and future generations.
This research documents the important drivers of SRTD using the ISM framework to evaluate interaction among the drivers. After literature review, twenty drivers were shortlisted on the advice of concerned field experts from academia, the technology industry, engineers, and policymakers. ISM analyzed the association between factors, and MICMAC was also used to analyze every driver’s “driving and dependence power,” these drivers were grouped into four different clusters. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was used to check the robustness of the model. The analysis of various drivers reveals a complex and interconnected framework that requires a strategic and holistic approach. In discussing the drivers for sustainable rural tourism development in China, it is crucial to acknowledge the significance of each driver in relation to its level, reflecting its position in the hierarchical influence structure. The levels indicate the strength of influence, from the most foundational to the more operational, which shapes how each driver contributes to sustainable tourism practices.
Government Policy Support (D1, Level 1) is the most critical driver at the foundation of sustainable rural tourism. As the highest-level driver, it sets the stage for all subsequent drivers by establishing the regulatory framework necessary for sustainable practices. This support includes creating favorable policies, setting environmental standards, and offering incentives for sustainable initiatives. Financial Investment (D2, Level 2), Infrastructure Development (D3, Level 2), Capacity Building (D4, Level 2), and Access to Technology (D21, Level 2), are positioned just below government policy, reflecting their critical role in translating policy into actionable outcomes. These drivers are essential for building the physical, human, and technological capacities necessary for sustainable tourism. Financial investment underpins the availability of resources for infrastructure projects and capacity-building initiatives, making it a vital driver that bridges high-level policy with ground-level implementation. Infrastructure development enhances accessibility and attractiveness, directly influencing the feasibility and appeal of rural tourism destinations. Capacity building equips local stakeholders with the skills needed to participate effectively in the tourism sector, ensuring that policies and investments translate into long-term benefits. Access to technology facilitates efficient management and innovation, allowing for the integration of modern solutions in traditional rural settings.
Community Involvement (D5, Level 3) is a pivotal driver that acts as a conduit between the foundational and operational levels. It ensures that the benefits of tourism are equitably distributed among local populations, fostering inclusivity and local engagement. Community involvement is crucial for building local ownership and ensuring that tourism development respects and integrates local culture and needs. Stakeholder Collaboration (D6, Level 4), Regulatory Frameworks (D7, Level 4), Ecotourism Certification (D8, Level 4), Market Demand (D9, Level 4), Risk Management (D10, Level 4), Education and Awareness (D11, Level 4), Destination Management (D12, Level 4), Community Empowerment (D13, Level 4), Collaboration with Indigenous Communities (D14, Level 4), and Monitoring and Evaluation (D15, Level 4), represent a cluster of drivers at a more operational level. These drivers work together to ensure that the strategic objectives set by higher-level drivers are implemented effectively. Stakeholder collaboration is key to aligning various interests and ensuring that development efforts are coherent and mutually reinforcing. Regulatory Frameworks ensure that all tourism activities adhere to established standards, protecting both the environment and local communities. Ecotourism Certification and Market Demand drive the adoption of sustainable practices by rewarding those who comply with sustainability criteria. Risk management is essential for mitigating potential negative impacts, while education and awareness help foster a culture of sustainability among all stakeholders. Destination management ensures that tourism activities are well-coordinated and that resources are used efficiently. Community Empowerment and Collaboration with Indigenous Communities ensure that marginalized groups have a voice in the tourism development process. Monitoring and evaluation provide feedback loops that allow for the continuous improvement of tourism practices, ensuring they remain sustainable in the long term.
Socio-cultural Preservation (D18, Level 6), Marketing and Promotion (D19, Level 6), and Cultural Heritage Conservation (D20, Level 6) are critical for maintaining the authenticity and appeal of rural tourism. These drivers ensure that the unique cultural and social aspects of rural communities are preserved and promoted as integral parts of the tourism experience. Marketing and promotion are vital for attracting visitors and ensuring that tourism remains economically viable, while socio-cultural preservation and heritage conservation maintain the integrity of the tourism offering, ensuring that it remains sustainable and respectful of local traditions.
