Sustainable Tourism Monitoring Framework: findings from a comparative study on Mediterranean Tourism Destinations

Glyptou, K., Spilanis, I., Bourse, L., Le Tellier, J., Giraud, J.P. and Legros, D.

Abstract

Recent research argues about the necessity of using systematic methods and tools to support the complex planning of tourism development and the implementation of policies that improve tourism’s effectiveness and sustainability. One may recognize that the great variety of tourism products and tourism destination typologies requires the development of a generalized framework of inductive structure that integrates the particularities and needs of a specific tourism system, while interlinking its economic effectiveness with employment issues, social justice and environmental preservation. Yet, on the same time, it should build on existing methodologies and available data from the various statistic and tourism-related institutions (Tourism Satellite Accounts, Environmental Satellite Accounts, OECD, WTTC, EUROSTAT etc.) to develop an integrative and broadly-accepted framework, that has the potential to serve both, as a tourism monitoring and continuous assessment system, by exhausting concepts’ coherence and data’s comparability issues (both of empirical and institutional source).

Building on the DPSIR (Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) functional causality approach, we introduce The Tourism Sustainability Assessment and Policy Approach, a new methodological framework with common definitions of sustainable tourism and sustainable destinations for sustainable tourism assessment (Plan Bleu, 2012) that delineates cause-effect relations between: (a) physical tourism flows, expressed as elements of supply, demand and organization of the tourism market; (b) direct effects of tourism activity, expressed as per capita and overall performance (tourism expenditure/night spent and employment/bed) and environmental pressure (resources consumption); and (c) overall impact (direct and indirect) entailed by the activity for the host destination (e.g., economy and employment structure and evolution, population evolution, income distribution, biodiversity, natural resources quality and availability).

This multi-dimensional and multi-stage structure that accounts for the complexity of the tourism system, allows the tracing of the exact sequence between cause - direct effect - overall impact drivers, while adjusting to the specificities of the decision context (physical, structural, political, cultural). In turn, the framework may serve as a triple contemplating tool that: (a) enhances the assessment and monitoring function concerning the activity (physical monetary flows, seasonality, occupancy rate) (first stage); (b) evaluates the performance (economic, social, environmental) of the sectoral (tourism) planning (second stage); (c) supports sustainable management of the tourism destination and spatial (regional) policies development through the consideration of the overall impacts (income distribution, business creation, population movement, environmental quality) for the destination in reference to its carrying capacity (third stage).

1. Introduction Since the introduction of the concept of Sustainable Development in 1990s, the global tourism sector has been primed for some fundamental changes on the ways of planning and decision making. The Sustainable Tourism and Tourism Development consensus (EU Council Directive 95/57/EC) emphasizes on the necessity for the design and development of systemic frameworks and operational tools that allow tourism monitoring and the evaluation of its performance and impacts. Such frameworks and tools may aid the complex, multi-dimensional, decision-making problems regarding the sustainable planning and the implementation of effective policies (tourism destination management).

Along the international literature, tourism appears to be the base of sustenance and development for local societies of a great number of coastal and insular areas. In the majority of cases, the assessment of tourism performance is limited to the evolution of the number of (foreign and domestic) tourists in a referenced destination, in comparison to the previous years or to other competitive destinations. The economic performance of the activity is generally evaluated through tourism expenditure, and its entailed impacts on various indices, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), investments, foreign currency inflow, imports, tax revenue, etc. Tourism’s social performance, the other important parameter is assessed through the direct employment created along its qualitative characteristics (gender, age, qualification level, seasonality), as well as its indirect effects on social structure and welfare.

Thus, the main question arising here is how one can measure the performance of tourism and link it to the sustainable development of the destination where it is developped. All that, while taking under consideration the number of academics (e.g. Hunter 1997; Ko 2001; Schianetz, Kavanagh & Lockington, 2007; Spilanis, Vayanni & Glyptou, 2009; Castellani & Sala, 2009) and of international organisations studies (UNWTO, UNEP, EU) who note that an initial assessment of the state of tourism includes firstly structural issues (supply, demand and organization of the tourism market), which influence and relate to the state of sustainability of a destination (economic, social and environmental footprints of tourism).

