The Role of Public Participation for Determining Sustainability Indicators for Arctic Tourism

Abstract

The new paradigm of sustainable development highlights the importance of enforcing defined boundaries between economies, societies, and the environment within a system. Sustainability indicators are tools that have proven to be a successful aid in defining and creating system boundaries. This paper focuses on the development of sustainability indicators for Arctic tourism, with a special emphasis on the role of public participation in their determination. It presents a stakeholder-centric approach to indicator selection by developing a framework that effectively integrates public participation in the processes of indicators’ selection and designation, and highlights the importance of combining local and expert knowledge in these processes. The results reveal that the making of sustainability indicators is an ideal platform for local voices to be heard, and thus to have a significant stake in the overall process of tourism development. The most effective way to make their voices heard in the final decision-making process is via their evaluation of the adaptability and prioritization of these indicators. The results, furthermore, stress that sustainability indicators need to be constantly re-evaluated and updated, as tourism is part of a complex and dynamic system that is constantly changing. To provide a holistic vision of the impact of economic, environmental, and social factors, as well as the causality between them in the system, sustainability indicators must be integrated from many indicators. Since the monitoring of conventional indicators is often less complicated and more cost-effective than the monitoring of integrated indicators, a better result can however be reached by combining conventional indicators with sustainability indicators.

Handling slum settlement based on community participation and socio-cultural change: Perspective of sustainable development of Makassar City, Indonesia

“…The six factors whose values are related to slum settlement infrastructure illustrate that only road infrastructure is fulfilled, while the other four factors, namely clean water services, environmental sanitation, solid waste, and household waste in relation to the handling of slum settlements in Makassar City have not been effective in implementation and does not provide benefits to improving the quality of the settlement and community environment. Communities in informal settlements accept the risks posed by garbage, poor sanitation, wastewater, and lack of clean water supplies and their impact on the health of the community and the quality of the settlement environment (Ólafsdóttir, 2021;Irda Sari et al, 2018). Furthermore, the influence of community participation, improving the quality of infrastructure, improving the quality of the environment, and changing the socio-cultural community on the sustainability of Makassar City development is presented in Table 2 below.…”

Sustainability Indicator Systems Applied to Tourism

“…According to Torres-Delgado & Saarinen (2013), there are two types of indicators: conventional and complex. Conventional indicators are used to describe large areas or countries, and are based on quantitative surveys and standardized numerical data; while complex indicators present a more holistic view, and they can rely on quantitative and qualitative data to compose a general framework to understand different factors, their connections and influences (Torres-Delgado & Saarinen, 2013;Ólafsdóttir, 2021). Ólafsdóttir (2021) considers that, by simplifying a reality into numbers, the interpretation may be incomplete or provide incorrect information.…”

Nature-based tourism as therapeutic landscape in a COVID era: autoethnographic learnings from a visitor’s experience in Iceland

“…Although sustainable development is the goal, the economic dimension of sustainability has consistently been a leading force in Icelandic tourism, somewhat reflecting the laissez-faire approach largely guiding the tourism sector. Ólafsdóttir ( 2021 ) points out that with increased knowledge of sustainable development, there is greater acceptance that the three pillars of sustainability, defined as economy, society and nature, are part of a closed system; nature sets limits for societal growth, and society sets limits for economic growth. It is therefore necessary to understand the behavior of the system in order to know where the boundaries between these pillars are and, consequently, manage development so that it remains within a sustainable system.…”