Environmental Conservation (D20, Level 7), although positioned at the bottom of the hierarchy, is the ultimate goal of sustainable rural tourism. Its position reflects the idea that all preceding drivers must align towards achieving environmental sustainability. This driver ensures that tourism development does not degrade the natural environment but rather contributes to its preservation. The significance of this driver is in its role as a barometer for the success of sustainable tourism—if environmental conservation goals are not met, the entire premise of sustainable tourism is compromised.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, the hierarchical structure of these drivers underscores the complexity of achieving sustainable rural tourism in China. Each driver’s significance is enhanced by its level in the hierarchy, with foundational drivers like Government Policy Support (D1) setting the stage for all subsequent actions. As we move down the levels, the drivers become more operational, focusing on the practical aspects of implementing sustainable tourism. The interconnectedness of these drivers highlights the need for a coordinated approach that aligns policy, investment, community engagement, and environmental conservation to achieve the desired outcomes. The analysis reveals that for sustainable rural tourism to be successful, there must be a strong alignment across all levels of drivers, with each contributing to a cohesive and sustainable development strategy.
The study’s findings emphasize the hierarchical nature of the drivers, where higher-level drivers such as Government Policy Support (D1) and Financial Investment (D2) have a more significant influence on the overall success of sustainable rural tourism development. Government Policy Support (D1) provides the necessary regulatory and policy framework that enables other drivers to function effectively. This includes setting environmental standards, providing incentives for sustainable practices, and ensuring that tourism development aligns with broader national and regional development goals. Financial Investment (D2) is closely tied to Government Policy Support, as it provides the necessary funding for infrastructure development, Capacity Building, and technological advancements. Infrastructure Development (D3) is another critical driver, as it directly impacts the accessibility and attractiveness of rural tourism destinations. Without adequate infrastructure, including transportation, accommodation, and communication networks, sustainable tourism development would be severely hampered.
Capacity Building (D4) is essential for equipping local communities with the skills and knowledge needed to participate effectively in the tourism industry. This driver is particularly important in the context of rural areas, where educational and training opportunities may be limited. By enhancing the capacity of local stakeholders, including entrepreneurs, tour operators, and community leaders, sustainable tourism practices can be more effectively implemented and maintained. Community Involvement (D5) is pivotal in ensuring that the benefits of tourism are shared locally and that the development process is inclusive and participatory. This driver is closely linked to Socio-cultural Preservation (D18) and Cultural Heritage Conservation (D19), as it ensures that local traditions and heritage are respected and integrated into the tourism experience.
Environmental Conservation (D20) is another critical driver that must be addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of rural tourism. This driver is particularly important in the context of ecotourism and nature-based tourism, where the preservation of natural resources is a key selling point. However, the effectiveness of Environmental Conservation efforts largely depends on the successful implementation of earlier stages, such as Regulatory Frameworks (D7) and Stakeholder Collaboration (D6). The influence matrix further demonstrates the need for strong collaboration and alignment across all levels of tourism development to maintain coherence and effectiveness.
To strengthen the conclusion, comparisons with related scientific studies can substantiate the hierarchical model’s insights and highlight its broader implications. For instance, research by Liu, Dou, Li and Cai [24] highlights the critical role of government policies in facilitating sustainable tourism by providing regulatory and financial frameworks similar to those identified in our study. Similarly, Fang, Azizan, and Wu [75] emphasize the role of community involvement in enhancing Socio-cultural Preservation, aligning with our findings that underscore the importance of local participation in sustaining rural tourism initiatives.
Furthermore, studies by Xiao, Liu, and Li [76], Hu, Zhang, and Irfan [6] and Feng, Chen, and Nie [77] reinforce the influence of infrastructure and Capacity Building as essential components for enabling rural tourism. Our conclusion aligns with these findings, showing that a cohesive strategy integrating government support, infrastructure, and community engagement is key to effective and sustainable tourism development. This comparative analysis underscores the universality of the hierarchical approach, suggesting that aligning top-down policies with grassroots initiatives is crucial across various tourism contexts.
6.1. Managerial and Policy Implications
A comprehensive policy framework is designed to implement the policy implications for SRTD. This framework presents the practically relevant policies advising solutions to overcome each driver of SRTD, presented in Figure 7. The particular drivers are depicted in the same color for easy understanding of the policy. The findings of this study have several important implications for managers and policymakers involved in the development of sustainable rural tourism in China. First, the critical role of Government Policy Support (D1) underscores the need for a strong and proactive regulatory framework that supports sustainable practices. Policymakers should prioritize the development of policies that promote Environmental Conservation, cultural preservation, and Community Involvement. This includes providing financial incentives for sustainable practices, setting clear standards for tourism development, and ensuring that tourism activities align with broader national and regional development goals.
