Evaluation of Ecotourism Opportunities for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive

Approach and Ecotourism Opportunity Index for Alula, Saudi Arabia

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Riyan Mohammed Sahahiri

MSc in Geospatial Science, RMIT University, Australia

ORCID number: 0000-0003-2430-9574

School of Science

College of Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths

RMIT University
Australia

August 2023
AUTHOR’S DECALARATION

I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, this research is that of the
author alone; the content of this research submission is the result of work which has been carried
out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work,
paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and
guidelines have been followed.

In addition, I certify that this submission contains no material previously submitted for award of
any qualification at any other university or institution, unless approved for a joint-award with
another institution, and acknowledge that no part of this work will, in the future, be used in a
submission in my name, for any other qualification in any university or other tertiary institution
without the prior approval of the University, and where applicable, any partner institution
responsible for the joint-award of this degree.

I acknowledge that copyright of any published works contained within this thesis resides with
the copyright holder(s) of those works.

I give permission for the digital version of my research submission to be made available on the
web, via the University’s digital research repository, unless permission has been granted by the
University to restrict access for a period of time.

I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision of an Australian
Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Riyan Mohammed Sahahiri

31 August 2023

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is an important task to acknowledge all those people who have contributed to the culmination
of this thesis. It is nearly impossible to thank everybody who was directly or indirectly involved
in this achievement. It has been a considerably long journey, full of personal and scientific
experience that has enriched my life. The journey has had many ups and downs, but I have
discovered my strength, enhanced my skills, and learned to be at peace with myself. Therefore,
I am so proud of this journey and the opportunity to sail into the ocean of knowledge and learn
about the updated technology of geospatial science. Finally, I would like to thank myself for
being patient and positive through this journey. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to
my first supervisor, Dr. Amy Griffin, for her invaluable guidance and support throughout my
research. She provided me with the freedom to explore my ideas and the confidence to pursue
them. Her insight and enthusiasm for the research were instrumental in helping me reach my
goals. Her extensive knowledge of the field and willingness to provide constructive feedback
were essential to successfully completing my thesis. I am very grateful for the generous
investment of her time and energy in helping me reach this milestone. She opened the door for
our work to be publishable in the highly-rated journals in our field. Practically, this achievement
would not be possible without her support. I am also deeply grateful to my second supervisor,
Dr. Chayn Sun, for her unwavering support and encouragement throughout my research. She
was always available to answer my questions and provided me with helpful advice when needed.
Her enthusiasm for the project and her expertise in the field were instrumental in helping me
reach my goals. I am very thankful for her enthusiasm and the valuable time she invested in my
project.
No words can express my gratitude and thanks to my entire family. My parents provided all
possible support and encouragement without any hesitation, whatever the situation was. My mum
was responsible for my educational performance and academic achievement from the early
stages of education. I often remember her words in the hard times and ask her prayers for me to
move forward. Thanks to my brothers and sisters for their love, support, and blessing. My
beloved wife has been my rock and my greatest source of inspiration. Her unwavering support
and love make every challenge seem conquerable and every success twice as sweet. Her wisdom
and kindness are my daily reminders of what true love means. Thank you for making every day
brighter and always being beside me. Thanks to all my friends inside RMIT and outside for
sharing beautiful moments.

ii
Table of Contents
AUTHOR’S DECALARATION .................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Knowledge gaps .............................................................................................................. 13
1.3 Research aims and objectives .......................................................................................... 14
1.4 Research questions .......................................................................................................... 15
1.5 Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 2 Investigating ecotourism opportunities measurements ............................................ 21
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 21
2.2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.1 Materials and methods for the systematic literature review .................................... 25
2.3.2 Sampling phase to collect literature .......................................................................... 27
2.3.3 Analytical phase to examine the literature ................................................................ 28
2.4 Results ............................................................................................................................. 29
2.4.1 Ecotourism opportunities evaluation: Scientometric analysis .................................. 30
2.4.2 Ecotourism opportunities evaluation: Quantitative analysis..................................... 38
2.4.3 Theories to comprehend ecotourism opportunities ................................................. 48
2.5 Key observations and critical discussion ......................................................................... 55
2.6 Summary of the chapter .................................................................................................. 58
Chapter 3 Evaluating ecotourism opportunities in a complex adaptive system ....................... 60
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 60
3.2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 62
3.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 66
3.3.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................. 67
3.3.2 SWOT-ECOS analysis for ecotourism opportunities identification ............................ 70

iii
 3.3.3 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 73
3.3.4 Weighting the variables (ecotourism opportunities) ................................................. 76
3.3.5 Complex adaptive systems concepts ......................................................................... 82
3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................. 84
3.4.1 Landscape potentials in Alula..................................................................................... 85
3.4.2 Summary of landscape potentials influencing ecotourism opportunities................. 87
3.4.3 Identification of ecotourism opportunities through a survey ................................... 88
3.4.4 Results from the SWOT-ECOS analysis ....................................................................... 93
3.4.5 Complexity analysis in ecotourism opportunities development ............................... 100
3.5 Key observations and critical discussion ....................................................................... 108
3.6 Summary of the chapter ................................................................................................ 113
Chapter 4 Sustainability and ecotourism opportunities: evaluating the indicators ................. 115
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 115
4.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 117
4.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 123
4.3.1 The Delphi-ECOS approach ........................................................................................ 124
4.3.2 The concept of the Delphi Method ............................................................................ 125
4.3.3 The concept of a systems diagram............................................................................. 128
4.4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 129
4.4.1 Results for the Delphi method round 1 ..................................................................... 130
4.4.2 Experts’ consensus on the Delphi method round 1 ................................................... 131
4.4.3 Results for the Delphi method round 2 ..................................................................... 133
4.4.4 Experts’ consensus on the Delphi method round 2 ................................................... 133
4.4.5 The most preferred indicators for sustainability ....................................................... 137
4.4.6 Systems diagram for ecotourism opportunities ........................................................ 138
4.5 Key observations and critical discussion ....................................................................... 143
4.6 Summary of the chapter ................................................................................................ 154
Chapter 5 Developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI) ............................................ 156
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 156
5.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 157
5.3 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 163
5.3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis in ecotourism opportunities evaluation ..................... 165

iv
 5.3.2 The Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis (EOGA) ................................................. 170
5.3.3 Developing the Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI) ................................................ 174
5.4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 180
5.4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis results .......................................................................... 181
5.4.2 Ecotourism Opportunity Index scores ....................................................................... 194
5.5 Key observations and critical discussion ....................................................................... 216
5.6 Summary of the chapter ................................................................................................ 229
Chapter 6 Summary and conclusion ....................................................................................... 231
6.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 231
6.2 Summary of research question 1 ................................................................................... 232
6.3 Summary of research question 2 ................................................................................... 234
6.4 Summary of research question 3 ................................................................................... 236
6.5 The main implications of the study ............................................................................... 240
6.6 Limitations of the research ............................................................................................ 244
6.7 Future Directions ........................................................................................................... 246
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 250
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 274

v
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. The structure of Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................5
Figure 1.2. The research questions’ hierarchy to develop an Ecotourism Opportunity Index
(EOI) ..................................................................................................................................16
Figure 1.3. Workflow chart to develop the ecotourism opportunity index .................................19
Figure 1.4. Structure of the thesis chapters .................................................................................20
Figure 2.1. Structure of Chapter 2: Investigating ecotourism opportunities measurements ......22
Figure 2.2 Workflow chart to investigate literature on ecotourism opportunities measurements’
...........................................................................................................................................26
Figure 2.3. PRISMA protocol with snowballing technique ........................................................28
Figure 2.4. The organisation of the results section after the literature review............................30
Figure 2.5. A visualization of the Document Co-citation Network (DCN) ................................31
Figure 2.6. Author Co-citation Network (ACN) .........................................................................32
Figure 2.7. Journal Co-citation Network (JCN)..........................................................................34
Figure 2.8. Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis ............................................................................35
Figure 2.9. Top fifteen keywords with the strongest citation bursts ...........................................35
Figure 2.10. Publication trend from 2009 to 2019 (922 articles)................................................37
Figure 2.11. Spatial distribution of published articles ................................................................37
Figure 2.12. Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements (EOMs) in existing studies ..................39
Figure 2.13. Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model (Boyd and Butler, 1996) ........40
Figure 2.14. Comparison between the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model,
Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements (EOMs), and Ecotourism Potential (EP) ........41
Figure 2.15. The most important findings that can help in measuring ecotourism opportunities
...........................................................................................................................................58
Figure 3.1. Structure of Chapter 3: Evaluating ecotourism opportunities in a complex adaptive
system. ...............................................................................................................................61
Figure 3.2. Adapted methods to identify ecotourism opportunities............................................67
Figure 3.3. The location of Alula City in Saudi Arabia ..............................................................70
Figure 3.4. SWOT-ECOS analysis to identify ecotourism opportunities ...................................72
Figure 3.5. Data collection sources for ecotourism opportunities’ identification .......................73
Figure 3.6. An overview of the results section of Chapter 3 .....................................................84
Figure 3.7. Landscape potential influencing ecotourism opportunities ......................................88
Figure 3.8. Demographic information about the respondents .....................................................89

vi
Figure 3.9. Awareness about ecotourism among local residents ................................................90
Figure 3.10. Awareness of environmental protection among local residents and visitors .........91
Figure 3.11. Assessing ecotourism opportunities in Alula through visitors ...............................92
Figure 3.12. Non-linearity in strengths .....................................................................................104
Figure 3.13. Non-linearity in opportunities ..............................................................................105
Figure 3.14. Non-linearity in weaknesses .................................................................................105
Figure 3.15. Non-linearity in threats .........................................................................................106
Figure 3.16. The summary of the first research question's findings .........................................110
Figure 4.1. Structure of chapter 4, “Sustainability and ecotourism opportunities: evaluating the
indicators”........................................................................................................................116
Figure 4.2. Methodology to evaluate sustainable ecotourism indicators ..................................124
Figure 4.3. The structure of the results section to evaluate the sustainability indicators .........130
Figure 4.4 The Delphi method response distribution for the ratings of 25 potential sustainable
ecotourism opportunity indicators within five dimensions D1-D5 .................................132
Figure 4.5. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 1 (Nature) .......................134
Figure 4.6. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 2 (Environmental
education/protection) .......................................................................................................135
Figure 4.7. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 3 (Sustainability) ............135
Figure 4.8. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 4 (Socio-cultural benefits)
.........................................................................................................................................136
Figure 4.9. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 5 (Tourists' satisfaction) .136
Figure 4.10. Systems diagram to illustrate the complexity of ecotourism opportunities .........142
Figure 4.11. The summary of the second research question's findings ....................................145
Figure 5.1. Structure of Chapter 5: Developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI) .....157
Figure 5.2. Flow chart to develop the ecotourism opportunity index .......................................165
Figure 5.3 Weighting the variables and developing the Ecotourism Opportunity Index .........165
Figure 5.4. A comparison of different approaches to evaluating weaknesses and threats ........172
Figure 5.5. The steps to conducting Ecotourism Opportunity Gap Analysis (EOGA).............174
Figure 5.6. Ecotourism Opportunity Index development process ............................................175
Figure 5.7. The structure of the results section into headings and sub-headings ......................181
Figure 5.8. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 1 ............185
Figure 5.9. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Nature” dimension .........................................................................................................186

vii
Figure 5.10. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Environmental education /protection dimension” .........................................................187
Figure 5.11. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Sustainability” dimension ..............................................................................................188
Figure 5.12. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Socio-cultural benefits” dimension ................................................................................189
Figure 5.13. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Tourists’ satisfaction” dimension ..................................................................................190
Figure 5.14. Proximity to roads across Alula’s districts (Between 2-10 Kilometres is suitable)
.........................................................................................................................................196
Figure 5.15. Proximity to historical sites across Alula’s districts (0-15 Kilometres from
accommodation is suitable) .............................................................................................197
Figure 5.16 Proximity to entertainment sites across Alula’s districts (0-15 Kilometres from the
accommodation is suitable for ecotourism activities) .....................................................198
Figure 5.17. Elevation across Alula’s districts (between 100 to 400 metres is suitable for
ecotourism activities).......................................................................................................199
Figure 5.18. Slope across Alula’s districts (0 to 35 % is suitable for ecotourism opportunities)
.........................................................................................................................................200
Figure 5.19. Vegetation density across Alula’s districts (0.2 to 1 is suitable for ecotourism) .201
Figure 5.20. Visibility across Alula’s districts.........................................................................202
Figure 5.21. District-wise ecotourism opportunity index values for the 25 sustainable indicators
.........................................................................................................................................206
Figure 5.22. Ecotourism opportunity index score for five dimensions across Alula’s districts
.........................................................................................................................................208
Figure 5.23. Ecotourism opportunity index score for Alula’s districts .....................................209
Figure 5.24. Index scores for indicators in the “Nature” dimension .......................................210
Figure 5.25. Index scores for indicators in the “Environmental education/protection”
dimension ........................................................................................................................211
Figure 5.26. Index scores for indicators in the “Sustainability” dimension .............................211
Figure 5.27. Index scores for indicators in the “Socio-cultural benefits” dimension ...............212
Figure 5.28. Index scores for indicators in the “Tourist satisfaction” dimension.....................212
Figure 5.29. Index scores for the five ecotourism opportunities dimensions across Alula’s
districts ............................................................................................................................213
Figure 5.30. Map of the distribution of ecotourism opportunities across Alula’s districts .....216
viii
Figure 5.31. The summary of the third research question's findings ........................................224
Figure 6.1. The structure of Chapter 6: Summary and conclusions.........................................232
Figure 6.2. The summary of the three research questions’ findings .........................................239

ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Scientometric analysis ...............................................................................................33
Table 2.2. Identified Dimensions (D), Criteria (C), and Indicators (N) .....................................47
Table 3.1. Sources of geospatial data..........................................................................................74
Table 3.2. Landscape potential in Alula .....................................................................................85
Table 3.3. Identified Strengths (S) in Alula ................................................................................94
Table 3.4. Identified Weaknesses (W) in Alula ..........................................................................97
Table 3.5. Identified Opportunities (O) in Alula ........................................................................98
Table 3.6. Identified Threats (T) in Alula ...................................................................................99
Table 3.7. The adaptive capacity score for each SWOT factor ................................................106
Table 4.1. Expertise of Study Respondents ..............................................................................126
Table 4.2. The Delphi method respondents’ statistics for round 1 ...........................................131
Table 4.3. The Delphi method respondents’ statistics for Round 2 ..........................................133
Table 4.4 Shortlisted sustainable ecotourism opportunities indicators .....................................137
Table 5.1. Model fit indices of round 1 and round 2 with cut-off values .................................183
Table 5.2. Reliability and validity test for round 1 and round 2 ...............................................184
Table 5.3. The description of opportunity classes, along with their opportunities ...................214

x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Abbreviation Definition
AC Adaptive capacity
AGFI Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
AI Artificial Intelligence
AVE Average Variance Extracted
BC Betweenness Centrality
CAN Author Co-citation Network
CAS Complex Adaptive System
CFI Comparative Fit Index
CR Composite Reliability
DCN Document Co-citation Network
DEM Digital Elevation Model
ECOS Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum
EOGA Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis
EOI Ecotourism Opportunity Index
EOMs Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements
EP Ecotourism potential
EWM Entropy Weight Method
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GFI Goodness-of-Fit Index
GI Geographical Investigation
GIS Geographic Information System
HDI Human Development Index
IFI Incremental Fit Index
JCN Journal Co-citation Network
MI Modification Indices
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
NFI The Normed Fit Index
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
RCU Royal Commission for Alula

xi
RMR Root Mean Square Residual
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
ROS Recreation Opportunities Spectrum
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SEM Structural Equation Modelling
SEOIs Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities Indicators
SRTM Satellite Rader Topographic Mission
SRW Standardized Regression Weight
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
TLI Tucker-Lewis Index
TOS Tourism Opportunities Spectrum
TTCI Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization
USGS United States Geological Survey
WLC Weighted Linear Combination
WSM Weight Scoring Method

xii
ABSTRACT
Ecotourism opportunity evaluation is essential for sustainable tourism management.
However, the inherent complexity of the tourism system presents considerable challenges.
This complexity arises from ecotourism opportunities' continuous adaptation,
diversification, and interconnectedness. Furthermore, the system's cascading adaptive
behaviour makes it difficult to accurately predict future outcomes, adding another challenge
for planners seeking to evaluate these opportunities. The current approaches to evaluating
ecotourism opportunities depend primarily on qualitative measures and fail to sufficiently
capture the system's dynamics. Furthermore, these methods lack a comprehensive
understanding of the relationships between local communities, tourists, and the natural
environment. This limits the evaluation of ecotourism opportunities as a sustainable
development strategy. A more systematic and comprehensive approach is needed to address
this complexity. Considering the development of ecotourism opportunities in a Complex
Adaptive System (CAS), this study proposes a systematic method for measuring the extent
of ecotourism opportunities and developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI). Alula,
Saudi Arabia, was selected as a case study due to its rapidly expanding ecotourism
opportunities, providing an efficient environment to comprehend the system’s complexity.
To develop this method, three research questions were set for this study:
1.What types of ecotourism opportunities coexist in Alula?
2.Will these opportunities contribute to sustainable tourism?
3.How can ecotourism opportunities be evaluated to develop an index for assessing potential
destinations?
The study's threefold methodology begins by identifying ecotourism opportunities using the
SWOT-Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) framework. In the second stage,
Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities Indicators (SEOIs) are compiled and validated in
their relation to the identified ecotourism opportunities using the Delphi method. In the third
stage, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is applied to test the validity and reliability of
the hypothetical relationships developed by the Delphi method. Data is collected and
analyzed using several quantitative methods, including the Weight Scoring Method (WSM),
Entropy Weight Method (EWM), Delphi method, and Ecotourism Opportunities Gap
Analysis (EOGA), resulting in the measurement of the EOI.
The findings of the first research question show that the development of ecotourism
opportunities as a CAS is shaped by external (opportunities) and internal factors (strengths).

1
The SWOT-ECOS analysis demonstrated that the destination possessed several variables
(95 strengths, 15 weaknesses, 25 opportunities and 10 threats) under five ecotourism
opportunity dimensions (nature, environmental education/protection, sustainability, socio-
cultural benefits, and tourists' satisfaction) and thirteen criteria. More opportunities have led
to more strengths across all dimensions, showing that external factors (opportunities)
influence internal (strengths) factors. In addition to this interconnection and adaptive
behaviour, the destination’s current ecotourism potential also determines its level of
adaptation to internal or external influences.
In the second research question, by applying the Delphi method, the study used expert
consensus to identify 25 interconnected SEOIs and their corresponding 120 sustainable
ecotourism opportunities (strengths and opportunities). It also developed a systems diagram
to describe how external or internal factors activate adaptations among dimensions,
indicators, and variables (ecotourism opportunities), finally influencing the sustainability of
Alula's entire ecotourism opportunities system. The findings demonstrate that no single
indicator of sustainability works in isolation because impacts in one part of the system can
change another. For instance, Saudi Vision 2030 (an external factor) influenced the
sustainable indicator “long-term economic growth” strongly by stimulating long-term
planning and infrastructure. However, in an indirect link, Saudi Vision 2030 also affected
some other variables. Although protecting threatened species and promoting natural heritage
are not a part of Saudi Vision 2030, the long-term planning it provoked with the
establishment of the Royal Commission for Alula led to actions to produce these outcomes.
This underscores the importance of a comprehensive approach to understanding the
sustainability of ecotourism, which is needed because a decision to improve one indicator,
such as biodiversity conservation, must consider its effects on others, such as local
community engagement or tourist satisfaction.
In the third research question, the relationships between the dimensions, criteria and
variables are explored quantitatively using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA
results validated the hypothetical construct that explains relationships between indicators
and variables that was developed in the second research question. From this construct, the
EOI was developed. The EOI findings demonstrate that Alula and its districts offer
promising ecotourism opportunities, and the correlation between dimensions, indicators, and
variables in the ecotourism opportunities system is complex and fluctuates based on internal
and external factors. The RCU and other government agencies can monitor the sustainability
of each of Alula’s ecotourism districts using the index and the ecotourism indicators, such
2
as the indicator “employment opportunities (N21)”, which can bring economic sustainability
to local residents. This indicator can allow the local stakeholders to monitor the percentage
of local employment that can enhance economic empowerment in the community. RCU has
initiated employment-generating programs such as the Alula Oasis. The RCU’s ambitious
aim to create the world’s largest living agricultural museum will necessitate a huge
workforce, creating employment opportunities for the local residents. By using an
employment opportunities indicator to track how many local people are hired for this project,
professionals can see how it helps the local economy. Moreover, measuring these sustainable
ecotourism opportunities can optimise resource allocation, help monitor sustainability
growth, support risk management, encourage stakeholder engagement, and serve as an
effective promotional and marketing tool.
The development of the EOI represents an innovative method for evaluating ecotourism
opportunities. It introduces a new degree of rigour to ecotourism evaluations, allowing for
more accurate comparisons and benchmarking among ecotourism destinations and
activities. The application of CAS theory to the interpretation of the results provides a more
comprehensive comprehension of the dynamics that shape ecotourism opportunities. It
broadens the theoretical landscape of the field and may serve as a crucial step for future
research employing this theoretical lens. Given the complexity of ecotourism opportunities,
this study contributes by developing comprehensive evaluation approaches, such as the
SWOT-ECOS analysis and ECOS-Delphi, that assess ecotourism opportunities qualitatively
and quantitatively. These approaches are valuable for ecotourism practitioners,
policymakers, and researchers as they provide comprehensive evaluations covering all
interconnected ecotourism opportunity dimensions, laying a solid foundation for future
sustainable ecotourism initiatives, informed decision-making, practical strategies, and
policies. The Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI) can be used to identify potential
ecotourism destinations and inform sustainable tourism plans. EOI can empower local
businesses and community leaders to make informed decisions, fostering cultural
collaboration and sustainable practices that benefit local economies while preserving
environmental and cultural integrity.

3
1 Introduction
Ecotourism is a sustainable tourism industry development. It is a nature-based, sustainable,
learning-and management-concentrated form of tourism that encourages conservation,
educates tourists and local residents, and benefits local communities economically.
Although ecotourism is attractive due to its natural, cultural, environmental, and visitor
satisfaction benefits, it is not easy to evaluate its opportunities. This is due to the complexity
of ecotourism opportunities, which incorporate numerous aspects of natural systems (such
as forests, deserts, and mountains), diverse stakeholder interests, the livelihoods of local
communities, and broader socioeconomic conditions. Therefore, measuring or evaluating
these opportunities necessitates a thorough systems-thinking approach capable of
comprehending these complexities, locating potential sites for sustainable ecotourism, and
identifying weak and strong ecotourism potential destinations. This introductory chapter
establishes a basic framework for evaluating ecotourism opportunities (as depicted in Figure
1.1). To achieve this, the chapter assesses the existing state of ecotourism research and
situates the current study within the larger, ongoing academic discourse on the topic. The
chapter then lists the current knowledge gaps on which this research will focus. Then, this
chapter outlines this research’s precise aims and objectives, providing a clear roadmap for
the subsequent chapters. It closes by defining the primary research questions to guide the
study’s development. As the cornerstone of the thesis, this chapter provides a basis for the
following discussions, with each successive chapter intended to investigate a particular
element of ecotourism opportunities measurement.

4
Figure 1.1. The structure of Chapter 1: Introduction

5
1.1 Background
The importance of tourism
People engage in tourism when they travel to and stay in locations outside their usual environment
for leisure, business, or other purposes for a period of less than one year consecutively (Weaver
and Oppermann, 2000, Sharpley and Telfer, 2002, Holden, 2016, Holloway and Humphreys,
2022). Tourism contributes to tourists’ satisfaction and generates potential economic benefits for
the local community (Burkart and Medlik, 1981, Weaver and Oppermann, 2000, Sharpley and
Telfer, 2002, Holloway and Humphreys, 2022). It constitutes a significant share of the
international economy, providing direct and indirect economic benefits, employment
opportunities, and improving infrastructure in many different locations (Weaver and Oppermann,
2000, Hall et al., 2015, Holloway and Humphreys, 2022). It may involve a wide range of activities,
including cultural and educational objectives, business visits, and recreational pursuits such as
sightseeing, shopping, and other forms of leisure activity (Burkart and Medlik, 1981, Hall and
Jenkins, 2004, O'Dell and Billing, 2005, Holloway and Humphreys, 2022). However, despite
being one of the most economically significant industries in the world, tourism is also one of the
most susceptible to disruptions (McCool and Martin, 1994, Hunter, 1997, Hardy et al., 2002, Lu
and Nepal, 2009, Ramkissoon, 2023). This is not only due to the complex interactions of internal
factors within the hospitality and tourism industry itself but also because tourism is an adaptive
system that is highly dependent on and influenced by many external and internal factors which
can severely impact the economy, the environment, and society (Baggio et al., 2010a, Hartman,
2016, UNWTO, 2022). For instance, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic served as glaring evidence
of the devastating effects of a global crisis on the tourism industry as it decreased tourism revenues
by $910 billion to $1.2 trillion. This had a broader effect, reducing the world Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) by between 1.5 percentage points and 2.8 percentage points (Higgins-Desbiolles,
2020, Duro et al., 2021).