Moreover, since the 90s, many researchers (e.g. Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hunter, 1997; Swarbrooke, 1999; Gortazar & Marin, 1999; Tosun, 2001; Rebollo & Baidal, 2003; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Bramwell, 2004; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004; Ko, 2005; Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2005) encourage reception communities and destinations to accrete their tourism development along the context of Sustainability that integrates simultaneously the dimensions of economy, society and the environment. Yet, the majority of proposed methodologies appear to focus mainly on the economic or lately on the environmental impacts related to the tourism activity (IUCN, 2001; Niemejer & de Groot, 2008; COM, 2009), while the social dimension is usually not adequately recognized or included in the analysis along with the other two (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Hahn, 2000; Mayer, 2008).

On the same time, a substantial number of studies raise concern over the consequences on the host community (e.g. impacts), tourism is accountable for. A number of researchers (e.g. Clarke, 1997; Rebollo & Baidal, 2003; Enright & Newton, 2004; Choia & Sirakayab, 2006) attempted to describe them mostly qualitatively and occasionally quantitatively, but nevertheless , without identifying and explaining how they are linked with tourism and what processes have brought them forward. The core limitation of these studies, however, is their lack to differentiate between the actual and acute direct effects resulting for the tourism product per se, that on a second stage, lead to overall impacts for the hosting destination. This differentiation is essential in order to detach the footprint of tourism activity itself, from the one entailed for the host destination by tourism activity. To better clarify this differentiation, one should consider that similar tourism effects may provoke impacts of totally different size in host destinations of different characteristics (e.g. size, location, structure).

On the basis of these observations, this paper is structured around two sections: the first elaborates on the development of a methodology that satisfies the scientific objective of an integrative tourism performance and impact assessment tool in support of sustainable planning, while the second, presents indicative results of a comparative study on Mediterranean tourism destinations (Profile of Sustainability in some Mediterranean Tourist Destinations, Plan Blue 2012), aiming mainly to illustrate the operationability of the methodology and to highlight empirically applicability gaps due to data collection and coherence disparities among the different sources.

2. Operationalizing Tourism Destination Sustainability Following closely the concept of sustainability that underlines the need to consider equally all three economic, environmental and social dimensions, we introduce The Tourism Sustainability Assessment and Policy Approach, a new methodological framework rooted in the simultaneous integrative nature of sustainability. In order to address the differentiation between effects and impacts, as well as the inter-linkages with their causes, we propose a framework that lays on a delineated inductive three-stage structure: (a) the tourism flows and profile of the host destination (i.e., supply, demand and organization of the tourism market), (b) the direct effects (performance) of tourism product, and, (c) the overall impacts that tourism results for the host destination. In this way, the framework links directly and inductively causes with their effects and impacts and makes possible the tracing of the exact sequence of the cause-effect-impact drivers, while adjusting to the specificities of the decision context (structural, political, cultural). In turn, the framework may serve as a triple – contemplating tool that enhances the monitoring function concerning the activity (investments. flows, physical presence of the activity) (first stage), evaluating the effectiveness of the sectoral (tourism) planning (second stage), or aid tourism destination management and spatial (regional) policies development through the consideration of the overall impacts for the destination (third stage).