Financial Investment (D2) is also a key area where both managers and policymakers need to focus their efforts. Investment in infrastructure, Capacity Building, and technology is essential for supporting sustainable tourism development. Policymakers should work to attract both public and private investment in these areas, while managers should ensure that resources are allocated efficiently and effectively to maximize their impact. Infrastructure Development (D3) is particularly important, as it directly impacts the accessibility and attractiveness of rural tourism destinations. Investment in transportation, accommodation, and communication networks should be prioritized to ensure that rural areas are accessible to tourists and can accommodate their needs.
Capacity Building (D4) also requires attention from both managers and policymakers. By providing training and educational opportunities to local communities, stakeholders can become better equipped to participate in and benefit from the tourism industry. Policymakers should consider developing programs that support vocational training, entrepreneurship, and tourism management, while managers should focus on implementing these programs at the local level. Community Involvement (D5) is essential for ensuring that the benefits of tourism are shared locally and that the development process is inclusive and participatory. Policymakers should work to create mechanisms for local communities to have a voice in the tourism development process, while managers should prioritize engaging with local stakeholders and integrating their input into decision-making processes.
Environmental Conservation (D20) is another area where strong policy support is needed. Policymakers should develop and enforce regulations that protect natural resources and promote environmentally friendly tourism practices. Managers should work to implement these practices at the local level, ensuring that tourism activities do not harm the environment and that conservation efforts are integrated into the tourism experience. Finally, Stakeholder Collaboration (D6) and Regulatory Frameworks (D7) are essential for maintaining coherence and alignment across all levels of tourism development. Policymakers should work to create a collaborative environment where all stakeholders, including government agencies, local communities, and private sector actors, can work together to achieve common goals. Managers should focus on facilitating this collaboration and ensuring that all stakeholders are engaged and aligned with the broader objectives of sustainable tourism development.
6.2. Limitations
While this study provides valuable insights into the drivers of sustainable rural tourism development in China, there are several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the study relies on a generalized influence matrix, which may not capture all the nuances of regional variations within China. The interactions between drivers may differ significantly depending on the specific geographical, socio-economic, and cultural context of each region. Additionally, the study primarily focuses on the supply side of tourism, potentially overlooking the demand side, including tourist behavior and preferences, which also significantly impact sustainable tourism. Another limitation is the potential oversimplification of the complex, non-linear relationships between drivers, which may lead to an incomplete understanding of their true impact.
6.3. Future Research Directions
Future research should aim to address these limitations by conducting region-specific studies within China that account for the varied impacts of these drivers in different local contexts. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of how sustainable tourism development can be effectively promoted across China’s diverse rural regions. Additionally, future research should explore the demand side of tourism, particularly the role of tourists’ attitudes and behaviors in shaping sustainable tourism outcomes. Longitudinal studies could also be conducted to assess how the influence of these drivers evolves over time, especially in response to changing environmental, socio-economic, and technological conditions. Finally, the potential of digital technologies to enhance the effectiveness of these drivers, particularly in remote or underdeveloped regions, is another area that warrants further exploration. By addressing these areas, future research can provide more comprehensive and actionable insights for the development of sustainable rural tourism in China.
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by C.H. and H.Z. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Y.Z. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
As the writer and researcher of this study, I am pleased to report that the ethical perspective has been considered during the course of this research. I have diligently adhered to ethical standards and guidelines, ensuring that the research meets rigorous ethical considerations and safeguards.
In our role as the researchers, we ensured that participants in this study were provided with comprehensive information regarding the research’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. We emphasized the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses and made it clear that they have the right to withdraw from the study at any point without facing adverse consequences.
I, as the researcher, explicitly communicated to participants the potential publication of research findings. Separate consent was sought for the publication of anonymized and aggregated data. I assure participants that their identities will be strictly protected, and no personal information will be disclosed in any publications resulting from this research. Upholding the privacy and confidentiality of the participants remains a top priority throughout the dissemination of the research outcomes. In addition, I added all other authors names with their consent.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Comparison between Hangzhou and Yangshuo cases adopted from [
| Comparison | Hangzhou | Yangshuo |
|---|---|---|
| Type and form of tourism | Landscape, culture tourism, TPA | Landscape, culture tourism, TPA |
| Regional size | Metropolitan, capital city of Zhejiang province | Rural county, under jurisdiction of Guilin City |
| Population | 9,188,000 | 465,000 |
| Economic development degree | Highly developed | Underdeveloped |
| Economic dependency | Low reliance on tourism | High reliance on tourism |
Demographics of the Experts.
| Sr. No. | Expertise Area | Designation | Quantity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Entrepreneurs (manufacturing, textile, etc.) | Manager | 03 |
| 02 | Policymakers | Chief Secretary | 01 |
| 03 | Teaching and Research | Associate Professor | 03 |
| 04 | Industrial Engineers | Chief Engineer | 02 |
Policies and Supporting Drivers.
| Policy Category | Supporting Drivers (Levels) | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Technical Policies | - Level 1: Government Policy Support | Governance lays the foundation for sustainable tourism policies. |
| Administrative Policies | - Level 1: Government Policy Support | Governance supports policy formulation and enforcement. |
| Operational Policies | - Level 2: Financial Investment | Financial investment funds infrastructure and training. |
Appendix A
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM).