Understanding the impacts of tourism

Globally, tourism is regarded as a positive economic force, contributing 10.3% share of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), generating one in four jobs, enhancing local communities’ incomes,
diversifying economic structures, encouraging entrepreneurship, and preserving natural and
cultural heritage (Sharpley and Telfer, 2002, Holloway and Humphreys, 2022, World Travel &
Tourism Council, 2022). It can sustain the environment and conserve cultural and historical
6
artifacts (Timothy and Boyd, 2006, Orbasli and Woodward, 2009, Hargrove, 2012). It can also
promote international understanding and tolerance, allowing people to experience different
cultures, customs, and environments. Tourism can bring in foreign exchange, which can be used
to improve infrastructure, education, and health facilities and promote other economic activities
(Cole, 2006, Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006, Niñerola et al., 2019, Holloway and
Humphreys, 2022). However, tourism’s socioeconomic and political benefits can only be achieved
through well-managed and planned tourism (Mason, 2008, Wang et al., 2014, World Travel &
Tourism Council, 2022).
If not appropriately managed, the tourism industry can deteriorate the environment, economy,
society, and culture (Archer et al., 2012, Ramkissoon, 2023). For instance, overcrowding or over-
tourism have become significant issues in many popular tourist destinations, such as Venice, Italy,
due to increased tourism (González, 2018, Seraphin et al., 2018). Santorini, Greece, and
Barcelona, Spain, have also faced adverse impacts of over-tourism (Van Knippenberg and
Sleebos, 2006, Miller et al., 2010, Goodwin, 2017, Jet, 2018). Overcrowding has a variety of
negative impacts on both tourists and residents, such as pollution, the erosion of cultural traditions,
and a decrease in the quality of life for those in the area (Mason, 2008, Hall and Lew, 2009,
Marzuki, 2011, Seraphin et al., 2018, Kara, 2019). Tourism can also harm the environment if not
managed sustainably as it requires the construction of new hotels and infrastructure, increases the
use of natural resources, and generates waste. The Maldives, a popular tourist destination, is a
prime example of environmental degradation due to tourism activities such as boat anchoring and
snorkelling, which have damaged coral reefs (Allison, 1996, Cowburn et al., 2018). In some cases,
tourism development has led to land degradation and deforestation due to the introduction of roads
and other infrastructure, resulting in biodiversity loss and a decrease in the destination’s natural
beauty (Camarda and Grassini, 2003, Archer et al., 2005, Ramkissoon, 2023). For example, in
Bali, Indonesia, the construction of tourist facilities such as hotels and restaurants has caused
substantial environmental harm, including significant deforestation and land degradation, during
the past few decades (Lee and Syah, 2018, Vipriyanti et al., 2022). Another negative impact is the
displacement of residents due to the increase in land values associated with the attraction of
tourists (DiNatale et al., 2018, Nieuwland and Van Melik, 2020, Cocola-Gant and Gago, 2021).
For instance, in Kenya, the Endorois were driven out of their houses to develop a conservation
area in 1973 (Ashamu, 2011, Lynch, 2012). The community was compensated for their loss after
30 years when they put their case to The African Commission on Human and Peoples (ACHPR)

7
(Ashamu, 2011, Lynch, 2012). Also, tourism can lead to the commodification of culture, where
cultural customs and practices are packaged and presented for tourists, potentially resulting in a
distortion of traditional values and a loss of authenticity (Shepherd, 2002, Hollinshead, 2004,
MacLeod, 2006). This can occur when cultural practices are altered or adapted to fit the
expectations of tourists rather than adhering to the original values and beliefs of the community
(Shepherd, 2002, Hollinshead, 2004, MacLeod, 2006). For instance, Chiangkhan societies
deliberately modified several cultural products to be sold to tourists in Thailand (Meekaew and
Srisontisuk, 2012, Khamwon and Rachbuakoat, 2015). The indigenous population has changed
their traditional lifestyle to cater to the preferences and desires of tourists, including renovations
to their traditional homes and modifications to their traditional cuisine (Meekaew and Srisontisuk,
2012, Khamwon and Rachbuakoat, 2015). The commodification of culture can create social and
economic upheaval for those affected, including loss of employment and housing opportunities
(Shepherd, 2002, Hollinshead, 2004, MacLeod, 2006). These adverse effects of tourism highlight
the significance of implementing sustainable tourism to lessen the environmental, social, cultural,
and economic damage caused by tourism activities.

Sustainable tourism
Sustainability practices manage tourism to reduce current and potential negative economic, social,
and environmental impacts, considering visitors' needs, the tourism industry, the environment, and
host communities (Hunter, 1997, Hardy et al., 2002, UNWTO, 2021a). Tourism that is considered
sustainable emphasizes the preservation of natural resources and the safekeeping of the natural
environment and provides financial advantages to the communities that are visited (Hunter, 1997,
Hardy et al., 2002). It has the potential to ensure the future of the tourism industry in a manner
that is both socially and environmentally responsible if it emphasizes three aspects, the social,
economic, and environmental, also known as the sustainable triple bottom line (Elkington and
Rowlands, 1999, Alhaddi, 2015, Arowoshegbe et al., 2016). To achieve this goal, stakeholders
must lessen tourism's adverse effects on the environment and society while boosting its positive
effects to their full potential (Foran et al., 2005, Wang and Lin, 2007, Sarkis and Dhavale, 2015).
This includes lowering pollution levels, protecting natural resources and biodiversity, and
expanding the range of economic opportunities available to residents of the surrounding
communities. Creating experiences for tourists that are not only memorable, support cultural
learning, and are respectful of the local culture is another component of sustainable tourism

8
(Higgins-Desbiolles, 2010, Amir et al., 2015). By doing so, sustainable tourism initiatives can be
undertaken to ensure that the tourism industry is economically viable and socially and
environmentally beneficial. However, it requires a comprehensive approach that manages tourism
and incorporates strategies to mitigate the potential negative impacts while maximizing the
positive impacts of tourism (Hunter, 1997, Buckley, 2012).

Ecotourism as a sustainable tourism

Among other forms of tourism, ecotourism is considered to be a sustainable form of tourism
(Higham, 2007, Weaver and Lawton, 2007). It is sustainable as it conserves natural and cultural
capital and encourages environmental and cultural awareness and understanding (Fennell, 2007,
Kiper, 2013). It aims to minimize tourism’s negative impacts and provide economic and social
assistance to local communities (Higham, 2007, Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Scholars such as
Fennell (2021, p. 20) describe ecotourism as:
Travel with a primary interest in the natural history of a destination. It is a non-invasive and
participatory form of nature-based tourism that is built around learning, sustainability
(conservation and local participation/benefits), and ethical planning, development and
management.
Ecotourism traditionally encompasses travel to natural areas, such as wildlife reserves, national
parks, and protected areas; and it is often related to activities such as birdwatching, wildlife
viewing, and nature photography (Orams, 1995, Lindsey et al., 2007). By directing attention
toward these destination types and activities, ecotourism strives to mitigate the environmental
impact of tourism while also contributing to the preservation of both natural and cultural resources
(Orams, 1995, Blamey, 2001). Furthermore, ecotourism encourages cooperation between tourism
services, activities (such as transportation, accommodations, and recreational and cultural
experiences), and local communities, which can help guarantee that tourism’s economic benefits
are shared with the local population (Fennell, 2007, Kiper, 2013). This endeavour can contribute
to fostering the enduring sustainability of tourism within the region, as it aids in bolstering the
local economy and cultivating community capacity (Jacobson and Robles, 1992, Azizi et al.,
2012). In essence, ecotourism strives to create opportunities that are both sustainable and
responsible, supporting the conservation of natural and cultural resources and providing economic
and social benefits to local communities (Goodwin, 1996, Bowles and Ruhanen, 2018).

9
The concept of Ecotourism Opportunities
Tourism opportunities may refer to a diverse array of choices and activities (ranging from cultural
and natural to historical attractions, recreational pursuits, accommodations, transportation, and
more) that destinations offer to their visitors (Silberberg, 1995, Holloway and Humphreys, 2022).
These opportunities create social, cultural, and economic impacts, play a key role in tourism
industry promotion and achievements, and provide a significant share of the GDP (Tribe, 2006,
Stabler et al., 2010). Hence, ecotourism opportunities can combine natural, environmentally
aware, culturally educative, and sustainably managed conditions that provide value to a place
(Clark and Stankey, 1979, Boyd and Butler, 1996, Weaver, 2001). They include qualities provided
by nature (vegetation, landscape, topography, scenery), qualities associated with environmental
and cultural awareness (visitors and host communities), and sustainable conditions provided by
management (developments, road networks, regulations) (Honey, 1999, Blamey, 2001, Purwoko
et al., 2022). Developing and managing ecotourism opportunities needs comprehensive
measurements or evaluation of those opportunities (Deng et al., 2002, Baral et al., 2012). It is
essential for the management of sustainable ecotourism as it establishes a benchmark for assessing
the current state of ecotourism, identifies opportunities for enhancing sustainability, and aids in
monitoring and evaluating the success of sustainability initiatives (Deng et al., 2002, Oladi and
Bozorgnia, 2010). Ecotourism managers can make informed decisions promoting sustainable
development and conservation of natural resources by measuring opportunities (Deng et al., 2002,
Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010, Baral et al., 2012).

Ecotourism opportunities measurements

Ecotourism Opportunity Measurements (EOMs) are a crucial scientific method for evaluating the
sustainability and potential of ecotourism programs. As a concept, EOMs are focused on
generating systematic evidence demonstrating the degree to which a programme may achieve its
stated objectives and predict unexpected results (Deng et al., 2002, Opportunity Nation, 2020).
This systematic method for measuring ecotourism projects’ successes and potential risks allows
practitioners and visitors to evaluate areas more accurately. Research on EOMs has exploded in
recent decades, providing examples of this concept’s application in real-world situations.
Numerous studies have used EOMs to evaluate and rank ecotourism destinations, highlighting
their capacity for sustainable biodiversity protection and the promotion of local community
development (Deng et al., 2002, Kumari et al., 2010, Baral et al., 2012, Purwoko et al., 2022).

10
These research efforts are functionally equivalent to the role of star ratings in the hotel industry;
they provide stakeholders with a clear expectation of the ecotourism experience (Deng et al., 2002,
Baral et al., 2012).
EOMs work as proactive instruments to flag potential difficulties by delivering efficient
information across the administrative, human resource, land management, and programming
sectors, further emphasising their usefulness (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010). By
spotting possible issues, they enable rapid action by governments and corporate entities,
considerably contributing to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals 8 and 11 of the
United Nations (United Nations, 2020). EOMs assist stakeholders in prioritizing potential
ecotourism destinations and highlighting robust or weak regions (Deng et al., 2002, Kumari et al.,
2010, Baral et al., 2012, Purwoko et al., 2022). So, they can further be used by researchers, industry
practitioners, or local government bodies to develop these opportunities and achieve the
destination’s capacity to entertain the maximum number of tourists during peak times without
damaging the ecological values of the site.

Challenges in quantifying ecotourism opportunities

The task of measuring ecotourism opportunities is especially challenging, largely due to the
complexity and adaptability of these opportunities. According to various experts, such as Baggio
(2008), Stevenson et al. (2009), Baggio et al. (2010a), and Wattanacharoensil and Stettler (2019),
ecotourism opportunities are inherently complicated due to the significant interconnections within
tourism operations, their dynamic and evolving nature, and their ability to adapt to changing
circumstances. This capacity of adaptability needs ongoing learning as an inherent aspect of these
opportunities. However, these opportunities do not exist in isolation, and several internal and
external factors might disrupt the tourism system (Zahra and Ryan, 2005, Wattanacharoensil and
Stettler, 2019). Studies found that events of natural or human origin, such as natural disasters,
economic fluctuations, climate change, pandemics (such as COVID-19), and demographic
transitions, can dramatically disturb the existing opportunity structure (McDonald, 2009,
Stevenson et al., 2009, Kock et al., 2020). When these occurrences happen, the system deviates
from its equilibrium, producing new, transitory dynamic trajectories and is susceptible to
additional adjustment (Baggio, 2008, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
Consequently, quantifying ecotourism opportunities is a difficult task. It necessitates an in-depth
understanding of the interconnected web of these opportunities and their adaptive capacity to

11
adjust to the ongoing changes that shape them. This complexity highlights the need for a robust,
adaptable methodology for measuring ecotourism opportunities, which can account for the
complex interaction of several contributing factors and the ever-changing environment. This
complexity must be analyzed during evaluating ecotourism opportunities. This analysis can reveal
the interactions between local biodiversity, visitor activities, socioeconomic factors, and
environmental conditions in each ecotourism destination. Local communities, government
agencies, tourism enterprises, and non-profit groups can better understand tourism dynamics using
this information to make more informed planning and management decisions. To balance tourist
satisfaction with sustainability goals, it is also essential to understand how visitor arrivals affect
the local community’s livelihoods and the destination’s ecological integrity. Understanding
ecotourism opportunities’ interconnection can foster stakeholder cultural cooperation that allows
them to adapt to system shifts and share ecotourism sustainability obligations. Thus, ecotourism
opportunities’ complexity and adaptability, can be efficiently understood as a Complex Adaptive
System (CAS). A CAS is a dynamic, non-linear, unstable system with the inherent capacity to
learn and adapt to changes by reconfiguring its structure (Holland, 1992, Levin, 1998, McKercher,
1999, Miller and Page, 2009, Shayan, 2021).

Approaches to measuring ecotourism opportunities

Researchers have used numerous analytical methods to evaluate ecotourism opportunities,
reflecting the complexity and diversity of the field and its constituent elements. For instance,
Priskin (2001) suggested several approaches by which ecotourism opportunities can be evaluated
or measured based on attractions or scenic quality using landscape assessment techniques. The
first is landscape consensus offered by experts who evaluate the scenic value of a location based
on fieldwork, aerial photos, and other materials. This method was used to determine Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in England (Natural England, 2017). A second model,
suggested by Litton (1968), is descriptive landscape studies, where several or all of the landscape’s
entities are inventoried and described. The Litton developed and applied an evaluation system
based on landform and land use in California. He developed six categories based on landforms
and seven on the degree of land use ranging between wild and urbanized. The author also assigned
numerical values to each category and drew maps. The third evaluation method is landscape
preferences, applied by Shafer Jr et al. (1969). This approach aims to determine which aspects of
the environment are considered attractive by experts and visitors. It is based on interviews and

12
photographs. In addition, Boyd and Butler (1996) developed the Ecotourism Opportunity
Spectrum (ECOS) model, which provides a framework for evaluating ecotourism opportunities
based on natural and cultural resources, management contexts, and tourist experiences. Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis thoroughly identifies internal and
external factors influencing ecotourism opportunities (Yilmaz et al., 2013, Ghorbani et al., 2015).
Researchers such as Barzekar et al. (2011) and Ashok et al. (2017) also used the Delphi method,
which is a consensus-building process including structured questions for a panel of experts,
applied to undertake sustainability evaluation of ecotourism. These techniques demonstrate that
diverse tools have been applied for ecotourism opportunity evaluation.
However, most of this research measured ecotourism opportunities qualitatively, and few
quantitative studies evaluate the complex interrelationships between ecotourism opportunities and
their adaptive behaviour in response to internal and external influences. Hence, a clear knowledge
gap exists to evaluate ecotourism opportunities quantitatively.

1.2 Knowledge gaps

The quantitative measurement of ecotourism opportunities is a critical tool to evaluate the potential
of ecotourism sites and subsequently support the development of appropriate products, such as
activities and attractions (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010, Karki et al., 2019).
Nonetheless, the measurement of these opportunities is complicated by several factors. Ecotourism
is a naturally dynamic and diverse field with no universal variables (Honey, 1999, Fennell, 2007,
Sahahiri et al., 2023). Opportunities in this sector are highly destination-dependent, influenced by
factors ranging from distinctive local biodiversity to diverse tourism infrastructure (Zahra and
Ryan, 2005, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Further, ecotourism’s adaptability and
interconnectedness makes opportunities sensitive to changes due to internal and external
influences (Baggio, 2008, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Changes in local policies, for
example, can generate new chances for community-led ecotourism, whilst external variables such
as climate change can jeopardize emerging opportunities (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Edgell et al.,
2008, Estol and Font, 2016). In addition, understanding ecotourism opportunities is useful for both
potential tourists and tourism industry professionals when evaluating potential destinations (Deng
et al., 2002, Kim et al., 2019). Visitors frequently rely on their general observations about a
destination, which are increasingly formed by search engine results, but industry professionals
utilize data and quantitative techniques (Baral et al., 2012, Pan, 2015, Aryal and Maharjan, 2018,
Alexova, 2019). Few researchers study quantitative measurements or index development, such as
13
Baral et al. (2012) and Adeleke (2015). However, these conventional techniques of evaluating
ecotourism potential, whether through search engines, indices, or scales, only provide a coarse-
grained picture of the extent of opportunities in ecotourism destinations. They fail to recognize
the complexity of ecotourism and evaluate each dimension that characterizes ecotourism
opportunities with insufficient accuracy. Existing methodologies lack quantitatively measures of
the extent of ecotourism opportunities. The literature on evaluating ecotourism opportunities
contains a large knowledge gap in light of the above findings. Certainly, a comprehensive,
complexity-aware strategy that quantitatively evaluates ecotourism opportunities is required. Such
an approach would benefit ecotourism researchers, tourists, and industry professionals, as it would
provide more precise and systematic insights into ecotourism destinations. This thesis highlights
this knowledge gap by demonstrating the need to quantitatively measure ecotourism opportunities
within a CAS context. So, this study draws the attention of researchers to the value of
quantitatively measuring ecotourism opportunities in a CAS and combining these measurements
into an index scale to synthesize quantitative evidence about the extent of available opportunities
in a destination to provide a tool for countries to attain their tourism visions and goals. An index
scale can be developed to resolve a vital issue in EOMs: providing a quantitative method to assess
a destination’s potential. The index can help assess the potential ecotourism destinations and
provide an accurate picture of the available opportunities within the destination qualitatively and
quantitatively.

1.3 Research aims and objectives

Considering the development of ecotourism opportunities within the context of a CAS, this study
proposes a systematic method for measuring the extent of ecotourism opportunities and
developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI). Alula, Saudi Arabia, was chosen as a case
study because of its rapidly growing ecotourism opportunities, which offer an efficient
environment to understand the system's complexity. Measuring ecotourism opportunities demands
a comprehensive methodology that identifies the ecotourism opportunities in a CAS, confirms the
sustainability of these opportunities, and finally quantifies them to develop an EOI. So, three
objectives followed by three research questions have been set to achieve the aim of this study.

14
Objective 1: Ecotourism opportunities identification in a CAS

This study's first objective includes a comprehensive identification of potential ecotourism

opportunities. This involves substantial research to determine the variety of available natural and
cultural opportunities within the case study destination Alula, Saudi Arabia. These opportunities
may include unique ecosystems, rich wildlife, local cultures, and beautiful landscapes that attract
ecotourism visitors.

Objective 2: Sustainability evaluation of identified opportunities

Following the identification objective, evaluating the sustainability of the identified ecotourism
opportunities is essential. This refers to the opportunities' potential to accommodate tourism
without inflicting substantial harm to the environment, local residents, or their cultural heritage.
This step involves evaluating the potential ecological impacts, economic viability, sociocultural
influence, and long-term sustainability of proposed ecotourism destinations.

Objective 3: Measuring sustainable opportunities and developing an EOI

The final objective is to measure the extent of availability of ecotourism opportunities and develop
an EOI that identifies and evaluates potential ecotourism destinations. This index will offer
quantifiable values to every identified ecotourism opportunity, allowing for an objective
evaluation of their respective potential. The indicators included in the index were derived from the
evaluation of sustainability done in the previous objective, so ensuring a full reflection of the entire
sustainability of each opportunity.

1.4 Research questions

In the context of the above research objectives, the following research questions have been
defined:

I. What types of ecotourism opportunities coexist in Alula? (Objective 1)

II. Will these opportunities contribute to sustainable tourism? (Objective 2)

15
III. How can ecotourism opportunities be evaluated to develop an index for assessing potential
destinations? (Objective 3)

The Figure 1.2 shows the hierarchy of the research questions to develop the EOI.

Figure 1.2. The research questions’ hierarchy to develop an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI)

1.5 Structure of the thesis

The following chapter structure has been designed; the second chapter provides the fundamental
framework of the research, following a systematic literature review. Chapter numbers three, four,
and five report the answers to the above questions. The sixth chapter provides the concluding
summary of the research. Figure 1.3 shows the workflow chart to develop the ecotourism
opportunity index. While Figure 1.4 shows the summary of these chapters.
Chapter 1 sets the scene for the study within the broader context of ecotourism research and
identifies the knowledge gap. The chapter highlights the necessity of evaluating ecotourism
opportunities to conduct an informed evaluation of potential destinations. It also provides insight
into ecotourism and its opportunities, elaborating on its central role in ensuring the long-term
sustainability of potential tourism destinations. This chapter concludes with a description of the
study's goals and objectives, including the research questions that serve as the basis for the
following investigation. This opening chapter acts as the research's cornerstone, laying the
groundwork for the study's key themes to be progressively developed and analyzed in depth.
Chapter 2 is a systematic review of the existing literature related to EOMs. This chapter identifies
existing research trends, patterns, theories, and methods by soliciting answers to fundamental
16
research questions such as "Who, What, Where, When, and Why?". It comprises two types of
analysis: bibliometric analysis and quantitative analysis. The first identifies bibliometric
characteristics and visualizes the relationship of articles related to EOMs with the help of
CiteSpace. After bibliometric analysis, the quantitative analysis evaluates the literature using
codes and analyses the existing measurements of ecotourism opportunities. This step also analyses
Complex Adaptive System (CAS) theory concepts. The last step in the analysis phase explored
the prevailing research issues and identified areas for future research contributions. In addition to
research trends and patterns, this chapter identifies the methods that can assist in evaluating
ecotourism opportunities, such as the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model, SWOT
analysis, CAS theory, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Moreover, it highlights the
ecotourism opportunities dimensions, criteria, and sustainable indicators that can be used to
evaluate ecotourism opportunities.
Chapter 3 focuses on the first research question, applying the methodology uncovered in the
literature review to identify specific ecotourism opportunities at a specified case destination. Using
the ECOS model and SWOT analysis, this chapter identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats while also considering the ecotourism opportunities development as a CAS. This
connection helps elucidate how CAS influences and shapes ecotourism opportunities. The
outcomes of this comprehensive opportunity identification procedure are mapped in connection to
the theoretical concepts of CAS, strengthening the research's conceptual framework.
Chapter 4 examines the second research question by using the Delphi method to evaluate the
sustainability of the previously identified ecotourism opportunities. The chapter uses the indicators
and their relevant ecotourism opportunities collected through the ECOS model identified in the
literature review and first research question, respectively. It provides an in-depth examination of
the sustainability of these indicators and a comprehensive understanding of their interaction with
ecotourism opportunities. This chapter produces a list of 25 Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities
Indicators (SEOIs) and their related 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities. These indicators
and their related opportunities are used then to develop a hypothetical construct that is tested in
the subsequent chapter, setting the path for establishing the EOI. The hypothetical construct
categorizes real world ecotourism opportunities using the sustainable dimensions and indicators
derived from the literature.

Chapter 5 moves the research toward the development of the EOI. The development process
considers the 15 weaknesses and 10 threats identified in Chapter 3 and the hypothetical construct,

17
including 25 SEOIs and 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities, outlined in Chapter 4. A
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) determines the construct's reliability and validity by testing
these components' relationships. After testing these components, the EOI is developed as a
quantitative technique for evaluating and comparing potential ecotourism opportunities. The
weights of strengths and opportunities were derived from the Delphi method, Weight Scoring
Method (WSM), and Entropy Weight Method (EWM), and the weights for weaknesses and threats
were derived from WSM, EWM, and Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis (EOGA).

Chapter 6 The sixth chapter concludes the research by summarising the findings and highlighting
the study's overall value to the field of ecotourism. The chapter acknowledges the research's
limitations and suggests future research directions, paving the way for further exploration and
development in measuring ecotourism opportunities. The chapter highlights the value of the
research journey, connecting the many stages of the study, and illustrates the form of the thesis for
a unified understanding of the research.

18
Figure 1.3. Workflow chart to develop the ecotourism opportunity index

19
Figure 1.4. Structure of the thesis chapters

20
2 Investigating ecotourism opportunities measurements
A version of this chapter has been published as the following peer-reviewed research paper:
Sahahiri, R., Griffin, A., Sun, Q. (2023). Investigating Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements
in a Complex Adaptive System: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 15(3), 2678,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032678.

2.1 Introduction
Recognizing the crucial role that systematic reviews play in evaluating ecotourism opportunities
is essential. A systematic review provides a comprehensive and methodical procedure for
synthesizing and analyzing relevant research. A systematic review ensures that the evaluation of
ecotourism opportunities is supported by scientific, reliable evidence by facilitating the
identification of significant research trends and potential topics for further investigation. This
comprehension strengthens the chapter's methodology. Following the aims indicated in the
preceding chapter, this chapter examines Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements (EOMs) as
depicted in the current literature. Mapping the research trends highlights the practical implications
and outlines a path for future research in this sector. To do so, this chapter addresses fundamental
research questions, such as such as "who, what, where, when, and why?" of existing research as
described in the structure of the chapter in Figure 2.1. Examining these fundamental research
questions tends to reveal the prevailing research trends, patterns, theories, and procedures
underpinning the existing knowledge. The methodology adopted for this chapter involves a
scientometric study that was undertaken using CiteSpace. This enabled a comprehensive
examination of existing data and a review of the field's most recent EOMs research. Subsequently,
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedure
was used to filter the search results, and the snowballing technique was applied to collect
additional relevant publications. The revised collection of papers was subjected to thematic
categorization and quantitative analysis, resulting in a careful examination of EOMs. The
outcomes of these analytic procedures are provided in three sections. The first section describes
the results of the scientometric analysis, while the second section explains the systematic literature
review results. After the presentation of the results, critical observations are elaborated, followed
by a comprehensive discussion of the practical implications of the findings. The chapter finishes
with a summary and critical analysis of the findings and their broader implications.

21
Figure 2.1. Structure of Chapter 2: Investigating ecotourism opportunities measurements

22
2.2 Background
Ecotourism activities and experiences
Ecotourism is a responsible form of tourism that focuses on reducing tourism’s negative impacts
on the environment and helps to encourage the conservation of natural places (The International
Ecotourism Society, 2020, Fennell, 2021). Ecotourism provides learning and recreational
opportunities that pay respect to nature and generate economic support for local communities
(Goodwin, 1996, Bhuiyan et al., 2016). Through ecotourism opportunities promotion, destinations
can produce a profound understanding for tourists of the region’s ecosystems and generate
meaningful experiences (Donohoe and Needham, 2006, Wearing and Neil, 2009).
Ecotourism opportunities may include outdoor activities such as hiking, bird watching, wildlife
viewing, backpacking, camping, kayaking, snorkelling, nature photography, and many more
(Buckley, 1994, Liddle, 1997, Fennell, 2021). These activities can be offered in protected areas
like national parks, reserves, and conservation places. In addition, ecotourism opportunities
include suitable accommodations (hotels and restaurants, resorts, and so on), environmentally
friendly public transit, natural attractions (mountains, glaciers, waterfalls, caves, canyons, forests,
deserts, coral reefs, lakes, and rivers, and so on), environmental and cultural awareness (both on
the part of visitors and the communities that host them), and sustainable conditions provided by
management (providing safe and healthy working conditions, developing sustainable policies and
procedures, sustainability training programs to help stakeholders, producing renewable energy
sources) (Honey, 1999, Blamey, 2001, Purwoko et al., 2022). Ecotourism ensures that activities
and functions follow the latest strategies and policies for sustainability, support social
responsibility, and try to give back economic benefits to the local community (Swarbrooke, 1999,
Wood, 2002). Ecotourism also generates opportunities for visitors to learn about local cultures and
traditions and generates awareness to protect a particular region's unique flora and fauna. By
engaging in ecotourism activities, visitors can enhance the conservation of local ecosystems and
support the local economy (Goodwin, 1996, Bhuiyan et al., 2016). Nonetheless, it is essential to
evaluate ecotourism opportunities for sustainable development, conservation, and community
empowerment and to promote informed decision-making. Evaluation enables stakeholders to
manage resource allocation, comprehend potential threats, and maximize the overall benefits of
tourism operations (Deng et al., 2002, Kim et al., 2015).