The assessment of tourism activity as a driving force of changes in a destination presumes the evaluation of its performance within the three dimensions of sustainability. Given that the tourism profile of the destination is defined in terms of supply, demand and organization (stage one), we build on the dominant paradigm in economics: the utility concept (e.g., Schoemaker, 1982) in order to introduce a three-stage framework wherein the three dimensions of sustainability: economy, society and environment are hypothesized to determine the overall performance (i.e., utility) derived from the tourism product (second stage) and the overall state of sustainability of the hosting destination (stage three). Using recent theoretical advances (e.g., De Ridder et al., 2007; Spilanis et al., 2009), applied research findings (e.g., MATISSE, 2008), and public policy agencies’ and international organizations’ reports (e.g., Eurostat; WTO, 2009) in the field of tourism’s performance assessment, we extensively elaborate on the attribute indicators related to each stage of our proposed methodological framework.

2.1. Tourism Flows and Profile of host destinations

On a first stage, the quantification of supply and demand elements of tourism activity, and its supporting services are considered according to EUROSTAT’s Methodological Work on Measuring the Sustainable Development of Tourism (EUROSTAT, 2006) suggested indicators. On the supply side, the elements describing the type of the tourism product in a destination are, among others: the number, type and size of tourism establishments (hotels, restaurants, spas, marinas, golf fields, conference centers) and the quality of general infrastructures (e.g., roads, ports, airports, energy production, waste and sewage treatment plants, telecommunications), which are constructed to satisfy the needs of tourism activity. Demand is expressed mainly through the actual numbers of tourists

visiting the area (arrivals) and by the number of nights spent - per nationality and per type of accommodation. This information load facilitates the evaluation of other attribute indicators such as, the average duration of trips, the seasonality and the occupancy rate (WTO, 2000). Lumsdon (1997) claims that linkages between the productive units of the tourism sector describe the level of organization of the tourism market in the host destination (e.g., presence of different size companies) and its links with the global market (share of national-international demand, presence of Tour Operators).

2.2. Direct Effects of the tourism product

The second stage includes the assessment of the direct effects of tourism product (tourism footprint), which denotes of the objective performance through the evaluation of its actual economic, social and environmental effects. These effects refer to all the direct and acute results entailed by the activity, and thus, are of sectoral (tourism) character. They are reflected through tourist expenditure and employment, consumption of resources and production of wastes and effluents respectively (Spilanis et al., 2009). Henceforth, the terms of direct effects and tourism performance are used interchangeably.

More precisely, the economic effect of the tourists that visit a destination is recorded through their expenditures during their trip. The expenditure consists of accommodation costs, alimentation, transportation, spending on other activities, among others (EUROSTAT, 1998). The total tourist expenditure fluctuates may depend on the number of nights spent, the type of tourist and the type of tourism product (based on the trip motivations patterns but also on the local supply), the duration of the trip (Page & Connell, 2006). The expenditure per night spent is an important indicator in order to appreciate the economic effectiveness of the total tourism activity (EUROSTAT, 2006). It effectuates comparisons in time and space but also the differentiation between different tourism products (e.g., 3S-Sea, Sand & Sun tourism, cultural or natural tourism) and different types of organization (e.g., local, regional, national); occupancy rate and the revenues per room have similar importance for tourism installations (Frechtling, 2006).

Evidently, tourism generates direct employment (social effect) in the accommodation sector and other local services, such as restaurants, bars, travel agencies, entertainment, car rentals and other activities and has the potential to change the demographic patterns of a destination (Eurostat methodology). The social dimension of tourism, as considered in our three stage model, involves quantitative information regarding employment in all sectors directly related to the activity, but also qualitative (demographic-based) information related to their, for example, level of education, gender, and type of contract (EUROSTAT, 1998).

Finally, environmental performance is related to the pressures resulting from tourism activity mainly through the consumption of natural resources (Coccossis & Tsartas, 2001). Hence, environmental effects can be distinguished between permanent such as land use changes, and and operational, referring to the consumption of natural resources as water and energy and the production of solid and liquid waste (Niemejer & de Groot, 2008).