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Policy Support | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | V | |
| Financial Investment | V | V | A | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | ||
| Infrastructure Development | V | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | |||
| Capacity Building | V | V | O | V | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | V | V | O | V | ||||
| Access to Technology | V | V | O | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | V | |||||
| Community Involvement | V | V | V | V | O | V | O | O | V | O | V | O | V | V | ||||||
| Community Empowerment | V | V | O | V | O | O | V | V | A | O | V | A | V | |||||||
| Education and Awareness | V | V | O | V | V | V | O | V | V | V | O | V | ||||||||
| Market Demand | V | O | V | V | V | O | V | V | O | V | V | |||||||||
| Collaboration with Indigenous Communities | V | O | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | ||||||||||
| Regulatory Frameworks | V | O | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | |||||||||||
| Environmental Conservation | A | A | A | A | A | A | O | A | ||||||||||||
| Socio-cultural Preservation | O | A | A | A | O | A | A | |||||||||||||
| Marketing and Promotion | A | O | A | O | A | A | ||||||||||||||
| Stakeholder Collaboration | A | A | O | A | A | |||||||||||||||
| Ecotourism Certification | A | O | A | A | ||||||||||||||||
| Risk Management | O | A | A | |||||||||||||||||
| Cultural Heritage Conservation | A | A | ||||||||||||||||||
| Destination Management | A | |||||||||||||||||||
| Monitoring and Evaluation |
The arrow direction in the ISM-MICMAC digraph indicates the causal relationship between drivers. An arrow points from the influencing driver (cause) to the dependent driver (effect), showing how foundational factors impact others in the hierarchy.
Reachability Matrix (RM).
| Drivers | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Driving Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Policy Support | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 |
| Financial Investment | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 17 |
| Infrastructure Development | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16 |
| Capacity Building | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 14 |
| Access to Technology | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Community Involvement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Community Empowerment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Education and Awareness | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 |
| Market Demand | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Collaboration with Indigenous Communities | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Regulatory Frameworks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Environmental Conservation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Socio-cultural Preservation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Marketing and Promotion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Stakeholder Collaboration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Ecotourism Certification | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Risk Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Cultural Heritage Conservation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Destination Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Monitoring and Evaluation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Dependence Power | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 17 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 8 | 10 | 12 |
Final Reachability Matrix (FRM).
| Drivers | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Driving Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Policy Support | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 |
| Financial Investment | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 19 |
| Infrastructure Development | 0 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 19 |
| Capacity Building | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 19 |
| Access to Technology | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 |
| Community Involvement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Community Empowerment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 14 |
| Education and Awareness | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 14 |
| Market Demand | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Collaboration with Indigenous Communities | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Regulatory Frameworks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Environmental Conservation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Socio-cultural Preservation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Marketing and Promotion | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Stakeholder Collaboration | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Ecotourism Certification | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 14 |
| Risk Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 14 |
| Cultural Heritage Conservation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Destination Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 14 |
| Monitoring and Evaluation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Dependence Power | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 15 | 15 |
An asterisk (*) in the final reachability matrix marks a transitive (indirect relationship), not direct, relationship between drivers.
Level Partitioning (LP).
| Elements(Mi) | Reachability Set R(Mi) | Antecedent Set A(Ni) | Intersection Set R(Mi)∩A(Ni) | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1, | 1, | 1, | 7 |
| 2 | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 6 |
| 3 | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 6 |
| 4 | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 6 |
| 5 | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | 6 |
| 6 | 6, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, | 6, | 5 |
| 7 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 8 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 9 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 10 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 11 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 12 | 12, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 12, | 1 |
| 13 | 13, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 13, | 2 |
| 14 | 14, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 14, | 2 |
| 15 | 15, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 15, | 3 |
| 16 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 17 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 18 | 18, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 18, | 2 |
| 19 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
| 20 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 4 |
Level Partitioning Iterations.