23
Importance of ecotourism opportunities evaluation
In recent years, ecotourism has grown in popularity. Its destinations worldwide now provide
possibilities that bring visitors closer to the environment and local residents. Nevertheless, as this
market grows, it is becoming increasingly important to evaluate ecotourism opportunities to ensure
they are suitable for both the environment and the people who live there (Deng et al., 2002,
Çetinkaya et al., 2018). This evaluation needs a thorough look at how the ecotourism opportunity
system affects the environment, people, and culture and how it can help the economy (Priskin,
2001, Deng et al., 2002). Additionally, it is vital to examine whether the ecotourism opportunities
meet the expectations of local residents and visitors. By evaluating the possible good and harmful
effects of an ecotourism opportunity, stakeholders can ensure that this type of tourism suits
everyone.
Additionally, in recent years, there has been a rise in the utilization of social scientific approaches
to evaluate the efficiency of human service programs and institutions, which has led to an increase
in the frequency with which the term "evaluation" has been utilized (Theobald, 1979, Posavac,
2015). Evaluation ought to be an essential component of the tourism system that oversees the
provision of leisure services, particularly in improving administrative efficiency (Jafar and
Bozorgnia, 2010, Oladi and Bozorgnia, 2010). It attempts to develop objective, systematic, and
detailed data regarding the degree to which a certain program achieves its specified goals and the
degree to which other unintended effects occur (Deng et al., 2002, Cheng et al., 2013). A thorough
assessment of the organization's administration, human resources, land management, facilities,
and programming is essential (Deng et al., 2002, Cheng et al., 2013). Scholars have proposed
diverse evaluation approaches for this purpose (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010,
Oladi and Bozorgnia, 2010, Cheng et al., 2013). These approaches encompass different
perspectives and methodologies, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the
organization's performance and potential areas for improvement.

Ecotourism opportunities evaluation as a complex adaptive system

Exploration of EOMs through the lens of a Complex Adaptive Systems theory (CAS) is possible.
CAS enables a comprehensive awareness of ecological, socio-cultural, and economic interactions,
which helps evaluate ecotourism opportunities (Scott et al., 2008b, Baggio et al., 2010a, Baggio
et al., 2010b, Hartman, 2016). The CAS approach is instrumental in elucidating the complex
interconnections between these diverse elements. For instance, the CAS methodology could aid

24
in comprehending the connection between cultural preservation, visitor management, local
socioeconomic benefits, and environmental sustainability. The site's cultural or natural
significance could be diminished if the quantity of visitors is not carefully controlled. Inadequate
distribution of tourism revenues may also contribute to socioeconomic inequality in local areas
(Baggio, 2008, Hartman, 2021). Using CAS, concept decision-makers may model these
interdependencies and create comprehensive plans to promote sustainable tourism, cultural and
natural heritage preservation, socioeconomic equity, and environmental sustainability.
Consequently, CAS provides a framework for modelling these multidimensional interactions,
allowing for the design of sustainable tourism development strategies that minimize environmental
and sociocultural impacts. However, EOMs often take Linear or Newtonian approaches to
describe ecotourism systems. Newtonian approaches develop the authors’ knowledge of some
selected parts of the tourism system but produce little knowledge of the relationships and
interactions between these parts (McDonald, 2009, Stevenson et al., 2009). Although the current
tourism literature provides an excellent understanding of CAS theories (Russell and Faulkner,
2004, Hartman, 2020), EOMs studies typically use a linear approach, and few take a complexity
theory lens to investigate ecotourism opportunities (Deng et al., 2002, Kumari et al., 2010, Açıksöz
et al., 2016). Therefore, this review explains the benefits of considering ecotourism opportunities
measurements as a CAS, which constitutes an original contribution to the field of ecotourism. It
provides an in-depth understanding of the current state of the science of EOMs, the findings of
which are then considered through the lens of complexity theory to discuss and draw implications
for ecotourism planning and development practice.

2.3 Methodology

2.3.1 Materials and methods for the systematic literature review

The literature review started with the systematic quantitative approach developed by Pickering
and Byrne (2014). The systematic literature review has been adopted as it provides a more
structured and systematic method to review the existing scientific knowledge on a particular topic
compared to traditional literature review (Jesson et al., 2011, Oliver, 2012, Pati and Lorusso,
2018). The traditional literature review produces a narrative summary of a particular topic. It
focuses on manually searching the literature as books, articles, etc., and reaching the relevant
literature to collect relevant results. This is time-consuming and sometimes cannot capture the
most relevant and updated literature, resulting in limited relevant knowledge. The systematic
25
approach involves using a predefined set of criteria, such as keyword strategy, to locate and
evaluate the relevant literature, aiming to collect comprehensive and updated knowledge about
relevant topics (Nightingale, 2009, Aromataris and Pearson, 2014, Aromataris and Riitano, 2014).
It involves a reliable and transparent method of applying standardized tools and protocols to
review the literature. This procedure often recommends providing evidence-based facts or
informing quantifiable practice guidelines. In this thesis, the development of a systematic
approach consisted of a combination of structured and semi-structured phases (Figure 2.2). In
phase one, a keyword strategy (i.e., complex*, adaptive*, ecotourism, sustainable tourism,
opportunities*, measurements*, evaluation*, index*, conservation, and protection) was adopted
to search the relevant literature. After removing duplicates, the PRISMA protocol was used to
filter the corpus, and a snowballing procedure was adopted to collect additional literature (Moher
et al., 2009). Phase two consisted of scientometric analysis using CiteSpace, to analyze the
research trends. Quantitative analysis was also applied. The following section will explain these
methods in detail.

Figure 2.2 Workflow chart to investigate literature on ecotourism opportunities measurements

26
2.3.2 Sampling phase to collect literature
A relevant keyword string applied in Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Science yielded 957
publications. After removing 35 duplicates, 922 publications (large corpus) were collected, and
807 less relevant publications were excluded by applying the PRISMA protocol (Figure 2.3)
(Moher et al., 2009), leaving a corpus of 115 peer-reviewed published articles in the English
language. These articles were then used as a starter set with the snowballing technique to find
additional papers. In the context of literature reviews, "snowballing" refers to a strategy for
locating and evaluating a large number of different sources. It involves beginning with a known
source, such as an article in a journal or a book, and then "snowballing" outward to find additional
sources related to the topic in question (Streeton et al., 2004, Wohlin, 2014). Sources can be found
by searching databases like Google Scholar, looking for citations of the starting sources, or
checking the bibliographies of the starting sources (Streeton et al., 2004, Wohlin, 2014,
Badampudi et al., 2015).
Using this methodology, researchers can find a vast array of sources and learn everything there is
to know about the body of literature on a specific subject. In snowballing, the reference list
(backward snowballing) and citations (forward snowballing) were reviewed (Streeton et al., 2004,
Wohlin, 2014). The snowballing procedure produced an additional 12 relevant studies (7 articles
by backward snowballing and 5 articles by forward snowballing) that expanded the small corpus
to 127 articles.

27
 Figure 2.3. PRISMA protocol with snowballing technique

2.3.3 Analytical phase to examine the literature

CiteSpace is a scientometric application widely used in interdisciplinary fields to visualize a
knowledge domain (Chen, 2006, Chen, 2014, Fang Yan et al., 2018). It is a quantitative method
used to analyze scholarly literature and locate patterns within the scientific literature (Chen, 2014,
Taşkn and Aydinoglu, 2015). Using this approach, it is possible to figure out how influential
various journals and authors are, examine research trends in a particular field, and discover new
research topics to investigate. It entails collecting, analyzing, and making sense of the data that
28
can be found in journal articles, such as the number of citations, the number of journal articles
published, and the types of journals in which they are published (Chen, 2014, Fang Yan et al.,
2018). Researchers can better understand the literature in their field and their research's impact on
the literature when they use scientometric analysis. In a systematic quantitative analysis, content
analysis methods are also used to analyze relevant literature as this helps in examining trends and
patterns in documents (Stemler, 2000, Mele et al., 2019) and is applied widely in tourism research
(Fennell, 2001, Donohoe and Needham, 2006, Stepchenkova et al., 2009, Camprubí and
Coromina, 2016, Niñerola et al., 2019). The small corpus was thematically categorized the
literature to find the most repeated trends, theories, and methodological approaches. These
frequencies were then used to describe existing studies' foci and produce tables, maps, and charts.
Finally, CAS theory was then applied to a developing destination, namely Alula, Saudi Arabia, to
exemplify the complex features of the ecotourism opportunities system.

2.4 Results
As illustrated in Figure 2.4, he results of this chapter have been divided into three sections. The
first section shows the outcomes collected after the scientometric analysis, followed by
quantitative analysis; while the third section provides the results of theories used to comprehend
the nature of the ecotourism opportunities system.

29
Figure 2.4. The organisation of the results section after the literature review

2.4.1 Ecotourism opportunities evaluation: Scientometric analysis

2.4.1.1 Document Co-citation analysis

Figure 2.5 shows the DCN, including 532 references cited and 2131 co-citation links. The
silhouette score measures the quality of a clustering configuration (Chen, 2006, Taşkn and
Aydinoglu, 2015). Its value varies between -1 and 1. A high value indicates more uniformity
30
among the cluster members (Taşkn and Aydinoglu, 2015). The first five clusters’ silhouette scores
are presented in Table 2.1. These scores indicate that the clusters are moderately reliable due to
their closeness to the highest value of 1. Cluster #0, “first assessment” is the largest cluster, with
89 records. The core article of this cluster, titled “Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the
environment: a framework, first assessment, and future research,” was written by Buckley (2009),
and the captured articles focus on the impacts of ecotourism on the environment.

Figure 2.5. A visualization of the Document Co-citation Network (DCN). The label (e.g., #0 first
assessment) indicates the ranking of each publication in terms of cluster size, with 0 being the
largest cluster. The label includes the rank and a representative term from the document title that
distinguishes it from the other documents.

2.4.1.2 Author Co-citation analysis

Figure 2.6 shows that the most frequently cited author in the large corpus is Honey. This author is
revealed as a critical node due to their high Betweenness Centrality (BC) value. Betweenness
31
Centrality measures the amount of information that emerges from these nodes. Honey covers the
largest area of Figure 2.6, with a frequency size of 139. Table 2.1 lists the top five most frequently
cited authors. Compared with the DCN, a moderate, consistent correlation was observed, as both
Buckley and Weaver also appeared in the top five most-cited documents. Table 2.1 also shows the
top five most-cited papers among the large corpus. A review paper, “Twenty years on: The state
of contemporary ecotourism research” by Weaver and Lawton (2007), has the highest number of
citations in this list. Papers in the large corpus frequently cited this paper to understand the concept
of ecotourism and to assess the extent to which the relevant academic literature was engaged in
investigating the phenomenon of ecotourism.

Figure 2.6. Author Co-citation Network (ACN)

Note: Starred authors are cited by other authors in the corpus, but they do not cite other authors in
the corpus. The circle size indicates the frequency of citation for the author.

32
Table 2.1. Scientometric analysis
Top five clusters in the DCN
Cluster 0 1 2 3 4
Size 89 80 79 70 64
Silhouette
0.734 0.653 0.699 0.672 0.754
score
Mediating Responsible Indigenous
Top terms First assessment NGO partnership
role behaviour communities
Mean year 2009 2012 2010 2014 2009
Top five most cited papers in the DCN
Citations 747 676 531 512 395
(Weaver and (Fennell, (Stronza and
References (Krüger, 2005) (Weaver, 2005)
Lawton, 2007) 2001) Gordillo, 2008)
Cluster-ID 0 0 0 2 0
Top five most cited authors in the ACN
Author * Honey M Anonymous Weaver DB Buckley R Scheyvens R
Frequency 139 136 133 114 98
BC 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.07
Top five most cited journals in the JCN
Annals of Journal of
Tourism Journal of Ecological
Journal Tourism Sustainable
Management Ecotourism Economics
Research Tourism
Frequency 447 361 260 250 174
BC 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Impact Factor 7.4 4.2 3.4 2.4 3.9
Top five most frequently co-occurring keywords from 2009 to 2019
Keywords ecotourism tourism conservation management protected area
Frequency 422 240 132 89 79
BC 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.11
*The second-most cited author was “Anonymous”, reflecting documents with no identified author. This cluster would
likely be composed of multiple authors. Therefore, the author excluded this cluster from further analysis.

2.4.1.3 Journal co-citation analysis

The JCN displayed the journals that received significant numbers of citations for EOMs research
Figure 2.7. It showed that EOMs studies were cited in 530 different journals. “Tourism
Management” was the most prominent, with 447 co-citations. Table 2.1 displays the top five most-
cited journals in the large corpus. It can be observed that journals with higher impact factors
generally have greater co-citation frequencies. This work has provided a systematic approach to
identifying the publications with the most frequent discussion of EOMs and has illustrated that a
diverse body of knowledge influences studies of EOMs.

33
Figure 2.7. Journal Co-citation Network (JCN). The circle size indicates the frequency of citation
for the journal.

2.4.1.4 Keyword analysis

Figure 2.8 and Table 2.1 show the keyword analysis where “ecotourism” received the most
citations. Figure 2.9 demonstrates the use of keyword burst analysis to visualize the year of the
first mention of each topic and its duration. The analysis identified 456 keyword bursts. For
example, popular research terms in 2009 included “Gi” (geographical investigation) and “national
park”, while 2010’s hot topic was “reserve”. From 2011 to 2015, research topics focused on
“biodiversity” and “landscape”. Figure 2.9 also demonstrates the distribution of burst terms at
different times. “Willingness to pay” was the most recent burst term, used mostly from 2015 to
2017.

34
Figure 2.8. Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis. The size of the keyword label indicates the
frequency of occurrence.

Figure 2.9. Top fifteen keywords with the strongest citation bursts

35
2.4.1.5 Geographic locations and publication period
The most significant number of articles was published from 2016 to 2019 (Figure 2.10). Almost
41% of the total articles studied ecotourism in Asia, of which China (n=135) and India (n=87)
showed the most significant number of contributions. 20% of articles investigated EOMs within
North America, with most publications focused on the USA (n=115) and Canada (n=56. 89). 16%
of articles studied European locations. These publications focused on Portugal (n= 39) and Spain
(n=65). 15% studied Australia, while the smallest number of publications described South
America or Africa. Figure 2.11 presents the spatial distribution of publications globally, with the
most significant numbers in Asia and North America, while other continents showed less
significant contributions to research on EOMs.

36
 180
165
160
142
140

120 112
Number of articles

104
100

77
80 71
60
60 54 55
44
38
40

20

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year

Figure 2.10. Publication trend from 2009 to 2019 (922 articles)

Figure 2.11. Spatial distribution of published articles

37
2.4.2 Ecotourism opportunities evaluation: Quantitative analysis

2.4.2.1 Existing indices in ecotourism opportunities evaluation

EOMs involve analyzing and assessing potential ecotourism destinations. It includes identifying
the ecotourism opportunities involving natural, cultural, and environmental attractions, assessing
tourism's potential impacts on the environment and local communities, and developing strategies
to minimize adverse effects while maximizing the benefits of ecotourism (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar
and Bozorgnia, 2010). It typically involves conducting natural, environmental, socio-cultural,
economic, and feasibility evaluations to determine ecotourism development's suitability,
economic viability, social impacts, and practicality in a destination (Baral et al., 2012, Kim et al.,
2015). EOMs studies are conducted to develop sustainable tourism practices and minimize adverse
effects on the environment and local communities. They are also essential to the planning and
development of ecotourism projects.
In the small corpus, constructing indices was the method used most frequently to measure
ecotourism opportunities. Seventeen indices were developed. Six focused on ecotourism
specifically (Xuling et al., 2009, Baral et al., 2012, Wang et al., 2014, Adeleke, 2015, Baral, 2015,
Bhuiyan et al., 2016, Cengiz et al., 2016) (Figure 2.12). Two studies worked with the same index
(Baral et al., 2012, Baral, 2015). These indices explored how socio-economic and trip
characteristic variables influence visitors’ evaluations of ecotourism. None of these indices
capture all of the ecotourism opportunities developed within a destination, and most focus on
specific criteria in their evaluation. For example, Baral et al. (2012) developed an index to assess
visitors’ perceptions of the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of ecotourism. Adeleke
(2015) developed an index to assess local residents' attitudes toward ecotourism. Furthermore,
these studies also do not take a complexity lens to evaluate ecotourism. A comprehensive approach
is required in EOMs that covers all the ecotourism opportunities dimensions and also considers
their interconnected and adaptive behaviour.

38
Figure 2.12. Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements (EOMs) in existing studies

2.4.2.2 Methods and tools to measure ecotourism opportunities

Measurement of ecotourism opportunities requires the application of multidimensional evaluation
approaches that incorporate environmental, social, and economic factors. It demands diverse
methodologies in order to foster comprehensive, sustainable strategies by incorporating
ecological, economic, and social dimensions, as well as expert opinion, thereby ensuring the
robustness and completeness of decision-making. This research identified the following methods
that could be applied to EOMs:
Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS): The ECOS model, developed by Boyd and Butler
(1996), provides a solid framework for identifying ecotourism opportunities and successful
destination management. The ECOS model introduces eight components for evaluating the
ecotourism potential of a specific area, as depicted in Figure 2.13. The efficiency of the model
has been tested empirically through numerous studies in which the ECOS model was effectively
applied to identify ecotourism opportunities and conduct qualitative destination potential
evaluations (Kim et al., 2013, Açıksöz et al., 2016, Cengiz et al., 2016, Salici, 2018, Gultekin and
Uzun, 2019). These studies demonstrate the ECOS model’s is ability to provide detailed insights

39
into the feasibility of diverse ecotourism efforts, ultimately contributing to the strategic planning
and sustainable management of ecotourism destinations.

Figure 2.13. Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model (Boyd and Butler, 1996)

Ecotourism Potential (EP): The potential of ecotourism lies in its ability to provide economic
and social benefits to local communities while contributing to biodiversity conservation and the
protection of natural and cultural heritage (Deng et al., 2002, Salici, 2018). The potential of
ecotourism destinations can be determined by various factors, including the availability of natural
and cultural resources, infrastructure and facilities, and the willingness of the tourism industry to
pay local communities. By taking these factors into account, it is possible to identify high-potential
ecotourism destinations and to develop tourism programs that are sustainable, culturally sensitive,
and economically viable (Kumari et al., 2010, Salici, 2018). However, EP assesses tourism value
to provide coarse-grained indications of opportunities in destinations such as low, medium, and
high numbers of opportunities without considering how much potential a destination possesses in
a quantitative sense (Açiksöz et al., 2010, Cao et al., 2010, Açıksöz et al., 2016, Cengiz et al.,
2016).
Ecotourism Opportunity Measurements: EOMs can quantitatively measure ecotourism
opportunities and combine these measurements into an index scale to synthesize quantitative
evidence about the extent of available opportunities in a destination (Deng et al., 2002,

40
Opportunity Nation, 2020) as well as to provide a tool for countries to plan how to attain their
tourism visions and goals.
The ECOS model has contributed to assessing the EP of destinations qualitatively. Existing
studies do not use the ECOS model to measure ecotourism opportunities and develop an index
quantitatively. A quantitative index may provide a comparable way to measure ecotourism
opportunities across multiple sites, which can be difficult due to their dynamic, interconnected,
and adaptive nature across different destinations. A comparison between the ECOS model, EOM,
and EP techniques is presented in Figure 2.14. The comparison shows that these terms are closely
related, but the approaches undertake different types of measurement.

Figure 2.14. Comparison between the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model,
Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements (EOMs), and Ecotourism Potential (EP)

In the small corpus, other methods that have been involved in evaluating ecotourism opportunities
include sustainable indicators, the Delphi method, SWOT analysis, and Confirmatory Factor
analysis (CFA).
Sustainable indicators: In tourism, sustainable indicators are a set of criteria used to assess the
environmental, sociocultural, and economic implications of tourism activities (Chávez-Cortés and
Maya, 2010, Blancas et al., 2018). These are crucial evaluation tools for tourism activities. In the
context of ecotourism, these indicators offer a quantitative and qualitative basis for decision-
makers and stakeholders to evaluate the sustainability and efficacy of ecotourism opportunities
(Honey, 1999, Barzekar et al., 2011). These also assist in assessing the overall performance of
ecotourism opportunities, ensuring that environmental, sociocultural, and economic factors are

41
considered comprehensively (Tsaur et al., 2006, Lee and Hsieh, 2016, Ashok et al., 2017). By
incorporating these indicators into the planning and management of ecotourism operations,
decision-makers may work toward supporting sustainable tourism practices that benefit both the
environment and local residents while providing visitors with improved experiences.
The Delphi method: This method is an organized communication strategy that employs the
collective knowledge of a panel of experts to investigate complicated issues, reach consensus, and
predict results (Tsaur et al., 2006, Ashok et al., 2017). This iterative process uses repeated rounds
of anonymous survey questions interspersed with controlled feedback to refine expert viewpoints
and reach consensus.
The Delphi method has been utilized in the ecotourism industry to handle a variety of difficulties
and opportunities. Given the multidisciplinary character of ecotourism, which includes
environmental conservation, sociocultural development, and economic sustainability, the Delphi
method is particularly beneficial for synthesizing the varied perspectives of experts (Miller, 2001,
Tsaur et al., 2006, Wang et al., 2016a). Applications include identifying essential success
elements, assessing potential impacts, devising management strategies, and evaluating the
preferences of stakeholders (Tsaur et al., 2006, Ashok et al., 2017). Using the combined expertise
of professionals, the Delphi method helps ecotourism researchers and policymakers to make
informed decisions, promote best practices, and safeguard the long-term health of this crucial
industry.
SWOT analysis: SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is commonly used to
support decision-making and is often used for the systematic analysis of a product, place, industry,
or person by looking at both internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and
threats) factors (Jackson et al., 2003, Ghorbani et al., 2015). In the social sciences, it can assist
researchers in comprehending the dynamics of social systems or the effects of policies. SWOT
analysis is frequently used in the tourism industry for destination planning, evaluating competitive
positions, and designing tourism development strategies since it provides a comprehensive picture
of both the positive and negative variables influencing the success of the industry (Fabac and Zver,
2011, Tsitsiloni et al., 2013, Yilmaz et al., 2013, Ghorbani et al., 2015). It has also been used in
ecotourism to evaluate ecotourism opportunities (Yilmaz et al., 2013, Ganjali, 2014, Sahani,
2021).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): CFA is a statistical technique used to examine the validity
of predicted links between observable variables and their underlying latent variables (Brown,

42
2006, Baral et al., 2012). CFA is a subset of structural equation modelling that focuses specifically
on validating priori-proposed factor structures based on theory or earlier research (Kim and Eves,
2012, Kim et al., 2015). CFA has been applied in the ecotourism industry to test the validity and
reliability of measurement models and to confirm the links between diverse variables, including
visitor satisfaction, destination loyalty, and environmental attitudes (Martín-Ruiz et al., 2010,
Baral et al., 2012, Kim et al., 2015, Fetscherin and Stephano, 2016, Lee and Jan, 2018).
Implementing CFA in ecotourism research guarantees that the instruments used to measure these
dimensions adequately reflect their theoretical foundations, providing solid data for policy
creation and decision-making.
In conclusion, systematically evaluating ecotourism opportunities requires using robust and
comprehensive approaches, such as the ECOS model, ecotourism potential evaluation, and
ecotourism opportunities measures. These fundamental approaches are supplemented by tools
such as sustainable indicators, the Delphi method, SWOT analysis, and CFA. These approaches
offer an all-encompassing, multidimensional evaluation of ecotourism opportunities, integrating
environmental, sociocultural, and economic factors. This integrated approach promotes a balance
between tourism development, sociocultural preservation, and environmental conservation by
facilitating the creation of informed, sustainable solutions for ecotourism. Adapting to growing
trends and problems in the dynamic ecotourism area, future research and practice can benefit from
the ongoing improvement and incorporation of these methodologies and instruments.

2.4.2.3 Factors influencing ecotourism opportunities

Ecotourism, with its inherent complexity and adaptability, provides an environment that is
dynamic and influenced by a multitude of factors (Ohadi et al., 2013, Wanyonyi et al., 2016). The
tourism industry's adaptability enables it to adapt positively to change, transforming possible
challenges into exclusive opportunities. Therefore, external and internal factors that may not
typically be considered opportunities can shape and influence current opportunities (Baggio, 2008,
Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
The essence of these influencing factors consists of macrolevel (external) and microlevel (internal)
influences. External factors are influences originating from outside the context of ecotourism that
might affect its opportunities; these include socioeconomic, political, environmental, and
technological elements of a broad scope. It may include pandemics, long-term planning plans,
climate change, political instability, global economic trends, technological advancements, and
social changes, among others. Internal factors are those that exist inside the context of ecotourism
43
and can influence its opportunities, including the availability of natural and cultural resources,
infrastructure, and community participation such as topography, altitude, vegetation density,
accessibility, infrastructural development, biodiversity level, and the presence of cultural heritage
sites (Gell-Mann, 1992, Faulkner and Russell, 2003, Baggio, 2008, Farsari et al., 2011). A deeper
understanding of these factors suggests their dynamic interaction and a change in classification
may occasionally occur (Baggio, 2008, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Therefore, the
distinction between external and internal factors is not fixed, and under some conditions, an
external factor can become an internal factor and vice versa (Faulkner and Russell, 2003, Farsari
et al., 2011). For example, technological progress, which is usually an external factor, can affect
accessibility, an internal component, by deploying technologies such as GIS mapping to simplify
navigation in inaccessible places. In contrast, infrastructure development, an internal component,
can influence global economic patterns, an external factor, by increasing regional tourism and
contributing to GDP (Faulkner and Russell, 2003, Wearing and Neil, 2009). However, in both
cases, these factors influence the ecotourism opportunities in a destination. For instance, due to
travel limitations, pandemics like COVID-19 dramatically impacted tourism. Long-term planning
schemes, such as Saudi Vision 2030, significantly influence ecotourism development since they
set national goals and provide resources accordingly (Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2022). Changes in the climate, political unrest, global economic trends,
technological advancements, and societal trends can also significantly impact ecotourism
opportunities.
This literature review found a relationship between opportunities and the factors that provided
conditions to develop these opportunities. It demonstrates how internal and external factors
influence ecotourism opportunities. For instance, due to border closures and travel restrictions,
external events such as the COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted ecotourism opportunities.
Internal factors, such as altitude, influence the variety of ecotourism activities (Duro et al., 2021,
UNWTO, 2022). For instance, lower elevations provide more accessible tourist alternatives, such
as hiking and heritage tourism, whereas higher altitudes may limit accessibility owing to physical
limitations and health dangers, such as altitude sickness (Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Mansour et al.,
2020). For effective and resilient ecotourism management and development, it is necessary to
consider the complex interaction of these elements. Slope, elevation, vegetation density, proximity
to entertainment sites, roads, historical sites, and visibility are the most repeated influencing
factors applied by various scholars to evaluate potential ecotourism destinations (Kumari et al.,

44
2010, Bunruamkaew et al., 2011, Orhan and Karahan, 2011, Ohadi et al., 2013, Mobaraki et al.,
2014, Abou-Elnour et al., 2015, Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Nino et al., 2017, Çetinkaya et al., 2018,
Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Alizadeh-Zoeram and Aghajani, 2019, Taye et al., 2019, Zarghi et
al., 2019, Mansour et al., 2020). These factors offer crucial details about a location's natural
attributes, accessibility, safety, and environmental sustainability and can be used in geospatial
analysis for identifying the potential of ecotourism destinations (Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya
et al., 2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Mansour et al., 2020). Researchers and decision-makers
can pinpoint areas that are both desirable and practical for the development of ecotourism by
considering these factors.