2.3. Overall impacts for the Host Destination

The third stage of the tool evaluates the overall impact of tourism on the state of sustainability of a destination. Impacts refer to the implications of tourism effects on the destination at stake, include the overall results (direct and indirect) of tourism, and thus, relate to its spatial dimension (local, regional, national). The question at stake concerns the way and the extent that tourism activity contributed to: the capacity of destination’s economy to be strong and competitive, the provision of employment and

fair income distribution for the inhabitants, and the preservation of destination ecosystem’s capacity to provide goods and services (Spilanis et al., 2009).

The assessment of the economic effectiveness of a destination is necessary in order to record its competitiveness and to provide information on its perspectives towards sustainability. Tourism impact on the local economy is addressed through several indicators such as the evolution of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the demand for non tourist goods and services (indirect and induced demand), the emergence of new businesses having direct or indirect relation with tourism (as well as the extinction of existing ones), the diversification of private and public investment (COM, 2009).

Social justice/equity records the diffusion of the benefits arising from economic growth to the overall society; it is reflected in the structure and evolution of the population and in social cohesion (EUROSTAT, 1998). Total direct tourism employment is a basic indicator for changes in the population structure of the area, as it may impact the percentage of active and employed population, the percentage of female and young employment, the migration flows, the total income and the income distribution in the area (Notarstefano, 2007).

Environmental conservation concerns the capacity of the natural capital to ensure the supply of environmental goods and services to a society and to preserve ecosystem functions (e.g., the provision of drinking water and sea food, the absorption of wastes and UV radiation, pollination). The quality of sea water, the quantity and the quality of drinking water, the area’s biodiversity, the quality of the soil, the atmosphere, the landscape, and the urban environment are major issues of environmental preservation and secure the maintenance or even the improvement of the quality of life. In this study, both the built and cultural environments are also viewed as natural environment, since they are not renewable resources (Niemejer & de Groot, 2008), yet they are also crucial components of the tourism product (Coccossis & Tsartas, 2001 ) as well as they contribute to the quality of life (Costanza et al., 1997).

2.4. The Tourism Sustainability Assessment and Policy Approach

The proposed tool builds on the DPSIR (Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) approach to determine the cause-effect-impact relations quantitatively between the different attributes1 of tourism (OECD, 1993; Peirce 1998). The DPSIR framework is based on the operationalization of the concept of functional causality, which points to the linkages between human activities and their environmental implications and helps decision makers to understand their interconnections in order to adopt appropriate measures (OECD, 1993; Niemejer & de Groot, 2008). DPSIR is settled in our context, in such a way that also incorporates the economic and social dimensions and accounts for the specificities of the tourism sector. The delineated structure of this new tool may allow the reporting on the state of sustainability in a comprehensive way (determination of cause-effect-impact inter-linkages), while ensuring that none important tourism-related parameter (attribute indicators) has been overlooked.

Thus, the question to be answered is whether and to what extent tourism activity has influenced GDP changes and the structure of the local economy, population changes and structure as well as income distribution, the availability of drinking water, soil quality, biodiversity, the landscape and the other components of the environment. This is not always easy, since the situation in any given area is the result of all local activities (including activities that meet the needs of the local community) but also of nationwide and worldwide economic, technological, demographic and environmental changes.

1 Henceforth, with the term attributes we imply all the elements of the tourism market outlook (i.e., supply, demand and organization), the direct effects of the tourism product and the overall impacts entailed for the host destination.

However, on the hypotheses that tourism has to be considered as one of the driving forces for economic, social and environmental changes that affect the state (and the sustainability) of the destination area2, must be differenced the structural causes of changes (driving force), the direct effects of the tourism structure on the economical, social and environmental states (results and performances) to give a definition of the profile of sustainability of a destination (Impacts).