| Elements | Reachability Set R(Mi) | Antecedent Set A(Ni) | Intersection Set R(Mi)∩A(Ni) | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, | 1, | |
| 2 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | |
| 3 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | |
| 4 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | |
| 5 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, | 2, 3, 4, 5, | |
| 6 | 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, | 6, | |
| 7 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 8 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 9 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 10 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 11 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 12 | 12, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 12, | 1 |
| 13 | 12, 13, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 13, | |
| 14 | 12, 14, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 14, | |
| 15 | 12, 13, 14, 15, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 15, | |
| 16 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 17 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 18 | 12, 18, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 18, | |
| 19 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | |
| 20 | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, | 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, |
Conical Matrix (CM).
| Drivers | 12 | 13 | 14 | 18 | 15 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | Driving Power | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 14 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| 7 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 10 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 11 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 19 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 6 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 5 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 7 |
| Dependence Power | 20 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Level | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
An asterisk (*) in the final reachability matrix marks a transitive (indirect relationship), not direct, relationship between drivers.
Reduced Conical Matrix (CM).
| Drivers | 12 | 13 | 14 | 18 | 15 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | Driving Power | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Conservation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Socio-cultural Preservation | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Marketing and Promotion | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Cultural Heritage Conservation | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Stakeholder Collaboration | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| Community Empowerment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Education and Awareness | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Market Demand | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Collaboration with Indigenous Communities | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Regulatory Frameworks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Ecotourism Certification | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Risk Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 * | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Destination Management | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Monitoring and Evaluation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| Community Involvement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 5 |
| Financial Investment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| Infrastructure Development | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| Capacity Building | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| Access to Technology | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| Government Policy Support | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 7 |
| Dependence Power | 20 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Level | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
An asterisk (*) in the final reachability matrix marks a transitive (indirect relationship), not direct, relationship between drivers.
References
1. Ranwa, R. Impact of tourism on intangible cultural heritage: Case of Kalbeliyas from Rajasthan, India. J. Tour. Cult. Chang.; 2022; 20, pp. 20-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2021.1900208]
2. Valls, J.F.; Sarda, R. Tourism expert perceptions for evaluating climate change impacts on the Euro-Mediterranean tourism industry. Tour. Rev.; 2009; 64, pp. 41-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605370910963518]
3. Tang, C.-H.H.; Jang, S.S. The tourism–economy causality in the United States: A sub-industry level examination. Tour. Manag.; 2009; 30, pp. 553-558. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.09.009]
4. Baloch, Q.B.; Shah, S.N.; Iqbal, N.; Sheeraz, M.; Asadullah, M.; Mahar, S.; Khan, A.U. Impact of tourism development upon environmental sustainability: A suggested framework for sustainable ecotourism. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 5917-5930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22496-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35984561]
5. Egresi, I. Globalization, mass tourism, and sustainable development. Alternative Tourism in Turkey: Role, Potential Development and Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 3-22.
6. Hu, J.; Zhang, H.; Irfan, M. How does digital infrastructure construction affect low-carbon development? A multidimensional interpretation of evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 396, 136467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136467]
7. Adla, K.; Dejan, K.; Neira, D.; Dragana, Š. Degradation of ecosystems and loss of ecosystem services. One Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 281-327.
8. He, Y.; Gao, X.; Wu, R.; Wang, Y.; Choi, B.-R. How does sustainable rural tourism cause rural community development?. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132413516]
9. He, B.-J.; Yang, L.; Ye, M. Building energy efficiency in China rural areas: Situation, drawbacks, challenges, corresponding measures and policies. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2014; 11, pp. 7-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.11.005]
10. Liu, R. The state-led tourism development in Beijing’s ecologically fragile periphery: Peasants’ response and challenges. Habitat Int.; 2020; 96, 102119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102119]
11. Sun, J.-X.; Zhang, L.-Y.; Luo, Y.-L. Development of rural tourism resources in China under the goal of common prosperity: Current situation, problems and the development path. J. Nat. Resour.; 2023; 38, pp. 318-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20230204]
12. Chi, X.; Lee, S.K.; Ahn, Y.-J.; Kiatkawsin, K. Tourist-perceived quality and loyalty intentions towards rural tourism in China. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12093614]
13. Zheng, D.; Ritchie, B.W.; Benckendorff, P.J.; Bao, J. Emotional responses toward Tourism Performing Arts Development: A comparison of urban and rural residents in China. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 70, pp. 238-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.08.019]
14. Moslehpour, M.; Shalehah, A.; Wong, W.-K.; Ismail, T.; Altantsetseg, P.; Tsevegjav, M. Economic and tourism growth impact on the renewable energy production in Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 81006-81020. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21334-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35727514]
15. Novy, J.; Colomb, C. Urban tourism as a source of contention and social mobilisations: A critical review. Travel and Tourism in the Age of Overtourism; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 6-23.
