| Literature DB >> 35984561 |
Qadar Bakhsh Baloch1, Syed Naseeb Shah1, Nadeem Iqbal2, Muhammad Sheeraz3, Muhammad Asadullah4, Sourath Mahar5, Asia Umar Khan6.
Abstract
The empirical research investigated the relationship between tourism development and environmental suitability to propose a framework for sustainable ecotourism. The framework suggested a balance between business and environmental interests in maintaining an ecological system with the moderating help of government support and policy interventions. The study population encompasses tourism stakeholders, including tourists, representatives from local communities, members of civil administration, hoteliers, and tour operators serving the areas. A total of 650 questionnaires were distributed to respondents, along with a brief description of key study variables to develop a better understanding. After verifying the instrument's reliability and validity, data analysis was conducted via hierarchical regression. The study findings revealed that a substantial number of people perceive socio-economic benefits, including employment and business openings, infrastructure development from tourism development, and growth. However, the state of the natural and environmental capital was found to be gradually degrading. Alongside the social environment, social vulnerability is reported due to the overutilization of land, intrusion from external cultures, and pollution in air and water due to traffic congestion, accumulation of solid waste, sewage, and carbon emissions. The study suggested a model framework for the development of sustained ecotourism, including supportive government policy interventions to ensure effective conservation of environmental and natural resources without compromising the economic viability and social well-beings of the locals. Furthermore, the variables and the constructs researched can be replicated to other destinations to seek valuable inputs for sustainable destination management elsewhere.Entities:
Keywords: Ecosystem and biodiversity; Ecotourism framework; Environmental sustainability and degradation; Natural environment; Tourism development and growth
Year: 2022 PMID: 35984561 PMCID: PMC9389488 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-22496-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Conceptual framework
Sample configuration
| Participants | Number |
|---|---|
| Civil administration members | 10 |
| Hotel managers—10 from each destination | 100 |
| Tourists operators—2 × each from each destination | 20 |
| Community representatives | 20 |
| Tourists—50 from each destination | 500 |
| Total sample size | 650 |
Field survey—2021
Instrument reliability
| Variables | No. of items | α-reliability |
|---|---|---|
| Tourism Growth and Development | 5 | .93 |
| Depletion of Natural Resource | 3 | .97 |
| Pollution | 3 | .89 |
| Physical Effects on Ecosystem | 4 | .91 |
| Socio-Cultural Degradation | 3 | .95 |
| Economic Environment | 3 | .88 |
| Government Interventions and Support | 5 | .94 |
Correlation matrix
| M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourism growth and development | 4.45 | 0.57 | 1 | ||||||
| Pollution | 2.89 | 0.80 | .20** | 1 | |||||
| Physical effects on ecosystem | 2.89 | 0.81 | .19** | .68** | 1 | ||||
| Depletion of natural resources | 3.23 | 1.07 | .24** | .76** | .76** | 1 | |||
| Socio-cultural degradation | 3.24 | 1.05 | .18** | .75** | .75** | .66** | 1 | ||
| Economic environment | 4.19 | 0.58 | .29** | .06 | .05 | .07 | .06 | 1 | |
| Government interventions and support | 3.25 | 0.70 | .13* | .58** | .41** | .56** | .67** | .20** | 1 |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
Regression analysis for H1–H5
| Tourism growth and development | ||
|---|---|---|
| Depletion of natural resources | 0.20** | 0.041 |
| Pollution | 0.19** | 0.039 |
| Physical effects on ecosystem | 0.24** | 0.060 |
| Socio-cultural degradation | 0.18** | 0.036 |
| Economic environment | 0.29** | 0.088 |
**p < 0.01
Moderation analysis
| Variables | Depletion of natural resources | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tourism and Growth | 0.20** | 0.19** | 0.24** | 0.18** | 0.29** |
| Government Interventions | 0.51** | 0.49* | 0.54* | 0.43** | 0.52* |
| 0.63 | 0.34 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.25 | |
| Tourism and Growth × Government Interventions | − 0.07** | − 0.12* | − 0.23* | − 0.13** | 0.14* |
| 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.57 | 0.49 | 0.42 | |
| 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.17 | |
* p < 0.05;** p < 0.01