2.4.2.4 Ecotourism opportunities’ dimensions

The most frequently cited papers in the DCN (Table 2.1) (Fennell, 2001, Krüger, 2005, Weaver,
2005, Weaver and Lawton, 2007, Stronza and Gordillo, 2008) and other literature (Gössling, 1999,
Honey, 1999, Scheyvens, 1999, Buhalis, 2000, Weaver, 2001, Buckley, 2009, Wearing and Neil,
2009, Coria and Calfucura, 2012, Chiu et al., 2014, The International Ecotourism Society, 2020)
were analyzed to determine the frequently accepted dimensions of ecotourism opportunities.
These are nature, environmental education/protection, sustainability, socio-cultural benefits, and
tourist satisfaction. In EOMs, these dimensions can act as an umbrella to set the criteria and
indicators to evaluate ecotourism opportunities. Thus, thirteen criteria and twenty-five sustainable
indicators were identified and classified using the ECOS model according to these five
dimensions, as demonstrated in Table 2.2. This structured framework offers an objective
evaluation tool for ecotourism opportunities. Providing a comprehensive approach enables
tourism practitioners to build customized solutions that improve tourist satisfaction and
sociocultural benefits while encouraging sustainability.
In this context:
• Ecotourism opportunities under the “nature” dimension may include activities such as
hiking, camping, wildlife watching, bird watching, mountain biking, river rafting, and
other outdoor recreation activities (Weaver, 2001, Wood, 2002). Moreover, it also includes
topographical features (forests, rivers, valleys, trees, protected places, etc.) that provide
the places for these activities. Suitable natural phenomena such as moderate temperatures,
visibility, etc., are also essential to generate the appropriate environment for natural
activities (Lindberg and McKercher, 1997, Wearing and Neil, 2009). These outdoor
recreational activities can be conducted to provide educational, cultural, and recreational
45
 opportunities while at the same time protecting and conserving the natural environment
and its related wildlife and habitats (Wearing and Neil, 2009, The International Ecotourism
Society, 2020).
• Ecotourism opportunities in “environmental education/protection” are the practices that
allow visitors to engage sustainably and learn responsibly about the natural environment
and local culture (Chiu et al., 2014, Zhong et al., 2015). This ecotourism opportunities
dimension focuses on enjoying natural areas that develop environmental and cultural
appreciation, understanding, and preservation (Honey, 1999, Tsaur et al., 2006).
Ecotourism opportunities in this dimension lay under the natural dimension and act as an
educational tool to equip tourists and local communities with ethics to respect, appreciate
and protect the environment (Lindberg and McKercher, 1997, Sahahiri et al., 2023).
• The “sustainability” dimension in ecotourism conserves natural resources and protects
cultural heritage while economically benefiting the local communities and producing a
better understanding of environmental respect (Barkauskiene and Snieska, 2013,
Saidmamatov et al., 2020). It inspires people to discover their natural environment and
generates awareness about the importance of environmental preservation while reducing
negative ecotourism impacts on the environment (Tsaur et al., 2006, Buckley, 2012).
Besides, sustainable opportunities in ecotourism minimize waste by promoting renewable
energy and generating educational opportunities for travellers (Honey, 1999, Lee and
Hsieh, 2016).
• Ecotourism also strengthens the local communities, producing “socio-cultural benefits”
(Ross and Wall, 1999a, Weaver, 2001). It offers socio-cultural opportunities, economic
benefits by generating employment and income generation, which can encourage local
communities to become more self-sufficient and resilient (Scheyvens, 1999, Stabler et al.,
2010). Socio-cultural ecotourism opportunities can also help protect and preserve local
cultures and traditions. Socio-cultural benefits create sustainable livelihoods for local
communities and help them to sustain their traditional lifestyles.
• Finally, ecotourism produces a number of types of satisfaction for tourists under the
“tourists’ satisfaction” dimension. Tourists achieve satisfaction by connecting with nature,
discovering new cultures, and learning about local wildlife (Honey, 1999, Scheyvens,
1999). Furthermore, visitors enjoy participating in outdoor recreational or eco-friendly

46
 activities (Weaver, 2001, Weaver and Lawton, 2007). Ecotourism also provides tourists
with a sense of relaxation and appreciation for the environment.
Table 2.2. Identified Dimensions (D), Criteria (C), and Indicators (N)
Dimension Criteria Indicator
Nature (D1) Natural Topographical structures (N1)
attraction Suitable natural phenomena (N2)
(C1) Wildlife saturation (N3)
Reservation/ Protected Places (N4)
sensitive
areas (C2)
Conservation Planning to Conserve Nature (N5)
measures Planning to Conserve Culture (N6)
(C3)
Environmental Education Environmental Protection Awareness Among Local
education/ and study Communities (N7)
protection (D2) (C4) Environmental Education (N8)
Ecotourism awareness among local communities and
visitors (N9)
Managing Infrastructural Services (N10)
opportunities Accommodation Opportunities for Ecotourists (N11)
(C5) Government Planning to Promote tourism (N12)
Sustainability Ecological Water Availability and Conservation Policies (N13)
(D3) sustainability Practices to Conserve the Natural Environmental and
(C6) People's Health (N14)
Economic Practices to Support Sustainable Long-term Economic
sustainability Growth (N 15)
(C7)
Socio-cultural Culture and Planning to Conserve Historical Heritage Sites (N16)
benefits (D4) traditions Protection and Promotion of Local Heritage (N17)
(C8)
Tourists' Low Impact Assessment indicator (N18)
satisfaction impact/non-
(D5) consumptive
(C9)
Benefits local Health Facilities (N19)
residents/long Educational Opportunities (N20)
-term benefits Employment Opportunities (N21)
(C10) Local Business Promotion Opportunities (N22)
Accessibility Resilient habitat (N23)
(C11)

Adventure Nature-based activities (N24)

(C12)
Enjoyment/ap Tourist Protection (N25)
preciation
(C13)
47
2.4.3 Theories to comprehend ecotourism opportunities
In order to gain a better understanding of the opportunities that ecotourism affords, researchers
have put several theories to the test. The first of these is known as the Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB), and it has been utilized in an attempt to answer the question of why people have an interest
in taking part in activities associated with ecotourism (Wang et al., 2018, Panwanitdumrong and
Chen, 2021). According to the TPB, the factors determining an individual's intention to engage in
a particular behaviour are an individual's attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural
control level. Research has been conducted using this theory to investigate how tourists'
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours influence their intentions to participate in ecotourism
activities (Wang et al., 2018, Panwanitdumrong and Chen, 2021). Second, applying the Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) to studying ecotourism opportunities has been investigated. According
to this theory, an individual's attitude and their own personal standards of behaviour are the
primary factors that influence their actions (Sarkar et al., 2014, Lu et al., 2016). The TRA has been
applied to studies investigating the factors influencing travellers' propensity to visit ecotourism
destinations (Sarkar et al., 2014, Lu et al., 2016). Third, research on ecotourism opportunities has
been analyzed using the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory as a framework. According to this
theory, the degree to which an innovation is adopted depends on factors such as its perceived
qualities, its level of social influence, and the degree to which it can be adopted. The DOI has been
utilized to investigate the growing popularity of ecotourism pursuits among travellers (Bell and
Ruhanen, 2016, Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft, 2016). A fourth theory, Conservation
Behavior Theory (CBT), has been utilized to better comprehend ecotourism's potential. According
to this theory, people's actions are predicated on the degree to which they comprehend the
ecological environment and any threats to it (Stem et al., 2003, Sutcliffe and Barnes, 2018).
Conservation Behavior Theory was applied to investigate how tourists' perceptions of
environmental danger and their levels of environmental literacy influence their propensity to
participate in ecotourism activities (Stem et al., 2003, Sutcliffe and Barnes, 2018). Fifth,
Sustainable Tourism Theory has been applied to comprehend the possibilities offered by
ecotourism. According to this line of thinking, sustainable tourism management is possible when
there is a healthy equilibrium between the various factors of economics, society, and the
environment (Wardana et al., 2019, Lee et al., 2021). The Sustainable Tourism Theory has been
applied in studies investigating how visitors' behaviours are influenced by environmental factors
(Wardana et al., 2019, Lee et al., 2021).
48
Finally, Complexity Theory is most repeatedly used in the collected corpus. According to this
theory, the behaviour of a system is determined by the components of the system, the interactions
among those components, and the context in which the system operates (Stevenson et al., 2009,
Hartman, 2016). It has been used in studies investigating how different social and environmental
factors affect ecotourism behaviour (Byrne, 1998, Baggio, 2008). Compared to other theories, the
complexity theory has been utilized to better understand the opportunities ecotourism presents.
Complexity theory postulates that the behaviour of a system is determined by the behaviour of its
components, their interactions, and context, whereas the other theories centre their attention on
the beliefs, norms, and attitudes of individual people (Byrne, 1998, Hartman, 2016). This hints
that the complexity theory is better suited to understanding how a system of people, nature, and
infrastructure interact to produce ecotourism opportunities. In addition, the complexity theory has
been utilized to investigate the influence of social and environmental factors on ecotourism
behaviour, whereas the other theories are more focused on the individual as the primary unit of
analysis (Stevenson et al., 2009, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). This leads one to believe
that the complexity theory may be more suited to understanding how the environment and social
context influence opportunities for ecotourism (Baggio, 2008, Farsari et al., 2011). In light of this,
complexity theory is an approach that appears to be more all-encompassing than the other theories
for appreciating the prospects available in ecotourism. Due to the significance of the complexity
theory in gaining an understanding of ecotourism potential, it was necessary to conduct an in-
depth investigation of this theory, which was carried out in the following manner:

2.4.3.1 Introduction to complexity and chaos theory

The question of “What is life?” has been plaguing scientists and philosophers for centuries. Greeks
considered life as matter and then investigated its formation and essence (Capra, 1996, Holden,
2005). In trying to understand life, Greeks, in the sixth century, decided that life is composed of
four things, i.e., earth, water, fire, and air (Capra, 1996, Holden, 2005). This answer created new
puzzles for Greeks, i.e. “How does life fit together?” It was about the formations or patterns. The
study of substances urges scientists to look at the components that make up the whole, while the
study of form urges scientists to consider the whole rather than its individual parts (Capra, 1996,
Holden, 2005, Buckley, 2017). Substance and form are both investigated in searching for the
answer to what life is. If someone wants to learn about the question of form, they do not just
consider the individual parts but try to understand how the parts fit together in connection with
others (Piaget, 1972, Kinchin et al., 2000). It is a matter to study patterns (Kaplan, 1966, Benedict,
49
2019). The focus on patterns leads scientists to considerable analysis and research that encourages
systems thinking (Lansing, 2003, Buckley, 2017). The rationale of systems thinking was
documented by an Austrian physicist, philosopher, theorist, and deep ecologist Capra (1996, p.
81) as:
“From the systems point of view, the understanding of life begins with the understanding of
pattern or the configuration of ordered relationships; what is destroyed when a living organism
is dissected is its pattern, while it is true that all living organisms are ultimately made of atoms
and molecules, they are not ‘nothing but’ atoms and molecules. There is something else to life,
something non-material, irreducible – a pattern of organization. Systems theory's focus on
recognizing patterns has given rise to complexity theory, also referred to as chaos and
complexity theory or, complexity science, or non-linear dynamics, which is used to analyze
living systems (Capra, 1996, Holden, 2005, Schneider and Somers, 2006, Klijn, 2008, Turner
and Baker, 2019).”
Complexity deals with the system’s organization, and chaos theory deals with nonlinear dynamics
(Cambel, 1993, Burnes, 2005, Rickles et al., 2007). The primary emphasis of complexity theory
is studying how different systems interact and how their behaviours evolve over time (Marion and
Uhl-Bien, 2001, Schneider and Somers, 2006, Cooke-Davies et al., 2007). Chaos theory focuses
on how relatively minor alterations to a complicated system can have surprisingly massive and
far-reaching consequences (Farazmand, 2003, Burnes, 2005, Pryor and Bright, 2007). In a
nutshell, complexity and chaos theory attempts to describe the behaviour of complex systems
(Cambel, 1993, Farazmand, 2003, Rickles et al., 2007). In research, chaos and complexity theory
have far-reaching consequences since they can describe a range of natural and non-natural
phenomena (Shenker, 1994, Keane, 1997). By comprehending how complex systems evolve and
respond to changes, scholars can understand how the systems function and how they might be
handled (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, Byrne, 1998).

2.4.3.2 Theoretical foundations of the complex adaptive system

One of the essential applications of complexity theory is in understanding CAS (Wolf-Branigin,
2013, Turner and Baker, 2019). CAS is a multi-component, dynamic, non-linear, unstable system
with the inherent capacity to learn and adapt to changes by reconfiguring its structure (Holland,
1992, Levin, 1998, McKercher, 1999, Miller and Page, 2009, Shayan, 2021). Shayan (2021)
defines CAS as "any system with components, factors that can choose or interact in a dynamic,

50
non-linear manner." The theoretical foundations of CAS are based on the principles of non-
linearity, self-organization, emergence, adaptation, and feedback (Holland, 1992, Zahra and Ryan,
2005, McDonald, 2009, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011). Understanding these principles makes it
possible to explain the complex behaviour of systems such as ecosystems, economies, and
societies. Small modifications to the initial conditions can have significant and unpredictable
effects, known as nonlinearity (Baggio et al., 2010a, Hartman, 2016). The ability of the system to
organize itself without outside assistance is referred to as self-organization (Zahra and Ryan, 2007,
Shayan, 2021). Emergence describes the advent of novel properties at higher organizational levels
(Zahra and Ryan, 2005, Rickles et al., 2007). The term "adaptation" describes a system's capacity
to pick up new information and modify its behaviour in response to input from the outside world
(Holland, 1992, McKercher, 1999, Miller and Page, 2009). The concept of feedback describes
how a system's behaviour influences its environment, which in turn influences its behaviour
(Levin, 1998, McKercher, 1999, Shayan, 2021).

2.4.3.3 Complex adaptive systems and Newtonian views on tourism

CAS theory offers a helpful framework for comprehending the travel and tourism sector’s
dynamics (Olya and Mehran, 2017, Mehran and Olya, 2020). This theory holds that the tourism
sector is a complex system made up of several interconnected and interdependent components,
including travellers, businesses, governmental organizations, and the built and natural
environments (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio et al., 2010a, Hartman, 2016, Wattanacharoensil
and Stettler, 2019). It acknowledges that tourism is not only a physical and economic phenomenon
but also one that is social, cultural, and psychological and that the interaction of all of these
variables is crucial to the industry's success (Crouch and Ritchie, 1999, Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006).
A greater understanding of the relationships between the many different parts of the tourism
system and how they interact with one another is generated through CAS (McKercher, 1999, Zahra
and Ryan, 2007, Baggio, 2008, McDonald, 2009). This could serve to improve the planning and
managing of tourism, as well as help identify possible areas of vulnerability and resilience (Zahra
and Ryan, 2007, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011). It could also help guide policy decisions. In addition
to this, it has the potential to contribute to the formation of research themes as well as theoretical
frameworks for further examination (McKercher, 1999, Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio, 2008,
McDonald, 2009). Understanding tourism's negative effects on local residents, ecosystems, and
economies and how these effects might be mitigated could be improved if we saw tourism as a
CAS (Baggio et al., 2010a, Hartman, 2016). Finally, it might result in better knowledge of the
51
various stakeholders' roles in the tourist system and improved techniques for managing and
planning their participation (Schianetz and Kavanagh, 2008, Valeri and Baggio, 2021a).
The Newtonian approach to tourism, on the other hand, considers tourism to be a deterministic
and linear system (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011). This viewpoint is
predicated on the assumption that the tourism industry is made up of a collection of individual
elements that carry out their activities in isolation and that the outcomes of the actions these
elements take can be forecasted with a certain level of precision (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Stevenson
et al., 2009). According to this point of view, tourism can be conceptualized as a system made up
of a wide variety of autonomous components that engage in predictable patterns of interaction
(McDonald, 2009, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011). The complexity of the system and the emergent
behaviour that may result from it are not taken into account by this view of tourism, even though
it helps make predictions and analyze data related to tourism (Hsiao et al., 2015, Olya and Al-
Ansi, 2018). Additionally, Newtonian approaches generate the authors' developed knowledge of
a few selected components of the tourism system but produce little understanding of the
relationships and interactions between these components (Russell and Faulkner, 1999, Stevenson
et al., 2009).
The Newtonian considers the tourism system to be stable and balanced in the face of any external
or internal triggering actions (e.g., natural disasters, economic fluctuations, climate change,
epidemics (COVID-19), and changes in demography) (Baggio et al., 2010a, Zhang et al., 2021).
It also considers the tourism system balanced and implies there is no need to take any
precautionary measures against potential change. Thus, when change begins to occur, it often
damages the existing system (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011). An example of
this has been documented at Mt. Rigi, Switzerland, where actions that triggered a change to the
tourism system, such as economic growth in China, terrorist activities in two other competing
destinations, and the closing of another alternative destination in Switzerland, increased visitation
dramatically and produced severe challenges for the local tourism industry (Wattanacharoensil
and Stettler, 2019). In another example, the COVID-19 pandemic also affected tourism negatively
due to the closing of international borders; the COVID-19-related losses in tourism revenue
exceeded USD $2 trillion for 2020 and 2021 (UNWTO, 2022). So, to comprehend the system's
complexity, it is essential to analyze tourism opportunities as a complex adaptive system.

52
2.4.3.4 Complex adaptive systems in understanding ecotourism opportunities
Over the past three decades, a body of literature has emerged acknowledging the interconnected
and learning features of ecotourism opportunities (Lindberg and McKercher, 1997, Weaver and
Lawton, 2007, Romero-Brito et al., 2016, Saidmamatov et al., 2020, Ismail et al., 2021, Khanra et
al., 2021). For instance, Lindberg and McKercher (1997) reviewed various ecotourism definitions
and found that the overall goal of ecotourism management strategies is to control the interaction
between tourists and the natural environment. They developed separate indicators for tourists and
the natural environment to evaluate the progress of management systems toward desirable
ecotourism outcomes. Weaver and Lawton (2007) evaluated ecotourism’s predefined goals by
investigating the relevant academic literature regarding ecotourism. They clearly explained the
interconnection among ecotourism opportunities on both the supply (protected areas, attractions,
tour operators, among others) and demand (ecotourists, policies, planning, etc.) sides. They also
confirmed the adaptive nature of ecotourism opportunities, demonstrating that the external
environment has a strong effect on ecotourism opportunities by citing the impacts of foreign
relations on ecotourism in South Africa (Van Amerom, 2006), the negative impact of agricultural
colonization on an ecolodge in the Amazon region of Peru (Yu et al., 1997), and so on.
Romero-Brito et al. (2016) analyzed 214 cases worldwide where non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) used ecotourism for conservation aims. The authors observed that the interconnections
among stakeholders are often complex, and partnership arrangements influence project
governance, management, and outcomes. Cabral and Dhar (2020) conducted an integrative
literature review on ecotourism in the Indian context to understand various perspectives through
critical analysis and identify gaps for future research. They found that the literature has established
an interrelationship between the three dimensions of ecotourism opportunities: economic
sustainability enhances local communities’ living standards by creating jobs, ecotourism
infrastructure development empowers vulnerable groups, and environmental awareness leads to
environmental conservation. Ismail et al. (2021) reviewed the literature on ecotourism and
identified that ecotourism’s interconnections protect the environment, encourage residents, and
respect the socio-cultural traditions of the local community. They produced systematic evidence,
which is predicated on the ideas of long-term sustainability, resource preservation, and visitor
education, that ecotourism is a complicated industry that has the potential to have both positive
and negative effects on the surrounding natural environment, as well as on the communities that
ecotourists visit (Higham, 2007, White et al., 2013). Various social, cultural, economic, and

53
environmental impacts must be considered, and ecotourism opportunities must be managed and
monitored cautiously. Ecotourism, for instance, may provide economic benefits to local
communities but may also lead to conflicts between tourists and residents (White et al., 2013,
Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
Furthermore, the environmental effects of ecotourism, such as the effects of increased tourism on
wildlife, need to be considered. Ecotourism can be challenging to implement because it requires
ensuring that the activities are environmentally friendly, adhere to ethical principles, and offer
educational opportunities to visitors (Fennell, 2007, Buckley, 2009). Consequently, the
opportunities presented by ecotourism call for careful planning and management to guarantee a
successful outcome for all parties involved (Ross and Wall, 1999a, Stone and Wall, 2004).
Additionally, the natural environment, the residents of the surrounding community, the tour
operators, and the visitors themselves are all essential elements of ecotourism (Ross and Wall,
1999a, Wood, 2002). These components have dynamic interactions in which changes in one
component influence changes in the other. For instance, alterations in the natural environment may
impact how a tour operator conducts their business, which in turn has repercussions for the
neighbourhood and the tourists (Fennell, 2007, Buckley, 2009). Changes in the behaviour of
tourists or the community at large can, similarly, impact the natural environment and the
businesses that cater to tourists (Buckley, 1994, Scheyvens, 1999). As well as the interactions
between the components, ecotourism is also subject to external influences, such as government
regulations and economic trends. These external forces can also significantly impact the system,
as they can shape the behaviour of the components (White et al., 2013, Wattanacharoensil and
Stettler, 2019).
It is possible to look at the role of CAS in ecotourism opportunities as an efficient means of
improving the activities considered to fall under the ecotourism category. CAS theory can be used
to understand how complex systems interact and evolve, and react to environmental changes
(Faulkner and Russell, 1997, Zahra and Ryan, 2007). In the context of ecotourism, CAS can be
utilized to analyze how different components of the local ecology interact with one another and
how those components may be affected by changes in the surrounding environment (Faulkner and
Russell, 2003, Baggio et al., 2010b). Finally, businesses will be better able to create
environmentally friendly ecotourism adventures that benefit the environment, local communities,
and the tourism industry if they understand the complex interactions between the environment, the

54
activities, and the people involved in the activities (Faulkner and Russell, 2001, Perfetto et al.,
2016).

2.5 Key observations and critical discussion

This chapter aimed to provide an in-depth understanding of the current state of the science of
EOMs. For that purpose, a systematic quantitative literature review approach was applied to
achieve the chapter's objective. A comprehensive keyword strategy was applied in three online
search engines: ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus. After removing the duplicates, 922
articles were collected that were named the large corpus. The PRISMA protocol was then applied
to get the most relevant research, 115 articles. These articles were expanded by the snowballing
procedure, and 12 new relevant articles enhanced the small corpus size to 127. CiteSpace analysis
was applied to the large corpus, and DCN, ACN, JCN, and keyword analysis was conducted.
Quantitative analysis was applied to the small corpus to analyze trends, methods, and theories.
The results showed that studies on EOMs have increased during the last decade; however, the
complex adaptive nature of ecotourism opportunities makes measuring ecotourism opportunities
challenging and demands systematic approaches such as the ECOS model and CAS theoretical
concepts. This finding is consistent with existing research on ecotourism opportunities evaluation,
such as Wattanacharoensil and Stettler (2019) and Baggio (2008). In the scientometric analysis,
when the top five clusters in the DCN were identified, it was found that the foundational
knowledge and theories in EOMs research are related to four key themes: 1) ecotourism impacts
on the environment; 2) stakeholders’ contributions to ecotourism development; 3) sustainability;
and 4) responsible behaviour of local communities in ecotourism promotion.
In the keyword analysis, ecotourism was the most significant node, appearing in almost half of the
collected literature. It has occupied about half the area in the keyword co-occurrence analysis
(Figure 2.8) due to its repeated use across the period whose literature was analyzed. Other related
keywords such as tourism, conservation, management, and protected area also enhance the
position of the ecotourism field, creating dense connections within it. “Willingness to pay” and
“indicator” demonstrated the most substantial citation bursts from 2016 to 2018. Willingness to
pay indicates the visitors’ intention to protect the environment and promote ecotourism (Doran et
al., 2015, Hultman et al., 2015), whereas indicator refers to ecotourism’s sustainability indicators.
Visitors’ attitudes and social comparisons, for example, comparison with others perceived as
doing worse than oneself, influence visitors’ willingness to pay (Doran et al., 2015). So there is a
need to protect the environment and promote ecotourism education. The visitors’ satisfaction is
55
necessary to increase the willingness to pay, which might be achieved by enhancing the
destination’s ecotourism opportunities. Demonstrating the socio-cultural and economic benefits
of ecotourism to local communities may encourage them to be more willing to pay for its
promotion, thereby creating more ecotourism opportunities.
The CiteSpace analysis discovered that Honey was the most cited author in the ACN, while
Weaver’s article received the most citations (Table 2.1). The influence of a research work or
authors should not be considered only from received citations (Herrera-Franco et al., 2020). The
#0 cluster in the DCN shows that most studies followed Ralf Buckley’s paper. Buckley’s article
appears among the DCN, the ACN, and backward snowballing. Thus, in this literature review of
scientometric and quantitative analysis, Ralf Buckley was the most influential author working with
EOMs. However, the large corpus frequently cited Weaver and Lawton (2007) to understand the
concept of ecotourism and to assess the extent to which the relevant academic literature is engaged
in investigating the ecotourism phenomenon. Weaver and Lawton (2007) covered subjects
published before 2007 about ecotourism, such as venues, industry ecotourists, institutions, and
ecotourism impacts (such as ecological, socio-cultural, and economic impacts), quality control,
ethics, and external environmental impacts. They found ecotourism opportunities satisfied the
three core dimensions of nature, environmental learning or education, and ecological,
sociocultural, and economic sustainability. However, Weaver and Lawton (2007) also suggested
that ecotourism was still in its adolescence as a field of academic inquiry. So, this analysis, which
covered the period from 2009 to 2019, found an extension of these dimensions by applying the
ECOS model with evidence that investigators analyzed in detail five ecotourism opportunity
dimensions rather than three (Table 2.2). In addition, thirteen criteria and twenty-five
sustainability indicators were compiled under these five dimensions. The observed indices in
section 2.4.2.1 also reinforce the identified ecotourism opportunities dimensions, as all the
measurements developed can be classified under these dimensions and their relevant criteria and
indicators. This demonstrates that ecotourism opportunities cannot grow in an isolated system but
only through interdependence. These dimensions are, in fact, the indicators that can help develop
and assess tourism sustainability as described by U.N.’s SDGs 8 and 11 (United Nations, 2020).
Besides, Weaver and Lawton (2007) reviewed studies that were based mainly on a qualitative
approach to ecotourism opportunities evaluation. This review suggests that the quantitative
assessment of ecotourism opportunities can bring a more objective approach to this field.

56
Weaver and Lawton’s review also did not identify the importance of the concepts of adaptation
and interconnectivity, which are crucial to understanding ecotourism opportunities and the system
as a CAS (McKercher, 1999, Zahra and Ryan, 2007). Ecotourism occurs inside a CAS in which
external and internal influences continuously change and reshape opportunities, as observed in
section 2.4.2.3. This dynamism results from the ecotourism industry's adaptable and resilient
qualities, which allow it to respond to and adapt to changes in these significant variables. However,
this intrinsic complexity and adaptability generate substantial challenges when evaluating
ecotourism opportunities. Due to the diverse nature of ecotourism opportunities dimensions, their
changing powers, and their interdependence, the measurements might become complicated. The
external and internal components are not static and can change over time, driven by various
conditions such as socioeconomic transformations, technological advances, environmental
adjustments, and policy modifications (section 2.4.2.3).
Research on EOMs published in English-language journals is limited to a few geographic regions.
One possible explanation for the uneven geographic distribution of academic literature on EOMs
is that more researchers are studying EOMs in China, the USA, and India than elsewhere. These
countries are among the most productive countries in the ecotourism sector, have large physical
areas to develop potential ecotourism sites, and have large populations to support domestic
tourism.
The review has also found several valuable methods and theories to evaluate ecotourism
opportunities, such as the ECOS model, SWOT analysis, Delphi method, CAS theory, and CFA
(Figure 2.15). The ECOS model provides a structured framework for evaluating a destination's
environmental, cultural, and management opportunities, thereby providing a comprehensive view
of its suitability for ecotourism. SWOT analysis aids in comprehending the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats related to developing ecotourism opportunities in a given location,
thereby facilitating strategic planning. The Delphi technique uses iterative rounds of questioning
to reach consensus regarding the sustainability and impacts of ecotourism opportunities. The CFA
statistically validates the relationships between observed and latent variables affecting ecotourism
opportunities, thereby ensuring the reliability of evaluative measures. CAS theory enables the
examination of the dynamic interactions between and adaptability of ecotourism opportunities and
internal or external influences. Consequently, these diverse techniques collectively provide a
comprehensive, quantitative, dynamic methodology for evaluating ecotourism opportunities.