16. Rosalina, P.D.; Dupre, K.; Wang, Y. Rural tourism: A systematic literature review on definitions and challenges. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2021; 47, pp. 134-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.03.001]
17. Yang, J.; Yang, R.; Chen, M.-H.; Su, C.-H.J.; Zhi, Y.; Xi, J. Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2021; 47, pp. 35-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008]
18. Madzivhandila, T.S.; Niyimbanira, F. Rural economies and livelihood activities in developing countries: Exploring prospects of the emerging climate change crisis. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Stud.; 2020; 1, pp. 239-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34109/ijefs.202012115]
19. An, W.; Alarcon, S. How can rural tourism be sustainable? A systematic review. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 7758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12187758]
20. Cunha, C.; Kastenholz, E.; Carneiro, M.J. Entrepreneurs in rural tourism: Do lifestyle motivations contribute to management practices that enhance sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems?. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2020; 44, pp. 215-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.007]
21. Ma, X.; Wang, R.; Dai, M.; Ou, Y. The influence of culture on the sustainable livelihoods of households in rural tourism destinations. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2021; 29, pp. 1235-1252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1826497]
22. Thapa, K.; King, D.; Banhalmi-Zakar, Z.; Diedrich, A. Nature-based tourism in protected areas: A systematic review of socio-economic benefits and costs to local people. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.; 2022; 29, pp. 625-640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2073616]
23. Drake, M.D.; Salerno, J.; Langendorf, R.E.; Cassidy, L.; Gaughan, A.E.; Stevens, F.R.; Pricope, N.G.; Hartter, J. Costs of elephant crop depredation exceed the benefits of trophy hunting in a community-based conservation area of Namibia. Conserv. Sci. Pract.; 2021; 3, e345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/csp2.345]
24. Liu, C.; Dou, X.; Li, J.; Cai, L.A. Analyzing government role in rural tourism development: An empirical investigation from China. J. Rural. Stud.; 2020; 79, pp. 177-188. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.046]
25. Priatmoko, S.; Kabil, M.; Akaak, A.; Lakner, Z.; Gyuricza, C.; Dávid, L.D. Understanding the complexity of rural tourism business: Scholarly perspective. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 1193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15021193]
26. Ramkissoon, H. Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: A new conceptual model. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2023; 31, pp. 442-459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1858091]
27. Mathijsen, A. Home, sweet home? Understanding diasporic medical tourism behaviour. Exploratory research of Polish immigrants in Belgium. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 72, pp. 373-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.009]
28. Mortet, S.; Nadi, M.; Djallam, K. Tourism and Migration Nexus, Understanding the Relationship Between the Two Phenomena Through MLT and TLM Theories; GMFAMI Editions: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2021; pp. 29-39.
29. Perez, S.A.; Matsaganis, M. The political economy of austerity in Southern Europe. Is the European Union Capable of Integrating Diverse Models of Capitalism?; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 48-63.
30. Tayebi, S.K.; Babaki, R.; Jabari, A. An investigation of the relationship between tourism development and economic growth (1959–2004). Bull. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Espec. Econ.; 2007; 26, pp. 83-110.
31. Kim, H.J.; Chen, M.-H. Tourism expansion and economic development: The case of Taiwan. Tour. Manag.; 2006; 27, pp. 925-933. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.05.011]
32. Chuang, S.-T. Rural tourism: Perspectives from social exchange theory. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J.; 2010; 38, pp. 1313-1322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.10.1313]
33. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Interpretation and sustainable tourism: The potential and the pitfalls. Rev. Interam. Ambiente Y Tur.; 2005; 1, pp. 20-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589309450706]
34. Pascariu, G.C.; Tiganasu, R. Tourism and sustainable regional development in Romania and France: An approach from the perspective of new economic geography. Amfiteatru Econ. J.; 2014; 16, pp. 1089-1109.
35. Bahrami, R.; Noori, K. Analysis of the role of tourism and its impact on rural development (case study of the central part of Marivan). Tech. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.; 2013; 3, pp. 1074-1080.
36. Kinsley, M.J. Economic Renewal Guide: A Collaborative Process for Sustainable Community Development; Earthscan Publications: Oxford, UK, 1997.