Table 1 : The Tourism Sustainability Assessment and Policy Approach

Tourism as Driving Force

Tourism output

Tourism Result and Performance

(Direct Effects)

Tourism Impact to the State of Sustainability of a Destination

(Total effects)

Tourism Infrastructures General Infrastructures

Tourism resources

Tourist Arrivals

Tourist Nights Spent

Economy:

Tourism Expenditure

Economy:

GDP evolution Competitive sectors

Degree of specialisation

Society:

Direct Employment in tourism activities

Society:

Population evolution & structure Life expectancy

Income distribution

Environment:

Energy consumption Water consumption Waste production Land use change

Environment:

Water quantity Drinking water quality

Sea water quality Land quality Biodiversity Air quality

Landscape quality Urban quality

Source: Spilanis I, Vagianni L., & Glyptou K, 2010

Consequently, all variables describing tourism structure and flows (first two columns of Table 1), explain on a first stage tourism direct effects (column 3) as generation of incomes, employment and natural resources consumption. On a second stage, these effects impact overall (directly and indirectly) the economic, social and environmental structure of a host destination. To provoke sustainable changes, and considering that there is no upper limit on sustainability, tourism must contribute to the highest possible welfare and long-term sustainability of a destination with high economic, social and environmental performance.

3. Empirical findings from some Mediterranean tourism destinations

In the context of the Plan Bleu programme of activities “Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean” (2009-2011), the “Profile of Sustainability in some Mediterranean Tourist Destinations” project came out of the recommendations of the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable

2 Agriculture, manufacture, energy, transport and population needs are some of the other main driving forces.

Development (MSSD), which was adopted in 2005 by the Contracting Parties of the Barcelona Convention. Its main objective was to assess the economic, ecological and social footprint of tourism activities, as well as to provide a common tool for monitoring and promoting sustainable tourism development, based on the detailed analysis of eleven destinations located in eight Mediterranean countries (Figure 1).

The “profiles of sustainability” correspond to the territorial assessments of different situations – in terms of maturity and life cycle of the destinations (longitudinal approach), the spatial and temporal distribution of tourism flows and seasonality effects, the economic benefits for local society, development of local potentials of each destination – for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each model in terms of spatial and temporal distribution of tourist flows, patterns of “rejuvenation” (diversification) of destinations, and uses of natural, cultural and historical heritage.

Figure 1. Mediterranean case study tourism destinations

Source: Plan Blue, 2012.

On a first stage, the analysis of tourism as driving force reveals interesting findings on the applied developmental model and the pressures exerted by tourism on host destinations, as a result of both elements of demand (number of beds) but also the delimitation (size) of the destination. Occasionally, the difficulty lies in the distinction of the area where tourism activity is developed, since it can be spread throughout the whole town or it is concentrated in a delimited part of it. The pressure also depends on the number of second homes, which are increasing in number everywhere, even if quantitative information is not available in all the destinations to support this statement.

Figure 2. Tourism pressure indicators:

(a, left Figure) beds per capita of population, (b, right Figure) beds per surface area

Source: Plan Blue, 2012.

Findings from Figure 2, suggest that destinations with a small population and an integrated pattern of development (e.g. Castelsardo, Siwa Oasis) have a rather high score for social pressure (beds per capita of population), even if the number of nights spent by tourists is very low compared to larger destinations. This is the case for El Alamein where a “huge” tourism area of 2,000 tourism beds (social index 5.33) and 12,600 beds in second homes are located near a small village of 1,841inhabitants. Environmental pressure (beds per surface area) in a given destination, on the other hand, may vary significantly depending on which area is taken into account: administrative or tourism area. Applying the first measure, Torremolinos is the only destination with a very high score followed by Rovinj; while by second measure, Alanya, Djerba and Torremolinos, the three largest destinations in the project, seem to have the highest environmental pressure with more than 3,000 beds per km.

On the supply side, a comparative analysis may reveal interestingly the profile of the destinations under study. Tourism infrastructure (presence or absence of an airport, a port for cruise etc..), leisure (presence of beach, golf sports, wellness centers, etc..) host events (conference centers etc..), culture (organization of cultural events, museums, historical heritage value etc..) and natural resources, as depicted for Torremolinos and Cabras in Figure 3, suggest the great diversification of the two tourism products: Torremolinos, the beach destination and Cabras, the cultural and natural resources destination.