57
The current study's technique for literature review has several limitations. First, the review was
limited to ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus. Incorporating more essential databases, such as
Google Scholar and ResearchGate, may result in a more exhaustive compilation of relevant
studies. Second, the breadth of the literature was limited to only articles. Future reviews could
benefit from incorporating a broader range of sources, such as book chapters, review papers, and
conference proceedings, to ensure a more extensive and comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Also, EOMs can act as a tool to measure the ecotourism opportunities within a CAS and to assess
potential destinations quantitatively, which is essential in informing future tourism development.
EOMs assess the potential destination and provide an accurate picture of the available
opportunities within the destination qualitatively and quantitatively. These measurements can
further be used by researchers, industry practitioners, or local government bodies to develop these
opportunities and achieve the destination's capacity to entertain the maximum number of tourists
during peak times without damaging the ecosystem values of the site. In addition, complexity
theory can also be utilized to understand ecotourism opportunities development and investigate
the internal and external factors that influence ecotourism behaviour.

Figure 2.15. The most important findings that can help in measuring ecotourism opportunities

2.6 Summary of the chapter

This chapter provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of EOM science. In order to
accomplish the chapter's objective, a quantitative systematic literature review was conducted.

58
There was consistency between the scientometric and the quantitative analyses, as both showed
similar trends and patterns in EOMs research.
The findings showed that existing studies on ecotourism opportunities predominantly focused on
the impacts of ecotourism on the environment, stakeholders’ contributions toward ecotourism
development, sustainability, and responsible behaviour of local communities in ecotourism
promotion. In addition, five dimensions were identified to measure ecotourism opportunities,
including nature, environmental education/protection, sustainability, socio-cultural benefits, and
tourist satisfaction. These dimensions were further connected with thirteen criteria and twenty-
five sustainable indicators. Existing scales or indices assess potential destinations qualitatively
rather than quantitatively. In contrast, an index-based approach might help solve the challenges of
evaluating ecotourism opportunities as a CAS and quantitatively assess potential destinations to
support decision-making related to ecotourism promotion.
The review has also found several valuable methods and theories to evaluate ecotourism
opportunities, such as the ECOS model, SWOT analysis, CAS theory, and CFA.
This review updates scholars' knowledge on the potential application of new theories and methods
that require further investigation. This chapter explains how EOMs can be viewed through the lens
of complexity theory and examines the theoretical and methodological evolution of EOMs over
the past decade. Also, this review draws the attention of researchers to the value of quantitatively
measuring ecotourism opportunities as well as combining these measurements into an index scale
to synthesize quantitative evidence about the extent of available opportunities in a destination,
which would provide a tool for countries to attain their tourism visions and goals. An index scale
can be developed to resolve a vital issue in EOMs, providing a quantitative method to assess a
destination’s potential. In a CAS, these measurements can also serve as early warning signals to
detect potential problems in ecotourism destinations and help governments and private agencies
achieve the U.N. SDGs 8 and 11. These findings have important implications for countries seeking
to achieve their tourism ambitions and objectives and for organizations trying to achieve
Sustainable Development Goals 8 and 11 of the United Nations. Establishing a quantitative index
scale would equip governments, business agencies, and scholars with a vital instrument for
promoting ecotourism and controlling possible challenges in ecotourism sites. This study also
informs the knowledge of academics regarding the potential application of new ideas and
approaches, hence motivating additional research in these areas.

59
3 Evaluating ecotourism opportunities in a complex adaptive system

3.1 Introduction
Pursuing sustainability in tourism emphasizes the critical importance of evaluating ecotourism
opportunities. These evaluations provide insights into ecotourism programmes' potential
benefits, challenges, and limitations, ultimately enhancing sustainable practices and policies.
However, the task is difficult, especially when considering ecotourism opportunities as a
Complex Adaptive System (CAS). CAS's inherent variability, nonlinearity, and feedback loops
(how system components interact and cause unpredictable and unexpected system changes)
add substantial complexity to the evaluation process. Consequently, it is crucial and
challenging to establish an efficient method for effectively evaluating the ecotourism
opportunities in a CAS.
This chapter explores the answer to the first research question: "What types of ecotourism
opportunities coexist in Alula?” It evaluates ecotourism opportunities within the context of a
CAS by employing a hybrid SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) and
Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) analysis. The foundation for this effort is the
systematic review conducted in the previous chapter, which comprehensively examined the
existing literature on ecotourism opportunities measurements, identified the knowledge gaps
and highlighted the most effective theories and methodologies for evaluating ecotourism
opportunities. Using these identified approaches and theories, this chapter systematically
evaluates ecotourism opportunities as laid out in detail in Figure 3.1. In addition, this chapter
seeks to incorporate the CAS theory to clarify the complexities inherent to the ecotourism
opportunity system and quantify CAS concepts within the context of Alula, Saudi Arabia.
Exploring such complexity allows one to comprehend how a relatively unknown destination
might emerge from a disordered condition. To facilitate this investigation, the Scoring Weight
Method (SWM) and Entropy Weight Method (EWM), which are frequently applied in
decision-making processes, are used to determine the weighting of each variable. These derived
weights from the SWM and EWM methods are then combined using a linear combination to
generate a single score. In the final phase, these weights are used to quantify CAS concepts
within Alula. This chapter thoroughly examines the ecotourism opportunities in Alula, a
contribution that can potentially drive the development of sustainable tourism practices in the
region.

60
Figure 3.1. Structure of Chapter 3: Evaluating ecotourism opportunities in a complex adaptive
system.

61
3.2 Background
The breadth of complexity theory
The concepts of complexity and chaos theory are fundamental approaches to examining
complex phenomena (Cambel, 1993, Kiel and Elliott, 1997). This is because they provide a
framework for understanding a system’s interdependent and dynamic nature, which is essential
to comprehend these phenomena completely (Amagoh, 2008, Ramalingam et al., 2008).
Research has been conducted to enhance the applicability of chaos and complexity theory in
various research fields, such as physics, mathematics, economics, and social sciences. In
physics, it has been applied to understand the behaviour of physical systems such as fluids and
plasmas (Hosseinalipour et al., 2014, Xie and Xu, 2017, Shirmohammadi and Tohidi, 2019). It
has been applied in mathematics to study dynamic systems' behaviour and properties (Gare,
2000, De Bot, 2017). It analyses economic phenomena such as market cycles and asset price
movements (Brock, 1990, Faggini and Parziale, 2016). The theory has also been applied to
computer science, artificial intelligence, and robotics (Zhao and Shi, 2013, Green and
Lavesson, 2019, Roessner et al., 2021). In the social sciences, this theory has had wide
application to study the behaviour of complex social systems, such as political systems, social
networks, and the spread of culture (Kiel and Elliott, 1997, Byrne, 1998, Berkman et al., 2000,
Conte et al., 2012).

Complexity theory in tourism research

Chaos and complexity theory have been increasingly used in tourism research in recent decades
(Baggio, 2008, Stevenson et al., 2009). This is due to tourism's adaptive and interconnected
nature, which is marked by a certain complexity and unpredictability (Farrell and Twining-
Ward, 2005, Schianetz and Kavanagh, 2008, Plummer and Fennell, 2009). It makes tourism an
ideal field of research for further enhancing the applicability of chaos and complexity theory
(Baggio et al., 2010a, Boukas and Ziakas, 2014). Researchers have applied this theory to
conceptualizing tourism systems (McKercher, 1999, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011),
understanding destination governance and management (Baggio, 2008, Baggio et al., 2010a,
Boukas and Ziakas, 2014), sustainable tourism development (McDonald, 2009, Hall, 2019),
and analyzing regional tourism organizations (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio and Sainaghi,
2011). Furthermore, chaos and complexity theory has been used to understand the emergence
of tourism destinations, their development and management, and the role of stakeholders in the
tourism system (Ritchie, 2004, Russell and Faulkner, 2004, Norberg and Cumming, 2008). It

62
can also be used to evaluate potential tourism destinations to contribute to sustainable
development and understand tourism's impacts on local communities (Gârbea, 2014, Iandolo
et al., 2019, Hosseini et al., 2021). By emphasizing the interconnectedness and emergent
properties of the tourism system, complexity theory offers a new perspective to tourism
research. By recognizing the dynamic, non-linear, and unpredictable nature of the tourism
system, complexity theory can inform the creation of more adaptable and resilient tourism
policies and practices that are better equipped to face the challenges and uncertainties of the
tourism industry.

Dynamic, non-linear, and unpredictable nature of the tourism system

Chaos and complexity theory explain the dynamic, non-linear, and unpredictable nature of the
tourism system and its components (McKercher, 1999, Farrell and Twining-Ward, 2004, Zahra
and Ryan, 2005, Scott et al., 2008a, Baggio and Sainaghi, 2016, Valeri and Baggio, 2021b). It
provides a profound understanding of the interconnectedness of various tourism elements
(accommodation, transportation, food and beverages, tourist operators, etc.) (Movono et al.,
2018, Valeri and Baggio, 2021a), the emergence of patterns and structures (seasonal
fluctuations, sustainable tourism, niche tourism, etc.), and the unpredictable nature of their
trajectories (Baggio, 2008, Farsari et al., 2011, Han et al., 2019). The demand for tourism
services highlights the unpredictable nature of tourism, which is not always constant or
predictable (Edensor, 2000, Bowen and Clarke, 2002, Xiang, 2013). Factors including
seasonality, weather, political fluctuations, economic instabilities, pandemics (COVID-19),
and other external factors can change the requirements for tourist activities significantly and
unpredictably (Russell and Faulkner, 2004, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019, Hartman,
2020). This means the tourist industry must be agile, responsive to external or internal changes,
and adaptive, diversifying its opportunities to remain competitive (Dwyer and Edwards, 2009,
Dwyer et al., 2009). So, the unpredictable nature of tourism enhances the usefulness of an
adaptive approach to the tourism industry to navigate the changing environment successfully
(Folke et al., 2003, Olsson et al., 2004, Hartman, 2020). The tourism system's dynamic, non-
linear, and unpredictable nature is fundamental to its complex and adaptive nature.

63
Tourism as a complex and adaptive system
Scholars consider tourism to be complex and adaptive (Farrell and Twining-Ward, 2004,
Baggio, 2008, Schianetz and Kavanagh, 2008, McDonald, 2009, Hartman, 2016, Jovicic, 2016,
Movono et al., 2018, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). It is complex as each element
(attractions, accommodation, activities, etc.) within the system has its own identity, which
emerges from the interaction of essential connections (e.g., supply and demand, supporting
institutions, transit regions, environmental influences), variables (e.g., culture, peace, security),
and processes (e.g., development, management, conservation); it is adaptive because elements
can evolve, learn, and work toward adjusting to their surroundings along with their
interconnected parts (McKercher, 1999, Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio, 2008, McDonald,
2009). Moreover, a tourism system behaves as unstable, where relationships are non-linear.
Trigger events such as COVID-19 (Scott et al., 2008a, Cochrane, 2010, Abbas et al., 2021) or
political instability (e.g., Russia-Ukraine war) (Sönmez, 1998, Beirman, 2020, Tomczewska-
Popowycz and Quirini-Popławski, 2021) can move the tourism system from its stable condition
to dynamic paths, and perhaps to a new order, which would be again impermanent
(Papatheodorou, 2004, Baggio, 2008, Hall, 2009, Baggio et al., 2010a, Schubert et al., 2011).
Empirically examining a CAS can help understand the linkages and relationships of tourism
opportunities and help stakeholders understand tourism mechanisms, planning, management,
and development (Russell and Faulkner, 2004, Hartman, 2020). Likewise, ecotourism
opportunities are considered to be a CAS because they comprise different interconnected
dimensions, such as the natural, environmental, sustainability, sociocultural benefits, and
tourists' satisfaction (Fennell, 2007, Wearing and Neil, 2009, Speakman and Sharpley, 2012).
These dimensions interact with each other in a dynamic and non-linear manner. Ecotourism
opportunities are also adaptive to their surroundings, which means the system continually
evolves and responds to internal or external changes (Russell and Faulkner, 2004, Hartman,
2020). Ecotourism opportunities can be affected by internal and external factors such as
politics, government agencies, stakeholders' attitudes, corporations, and individuals, which can
have unpredictable consequences on the system as a whole (Baggio et al., 2010a,
Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Consequently, CAS theory can help evaluate the nature
of ecotourism opportunities and their unpredictability, which stakeholders can utilize to
manage these opportunities within a destination effectively.

64
Limitations of existing ecotourism opportunities evaluation approaches
Due to the complex and adaptive nature of ecotourism opportunities, it is essential to consider
multiple components in ecotourism opportunities evaluation, such as the natural and physical
environment, sociocultural impacts, economic effects, and the potential for generating
sustainable opportunities (Blamey, 1997, Diamantis, 1999, Neto, 2003, Batta, 2006).
Additionally, to ensure ecotourism sustainability, it is critical to consider the potential for long-
term adaptation and system transformation (Fennell, 2007, Bhuiyan et al., 2016). To do this, it
is also essential to identify and understand the potential for feedback loops, i.e., how different
system components interact with each other and create unpredictable and sometimes
unexpected changes in the system (Holland, 1992, Zahra and Ryan, 2005). Furthermore, it is
also essential to understand the non-linear dynamics and emergent properties between the
system’s components (Holland, 1992, Baggio, 2008). It may also be beneficial to consider the
implications of decision-making processes that drive or inhibit decision-making in ecotourism
opportunities development (Deng et al., 2002, Baggio, 2008). Thus, developing an integrated
and comprehensive approach to evaluate ecotourism opportunities and generate sustainable
outcomes is crucial for potential ecotourism destinations.
However, existing evaluation approaches, such as the SWOT and ECOS models (Boyd and
Butler, 1996, Castellani and Sala, 2010, Açıksöz et al., 2016), do not consider the complexity
of ecotourism opportunities. The limitations can be traced in the SWOT analysis and ECOS
model, respectively. First, SWOT analysis is used at the destination level and evaluates
ecotourism opportunities as an integrated system, resulting in brief and general outcomes
(Yilmaz et al., 2013, Ganjali, 2014, Sahani, 2021). For instance, it might identify topographic
diversity as an opportunity but does not detail its features (mountain types, forests, protected
areas, conservation strategies or policies, etc.) (Sayyed, 2013, Arsić et al., 2017). However,
with more thoughtful detail, decision-makers can evaluate each ecotourism opportunity.
Besides, although SWOT describes the stakeholders' interests in promoting tourism, it does not
identify the policies, strategies, or steps needed to develop comprehensive management
planning for tourism promotion (Açıksöz et al., 2016, Mondal and Haque, 2017). Second,
SWOT analysis does not consider interconnected relationship factors (Oreski, 2012, Açıksöz
et al., 2016, Mondal and Haque, 2017), which are essential to recognize and understand the
potential for feedback loops between ecotourism opportunities dimensions. That is essential in
a CAS where ecotourism opportunities are interconnected. For example, accommodation,
transportation, food and beverages, and the promotion of a sustainable local economy are

65
strongly connected to destination promotion and tourist satisfaction (Kurttila et al., 2000,
Açıksöz et al., 2016, Beyene, 2016, Kursah, 2017). Finally, SWOT analysis does not include
the quantitative analysis that can help locate the most influential factor or group of factors in
developing ecotourism opportunities (Kurttila et al., 2000, Açıksöz et al., 2016, Kursah, 2017).
So, a systematic approach should work together with SWOT analysis to identify and quantify
ecotourism opportunities.
Likewise, the ECOS model is a systematic procedure to identify ecotourism opportunities and
manage ecotourism destinations (Boyd and Butler, 1996, Açiksöz et al., 2010, Kumari et al.,
2010, Açıksöz et al., 2016). However, it examines the destinations’ strengths and does not
assess their weaknesses, threats (external factors that affect the strength negatively), or
opportunities (external factors that can affect the strengths positively). That information is
necessary to develop comprehensive strategic plans for sustainable destination development
and promotion (Fuller et al., 2005, Reihanian et al., 2012, Ghorbani et al., 2015). Therefore, a
comprehensive strategy is essential to carefully examine ecotourism opportunities.

3.3 Methodology
This chapter aimed to identify ecotourism opportunities in Alula, considering their
development in a CAS using a case study appropriate for this topic (Deng et al., 2002, Açiksöz
et al., 2010, Açıksöz et al., 2016). Alula, Saudi Arabia, was selected as a rapidly growing
ecotourism destination because its recent emergence (described in section 3.3.1) provides a
unique viewpoint on ecotourism opportunities development in a CAS. To develop a systematic
approach, research tools such as applying CAS theory, SWOT-ECOS analysis, data collection
(survey, geospatial analysis, literature review), and weighing the variables (WSM, EWM). The
chapter locates the CAS concepts in the study area and identifies 95 strengths, 15 weaknesses,
25 opportunities, and 10 threats. Figure 3.2 shows the methodological flowchart.

66
Figure 3.2. Adapted methods to identify ecotourism opportunities

3.3.1 Study Area

In recent years, Saudi Arabia has opened its doors to international tourism, promoting itself as
a destination rich in culture, history, and natural beauty (Khan, 2016, Abuhjeeleh, 2019,
Chalastani et al., 2020, Grand and Wolff, 2020, Ibrahim et al., 2021). The city of Alula is
located on the historic "Incense Road" in the Medina province in the northwest corner of Saudi
Arabia, about 200 kilometres from the coast of the Red Sea. For hundreds of years, this city
was a place where people from different places and cultures could meet and talk (Al‐Nasif,
1981, UNESCO, 2008, Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Repper et al., 2022, Gros‐
Balthazard et al., 2023). Alula City holds five historically significant districts: Old Town Alula,
Jabal Ikmah, Dadan, Nabataean, and Hegra. The Old Town Alula dates to the 12th century and
is renowned for its vital role on the incense trade route. In antiquity, the archaeological site
Dedan served as the capital of the Lihyanite and Nabataean kingdoms. Jabal Ikmah is notable
for its abundance of prehistoric rock inscriptions, while the Nabataean area is famed for its
unique rock-cut tombs and constructions. Hegra, the first Saudi UNESCO World Heritage site,
is the crown jewel of Nabataean architecture and craftsmanship (Al‐Nasif, 1981, UNESCO,
2008, Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Repper et al., 2022, Gros‐Balthazard et al., 2023).
These five districts in Alula represent Alula's rich historical and cultural evolution as a whole.

67
Alula City presents a critical case study for understanding the socio-economic dynamics of
rural communities in the area, owing to its rich history and cultural significance (Alrawaibah
et al., 2014, Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Al-Suhaibani and Al-Theeb, 2022, Alahmadi
et al., 2022, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023).
The region experiences a semi-arid climate with Mediterranean features, characterized by hot
and dry summers and mild and wet winters (Gallego et al., 2022, Royal Commission for Alula,
2023). Located at the base of a mountain range, the land around Alula is rocky and barren.
Although the region lacks perennial streams or rivers, it has several valleys or seasonal
watercourses that serve as a vital source of irrigation for local agriculture (Alrawaibah et al.,
2014, Kennedy et al., 2021, Gallego et al., 2022, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023). Alula
City is home to approximately 55,010 individuals, most of whom are of nomadic Arab tribes
and practice Islam as their primary religion (Alrawaibah et al., 2014, Royal Commission for
Alula, 2023). The village's economy is primarily based on agriculture and animal husbandry,
focusing on traditional crops such as wheat and beans (Alrawaibah et al., 2014, Repper et al.,
2022, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023). Alula's diverse terrain, including mountains,
deserts, valleys, and oases, provides travellers with various adventurous experiences, including
ziplining, bike riding, hiking, and exploring rock formations and hidden valleys (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). The region's flora comprises 58 species
of vegetation, including low stratum and tussocks, climbing or hanging plants, shrubs and
bushes, high trunk trees (palms), shade trees, and moderate-size trees (Royal Commission for
Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021, Ansari et al., 2022). Likewise, Alula is known for its
diverse wildlife, including the Nubian ibex, red-necked ostrich, Idmi gazelles, Arabian leopard,
Arabian wolf, red fox, and various bird species such as green bee-eaters, laughing doves,
crested lark, eagles, harriers, and long-legged buzzards (Al-Johany, 2007, Royal Commission
for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). Additionally, the area boasts various cultural and
heritage-based ecotourism resources, such as historical and archaeological sites, traditional
architecture, handicrafts, traditional transhumance lifestyle, and traditional festivals (Azimuth
festival, Alula Dates Festival, Winter at Tantora Festival) (Hariri-Rifai and Hariri-Rifai, 1990,
Orbaşli and Woodward, 2008). These resources provide an opportunity to explore
archaeological, historical, and traditional cultural resources within the context of ecotourism.
Despite these assets, Alula has largely been ignored and underdeveloped as a tourism site for
many years due to its desert location, remoteness from major cities, strict visa policies, religious
restrictions, and poor tourism infrastructure (Alrawaibah et al., 2014, Royal Commission for

68
Alula, 2020, Gallego et al., 2022). In 2016, Saudi Arabia initiated a plan to shift its economic
priorities from oil-centric industries to more sustainable and dependable industries, which led
to the launch of "Saudi Vision 2030" (Amran et al., 2020, Moshashai et al., 2020, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020). Saudi Vision 2030 is based on three main pillars: a dynamic
society, a thriving economy, and an ambitious nation, with various strategies that include
promoting tourism, conserving the environment, and enhancing the quality of life in Saudi
Arabia (Sahahiri et al., 2019, Saudi Commission for Tourism & Antiquities, 2020). The
promotion of tourism in Alula is an integral part of Saudi Vision 2030, and the government of
Saudi Arabia has established the Royal Commission for Alula (RCU) to ensure the
conservation of the environment, the well-being of the residents, and the enhancement of
ecotourism interpretation and education (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Gallego et al.,
2022, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023). This region holds significant importance for the
success of Saudi Vision 2030 due to its natural and cultural beauty and historical significance
(Alrawaibah et al., 2014, Gallego et al., 2022, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023). Besides, an
ambitious plan for the area's regeneration aims to bring in two million visitors by 2035 and turn
Alula into the world's largest living museum (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020). The goal is
to make this city a unique global destination for tourism in the arts, culture, heritage, and nature,
with its historical and cultural heritage sites within a sensitive natural environment that includes
magnificent geological structures, historical monuments, ancient towns, the world’s largest
living museum, protected areas, oases, valleys, and many more (UNESCO, 2008, Alrawaibah
et al., 2014, Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Repper et al., 2022).
Despite the region's potential for tourism, there has been limited research on Alula and other
rural communities in the area. However, several studies have focused on these communities'
social and economic challenges, such as land tenure, resource management, and access to
education and healthcare (Bay, 2014, RCU, 2019). These challenges include issues related to
land tenure, resource management, and access to education and healthcare. Alula, a rapidly
growing ecotourism destination, offers a unique chance to investigate CAS in tourism research
due to its rich history, cultural value, demanding environmental circumstances, and emergence
from an unknown to a known place. Ecotourism is a rapidly expanding industry in Alula, but
it faces several challenges, including insufficient tourism infrastructure, fluctuating market
demands, and socioeconomic issues (Bay, 2014, RCU, 2019). The study of this system can
provide insight into the factors that affect its stability and sustainability, as well as management
techniques that can be utilized to improve its resilience. The success of ecotourism in Alula is

69
contingent on integrating and coordinating multiple stakeholders, including local residents,
government agencies, the private sector, and tourists (Alrawaibah et al., 2014, Gallego et al.,
2022, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023). Furthermore, Alula is an excellent case study for
comprehending sustainable tourism development strategies and integrated management
solutions for moderately arid regions (Alrawaibah et al., 2014, Gallego et al., 2022, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2023). Therefore, studying this system can yield valuable insights into
complex systems' general dynamics and resilience. Figure 3.3 shows Alula is location in Saudi
Arabia as:

Figure 3.3. The location of Alula governorate and Alula city in Saudi Arabia

3.3.2 SWOT-ECOS analysis for ecotourism opportunities identification

SWOT analysis and the ECOS model are complementary methods for evaluating the potential
for ecotourism development because they offer distinct perspectives. When the SWOT model
is applied to ecotourism, it assists in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a destination
and the opportunities and threats related to the tourism industry (Ganjali, 2014, Ghorbani et al.,
70
2015). For instance, a SWOT analysis may reveal that a particular ecotourism destination has
a unique natural environment and strong community support but lacks infrastructure and
marketing resources (Jackson et al., 2003, Ghorbani et al., 2015). The ECOS model, on the
other hand, is intended to evaluate the potential for ecotourism development in a specific region
(Kim et al., 2013, Açıksöz et al., 2016). It considers various factors, including the destination's
natural and cultural attractions, visitor facilities and services, accessibility, and environmental
management practices (Boyd and Butler, 1996, Açiksöz et al., 2010, Rahman, 2014, Açıksöz
et al., 2016). By evaluating these factors, the ECOS model can guide how to develop and
manage ecotourism sustainably. By combining SWOT analysis and the ECOS model,
ecotourism planners and developers can better understand a region's ecotourism potential.
SWOT analysis can help identify a destination's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats that the ECOS model may not capture (Ganjali, 2014, Ghorbani et al., 2015). The ECOS
model can provide specific information about the ecotourism opportunities in the region and
how they can be developed and managed sustainably (Kim et al., 2013, Açıksöz et al., 2016).
A few studies that used a combined approach of SWOT and ECOS analysis were available but
did not develop a combined SWOT-ECOS analysis to evaluate ecotourism opportunities. For
instance, Açıksöz et al. (2016) applied these models separately, using SWOT to examine the
advantages and disadvantages of the study area and the ECOS model for potential ecotourism
evaluation. However, this study develops a SWOT-ECOS analysis to evaluate ecotourism
opportunities under five ecotourism opportunities dimensions and thirteen criteria within each
of the four SWOT factors, as described in Figure 3.4. This analysis assesses SWOT and ECOS
analysis and their applicability and generalizability in these broader contexts in the tourism
field and enhances the utility of these methods for ecotourism evaluation.

71
Figure 3.4. SWOT-ECOS analysis to identify ecotourism opportunities

72
3.3.3 Data collection
Data has been collected under each SWOT analysis factor for each ECOS model component
from different sources, including visitors and local residents, local government departments,
geospatial analysis, and by different types of literature reviews (Figure 3.5.). It also included
searchers of official websites, such as the RCU, the Saudi Ministry of Culture, Environment,
Water, and Agriculture, and the Ministry of Tourism of Saudi Arabia. Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) data were collected from local government departments such as
RCU and the Saudi Geological Department and international data providers such as the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) UNESCO
(Table 3.1).