37. Cánoves, G.; Villarino, M.; Priestley, G.K.; Blanco, A. Rural tourism in Spain: An analysis of recent evolution. Geoforum; 2004; 35, pp. 755-769. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.03.005]
38. Eusébio, C.; Kastenholz, E.; Breda, Z. Tourism and Sustainable Development of Rural Destinations: A Stakeholders’view. Rev. Port. Estud. Reg.; 2014; 36, pp. 13-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.59072/rper.vi36.418]
39. Choi, H.-S.C.; Sirakaya, E. Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: Development of sustainable tourism attitude scale. J. Travel Res.; 2005; 43, pp. 380-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274651]
40. Cerić, D. Overestimating the role of tourism in rural areas on the example of selected regions in Poland and Croatia. Stud. Obsz. Wiej.; 2016; 43, pp. 73-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7163/SOW.43.5]
41. Telfer, D.J.; Sharpley, R. Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues, Clevedon; Channel View Publications: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2002.
42. Cavaco, C. O turismo rural nas políticas de desenvolvimento do turismo em Portugal. Desenvolvimento Rural: Desafio e Utopia; CEG: Lisboa, Portugal, 1999; pp. 281-292.
43. Butler, R.; Clark, G. Tourism in Rural Areas: Canada and the United Kingdom. 1992; pp. 166-183. Available online: https://oa.mg/work/2223191595 (accessed on 23 September 2024).
44. Allen, L.R.; Long, P.T.; Perdue, R.R.; Kieselbach, S. The impact of tourism development on residents’ perceptions of community life. J. Travel Res.; 1988; 27, pp. 16-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728758802700104]
45. Chang, J.-C. The Role of Tourism in Sustainable Rural Development: A Multiple Case Study in Rural Taiwan. Ph.D Thesis; University of Birmingham: Birmingham, UK, 2011.
46. Loukissas, P.J. Tourism’s regional development impacts: A comparative analysis of the Greek islands. Ann. Tour. Res.; 1982; 9, pp. 523-541. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(82)90071-8]
47. Baum, S. The tourist potential of rural areas in Poland. East. Eur. Countrys.; 2011; 17, pp. 107-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10130-011-0006-z]
48. Ibanescu, B.; Stoleriu, O.M. The rural tourist demand in an European peripheral region. Case study: Moldavia Region, Romania. Proceedings of the International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts Sgem; Albena, Bulgaria, 2–7 September 2014; pp. 797-804.
49. Iațu, C.; Ibănescu, B.-C.; Stoleriu, O.M.; Munteanu, A. The WHS designation—A factor of sustainable tourism growth for Romanian rural areas?. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10030626]
50. Hussain, S.; Ahonen, V.; Karasu, T.; Leviäkangas, P. Sustainability of smart rural mobility and tourism: A key performance indicators-based approach. Technol. Soc.; 2023; 74, 102287. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102287]
51. Chan, J.K.L. Sustainable Rural Tourism Practices From the Local Tourism Stakeholders’ Perspectives. Glob. Bus. Financ. Rev.; 2023; 28, 136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.3.136]
52. Janjua, Z.U.A.; Krishnapillai, G.; Rehman, M. Importance of the sustainability tourism marketing practices: An insight from rural community-based homestays in Malaysia. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights; 2023; 6, pp. 575-594. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-10-2021-0274]
53. Shereni, N.C.; Saarinen, J.; Rogerson, C.M. Sustainability drivers and challenges in the hospitality sector in Zimbabwe. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J.; 2023; 71, pp. 492-504. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37741/t.71.3.4]
54. Wuddivira, M.N.; De Caires, S.A.; Joseph, J.; Atwell, M.A.; Lewis-Cameron, A. An influencer pathway framework for sustainable tourism in SIDS ecotourism hotspots: A case of Aripo ecosystems, Trinidad. Front. Sustain. Tour.; 2023; 2, 1117006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsut.2023.1117006]
55. Nelson, K.S.; Nguyen, T.D.; Francois, J.R.; Ojha, S. Rural sustainability methods, drivers, and outcomes: A systematic review. Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 31, pp. 1226-1249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2471]
56. Tadesse, G.W. Heritage resources as a driver of cultural tourism development in Ethiopia: A review. Cogent Arts Humanit.; 2023; 10, 2158623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2158623]
57. Lapuz, M.C.M. The role of local community empowerment in the digital transformation of rural tourism development in the Philippines. Technol. Soc.; 2023; 74, 102308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102308]
58. Knyazeva, G.A.; Porotnikova, N.A.; Antipov, V.V.; Makukha, V.V. Arctic Tourism as a Driver of Sustainable Development of the Territory: Research of the Interest of Local Stakeholders in the Komi Republic. Arctic; 2023; 52, pp. 152-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37482/issn2221-2698.2023.52.180]
59. Torres-Delgado, A.; Palomeque, F.L.; Sanz, B.E.; Urgell, X.F. Monitoring sustainable management in local tourist destinations: Performance, drivers and barriers. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2023; 31, pp. 1672-1693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1937190]
60. Nurlena, N.; Taufiq, R.; Musadad, M. The socio-cultural impacts of rural tourism development: A case study of Tanjung Tourist Village in Sleman Regency. J. Kawistara; 2021; 11, pp. 62-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22146/kawistara.62263]
61. Almeida, A.; Machado, L.P. Rural development and rural tourism: The impact of infrastructure investments. Peripheral Territories, Tourism, and Regional Developmen; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1-16.