Figure 3 : Tourism & Leisure infrastructures in Torremolinos and Cabras

Source: data of NAVARRO JURADO E. for Torremolinos and SATTA A. for Cabras, treated by BOURSE L., Plan Bleu, 2012.

Moving on to the assessment of direct economic effects of tourism and overall impacts on the destinations, Table 2 summarizes all available economic information and data. It appears that, mass tourism destinations (e.g. Alanya, Djerba and Torremolinos) have the advantage of long(er) seasonality and high(er) total tourism expenditure, even if they present low expenditure per capita (tourist). In these destinations, tourism constitutes a “mono-culture” and is characterized by high economic leakages. On the other hand, destinations with distinctive tourism products (e.g. Cabras, Castelsardo, Rovinj and Siwa Oasis) tend to have well-developed local assets in combination with low TO involvement, resulting in a high expenditure per tourist and low economic leakages but also high seasonality. As expected, however, in several destinations (e.g. El Alamein, the Tetouan coastal area and Alanya) domestic tourists normally spend more than foreign tourists that arrive through TOs.

Table 2. Economic indicators of studied destinations

Source: Plan Blue, 2012.

In terms of measuring the change induced by tourism on the economy of a destination, the developed method allows to visualize the impact of tourism on the creation of wealth. Figure 4 suggests that in the case of Alanya, tourism is a major contributor in the overall GDP of the area. Interestingly enough, Tourism GDP (along overall GDP) in the area rises to its picks after 2000, when on the same time, probably due to the implementation of economies of scale, profitability per night spent meets sharp decreases.

Figure 4 : Changes in Alanya (€)

Source: data treated by BOURSE L., Plan Bleu, 2012.

Results and impacts of tourism on social equity (Table 3) include: (i) direct employment generated by tourism (HORECA employment) and its characteristics: gender of employees, duration of employment (contract type), employee qualifications (educational level), location of employees’ permanent residence; (ii) how this employment impacts the population dynamics and structure (e.g. activity rate, female activity, educational level) and per capita income. Even though there is typically no information about changes in direct employment, the number of employees in tourism is generally assumed to be increasing in the same direction (growth) as the change in accommodation supply, but not necessarily at the same rate. In some mature destinations such as Torremolinos, there has been a decline in employment in recent years as occupancy rates and prices have declined. This demonstrates rational human resource management: cost cuts in the face of falling revenue and increasing competition. Yet, in 3S mass international destinations which are dominated by TOs, even though the operational period covers almost the whole year and permanent

employment is normally higher, employment per bed is not high due to efforts to rationalize human resource costs in order to compete with other similar destinations.

Table 3. Social indicators of studied destinations

Source: Plan Blue, 2012.

Environmental pressure and impact from human presence can generally be estimated by the number of people concentrated in an area. An initial estimate of the maximum pressure from tourism is measured by the number of tourist beds in all types of accommodation per unit of area. In our case studies, this figure is very high for 3S mass tourism destinations (calculated between 3,400 and 4,800 beds per km for the tourism area). It appears to be also quite high in destinations such as El Alamein (1,000), Marsa Matrouh (625), Rovinj (503) and the Tetouan coastal area (472). A finer analysis is needed to examine the pressures and impacts on every component of the environment, based on well documented information about the direct effects of tourism: land use changes, biodiversity losses, energy and water consumption, solid waste and wastewater production, noise, etc. However, such information is not always comparable, not to mention the difficulty of its availability. In general, environmental pressure is very high, mainly in the 3S mass tourism destinations (international and domestic, including Rovinj) and primarily concentrated on the coastal strip (beach front) of a generally disfigured shoreline. Urbanisation of an area is one of the main and permanent results of tourism in a destination. The impact of tourism on landscapes, biodiversity, quality of the urban environment and natural resource quality (mainly beaches) depends on the development model and the extent to which rules and restrictions have been applied. However, functional problems related to drinking water quantity and quality, seawater quality, energy consumption, and noise are mainly prominent in 3S mass destinations.