Figure 3.5. Data collection sources for ecotourism opportunities’ identification

73
Table 3.1. Sources of geospatial data
Data Layer Data type Source
Administrative boundary map Vector layers RCU
Protected area Vector layers RCU
Road network Vector layers RCU
Physical features Vector layers RCU
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) SRTM DEM, 30 m resolution USGS
Satellite image Landsat 8,30 m resolution USGS
Topographic Map Raster data, 1:25,000 or Saudi Geological department
1:50,000 scale
Soil Map Raster data, 1:100,000 or FAO UNESCO soil map
1:250,000 scale
Geological Map Raster data, 1:25,000 to Saudi Geological department
1:50,000

3.3.3.1 Survey procedure

A survey questionnaire was used to identify some variables that could not be identified through
secondary sources, such as ecotourism awareness and environmental protection awareness
among local communities and tourists. RMIT’s Ethics Review Committee approved the survey
in February 2022 through the reference number 2022-24639-16850. The questionnaire was
distributed through social media (Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and Facebook) to reach
residents and visitors. The required sample size of 383 responses was estimated through
QUALTRICS (2020) with a collective input of the total population size of 55,010 (population
of Alula) and a visitors’ population size of 37,000 per year (Royal Commission for Alula,
2023). At the end of the survey, 1,101 responses were received.

3.3.3.2 Landscape features influencing ecotourism opportunities

Section 2.4.2.3 detailed external and internal factors that influence ecotourism opportunities
within a destination. These factors were found to be analyzed most frequently in the literature
review. GIS was used to analyze some of these factors related to geographic features to asses
these factors’ suitability for ecotourism opportunities development in Alula. These factors
include slope, elevation, vegetation density, proximity to entertainment sites, roads, historical
sites, and visibility. GIS has been used as a GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making, which
can analyze these factors' influences on ecotourism opportunities development (Çetinkaya et
al., 2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019).

74
 1) Slope
Slope was derived using the Satellite Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) Digital Elevation
Model (DEM). The percentage rise method generated the slope layer (Kumari et al., 2010,
Çetinkaya et al., 2018). High slopes (> 35%) produce a higher intensity of gully erosion and
lower drainage supply, resulting in a lower rate of highly suitable locations for agriculture,
parks, and other recreational areas (Kumari et al., 2010, Çetinkaya et al., 2018). In other words,
a lower slope is more suitable than a high slope (Kumari et al., 2010, Çetinkaya et al., 2018).
Mansour et al. (2020) spatially assessed land suitability for ecotourism activities and found the
lowest slopes across the western, middle, and northern parts of Masirah Island, Oman, to
recommend a suitable area for ecotourism activities. Çetinkaya et al. (2018) recommend that
ecotourism sites must be located at a lower slope for trekking. They found that Sinop, east of
Artvin, and the Black Sea region of Turkey are located in low-slope areas.

2) Elevation
Elevation analysis evaluates the landscape's nature and identifies priority areas for ecotourism.
For that purpose, again, the SRTM DEM was used. Elevations between 100 m to 400 m (above
sea level) were considered suitable for ecotourism destination development, while 400 m to
1400 m were moderately suitable (Çetinkaya et al., 2018, Mansour et al., 2020). Elevations
higher than 1400 m are less fit for human health and are unsuitable for ecotourism activities.
Bunruamkaew et al. (2011) preferred 300 m to 400 m as suitable elevations for ecotourism
activities and found a suitable site for ecotourism in Surat Thani Province, Thailand.

3) Vegetation density
A positive relationship exists between ecotourism and vegetation density. Vegetation density
positively affects the developing biotic features of an ecotourism destination (Adigana and
Setyono, 2019, Sahani, 2020). Landsat 8 satellite images with 30 m resolution were used to
calculate the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Sahani (2020) found a positive
relationship between ecotourism and vegetation density; high vegetation density promotes
more sustainable ecotourism opportunities. The author found very high (1677 km2 area), high
(1160 km2), moderate (786 km2), low (850 km2), and very low (1031 km2) vegetation areas in
Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, India.

75
 4) Proximity to ecotourism opportunities
Proximity analysis was performed and classified by Euclidean distance analysis according to
the nearby roads, entertainment and cultural sites, and historical sites. 0 to 30 km is a suitable
distance from accommodation to historical, cultural, and entertainment sites for ecotourism
activities, and these sites should be located away from cities (Bunruamkaew et al., 2011,
Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya et al., 2018, Mansour et al., 2020). Bunruamkaew et al.
(2011) recommended close proximity to historical, cultural, and entertainment sites to enhance
the opportunities for visitors in an ecotourism destination. They performed a site suitability
evaluation for ecotourism and found that Surat Thani Province, Thailand, provides close
proximity to these opportunities, showing significant potential for ecotourism.

5) Visibility
The visibility factor was generated from a DEM integrated with the location of natural sites by
conducting a visibility analysis to determine whether or not locations were visible. As Alula
has five districts, such as Old Town Alula, Dadan, Nabataean, Jabal Ikmah, and Hegra, five
observation points were taken from the most common points for tourists in each district in
Alula. More than 1 km of visibility is considered suitable for ecotourism (Wanyonyi et al.,
2016, Adigana and Setyono, 2019). Wanyonyi et al. (2016) conducted a GIS analysis of
potential ecotourism sites in Kwale County, Kenya, and found low visibility (less than 1 km)
in that site meant that it was unsuitable for ecotourism activities.

3.3.4 Weighting the variables (ecotourism opportunities)

The purpose of weighting the variables is to assign a score to each variable based on their
availability in the destination and their impact on ecotourism development. The availability of
strengths and opportunities are measured as positive factors, encouraging the development of
ecotourism opportunities in the destination, while weaknesses and threats are scored as
negative factors, harmfully impacting ecotourism opportunities. In this chapter, these weights
are applied quantitatively to locate CAS concepts (Emancipator and Kroll, 1993, Stevenson et
al., 2009, Gershenson and Fernández, 2012, Speakman, 2017, Thathsarani and Gunaratne,
2018, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). These weights are also retained for further
analysis in upcoming research questions 2 and 3.

76
Previous research has taken various approaches to assign variable weights to evaluate potential
ecotourism destinations. For example, an evaluation of a Smart Tourist Attraction (STA) was
carried out by Wang et al. (2016b) at the Hongshan Zoo in China. Their study established the
variables' weights using the Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method (FCEM) and the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). When performing multi-criteria fuzzy comprehensive
evaluations, AHP and FCEM are frequently combined. Some examples of this approach being
applied include crisis and emergency management quality assessment by Cui (2012),
evaluation of the risk of flood water inrush by Wang et al. (2012), and real estate investment
by Minli and Wenpo (2012). Lin et al. (2021) used a hybrid method to evaluate cultural tourism
policies in Tainan City, Taiwan. Expert interviews, the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), the
Analytic Network Process (ANP), and the Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) method were
all combined in their hybrid approach. The experts' insights were transformed into numerical
values using ANP. Based on these weighted values from ANP, the ideal development strategy,
critical criteria, and sub-criteria were determined. Finally, WLC and GIS were used to show
the best way to organize Tainan City's cultural and creative clusters.
All these techniques rely heavily on professional judgment. This might result in skewed
findings. Additionally, these techniques fall short of accurately capturing the complexity of
ecotourism opportunities (Profillidis, 2000, Morgan, 2017, Munier and Hontoria, 2021). They
disregard the tourism industry's dynamic nature, which can produce outdated results (Faulkner
and Russell, 2001, Teisman and Klijn, 2008). These approaches also do not consider the
qualitative factors (e.g., ecotourism awareness among local residents and visitors, awareness
about environmental protection) that could affect the evaluation of a tourist destination. In this
research, to handle these limitations, the Weight Scoring Method (WSM) and Entropy Weight
Method (EWM) have been applied to calculate the weight of 145 (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats) variables. After calculation, the weights of both methods have been
combined as discussed in (section 3.3.4.3).
The following sections provide the detail of these WSM and EWM.

3.3.4.1 Weight Scoring Method (WSM)

WSM is a technique used to evaluate the relative importance of different variables based on a
set of criteria (Coderre et al., 1993, Tang, 2015). It entails giving weight values to each criterion
and multiplying that weight by the variable's score on that criterion to arrive at the final result.
The relative importance of each variable is determined by computing the total of the weighted
scores for that variable (Nouri et al., 2008, Ramamoorty et al., 2020). WSM is beneficial when
77
comparing variables with different characteristics because the weighting given to each criterion
can be adjusted to reflect its relative importance (Nouri et al., 2008, Nasa and Hassan, 2016).
This makes it possible to evaluate the items more accurately, being explicitly compared in the
tourism sector, where each variable has its own unique identity (Nouri et al., 2008, Nasa and
Hassan, 2016, Ramamoorty et al., 2020). The criteria were set for each variable based on its
unique characteristics. The following is a detailed description of the procedure for using the
WSM (Coderre et al., 1993, Jadhav and Sonar, 2009, Zardari et al., 2015, Odu, 2019).
• Identify the decision problem and the criteria
The first step in using WSM is to clearly define the decision problem and identify the criteria
that will be used to evaluate the variables (Zardari et al., 2015, Odu, 2019). In this chapter,
WSM is used to weight the variables (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats).
However, this procedure requires a set of criteria. So, five criteria have been set against each
variable through the evaluation by standards procedure recommended by Deng et al. (2002),
Pralong (2005), and Kubalíková (2019), as described in Appendix 17. For this purpose, precise
standards and specific 4-point scoring scales have been defined for each variable. Standards
for each variable have been set using the comprehensive literature review. These some criteria
are also used in EWM (section 3.3.4.2).
Due to the unique features, for each variable, different criteria have been set for each variable.
For example, for the variable named “Foliage”, the following by five criteria were used to
decide its availability score in the destination. These criteria are (a) does outdoor foliage
plantation exist? (b) does indoor foliage plantation exist? (c) Is there planning available to
conserve the foliage? (d) does foliage cover 35% to 60% of the destination? (e) is a suitable
temperature (16° to 27° C) available for foliage growth? These criteria focus on the way the
variable supports ecotourism opportunities. Similarly, the “groves” variable (small groups of
trees) has criteria including (a) is it located near accommodation? (b) are they providing shade
for eating and drinking facilities?, (c) are they well preserved?, (d) is it easy to access and
provide security?, (e) is there no solid waste and noise pollution nearby the groves?, These
criteria have been collected from a comprehensive literature review.
• Assign importance weights to the criteria
Next, importance weights are assigned to each of the criteria based on their relative significance
to the decision problem. The weights have been assigned between 1 to 100%. A common
method for assigning weights is the pairwise comparison method, in which each criterion is

78
compared to the others and assigned a weight proportional to its importance (Zardari et al.,
2015, Odu, 2019).

• Score the variables

After establishing the criteria and weights, the next step is to assign a score to each variable
based on how well it meets each criterion. So, paying attention to this rule of how variables
meet each criterion, a numerical score from 0 to 100 has also been assigned to each variable
(Zardari et al., 2015, Odu, 2019).
• Multiply the scores by the weights
After assigning a score to each variable, each score of the variable has been multiplied by each
weight of the criterion. Finally, the score of each criterion is summed up to get the final score.

3.3.4.2 Entropy Weight Method (EWM)

EWM is an information weight model that has been extensively studied and practised (Liu et
al., 2010, Zhang et al., 2011). EWM is used to make decisions based on multiple criteria and
combines those criteria into a single, unified decision (Zhang et al., 2011, Zhu et al., 2020).
The approach combines all of the criteria into a single weighted value, with the weights being
determined by the degree to which each criterion contributes to the overall success of the
method. For instance, ecological sustainability (criterion) can contribute to the overall
ecotourism opportunities development inside a destination (Boyd and Butler, 1996, Açıksöz et
al., 2016). Following that, a decision is made by applying this weighted value (Feng et al.,
2014, Deng et al., 2020). Compared with various subjective weighting models (such as AHP
or Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), the most
significant advantage of EWM is that it does not subjectively weight variables (Zhang et al.,
2014, Zhong et al., 2015). Therefore, EWM has been widely used in decision-making in the
tourism field (Liu et al., 2018, Tang et al., 2019).
In EWM, m variables and n criteria (the criteria already set during WSM) are set in the
evaluation, and the measured value of the ith variable in the jth criterion is recorded as xij. The
first step is the normalization of the values. The normalized value of the ith variable for the jth
criteria is denoted as Pij, and its calculation is as follows (Delgado and Romero, 2016, Zhu et
al., 2020):

79
 X Equation 3.1
Pij = ∑m ijX
i=1 ij

The Pij value is then used to calculate the entropy value ei of the variables by the following
method:
ei = −h ∑m
i=1 Pij lnPij Equation 3.2

Here, the value of h for each factor of SWOT was calculated as

h = ln(m)
1 Equation 3.3

where m = number of alternatives (variables)

Finally, the entropy weight has been calculated as
1 − ei Equation 3.4
Wi =
∑m
i=1(1 − ei )

3.3.4.3 Weights combination

In multi-criteria decision-making, WSM and EWM are two prevalent techniques for selecting
the best alternative from a set of alternatives (Coderre et al., 1993, Jadhav and Sonar, 2009,
Huang et al., 2017, Xu et al., 2018). However, to take advantage of the strengths of both
methods and provide a more comprehensive assessment of each variable, the score of each
method can be combined (Diebold and Lopez, 1996, Nor et al., 2018). Different methods have
been used to combine the weights based on the specific measurement needs. For instance, Peng
and Zhang (2022) used game theory and combined the weights of the AHP-CRITIC game
theory method. However, game theory provides the mean value of all the variables rather than
the mean of each pair of AHP and CRITIC weights.
Although the arithmetic mean can be used in weight combinations (Cochran, 1954, Li et al.,
2019), a linear combination is generally regarded as a more effective technique than the
arithmetic mean in the context of combining weights. In the linear combination approach, each
weight is multiplied by a constant factor, and then the products are added to obtain a weighted
sum (Bunn, 1985, Vogt and Cottrell, 1999, Malczewski, 2011). This method permits greater
flexibility in adjusting the relative importance of each weight, which can be advantageous when
combining variables with varying levels of significance or relevance (Jacquier et al., 2003,
80
Gigović et al., 2016). The arithmetic mean, on the other hand, is calculated by averaging the
weights. While this method can help combine variables with similar levels of importance or
relevance, it may not be appropriate when dealing with variables with varying significance
levels (Plackett, 1958, Jacquier et al., 2003). This research requires a technical approach that
provides a combined value of both methods, such as EWM and WSM.
Multiple fields, including finance, economics, and the social sciences, use weighted linear
combination methods to aggregate data from multiple sources or indicators. Machine learning
models are also used to combine the predictions of different models, methods, or features
(Malczewski, 2000, Ueda, 2000, Chou, 2013). Linear combination methods are also employed
widely in the tourism industry (Moeinaddini et al., 2010, Cang, 2014). Specifically, they can
be used to aggregate multiple tourism-relevant factors or variables, such as the quality of
accommodations, transportation options, dining options, and attractions (Moeinaddini et al.,
2010, Cang, 2014). Using factors such as the availability of cultural attractions, safety,
cleanliness, and accessibility, for instance, a tourism destination may use a weighted linear
combination method to develop an overall score or ranking of various neighbourhoods or areas
within the destination (Van der Merwe and Van Niekerk, 2013). This information can be used
to assist tourists in making informed decisions about where to stay and what to do during their
visit (Ahmadi Sani et al., 2016, Navarro et al., 2020). Furthermore, linear combination methods
can be used to develop tourism demand models that predict tourist arrivals based on factors
such as income, exchange rates, and destination characteristics (Bunruamkaew et al., 2011,
Gigović et al., 2016). These models can assist tourism stakeholders in making investment,
infrastructure, and marketing strategy decisions (Bagheri et al., 2013, Wu et al., 2013).
In this study, the linear combination methodology was adopted over the arithmetic mean to
combine the scores from the EWM and SWM because it permits the incorporation of varying
levels of importance (weights) for each scoring methodology, thereby providing a more
nuanced and tailored representation of ecotourism opportunities. Nonetheless, using the
following formula, equal weight has been provided to each approach (Beedasy and Whyatt,
1999, Liaghat et al., 2013).
Overall weight of variables = α (EWM + WSM) Equation 3.5
Here, “α” is a weighting coefficient ranging from 0 to 1, reflecting the relative importance of
EWM and WSM in the combined score. A higher α indicates greater influence of that
component.

81
The value of "α" in this investigation was set at "0.5," meaning that both approaches were given
equal importance.

3.3.5 Complex adaptive systems concepts

A CAS displays certain characteristics or behaviours, such as the butterfly effect, which is
when small changes in initial conditions or the system's environment lead to large-scale,
unpredictable, or non-linear changes (Speakman, 2017, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
The edge of chaos describes the transition stage in a complex system where orderly behaviour
coexists with disorderly or turbulent conduct (Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). The edge
of chaos is a place of intense learning, innovation, and creativity (Stevenson et al., 2009).
Bifurcation is a critical transformation time when the system has two possible trajectories (Baer
and Erneux, 1986, Zibold et al., 2010). If the tourism system can self-organize and refine itself
at such a bifurcation point, it will improve and evolve in the emergence process. Strange
attractors, self-organization, and emergence bring the disruption of the system to the
development phase (Comfort, 1994, Heylighen, 2001). A strange attractor is a force that allows
for a self-organizing process, and it is used to attract factors in a specific direction by
influencing their behaviour (McKercher, 1999, Speakman, 2017). A strange attractor can be
different in different contexts, either a shared vision in business or a manager with effective
communication during a crisis (McKercher, 1999, Heylighen, 2001, Speakman, 2017).
In this study, CAS concepts have been measured qualitatively and quantitatively. For
qualitative purposes, each CAS characteristic has been analyzed in the destination and an
attempt was made to find the internal or external factors that affected the destination. To
qualitatively measure the concepts of Alula's complex adaptive ecotourism system, this study
employed a comprehensive analysis of published literature, local department websites, and
official documents. This approach has enabled the investigation of CAS behaviours like non-
linearity, edge of chaos, bifurcations, and emergence within the destination. For instance, to
evaluate non-linearity, significant changes (internal or external influences), such as Saudi
Vision 2030, are detected within the country and its surroundings, leading to a significant
change in the destination. To examine the edge of chaos, the factors such as strict visa policies
that can restrict the adaptive behaviour of ecotourism opportunities and push the destination
into a transition stage between stability and instability are identified. In bifurcation analysis,
the turning points are identified, such as reshaping tourist visa policies, that can bring out the
destination from the edge of chaos. Finally, the emergence state is observed by the appearance

82
of new strategies or patterns, such as new visa policies for tourists and new tourism
infrastructure in the destination that can develop the destination.
Regarding quantitative measures, non-linearity was analyzed by considering the deviation of
variables’ weights (Equation 3.5) from an ideal straight line (Emancipator and Kroll, 1993).
In the case of the edge of chaos, it is a stage of intense learning (Stevenson et al., 2009). So,
each variable's Adaptive Capacity (AC) in the SWOT-ECOS analysis has been calculated by
assigning a weight based on each strength and opportunity’s availability in the destination. A
weight is assigned to each weakness and threat based on their negative impact on the
destination. In addition, strengths and opportunities accumulate as positive factors because they
strengthen the destination, whereas weaknesses and threats accumulate as negative factors
because they weaken the destination. The AC of each SWOT factor has been calculated by first
normalizing the weights and then measuring the average value of normalized weights
(Thathsarani and Gunaratne, 2018), as indicated Equation 3.6 and Equation 3.7. Finally, the
destination score has been calculated by subtracting the negative factors AC score from the
positive factors AC score.

Vnormalized = V
V−Vminimium
∗ 100 Equation 3.6
maximum −Vminimum

(𝑉1𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 +𝑉2𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 + ...+ 𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 ) Equation 3.7

𝐴𝐶 = 𝑁

In equation 3.6
V= variables
In equation 3.7
AC= Adaptive Capacity of each SWOT factor as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats
V1norm+V2norm+ ...+ Vnnorm= normalized value of each variable of four SWOT factor
N= total number of variables in each SWOT factor
Then, emergence has been calculated by Equation 3.8 considering opportunities as inputs (Iin),
as these are the external factors responsible for initiating development in the destination. While
the number of strengths was considered to be an output (Iout) as these emerged due to external
factors (Gershenson and Fernández, 2012, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 Equation 3.8
𝐸=
𝐼𝑖𝑛

83
Finally, self-organization was measured as a change in the system over time (Equation 3.8).
Here, the ecotourism opportunities system can be observed as the opposite of information: high
organization (order) is characterized by low information, and high information characterizes
low organization (chaos) (Gershenson and Fernández, 2012). So, in this research, self-
organization has been calculated by the following formula:
𝑆 = 𝐼𝑖𝑛 − 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 Equation 3.9

Again, the number of opportunities has been taken as the input and the number of strengths as
the output. Additionally, self-organization describes that if the system reduces information,
then (𝑆 > 0), i.e., 𝐼𝑖𝑛 > 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 and if the system generates information, then (𝑆 < 0), i.e., 𝐼𝑖𝑛 <
𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 .

3.4 Results
The results section is divided into five distinct parts. The first part is about the landscape
potential in Alula. The second part explains the landscape features influencing ecotourism
opportunities, and the third explains the survey results. The fourth part shows the SWOT-ECOS
analysis results, whereas the final part discusses the complexity analysis of ecotourism
opportunities development. An overview of the results section is shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6. An overview of the results section of Chapter 3

84
3.4.1 Landscape potentials in Alula
Ecotourism landscape analysis studies how natural or human-made elements of a landscape
influence ecotourism opportunities (Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Mansour et al., 2020). This strategy
utilizes GIS to analyze and visualize spatial data, including environmental, socioeconomic, and
cultural factors. This study identifies the potential and limitations of ecotourism development
in a given landscape using a GIS-based approach and provides valuable information for
sustainable tourism planning and management (Boavida-Portugal et al., 2016, Wanyonyi et al.,
2016, Mansour et al., 2020). These factors are depicted in Table 3.2. These landscape potentials
mostly come under the nature dimension and can influence ecotourism opportunities
development across all other ecotourism opportunities dimensions, including nature. For
example, the average temperature can substantially impact ecotourism opportunities, affecting
the overall visitor experience and the types of activities that are feasible at a given destination
(Boavida-Portugal et al., 2016). The preferable average temperature is between 20 to 26° C in
urban, mountain, and beach destinations (Scott et al., 2007). Alula has a temperature of 22.5°
C, indicating an excellent opportunity for ecotourism. The analysis shows that Alula is in a
desert-type environment with less than 10 inches of annual rainfall with an average moderately
suitable temperature. Areas are often considered high-altitude if they reach at least 2400 m
above sea level (National Geographic, 2018). High altitudes are not considered fit for tourism.
High altitude locations have low air pressure, temperature, and oxygen density, which is
unsuitable for living or visiting purposes, where people find breathing hard and face serious
illness. So, low-altitude areas are more suitable for tourism purposes (National Geographic,
2018). Low population density supports ecotourism as it impacts destinations less and
welcomes tourists (Stanchev et al., 2015). The following Table 3.2. shows the rationale for
assessing the suitability and the results collected for Alula. These rationales have been collected
from a comprehensive literature review to help determine suitable opportunities for ecotourism
activities in Alula.
Table 3.2. Landscape potential in Alula
Sr. Variables Rationale for suitability Findings
No
1 Avg. Suitable: 17° C - 21° C 22.5° C/72.4° F
temperature Moderately suitable: 21° C - 26° C Moderately suitable
Not suitable: > 26° C (Royal Commission for
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Mansour et al., 2020)
Alula, 2020, Alahmadi et al.,
2022)
2 Suitable: 750-1500 mm (30-60 inches) 21 mm (0.8 inches)
Avg. annual
Moderately suitable: 500-750 mm (20-30 Not suitable
rainfall
inches)
85
Sr. Variables Rationale for suitability Findings
No
Not suitable: less than 500 mm (20 inches) (Royal Commission for
(Gigović et al., 2016) Alula, 2020, Alahmadi et al.,
2022)
6 Slope Suitable: 0-5% Most of the area is situated
Moderately suitable: 5-35% between 0-27% (calculated
Not suitable: >35% by GIS, Figure 3.7)
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya et al., Suitable to moderately
2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Mansour suitable
et al., 2020) (Wanyonyi et al., 2016,
Çetinkaya et al., 2018,
Adigana and Setyono, 2019,
Mansour et al., 2020)
7 Vegetation Suitable (Healthy vegetation): NDVI values 0-0.5 (calculated by GIS,
density from 0.6 to 1 Figure 3.7)
Moderately suitable (Moderate Moderately suitable
Vegetation): NDVI values from 0.2 to 0.6
Not suitable: (very low or zero Vegetation):
NDVI values from -1 to 0.2
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Mansour et al., 2020)
8 Visibility Suitable (Near Range): Visible, accessible Middle ranges from
sites near tourism hubs. observing points (calculated
Moderately Suitable (Middle Range): by GIS, Figure 3.7)
Visible regions with moderate travel or effort Moderately suitable
to reach.
Not suitable (Far Range/Not Visible):
Remote or inaccessible regions.
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya et al.,
2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Mansour
et al., 2020)
9 Population Suitable: Less than 50 People/km² 2.44 per km2
density Moderately suitable: 50-150 People/km² (UNESCO, 2008, Royal
Not suitable: More than 150 People/km² Commission for Alula, 2020,
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya et al., Gros‐Balthazard et al., 2023)
2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Mansour Suitable
et al., 2020)
10 Elevation Suitable: 100-400 m Most of the Alula
Moderately suitable: 400-1400 m destinations are situated
Not suitable: >1400 m between 310 to 1900 m
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya et al., (calculated by GIS, Figure
2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Mansour 3.7)
et al., 2020) Moderately suitable
11 Flood risk Suitable: Low Low (no flood risk in Alula)
Moderately suitable: Moderate (UNESCO, 2008, Royal
Not suitable: High Commission for Alula, 2020,
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Çetinkaya et al., Gros‐Balthazard et al., 2023)
2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019, Mansour Suitable
et al., 2020)
12 Distance Suitable: 8.6-13 km > 13 km (calculated from
from fault Moderately suitable: 5.4-8.6 km topographic maps)
lines Not suitable: 0-5.4 km (Wanyonyi et al., Suitable
2016, Mansour et al., 2020)

86
 Sr. Variables Rationale for suitability Findings
No
13 Proximity Suitable: 0-15 km 0-15 km (calculated by GIS,
to cultural Moderately suitable: 15-30 km Figure 3.7)
and Not suitable: 30-45 km Suitable
historical (Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Mansour et al., 2020)
sites
14 Proximity Suitable: More than 10 km Between 0-110km
to roads Moderately suitable: 2-10 km (calculated by GIS, Figure
Not suitable: Below 2 km 3.7)
(Wanyonyi et al., 2016, Mansour et al., 2020) Suitable

3.4.2 Summary of landscape potentials influencing ecotourism opportunities

Figure 3.7 shows the landscape potentials that influence ecotourism opportunities in Alula. The
following results have been collected in Alula by GIS analysis.