62. Göl, H.; Çatay, B. Third-party logistics provider selection: Insights from a Turkish automotive company. Supply Chain. Manag.; 2007; 12, pp. 379-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540710826290]
63. Ahsan, K.; Paul, S.K. Procurement issues in donor-funded international development projects. J. Manag. Eng.; 2018; 34, 04018041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000648]
64. Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2018; 195, pp. 106-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.10.013]
65. Pan, X.; Han, C.; Lu, X.; Jiao, Z.; Ming, Y.J. Green innovation ability evaluation of manufacturing enterprises based on AHP–OVP model. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2020; 290, pp. 409-419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3094-6]
66. Celik, E.; Erdogan, M.; Gumus, A.T. An extended fuzzy TOPSIS–GRA method based on different separation measures for green logistics service provider selection. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2016; 13, pp. 1377-1392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0977-4]
67. Jayant, A.; Gupta, P.; Garg, S.; Khan, M. TOPSIS-AHP based approach for selection of reverse logistics service provider: A case study of mobile phone industry. Procedia Eng.; 2014; 97, pp. 2147-2156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.458]
68. Cui, L.; Chan, H.K.; Zhou, Y.; Dai, J.; Lim, J.J. Exploring critical factors of green business failure based on Grey-Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL). J. Bus. Res.; 2019; 98, pp. 450-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.031]
69. Farias, L.M.S.; Santos, L.C.; Gohr, C.F.; Rocha, L.O. An ANP-based approach for lean and green performance assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2019; 143, pp. 77-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.004]
70. Sachdeva, A.; Sharma, V.; Garg, R.K.; Singh, R.K. Modelling of critical factors for responsiveness in supply chain. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.; 2015; 26, pp. 868-888.
71. Singh, R.K.; Gupta, A. Framework for sustainable maintenance system: ISM–fuzzy MICMAC and TOPSIS approach. Ann. Oper. Res.; 2019; 290, pp. 643-676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03162-w]
72. Usmani, M.S.; Wang, J.; Ahmad, N.; Ullah, Z.; Iqbal, M.; Ismail, M. Establishing a corporate social responsibility implementation model for promoting sustainability in the food sector: A hybrid approach of expert mining and ISM–MICMAC. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 8851-8872. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16111-7]
73. Usmani, M.S.; Wang, J.; Waqas, M.; Iqbal, M. Identification and ranking of enablers to green technology adoption for manufacturing firms using an ISM-MICMAC approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 51327-51343. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25744-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36809610]
74. Guan, L.; Abbasi, A.; Ryan, M.J. Analyzing green building project risk interdependencies using Interpretive Structural Modeling. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 256, 120372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120372]
75. Fang, K.; Azizan, S.A.; Wu, Y. Low-carbon community regeneration in China: A case study in Dadong. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15054136]
76. Xiao, X.; Liu, C.; Li, S. How the digital infrastructure construction affects urban carbon emissions—A quasi-natural experiment from the “Broadband China” policy. Sci. Total Environ.; 2024; 912, 169284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169284]
77. Feng, Y.; Chen, Z.; Nie, C. The effect of broadband infrastructure construction on urban green innovation: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Econ. Anal. Policy; 2023; 77, pp. 581-598. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.12.020]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Zhang, Hongmei 2 ; Zhang, Yechen 3 1 School of Economics and Management, Bozhou University, Bozhou 236800, China
2 College of Tourism, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200000, China;
3 College of Tourism and Exhibition, Hefei University, Hefei 230000, China;