4. Conclusions The objective of this study was the development of a new methodological and analytical framework in support of the sustainability assessment of the state of tourism activity and its impacts for a host destination. In this regard, we proposed a general framework, the Tourism Sustainability Assessment and Policy Approach, a methodology based on an extended version of the DPSIR approach (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses), with common definitions of sustainable tourism and sustainable destinations. Through its application in 11 Mediterranean destinations, we illustrated empirically that tourism destination development when abides by coherent and consistent principles and indicators of sustainability may advance credible understanding of the cause-effect-

impact inter-linkages, and thus, may support coherent monitoring and assessing of tourism development systems and destinations. On balance, our results demonstrate the applicability, robustness, and the potential of the proposed operational tool that is based on a multi-dimensional and multi-stage assessment approach.

Although it is a challenge to extract direct operational decision-aid for tourism management, given the specificities of each destination, we are still able to suggest a broad classification of the selected destinations within three distinct groups: (a) Alanya, Djerba, Torremolinos, the 3S (Sea, Sun and Sand) resorts offering an international (global) product. All three are mature destinations where many variables indicate a saturation, even a decline of the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the host area (economic and social performance falling, serious environmental problems, problems in attracting tourists, high costs for “rejuvenation” to maintain their attractiveness, and issues of quality of life for residents), following a period of major economic growth, that has totally transformed the destinations, their economy, environment and society. (b) El Alamein, Marsa Matrouh, the Tetouan coastal area and Tipaza, the 3S resorts/towns with a domestic character, are destinations where the predominance of increasing domestic demand has led to a large number of residential homes, rather than to the overall development of the tourism economy, thus, jeopardizing destination’s sustainability. This type of offer, dictated more by real estate developers than by a planned tourism development process, has negative impact on the environment without generating clear positive socio-economic results: black economy, low employment, and low impact on the economy in general. c) Cabras, Castelsardo, Rovinj, Siwa Oasis, which all share a distinctive tourism product and local character. Their common feature is that all of them have promoted their destination based on their cultural and natural assets, rather than on the “sun, sea, sand” mantra. In these destinations, the “place” matters and tourism activity seems to be better integrated into the local economy with high performance, which might be considered as a route towards sustainable development. The main “disadvantage” is the lower socioeconomic results compared to other destinations, due to high seasonality.

Overall, the suggested framework serves the necessity for an integrative tool which: (a) specifies explicitly those indicators necessary for the assessment of tourism activity’s sustainability in terms of direct effects, but also its impacts on the overall state of sustainability of the host destination, (b) encompasses available data and information from different sources on the selected indicators, and suggest the way for their integration and manipulation towards tourism and tourism destination sustainability assessment, (c) identifies existing data gaps (e.g. necessity on data from non collective types of accommodation and residential housing, direct employment in non collective types of accommodation, environmental footprint data, tourism provoked land use changes), (d) allows for the prioritizing and weight assigning of each indicator based on the specificities of each destination’s reality (e.g. water availability, carrying capacity of a destination), (e) has the potential to serve as a monitoring and continuous assessment tourism system, able to detect both, ex-ante potential problems of tourism-related sustainability, but also the exact cause that provoked them ex-post through its delineated structure, and thus, (f) may serve in support of policy planning and decision making towards sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism destination development.

REFERENCES

Bramwell, B. (2004). Mass tourism, diversification and sustainability in southern Europe’s coastal regions. In: B. Bramwell (ed.) Coastal Mass Tourism: Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe. (pp. 1-31). Great Britain: Channel View Publications.