• The slope analysis (Figure 3.7) shows that Alula's northeastern, southern, and central
regions show lower slope areas. Furthermore, most of the area with developing
ecotourism sites (Old Town Alula, Dadan, Nabataean, Jabal Ikmah, and Hegra) is in
low-slope areas that show the opportunity to develop more recreational sites.
• Elevation analysis (Figure 3.7) of Alula shows that land is located between 0-1140 m
and much of the land is situated at a suitable or moderately suitable elevation for
ecotourism destination development.
• The vegetation index map (Figure 3.7) shows moderate to poor vegetation coverage
across Alula. However, high vegetation has been observed in five districts, showing
good ecotourism site development opportunities.
• Alula's historical, cultural, and entertainment sites within a 25 km radius are excellent
opportunities for tourists to travel toward these areas. The proximity to road analysis
shows a moderately suitable distance of tourist sites from the road (Figure 3.7).
• From the observation points, suitable visibility has been found in Alula for ecotourism
(Figure 3.7). The observation points were selected near important tourist attraction
sites, proposed development areas, and popular visitor routes to determine optimal
viewpoints and enhance visitor experiences.

87
Figure 3.7. Landscape potential influencing ecotourism opportunities

3.4.3 Identification of ecotourism opportunities through a survey

The survey results need to be explained first, as their results are included in the SWOT-ECOS
analysis. The written questionnaire contained primarily closed-ended questions and was
divided into four sections: (1) demographic information, (2) awareness about ecotourism, (3)
awareness about environmental protection, and (4) assessing ecotourism opportunities in Alula.
Slightly more than 1100 replies (n = 1,101) were received, showing significant interest of local
residents and visitors in ecotourism promotion in Alula.

3.4.3.1 Demographic information about the respondents

The demographic information shows that 98% (1,081) of respondents had visited Alula; these
responses were retained for further analysis; 2% (20) of the total respondents were excluded as
they had never visited Alula. Also, 56% (614) of respondents were from Alula, and 42% (467)
were from other places, including Saudi Arabia, France, Greece, the United Kingdom, Egypt,
Australia, the USA, Algeria, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka, among others. Most (29%) (318)
of the degree holders had master's degrees and above. 61% (671) of respondents were males,
and 39% (430) were females. Many (37%) (405) of the respondents were full-time employees.

88
Moreover, the share of young people was high (Figure 3.8). This is likely due to the method of
recruitment of respondents using LinkedIn and other social media channels.

Over 60
46-60
Age

36-45
26-35
18-25
Retired
Occupational

Student
status

Unemployed
Respodents

Employed part-time
Employed full-time
Masters degree and above
Education level

Bachelors degree
Diploma
Completed secondary school
< 12 years of schooling
Visited Locatio

Other
n

Alula
No
Alula

Yes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage

Figure 3.8. Demographic information about the respondents

3.4.3.2 Awareness about ecotourism

Successful ecotourism is synonymous with local residents' involvement, profit sharing, and
empowerment through tourism projects and conservation programs (Adeleke, 2015, Salemi et
al., 2019). Awareness about ecotourism among local residents encourages ecotourism
promotion in a destination. This section of the survey was developed to assess the awareness
of ecotourism among local communities. Figure 3.9 shows that most (76%) of the total local
community respondents agreed with the questions, indicating that local residents have some
knowledge of ecotourism.

89
 There is a growing number of ecotourism
opportunities at Alula.

Ecotourism is a sustainable form of tourism.

Questions

Ecotourism protects cultural heritage sites.

Ecotourism protects natural heritage sites.

Ecotourism provides economic benefits to the local

community.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Number of the respondents

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 3.9. Awareness about ecotourism among local residents

3.4.3.3 Awareness of environmental protection

Ecotourism is a sustainable form of tourism that ensures environmental protection and in which
tourists and local communities can actively understand and enjoy the natural environment and
thus promote the behaviours of ‘conservation, education, and restoration’ (Bowles and
Ruhanen, 2018, Fang et al., 2018). This section of the survey assessed environmental protection
awareness among local residents and visitors. Figure 3.10. shows that 80% of respondents
agreed, indicating significant environmental protection knowledge.

90
 Environmental ethics consider the wise use of
resources and protection of the Earth.
Questions

A sustainable environment can be achieved by

avoiding the depletion of natural resources.

Sustainable development takes into consideration the

economic and environmental needs of future
generations.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of the respondents

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 3.10. Awareness of environmental protection among local residents and visitors

3.4.3.4 Assessing ecotourism opportunities in Alula

This part of the survey was built just for visitors who do not live in or near Alula. The purpose
was to verify the already identified ecotourism opportunities in Alula. 70% of visitors agreed
that Alula offers ecotourism opportunities in natural, cultural, and historical heritage sectors.
Furthermore, among the five districts of Alula (Old Town Alula, Dedan, Jabal Ikmah,
Nabatean, and ancient Hegra), Old Town Alula and Dedan are the most favoured places for
tourists (Figure 3.11).

91
 Alula provides a good quality of experience for
tourists.

Tourism promotion in Alula will protect historical

heritage sites.

Tourism promotion in Alula will protect cultural

heritage sites.

Tourism promotion in Alula will protect natural

heritage sites.

Local communities are enjoying equal

opportunities in the economy.
Questions

Local communities are enjoying equal

opportunities in health.

Local communities are enjoying equal

opportunities in education.

Local government bodies are trying to make

development in different sectors for the local
communities of Alula.

Alula is a historical heritage site.

Alula is a cultural heritage site.

Alula is a natural heritage site.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Number of respondents
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 3.11. Assessing ecotourism opportunities in Alula through visitors

92
3.4.4 Results from the SWOT-ECOS analysis
In the context of this study, SWOT’s first factor, “strengths”, are the internal factors that
strengthen the ecotourism opportunities, while SWOT’s third factor, “opportunities”, are
external factors that positively influence ecotourism opportunities. Thus, factors are considered
positive factors and collectively called “ecotourism opportunities”. However, weaknesses and
threats are assumed to be negative factors whose absence (in case of weaknesses) or presence
(in case of threats) can negatively affect ecotourism opportunities. The weaknesses comprise
variables that were not present in Alula, Saudi Arabia, but whose appearance in the future can
be possible. For instance, Alula has a low amount of forest area, but this area can be enhanced
by growing more plants in the region. In addition, there is no public transportation; however,
this can be developed in the future. Similarly, threats include potential future dangers that are
not currently occurring but have the potential to affect the destination negatively in the future.
Due to the many identified variables in strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, the
results have been divided into five ecotourism opportunities dimensions followed by thirteen
criteria under the four SWOT factors. The evaluation identified 95 strengths in Alula, as
described in Table 3.3. This included the region's distinctive geographical characteristics, rich
historical and cultural history, and biodiversity, among other opportunities. These assets create
a solid foundation for ecotourism's growth, offering various opportunities for environment,
culture, and adventure-based experiences. Despite the many identified strengths, 15
weaknesses were also found (Table 3.4). These included potential issues associated with
accessibility, infrastructure, and the region's capacity to manage additional tourist traffic
without negatively harming the natural environment, among others. These weaknesses may
affect the efficient functioning of ecotourism operations, necessitating planning and mitigating
techniques. In addition, Table 3.5 revealed 25 opportunities (external influencing variables)
that might serve as triggers to strengthen Alula's position as a leading ecotourism destination.
These include the opportunities developed due to the Saudi Vision 2030, Alula’s unique natural
landscape features and sustainability measures. In the end, 10 threats were discovered (Table
3.6). These mostly unpredictable external factors may threaten the growth of ecotourism in
Alula. They include global economic instability, the effects of climate change, competition
from other ecotourism sites, and potential changes in travel patterns resulting from emerging
global health challenges. In conclusion, while Alula exhibits a plethora of strengths and
opportunities for ecotourism, special attention must be paid to fixing identified weaknesses and
minimizing potential threats to enable this sector's sustainable and prosperous development.

93
The variables' calculated weights through SWM and EWM have been given in Appendix 1 to
Appendix 4.

Table 3.3. Identified Strengths (S) in Alula

Dimension Criteria Variables
Nature (D1) Natural attraction (C1) (S1) Foliage (Such as Alula dates)
(S2) Canyons and ravines (red-rock canyons,
steep-sided ravines)
(S3) Groves
(S4) Deserts
(S5) Sandstone Mountain
(S6) Mountain
(S7) Oasis
(S8) Forests
(S9) Valleys
(S10) Trees (Such as Dates, Acacia, Arabica
tree, orange, lemon, "pomely" and "tring",
bananas, pineapple, kiwi, peaches, apples,
pomegranate, Moringa Peregrina),
(S11) Caves
(S12) Acacia woodland
(S13) Nubian Ibex
(S14) Red-Necked Ostrich
(S15) Idmi Gazelles
(S16) Arabian Leopard
(S17) Arabian Wolf
(S18) Red Fox
(S19) Green Bee-eater
(S20) Laughing Dove
(S21) Crested Lark
(S22) Eagles
(S23) Harriers
(S24) Long-legged Buzzards
Reservation/sensitive (S25) Nabataen horizone district
areas (C2) (S26) Hegra
(S27) Ikmah
(S28) Dedan
(S29) Old Town Alula
Conservative measures (S30) Mixed land use
(C3) (S31) Cultural events and festivals
(S32) Promoting cultural art
Environmental Education and study (S33) Responsible environmental behaviour
education/protection (C4) (S34) Environmental ethics
(D2) (S35) Recognition of environmental
responsibilities
(S36) Environmental protection
(S37) Understanding of the natural
environment and its protection
(S38) Community development program
(S39) Conserve resources for learning

94
Dimension Criteria Variables
(S40) Seeking non-consumptive activities
(S41) Awareness of ecotourism among local
communities
(S42) Awareness of ecotourism among visitors
(S43) Resource management
(S44) Developing agricultural land
Managing opportunities (S45) Sewerage
(C5) (S46) Electricity
(S47) Water
(S48) Good accommodation
(S49) Destination marketing
(S50) Ecotourism markets
(S51) Managing impacts of ecotourism
Sustainability (D3) Ecological sustainability (S52) Conservation of water
(C6) (S53) Good surface water quality
(S54) Groundwater is generally moderately
hard and slightly alkaline
(S55) Strategies to control the water pollution
Economic sustainability (S56) Long-range planning
(C7) (S57) Moderate cost of living
(S58) Quality of life
Socio-cultural Culture and traditions (S59) Promoting history
benefits (D4) (C8) (S60) Museum
(S61) Cultural heritage
(S62) Cultural events
(S63) Promoting cultural awarenesses
(S64) Historical-archeological assets
Low impact/non- (S65) Reducing social and cultural impacts of
consumptive (C9) tourism
(S66) Low environmental impacts
Benefits for local (S67) Hospitals
residents /long-term (S68) Governmental primary care centres and
benefits (C10) private clinics
(S69) Red Crescent and ambulance Centers
(S70) Schools
(S71) Universities
(S72) Availability of employment
opportunities
(S73) Ease of access
(S74) Communication networks
(S75) Local business promotion
Accessibility (C11) (S76) Close to drinking water

95
Dimension Criteria Variables
Tourists' Adventure (C12) (S77) Walking trails
satisfaction(D5) (S78) Camping
(S79) Mountaineering
(S80) Trekking
(S81) Mountain biking
(S82) Cycling
(S83) Rafting
(S84) Zip-lining
(S85) Paragliding
(S86) Hiking
(S87) Exploring
(S88) Canyoneering
(S89) Sandboarding
(S90) Caving
(S91) Rock climbing
(S92) Hot air balloon
Enjoyment/appreciation (S93) Availability of tour guides
(C13) (S94) Availability of eating and drinking
places
(S95) Availability of security for visitors

96
Table 3.4. Identified Weaknesses (W) in Alula
Dimension Criteria Variables

Nature Natural attraction (C1) (W1) Low-forests area

(W2) No water body (river, lake)
(W3) No ocean
(W4) No beaches
(W5) Variations occur from healthy to unhealthy
air due to dust storms
(W6) Low-flowering plants
Reservation/sensitive (W7) Low-amount of protected areas
areas (C2)
Conservative measures Not found
(C3)
Environmental Education and study (W8) Low number of higher education institutions
education/protecti (C4) for local residents specifically to learn about
on environmental and tourism studies
Managing opportunities (W9) Far distance from major cities
(C5) (W10) Low number of accommodation rooms
Sustainability Ecological Not found
sustainability (C6)
Economic sustainability Not found
(C7)
Socio-cultural Culture and traditions Not found
benefits (C8)
Low impact/non- Not found
consumptive (C9)
Benefits local residents Not found
/long-term benefits
(C10)
Tourists' Accessibility (C11) (W11) No public transport
satisfaction Adventure (C12) (W12) No sand therapies
(W13) No paragliding
(W14) Low bushwalking
Enjoyment/appreciation (W15) Low number of shopping centres and
(C13) markets

97
Table 3.5. Identified Opportunities (O) in Alula
Dimension Criteria Variables
Nature (D1) Natural attraction (C1) (O1) Suitable temperature
(O2) Low annual rainfall
(O3) Low altitude
(O4) Moderate aspect ratio toward the south
(O5) Good slope for tourist activities
(O6) Moderate vegetation in some areas
(vegetation density -0. 0.5)
(O7) Suitable visibility
(O8) Low population density
(O9) Suitable elevation for ecotourism

Reservation/ sensitive Not found

areas (C2)
Conservative measures (O10) Protection of natural places
(C3) (O11) Revenue for nature conservation
(O12) Conservation of threatened species
(O13) Close proximity to cultural and historical
sites 0-15 km
Environmental Education and study Not found
education/protection (C4)
(D2) Managing opportunities (O14) Far from negative factors such as industrial
(C5) areas
(O15) Close proximity from road 0 to 2 km
(O16) Saudi green initiatives to improve air
quality
(O17) Ecosystem conservation (Saudi
government agreement with United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
to fight land degradation)
Sustainability (D3) Ecological (O18) Low impact on the environment and
sustainability (C6) people’s health (reducing carbon emission in the
country, national policy to reduce the plastic bags
in the country)
Economic (O19) Equal opportunity to participate in the
sustainability (C7) economy
Socio-cultural Culture and traditions (O20) Protection of historical sites and buildings
benefits (D4) (C8)
Low impact/non- (O21) Promoting a sustainable economy and
consumptive (C9) reducing negative economic impacts
Benefits local residents (O22) Revenue for local development project
/long-term benefits
(C10)
Tourists' Accessibility (C11) (O23) Close proximity to populated centres 10 to
satisfaction(D5) 20 km
(O24) Very far from fault lines
(O25) Far from flood-risk areas
Adventure (C12) Not found
Enjoyment/appreciation Not found
(C13)
98
Table 3.6. Identified Threats (T) in Alula
Dimension Criteria Variables
Nature Natural attraction (C1) (T1) Destruction of natural features
(T2) The destruction of natural resources to make
room for ecotourism
Reservation/ sensitive (T3) Human pressure on protected areas
areas (C2)
Conservative measures (T4) Overused tracks lead to soil erosion and
(C3) damage to vegetation
Environmental Education and study (C4) Not found
education/protect Managing opportunities (T5) Overtourism
ion (C5)
Sustainability Ecological sustainability (T6) Threatened species can be hunted down
(C6)
Economic sustainability (T7) Competition among domestic and
(C7) international destinations
(T8) Negative impacts of ecotourism
Socio-cultural Culture and traditions (C8) (T9) Destruction of local culture and traditions
benefits due to international visitors
Low impact/non- Not found
consumptive (C9)
Benefits local residents (T10) Tourist companies can get more profit than
/long-term benefits (C10) local residents
Tourists' Accessibility (C11) Not found
satisfaction Adventure (C12) Not found
Enjoyment/appreciation Not found
(C13)

99
3.4.5 Complexity analysis in ecotourism opportunities development
This section provides a more in-depth case analysis of Alula to illustrate the CAS concepts in
the ecotourism opportunity system. There are two parts to this section. The Alula case study is
used in the first section to illustrate how the destination responds to both internal and external
changes while qualitatively describing the characteristics and concepts of CAS. The four CAS
concepts are then connected to Alula's behaviour. Quantitative methods are used in the second
section to evaluate the CAS concepts in ecotourism opportunities. For that purpose, the weights
of variables have been calculated through WSM and EWM. This section's two parts give a
thorough overview of the CAS concepts and how they apply to ecotourism, which can aid in
understanding and managing complex systems in this area.

3.4.5.1 Qualitative complex adaptive system concepts

Existing studies use complexity theory to analyze ecotourism opportunities (Speakman and
Díaz Garay, 2016, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Therefore, this research used an
example to explain why taking a CAS approach can be helpful for ecotourism practitioners.
Four concepts are commonly used to describe CAS (Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
These four concepts illustrate with a tourism example to show how complexity and chaos
theory concepts might be paired with the development of ecotourism opportunities. An analysis
has been done in Alula, a little-known but emerging ecotourism and cultural heritage tourism
destination in Saudi Arabia.

Butterfly Effect (or non-linear changes)

Saudi Arabia is changing its economic priorities from oil to more sustainable economic
activities, such as tourism, which is acting as an underlying driver, making ecotourism
development in the little-known destination of Alula more viable (Sahahiri et al., 2019, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2023). Thus, the turning attitudes of the Saudi Government acted as an
external factor in developing Alula as a tourist destination. Externally, inspiration came from
Petra, Jordan, a developed cultural heritage site that attracts about 100,000 tourists annually
(Al Najdawi et al., 2017). Both Alula and Petra have the same historical heritage features; they
were the homes of the Dadan (6th- 7th BCE) and Nabataean (4th BCE-106 AD) civilizations
and are both situated on an old “Incense route” (Sahahiri et al., 2019, Saudi Commission for
Tourism & Antiquities, 2020). This inspiration has also come from some in-country developed
100
destinations such as Al-Balad and Jeddah (Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Rome, 2018,
Royal Commission for Alula, 2022). Jeddah's ancient centre, Al-Balad, is a cultural heritage-
developed destination with coral buildings from the seventh century. Tourists can explore its
winding streets, vibrant souks, and notable landmarks like the Nassif House (Sahahiri et al.,
2019, Saudi Commission for Tourism & Antiquities, 2020). Al-Balad, a UNESCO World
Heritage Site, opens up Saudi Arabia's intriguing past. So, these inspirations from Petra and
Al-Balad have acted as external and internal factors, inspiring Alula to develop its ecotourism
opportunities.
Another external factor is the COVID-19 epidemic, which has affected most destinations,
including Alula. Due to border closures and travel restrictions, developed locations (France,
Italy, Spain) that rely largely on international tourism were more severely affected than
developing (Alula) and least developed (Muree, Pakistan) destinations (Farzanegan et al., 2021,
Fernández et al., 2022). Alula’s tourism dropped due to worldwide travel restrictions. Tourism-
related events, including the Winter at Tantora festival, were postponed or cancelled, causing
significant economic losses. Despite the crisis, the Saudi Arabian government invested in
infrastructure to make Alula a world-class tourism destination. They improved tourism spots
and expanded facilities for future guests. As Alula could be promoted for domestic tourism,
the epidemic has also created opportunities. Alula focused its tourism initiatives on local
tourists by stressing safety precautions and custom experiences that highlight the region's
unique offerings due to travel restrictions and public health concerns (Royal Commission for
Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).
Thus, the tourist system shows sensitivity where internal and external factors alter the system
and generate large-scale, unpredictable, or non-linear changes in the destination. It produced
opportunities that were not part of Alula before these external influences, such as a cultural
event, the “Tantora festival.” It is the very first music and culture festival in Saudi Arabia. It
also encourages the protection of cultural heritage sites such as Old Town Alula by establishing
a market street and following in the footsteps of millennia-old traders.
The edge of chaos
Alula is a cultural and natural heritage destination; it provides opportunities for historical and
natural heritage for preserving tombs, historical developments, monuments, and many more
sites, and it was ready to favour the government policy for tourism promotion (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Royal Commission for Alula, 2023). The Alula tourism system
faced an edge of chaos, as it had previously been a little-known place since ancient times due

101
to religious restrictions, strict tourism visa policies, and a lack of tourism infrastructure
(Sahahiri et al., 2023). The edge of chaos offers conditions where innovations are needed for a
destination.

Alula is innovating by becoming an ecotourism and cultural heritage tourism destination

(Experiencealula, 2021, Al-Suhaibani and Al-Theeb, 2022). It is an adaptive ecotourism
destination promoting its opportunities by developing protected areas (Sharan Nature Reserve,
Sharaan Resort), transportation facilities (building international airports), arranging cultural
events (Tantora festivals), and many more opportunities that were not part of Alula before 2016
(Al-Suhaibani and Al-Theeb, 2022). The mission of Sharaan Nature Reserve is to restore,
protect, and conserve the sensitive ecosystem native to Alula. Efforts are underway to restore
the area, allowing its natural inhabitants to reclaim the land (Smith et al., 2014, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). To bring life to the ecosystem and protect
the environment, the RCU developed a plan to protect threatened species such as Arabian
Leopards, Nubian ibexes, red-necked ostriches, and Idmi gazelles. Likewise, they launched the
“Alula trees” project, which aims to plant three million trees and allocate 80% of Alula as a
nature reserve, in which revegetation of 200 species is in progress (Royal Commission for
Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).

Bifurcation
Due to its significant ecotourism opportunities, the government wants to develop Alula as a
tourist destination. However, hurdles such as religious restrictions and strict tourism visa
policies have initially bifurcated the system along a bipolar pattern in which the system aims
to promote tourism (developing tourism infrastructure, preserving nature, cultural places, etc.)
but must eliminate the hurdles.

Strange Attractors, Self-organization, and Emergence

In the tourism case examined herein, the strange attractor was the “Saudi Vision 2030” plan
that provided the basis for tourism promotion in Alula. The Royal Commission for Alula
(RCU) was established in 2017 to develop tourism infrastructure and satisfy the religious
orthodoxy (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). The Saudi government
is now opening its doors to the world through its new tourist visa. Through the portal,
international tourists can apply for an online visa and explore the Saudi people's warm
hospitality and the country's rich legacy, vibrant culture, and diverse landscapes (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). Some domestic and international airline
102
services have started direct flights to Alula from various places, such as Cairo, Dubai, and
France (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).

3.4.5.2 Quantitative assessment of complex adaptive system concepts

This study also quantitatively assessed CAS concepts in the destination's ecotourism
opportunities system. Generally, four concepts can be used to describe a CAS using complexity
theory (Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).

Non-linear system
Small changes in initial conditions or the system's environment in a non-linear system lead to
large-scale, unpredictable, or non-linear changes (Emancipator and Kroll, 1993, Speakman,
2017, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Non-linearity has been analyzed by considering
the deviation of variables’ linearly combined weights from an ideal straight line (Emancipator
and Kroll, 1993). The weight was assigned based on variable availability, which shows non-
linearity in adopting new features in the system, as illustrated in the following (Figures 3.12
to Figure 3.15). Thus, the tourist system shows sensitivity where internal and external factors
alter the system and generate large-scale, unpredictable, or non-linear changes in ecotourism
opportunities.

103
 X95
X93
X91
X89
X87
X85
X83
X81
X79
X77
X75
X73
X71
X69
X67
X65
X63
X61
X59
X57
X55
X53
X51
X49
X47
X45
X43
X41
X39
X37
X35
X33
X31
X29
X27
X25
X23
X21
X19
X17
X15
X13
X11
X9
X7
X5
X3
X1
64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86

Figure 3.12. Non-linearity in strengths

104
 X25
X23
X21
Opportunities variables

X19
X17
X15
X13
X11
X9
X7
X5
X3
X1
72.00 74.00 76.00 78.00 80.00 82.00 84.00
linearly combined weights

Figure 3.13. Non-linearity in opportunities

X15
Weaknesses variables

X13
X11
X9
X7
X5
X3
X1
62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
linearly combined weights

Figure 3.14. Non-linearity in weaknesses

105
 X10
X9
Threats variables

X8
X7
X6
X5
X4
X3
X2
X1
70 72 74 76 78 80 82
linearly combined weights

Figure 3.15. Non-linearity in threats

Adaptive Capacity (AC)

AC represents the ability of a system to cope with and thrive in the face of change in a complex
system where orderly behaviour coexists with disorderly or turbulent behaviour (Thathsarani
and Gunaratne, 2018). It is a place of intense learning, innovation, and creativity (Stevenson et
al., 2009). As mentioned (section 3.3.5), strengths and opportunities are positive factors that
strengthen the destination, while weaknesses and threats are negative factors that undermine
the destination. The score was aggregated against each positive and negative factor, as
described in Table 3.7. The total AC score for the destination was calculated by subtracting
negative factors and positive factors. However, the total AC score for the destination being on
the positive side shows that the destination is learning from external factors.

Table 3.7. The adaptive capacity score for each SWOT factor
Status of the factors Positive factors Negative factors
SWOT factors Strengths Opportunities Weaknesses Threats
AC 57.5 45.52 35.97 51.19
Aggregated AC score 103.02 87.16
AC score for destination 103.02-87.16= 15.86

Emergence (E)
Emergence describes a system's ability to develop its state after turmoil or a concealed situation
(Gershenson and Fernández, 2012). It depends on the system’s ability to adapt to changing
environments through emergent characteristics and produce novel information which was not
present previously (Gershenson and Fernández, 2012, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
106
If one wants to observe how a process produces information, one has to consider how much
information was introduced.
Emergence has been calculated by using the weights of opportunities as input and the weight
of strengths as the output, then putting values in the emergence formula. The positive number
of emergence (Equation 3.10) shows that the destination is learning from external factors and
developing ecotourism opportunities to attain regional sustainability goals.
∑𝟗𝟓 (𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉𝒔) Equation 3.10
𝑬 = ∑𝟐𝟓𝒏=𝟏
(𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 )
𝒏=𝟏

𝟕𝟓𝟏𝟏. 𝟐𝟐
𝑬=
𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟕. 𝟖𝟐
E = 3.8

Self-organization (S)
Self-organization can be measured as a change in the system over time. System self-
organization can be seen as the opposite of information: high organization (order) is
characterized by low information, and high information characterizes low organization (chaos)
(Gershenson and Fernández, 2012). In tourism, the self-organization process can be seen in the
current destination’s potential (developed, developing, or least developed). Here, the highly
organized or developed destinations produce low information (strengths), while low organized
or developing and least developed destinations produce high information. Therefore, self-
organization may be calculated using Equation 3. based on the number of external factors
(opportunities) introduced to the destination and the number of internal factors (strengths)
produced by the destination.
In the setting of information transformation, self-organization S can be defined as:
𝑆 = ∑26 87
𝑛=1(𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠 ) − ∑𝑛=1(𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ𝑠 ) Equation 3.11

𝑆 = 7511.22 − 1977.82
𝑆 = −5533.41
Here, the negative sign indicates (S < 0), which means the system is producing information.
An unknown and unorganized Alula tourism system experienced good development due to
Saudi Vision 2030. This change shifted the system from chaos to development, producing
valuable information through ecotourism opportunities. Alula can harness ecotourism to attract
sustainable tourists, conserve ecosystems, and empower local communities by embracing its
natural and cultural heritage. This transformation represents the potential of self-organization

107
in complex adaptive systems, as the Alula tourist system creates more information and
develops toward a sustainable future.