Castellani, V. & Sala S. (2009). Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development, Tourism Management, In Press, Available online 24 October 2009.

Coccossis, H. & Tsartas, P. (2001). Sustainable tourism development and the environment, Athens: Kritiki. (In Greek).

COM (2009). GDP and beyond-Measuring progress in a changing world. Brussels 20.8.2009. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, 433 final.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R, de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387 , 253-260.

De Ridder, W., Tunpenny, J , Nilsoon, M. & Von Raggamby. A. (2007). A framework for tool selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, 9(4), 423-441.

European Council (2001). Presidency Conclusions – Göteborg European Council, 15-16 June 2001.

European Council (2006). Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) Renewed Strategy, 10917/06. (available online at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10117.en06.pdf ).

EUROSTAT (2011). European Commision Statistics Webportal (last accessed 02.2011)http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

EUROSTAT (1998). Community methodology on tourism statistics. lSBN 92-828-1921-38

EUROSTAT (2006). Methodological Work on Measuring the Sustainable Development of Tourism; Part 2: Manual on sustainable development of tourism indicators, 2006 Edition, ISBN 1725-0684.

Frechtling, D.C. (2006). An assessment of visitor expenditure methods and models. Journal of Travel Research, 45(1), 26-35.

Finland’s Ministry of the Environment (2007). Existing Assessment Tools and Indicators: Building up Sustainability Assessment (available online at: http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=73204&lan=en).

Gortazar, L. & Marin, C. (1999). Tourism and Sustainable Development: From Theory to Practice – The Island Experience. Canary Islands: Gobierno de Canarias, Consejería de Tourismo Transportes, Viceconsejería de Tourismo and International Scientific Council for Island Development (INSULA).

Ko, T.G. (2005). Development of a tourism sustainability assessment procedure: a conceptual approach. Tourism Management, 26, 431–445.

Lee, N. & Kirkpatrick, C. (2001). Methodologies for sustainability impact assessments of proposals for new trade agreements. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, 3(3), 395-412.

Le Tellier J., Spilanis I., Vayanni H. (2012). Towards an observatory and a “quality label” for sustainable tourism in the Mediterranean. Plan Bleu, Valbonne. (Blue Plan Papers 12).

Lumsdon, L. (1997). Tourism Marketing. London: Thomson.

MATISSE (2008). EU-funded project- Methods and Tools for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (available online at: http://www.matisse-project.net/projectcomm/)

Mayer, A.L. (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environment International, 34(2), 277–291.

Ness, Barry et al. (2007), Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60, 498-508.

Niemejer, D & de Groot, R.S. (2008). Framing environmental indicators: moving from causal chains to causal networks. Environment Development Sustainability, 10, 89-106.

Notarstefano, C. (2007). European sustainable tourism, context, concepts and guidelines for action. Paper presented in the Global Jean Monnet Conference 2007-The European Union and World Sustainable Development, Brussels, November 2007.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (1993), OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A synthesis report by the Group on the State of the Environment, Environment Monographs, No 83, Paris.

Page, S. J. & Connell, J. (2006). Tourism: A Modern Synthesis. 2nd Edition. London: Thomson.

Pope, J. et al. (2004). Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment, 24, 595-616

Rotmans, J. (2006). Tools for integrated sustainability assessment: A two-track approach. The Integrated Assessment Journal, Bridging Sciences & Policy, 6(4), 35-57.

Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1982). The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2), 529–563.

Spilanis, I, Vayanni, H & Glyptou, K. (2009). Profile of sustainability in some mediterranean tourism destinations: The evaluating framework. UNEP, Plan Blue.

Vaughan, D. R., Farr, H., & Slee R. W. (2000). Estimating and interpreting the local economic benefits of visitor spending: An explanation. Leisure Studies, 19, 95–118.

WTO (2000). Measuring Total Tourism Demand. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.

WTO Tourism Barometer April 2010 & June 2010.