3.5 Key observations and critical discussion

This chapter aimed to identify ecotourism opportunities in Alula, considering their
development in a CAS. The complexity makes the ecotourism opportunities evaluation difficult
to measure due to the interconnection of various ecotourism opportunity dimensions. A
balanced approach is required to consider all ecotourism opportunities dimensions, their
interconnected and adaptive behaviour, and also the influences of external and internal factors.
So, there is a need to build a comprehensive approach that exhaustively describes ecotourism
opportunities’ diverse dimensions, criteria, and variables. To address this problem, a SWOT-
ECOS analysis was developed in which strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats were
identified under five ecotourism opportunities dimensions and thirteen criteria. The data has
been collected from different sources, including visitors and local residents, local government
departments, official websites, geospatial analysis, and by different types of literature reviews.
The dimensions and criteria were collected from chapter two's literature review.
CAS concepts were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. For quantitative analysis, the
variables' scores were calculated by WSM and EWM and then later combined by the linear
combination method to get a more comprehensive score.
The key observations include that the development of ecotourism opportunities occurs in the
CAS, as evidenced by the complexity analysis (qualitative and quantitative CAS concepts) of
ecotourism opportunities development in Alula. Ecotourism opportunities development arises
due to the influences of external and internal factors. This development leads to an increase in
the number of ecotourism destinations, an improvement in the quality of experiences, and a
wider variety of opportunities for tourists with diverse priorities, as has been observed in
Alula’s ecotourism opportunities system after the influence of Saudi Vision 2030. The five
Alula districts, such as Old Town Alula, Dedan, Jabal Ikmah, Nabataean and Hegra, are now
offering multiple opportunities.
Furthermore, the SWOT-ECOS analysis (Table 3.3 to Table 3.6) shows that the destination
provides potential ecotourism opportunities (95 strengths, 15 weaknesses, 25 opportunities and
10 threats) under five dimensions and thirteen criteria. However, among the five dimensions,
the nature dimension offers more opportunities (13), and strengths (32), while fewer
opportunities (2) and strengths (7) have been observed in the sustainability dimension. The
same pattern has been observed in all dimensions, such as more opportunities, more strengths,
108
and fewer opportunities in fewer strengths. For instance, in the sustainability dimension,
opportunities such as “O18” and “O19” give rise to seven strengths, such as from S52 to S58
(Table 3.5, Table 3.3). In the Socio-cultural benefit dimension, three opportunities such as O20
to O22, produce eight strengths, such as S59 to S66 (Table 3.5, Table 3.3). This relation
provides evidence about the influences of external factors (opportunities) that can affect the
development of internal factors (strengths). So, it highlights that ecotourism opportunities do
not develop alone but are influenced by external factors.
Wattanacharoensil and Stettler (2019) also revealed the same idea that tourism development in
a destination does not take place in isolation but instead involves numerous tourism-
interdependent components that are influenced by external and internal factors and can have
both positive and negative impacts. So, this research supports Wattanacharoensil and Stettler
(2019) idea by providing an in-depth analysis of ecotourism opportunities’ interconnected and
adaptive behaviour as demonstrated in complexity analysis (section 3.4.5). However, it also
reveals that in addition to interconnected and adaptive behaviour, the current destination
potential (developed, developing, or least developed) of the ecotourism destinations also
decides the level of adaptation in response to internal or external factors. As described by the
self-organization process (section ), destinations can behave differently depending on each
destination's specific circumstances and characteristics and the extent and nature of the internal
and external factors (Baggio, 2008, Gershenson and Fernández, 2012). For instance, Saudi
Vision 2030 impacted Alula, a developing destination, more than Al-Balad, Jeddah, a
developed destination (section 3.4.5.1) (Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Rome, 2018, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2022).
Furthermore, section 3.4.5.1 provides evidence that the recent COVID-19 pandemic has
impacted developed destinations (France, Italy, Spain) more severely than developing (Saudi
Arabia) and least-developed locations (Pakistan) (Farzanegan et al., 2021, Fernández et al.,
2022). So, in the case of Alula, where the ecotourism opportunities were suffering from the
destination’s obscuring, quick response to external factors such as Saudi Vision 2030 was noted
in the SWOT-ECOS analysis. The development of ecotourism opportunities is due to this self-
organization process in Alula that emerges from a chaotic condition quickly after external and
internal factors influence the destination. So, it demonstrates the value of applying CAS theory
to identifying ecotourism opportunities, thereby extending the existing methodologies to
account for the complicated nature of ecotourism opportunities (Deng et al., 2002, Açıksöz et
al., 2016, Cengiz et al., 2016). Also, the results demonstrate that the SWOT-ECOS analysis

109
provided a comprehensive tool for evaluating and comprehending the opportunities associated
with ecotourism. This methodology is consistent with previous studies recognizing the need
for a comprehensive and multidimensional evaluation of ecotourism opportunities (Deng et al.,
2002, Açıksöz et al., 2016, Cengiz et al., 2016). Figure 3.16 summarises the findings of the
first research question.

Figure 3.16. The summary of the first research question's findings

Limitations
A limitation of this study was that it identified ecotourism opportunities through online surveys,
literature, local department websites, and some geospatial analysis (slope analysis, visibility
analysis, proximity analysis and so on). It could be more systematic by visiting the destination
directly and interviewing the local residents, tourists, and other stakeholders. Additionally, the
accuracy of quantitative analysis could be enhanced by getting additional reliable data from
official departments and the survey process.
Furthermore, set elevation thresholds, such as the 100–400 m range, were adopted in the
methodology used to evaluate ecotourism suitability based on previously published research
and customised to the particular natural context of Alula. Although these 'crisp' standards
provide an initial foundation for defining regions that may be conducive to ecotourism, they
also bring with them inherent ambiguities. In particular, these fixed limits might not take into
110
consideration the complex variations in regional biodiversity, microclimates, and topography
that greatly affect an area's actual potential for ecotourism. The present method's essential
limitation is this simplification, which aims to provide a framework for evaluating the
suitability of ecotourism in the region given its complex biological and geographical diversity.

Research implications
This study provides a systematic tool for evaluating and comprehending the complex
interconnected opportunities associated with ecotourism. Using the CAS-based SWOT-ECOS
analysis, academics and practitioners can better understand the complexity of ecotourism
development and make more informed decisions considering the dynamic and complicated
relationships between the various dimensions of the ecotourism system.
Recognizing Alula's complex ecotourism opportunity system is essential for stakeholders, as it
highlights the numerous adaptive and interconnected ecotourism opportunity dimensions that
support the development of the destination. For instance, it is essential to comprehend the
relationship between the local community and tourists. Tourism can bring economic benefits
to a region, such as the opportunity for local artists to sell their products to tourists, contributing
to their income and preserving their culture. Local fruits such as dates, oranges, lemons,
bananas, pineapples, and various other fruits can be cultivated using traditional methods on
farms that tourists can visit (Table 3.3), benefiting both parties.
To ensure sustainable development, tourism must neither damage local life nor destroy
resources, and the interaction between people and tourists must stay peaceful. Without
appropriate management and comprehension of the ecotourism system, economic benefits may
not reach the local residents, resulting in social inequity and potential conflict. Ultimately, an
overly simplistic approach can endanger Alula's environmental and social sustainability and
undermine its reputation as a major ecotourism destination. So, a comprehensive and nuanced
understanding of Alula's ecotourism opportunities system is essential for long-term, sustained
development.
Ecotourism in Alula has been influenced by both internal and external factors, illustrating that
such systems do not exist in isolation. This complex structure, comprised of several interrelated
dimensions, suggests that every sustainable initiative implemented by stakeholders will have
consequences throughout the destination. For instance, improving transportation infrastructure
can enhance accommodation, food and beverage services, and other connected industries.
Starting domestic and international Airline services to Alula from various countries such as

111
Cairo, Dubai, and France has attracted more international and local tourists. To satisfy the
tourists’ demands and to promote sustainability, accommodation services have been arranged.
Habitas, a pioneer in sustainable hospitality, delivers luxurious living to Alula in an
environmentally responsible manner. Tourists can find themselves surrounded by sandstone
cliffs and palm groves within an ancient oasis in the desert canyons of the Ashar Valley. It
further connects with food services such as "Asfar," a delightful rooftop restaurant that mixes
Old Town Alula scenery with locally farmed products, regional tastes, and a true commitment
to sustainability. These opportunities have produced several job opportunities for local
residents (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). Thus, accommodation
facilities connect with accommodation, food services, and job opportunities, and provide a
sustainable environment to maintain the natural and cultural heritage and encourage the local
residents, inciting them for cultural collaboration, thereby contributing to a sustainable
economy. On the other hand, if stakeholders fail to comprehend the complexity of ecotourism
opportunities, it can harm all involved parties. One such example is the wrong attitude of local
residents (a stakeholder) toward tourists. Suppose the local residents do not understand the
complexity of ecotourism opportunities and show negative behaviour toward tourists. It can
disgust the tourists and reduce their number in the destination. This attitude can negatively
impact the other stakeholders’ businesses, such as transportation, accommodation, food
services, and sustainable tourism promotion in Alula. This lack of comprehension endangers
the natural balance within the ecotourism system, hence restricting its potential for effective
collaboration between the local stakeholders. If stakeholders fail to recognize interconnections
and establish a friendly atmosphere, the region may miss out on opportunities for economic
growth, cultural exchange, and environmental conservation. For instance, bad online reviews
due to poor treatment by local stakeholders can quickly spread, discouraging potential tourists
and damaging the destination's reputation. This ignorance can result in a drop in job
opportunities, a loss of revenue, and, eventually, the destruction of the natural environment and
local culture. Consequently, stakeholders must recognize the complexity of ecotourism and
acknowledge the mutually beneficial relationship between responsible tourist practices and
sustainable development to ensure the destination's long-term sustainability and preservation.
Consequently, the benefits generated from these improvements extend to various stakeholders,
highlighting the linked nature of their interests and the general expansion of the ecotourism
industry in Alula. This can assist stakeholders in developing a culture of collaboration and
information sharing, thereby involving multiple industries in the decision-making process. This

112
participatory approach can result in more equitable solutions since it guarantees that varied
viewpoints are considered and valued. Additionally, this knowledge can enable stakeholders to
develop a flexible and adaptable mentality, enabling them to respond effectively to the dynamic
character of the ecotourism sector, addressing growing difficulties and grabbing new
opportunities as they occur. This attitude strengthens its potential to promote economic
viability, implement environmental responsibility, and create social equity. Moreover, this
comprehensive approach supports the progress of the United Nations' Sustainable
Development Goals, thereby reinforcing ecotourism's central role in global sustainability
efforts. (United Nations, 2020)

3.6 Summary of the chapter

This chapter aimed to identify ecotourism opportunities in Alula, considering their
development in a CAS. It required a well-balanced methodology for a detailed investigation.
So, a SWOT-ECOS analysis encompassing five ecotourism opportunity dimensions and
thirteen criteria from chapter 2's literature review was designed to address this issue.
Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted to understand the CAS concepts in
ecotourism opportunities. In quantitative analysis, the SWM and the EWM were used to create
scores for the variables, which were then combined using the linear combination method to
produce a comprehensive total score.
The key observations include that the development of ecotourism opportunities occurs in the
CAS due to the influences of external and internal factors. Furthermore, the SWOT-ECOS
analysis shows that the destination provides potential ecotourism opportunities under five
dimensions and thirteen criteria. However, among the five dimensions, the nature dimension
offers more opportunities and strengths, while fewer opportunities and strengths have been
observed in the sustainability dimension. The same pattern has been observed in all dimensions,
such as more opportunities, more strengths, and fewer opportunities in fewer strengths. This
relation provides evidence about the influences of external factors (opportunities) that can
affect the development of internal factors (strengths). So, it highlights that ecotourism
opportunities do not develop alone but are influenced by external factors. However, it also
reveals that in addition to interconnected and adaptive behaviour, the current destination
potential of the ecotourism destinations also decides the level of adaptation in response to
internal or external factors. Destinations can behave differently depending on each destination's
specific circumstances and characteristics and the extent and nature of the internal and external

113
factors. For instance, the Saudi Vision 2030 impacted Alula, a developing destination, more
than Al-Balad, Jeddah, a developed destination.
Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the SWOT-ECOS analysis provided a comprehensive
tool for evaluating and comprehending the complex interconnected opportunities associated
with ecotourism. This methodology is consistent with previous studies recognizing the need
for a comprehensive and multidimensional evaluation of ecotourism opportunities. By using
the CAS-based SWOT-ECOS analysis, academics and practitioners can better understand how
complicated ecotourism development is and make better decisions considering how the
different dimensions of ecotourism opportunities work together and change over time.
Besides, stakeholders need to comprehend ecotourism opportunities' adaptive and
interdependent nature. This knowledge may allow collaboration and information exchange
across industries, thereby increasing inclusive decision-making. Also, it gives local
stakeholders with the flexibility required to negotiate in the constantly expanding ecotourism
market. CAS theory and SWOT-ECOS analysis provided a new paradigm for evaluating
ecotourism opportunities by revealing complex systems and supporting stakeholders in
identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a destination. These data can be used to improve
strategic planning, destination management, and marketing campaigns, ensuring a rigorous
assessment of ecotourism opportunities in both strong and weak areas. For example, if the
sustainability dimension reveals fewer opportunities and strengths, stakeholders may need to
establish strategies to support sustainable behaviours, such as enhancing environmental
conservation efforts or promoting responsible tourism. In doing so, not only would the
opportunities in the sustainability dimension increase, but Alula's overall attraction as an
ecotourism destination would also be enhanced, so contributing to the destination's total
potential.

114
4 Sustainability and ecotourism opportunities: evaluating the indicators

4.1 Introduction
Sustainable ecotourism has become an essential part of the constantly changing global
economy. Identifying key indicators that assist the evaluation of the sustainability of tourism
activities is essential to developing sustainable ecotourism. These indicators should provide a
comprehensive and measurable framework for analysing tourism activities' environmental,
economic, and sociocultural impacts. Measuring these impacts can foster tourism that
effectively reduces negative impacts while enhancing positive outcomes for local communities
and ecosystems. The previous chapter of this research evaluated ecotourism opportunities as a
Complex Adaptive System (CAS). It is crucial to examine the sustainability of these identified
ecotourism opportunities. This evaluation ensures that these opportunities contribute efficiently
to conservation projects, stimulate local socioeconomic growth, respect cultural uniqueness,
and promote adaptive management for continuous improvement. This approach embodies the
fundamental concepts of sustainable development, highlighting the necessity of assessing the
sustainability of identified ecotourism opportunities.
Chapter 3 argued that strategic planning, destination management, and promotion involve the
sustainable evaluation of ecotourism opportunities in strong and weak areas that need deeper
investigations and CAS theory applications in the ecotourism opportunities system. So, the
second research question was developed to evaluate the sustainability of the first question’s
identified ecotourism opportunities. The second question states: "Will these opportunities
contribute to sustainable tourism?" It develops a methodology for evaluating the sustainability
of potential Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities Indicators (SEOIs) and their associated
sustainable ecotourism opportunities in Alula, Saudi Arabia.
The methodology is based on the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model, which
was selected to identify a list of potential sustainable indicators in the literature review, reported
in Chapter 2 (section 2.4.2.4). The SWOT-ECOS analysis was also used in the first research
question to identify ecotourism opportunities (Figure 3.4). So, as described in Figure 4.1, this
chapter, a list of 25 potential sustainable indicators and the 120 identified ecotourism
opportunities has been used as an input. The Delphi method was used to evaluate if indicators
capture sustainability and the relationship between the indicators and their relevant
opportunities.
The Delphi method was used to evaluate the relationship between the indicators and
sustainability and the relationship between the indicators and their relevant opportunities. The
115
Delphi method was conducted in two different rounds. In the first round, experts reached
consensus on twenty-five SEOIs. The second round identified the connections between these
SEOIs and their associated sustainable ecotourism opportunities. Also, a systems diagram was
developed by putting together evidence from the literature and official websites such as the
Royal Commission For Alula (RCU) and Saudi Vision 2030 (Royal Commission for Alula,
2020, Vision 2030, 2023). It discusses how external factors influence ecotourism opportunities
dimensions, sustainable indicators, and ecotourism opportunities, which affect a destination’s
ability to keep its ecotourism opportunities system sustainable.

Figure 4.1. Structure of chapter 4, “Sustainability and ecotourism opportunities: evaluating the
indicators”

116
4.2 Background
Sustainable tourism practices
Tourism constitutes a sizeable portion of the global economy, and particularly in
underdeveloped nations, it is frequently regarded as a primary factor in the economy's
expansion (Zhang and Jensen, 2007, Della Corte and Aria, 2016). This is due to tourism's direct
and indirect impacts on the local economy, such as increased employment and earnings from
foreign exchange. Tourism serves an essential social purpose because it has the potential to
diversify local economies, produce new opportunities for business startups, and assist in the
maintenance and promotion of local cultural traditions (Hsu et al., 2004, Zhang and Jensen,
2007). Despite its benefits, tourism can bring substantial risks. These include environmental
damage caused by waste production and infrastructure expansion, increasing local business
competition resulting in property price increases, and cultural commodification (Marzuki,
2011, Archer et al., 2012, Koens et al., 2018), and the possible spread of infectious diseases
such as COVID-19 (Abbas et al., 2021, Farzanegan et al., 2021). However, sustainable tourism
can strive to reduce these adverse effects on the environment and society while maximizing the
positive effects on the communities visited and the success of conservation efforts (Bhuiyan et
al., 2016, Asmelash and Kumar, 2019). The potential risks associated with tourism can be
reduced significantly through the practice of sustainable tourism (Hassan, 2000, Bramwell and
Lane, 2011). Practices contributing to sustainable tourism include lowering energy and water
use, reducing waste and pollution, and encouraging responsible tourism (Lim and McAleer,
2005, Niedziółka, 2014). Thus, tourism activities in potential destinations must satisfy tourists
without compromising the sites’ natural and cultural resources, which demand sustainable
tourism practices (Hassan, 2000, Long and Nguyen, 2018).

Ecotourism as a sustainable tourism option

In the 21st century, ecotourism has become an essential tool for developing sustainable tourism.
Ecotourism opportunities contribute to the tourism industry's long-term sustainability by
delivering measurable advantages to local residents and fostering the protection of natural
habitats (Bhuiyan et al., 2016, Cabral and Dhar, 2020). Local residents can improve their
infrastructure, essential services, and access to markets by participating in ecotourism, which
in turn helps these communities generate more revenue from tourism-related activities and
creates more employment opportunities (Wood, 2002, Kiper, 2013). Ecotourism can contribute
to local conservation efforts by providing incentives to protect natural ecosystems and

117
biodiversity (Blamey, 2001, Batta, 2006). Ecotourism can also positively contribute to the
responsible management of natural resources (Fennell, 2007, Cabral and Dhar, 2020).
Opportunities associated with ecotourism frequently involve promoting sustainable practices
such as using renewable energy sources, reducing water consumption, and utilizing local goods
and services (Honey, 1999, Ashok et al., 2017).
So, ecotourism opportunities can produce sustainable development outcomes through proper
resource management, conserving natural and cultural heritage sites, and providing socio-
economic benefits to all stakeholders (Wood, 2002, The International Ecotourism Society,
2020). However, Wall (1997) and Ocampo et al. (2018) contend that ecotourism and
sustainable tourism are not interchangeable concepts and that many types of ecotourism may
not be environmentally friendly due to neglecting the interests of local communities (Lee and
Hsieh, 2016, Ocampo et al., 2018), threatening the natural landscapes (Barzekar et al., 2011,
Wang et al., 2014), cultural disrespect (Donohoe, 2011, Buckley, 2013), trail proliferation, trail
erosion, disturbing wildlife, damaging vegetation cover, soil and root exposure, littering at
recreation sites, air, water and noise pollution, and landslides (Barzekar et al., 2011, Wang et
al., 2014). Jacobson and Robles (1992) believe that ecotourism should be subjected to
meticulous planning and management to promote sustainable development, obtain economic
benefits, and encourage the conservation of natural resources. This is because the impacts of
ecotourism on the surrounding environment could be devastating if it is not managed
sustainably (Buckley, 2004, Lee and Moscardo, 2005). Thus, there is a need to evaluate the
ecotourism opportunities indicators and their relationships with sustainability to plan and
manage ecotourism development properly (Ross and Wall, 1999a, Sirakaya et al., 2001, Tsaur
et al., 2006).

Evaluating the sustainability of ecotourism opportunities

Sustainability is a multidimensional concept that aims to satisfy existing social requirements
without compromising future generations' capability to meet their own needs (Alhaddi, 2015,
Arowoshegbe et al., 2016). The three fundamental pillars of sustainability are environmental
protection, economic viability, and social equality (Alhaddi, 2015, Arowoshegbe et al., 2016).
Collectively, these seek to strike a balance between the protection of the planet, the growth of
the global economy, and the advancement of social well-being. Ecotourism is connected with
sustainability because it attempts a balance between tourists' enjoyment of natural ecosystems
and local cultures and their preservation for future generations (Bhuiyan et al., 2016, Cabral

118
and Dhar, 2020). It involves responsible travel to natural areas, incorporates interpretation and
education, and conserves the environment, supports local people's well-being (Blamey, 2001,
The International Ecotourism Society, 2020).
The complexity of sustainability and ecotourism derives from the requirement to balance these
three sustainability pillars within an environment that is always changing globally (Blamey,
2001, The International Ecotourism Society, 2020). These demand a strategic balance between
protecting the environment, improving social welfare, and providing economic benefits,
frequently resulting in competing interests and compromises. Evaluating the sustainability of
ecotourism is difficult due to both its inherent complexity and some other factors, such as the
absence of standardised dimensions for measuring ecotourism opportunities and the dearth of
accurate data and evaluation techniques (Ross and Wall, 1999a, Sirakaya et al., 2001, Tsaur et
al., 2006).
First, the inherent complexity of ecotourism opportunities challenges the evaluation process.
Ecotourism opportunities develop in a CAS, which is characterised by high levels of
interconnectivity, adaptability, and dynamism, with ongoing internal and external adaptation
(Baggio et al., 2010a, Hartman, 2016, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). For instance, in
the case study of Alula, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Vision 2030 acted as an external factor. It
influenced the existing ecotourism opportunities by investing in infrastructure, preserving
natural, cultural, and historical heritage places, and involving local residents by launching an
education and awareness programme (as discussed in complexity analysis, section 3.4.5). In
pursuit of a sustainable economy, this vision has initiated the promotion of sustainable tourism
in Alula, which has led to the development of numerous ecotourism opportunities. This
adaptability and interconnectedness of ecotourism opportunities amplify the difficulties of
evaluating its sustainability, as these opportunities produce diverse and linked impacts that vary
by destination, community, and culture. These difficulties need a comprehensive approach
considering present and future stakeholder viewpoints and environmental and socioeconomic
factors. Due to the varied and dynamic nature of ecotourism opportunities, evaluating
sustainable ecotourism has become challenging.
A second challenge is the novelty of ecotourism, as it is a relatively new concept and lacks
agreed-upon opportunity dimensions that connect with sustainable practices, making it difficult
to determine the degree of sustainability within ecotourism opportunities (Weaver, 2005,
Fennell, 2021). In light of these difficulties and obstacles, a thorough, comprehensive, and

119
systematic methodology is required to evaluate sustainability, considering the adaptive and
interconnected nature of sustainable ecotourism indicators.

Approaches to evaluating ecotourism sustainability

Several different approaches have been taken to identify sustainable ecotourism indicators.
These include conducting surveys, interviews, and workshops, forming focus groups, and
holding community mapping sessions (García-Melón et al., 2012, Ocampo et al., 2018). These
approaches can be used to find sustainable ecotourism indicators, which can then help with
decision-making and direct the development of ecotourism opportunities.
In this context, Tsaur et al. (2006) evaluated the sustainability of a Taiwanese indigenous
ecotourism site. They argued that thorough measurement of all aspects and implications of
ecotourism is almost impossible due to the interrelated variables involved. Therefore, they
collected sustainability indicators by analyzing the relationships between residents, tourists,
and resource administration (resource administration involves managing and governing
tourism resources such as natural, cultural, environmental, transportation, and accommodation
resources). They applied the Delphi method to identify 47 sustainability indicators, followed
by a weighting process to produce a single value indicating the destination's sustainability
status. According to their findings, tourism and community had the most significant impact on
natural and cultural resources. In addition, the experts who participated in the Delphi method
study were particularly concerned about environmental issues. This suggests that tourism
resources such as natural, cultural, environmental, transportation, and accommodation are
crucial to sustainable tourist development.
Ashok et al. (2017) evaluated ecotourism sustainability through their Ecotourism Sustainability
Assessment (ESA) framework. Initially, they identified four principles and eight criteria
through a literature review. Then 58 indicators and 58 verifiers were confirmed by participatory
workshops in Sikkim, India. Verifiers are evidence or data sources used to confirm or support
the measured indicators (Ashok et al., 2017). The Delphi method used at the participatory
workshop generated the consensus on principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers. The authors
concluded that ecotourism sustainability depends on four cardinal principles: protection of
natural and cultural resources, generation of socio-economic benefits to the local community,
generation of environmental awareness and capacity building, and tourist satisfaction. These
principles were measured by criteria, indicators, and verifiers.

120
Barzekar et al. (2011) evaluated ecotourism sustainability in the Northern Forest of Iran. They
began by reviewing the existing information on sustainability evaluation and used the Delphi
method to obtain consensus from respondents on sustainable ecotourism criteria and indicators.
Their study identified 61 environmental (ecological), social, economic, cultural, and
institutional indicators. Twenty-one indicators pertained to environmental (ecological)
indicators, eight indicators to economic, twenty-one to social, six to cultural, and five to
institutional aspects.
García-Melón et al. (2012) proposed a sustainable National Park (NP) methodology in
Venezuela. They applied the Delphi method and the Analytic Network Process (ANP) priority
weight method to identify indicators through engagement with the stakeholders (researchers,
sustainable development experts, stakeholders of the NP, and NP managers). They consulted
with experts and reviewed the literature to formulate thirteen criteria and three sustainable
tourism strategies: (a) development of eco-efficient resorts to manage their waste and
wastewater in accordance with rules and regulations, (b) development of environmentally
friendly activities (such as guided tours, guided diving, fishing, hiking, and windsurfing), (c)
the use of sustainable transportation such as animal-powered transport, row boats, and use of
existing trails or roads, as residents of protected areas with the potential for tourism
development were highly concerned about this issue. However, the authors concluded that the
best tourism strategy to be implemented is environmentally friendly activities followed by
sustainable transport, and the worst ranked by far were the eco-efficient resorts.
Chávez-Cortés and Maya (2010) defined sustainable indicators for a Mexican community and
discussed indicators’ suitability in the context of tourism development. The authors used
Value-Focused Thinking as a framework. The stakeholders’ interviews were analyzed, and the
authors concluded that tourism sustainability involves aspects from environmental, social,
health, educational, economic, and political/institutional dimensions. Tanguay et al. (2013)
applied selection criteria to 507 indicators from a sustainable tourism indicators database. This
allowed them to reduce the list to 20 recognized sustainable tourism indicators in the Gaspésie
region in Quebec, Canada. These shortlisted indicators were then used to develop sustainability
guiding principles for the Gaspésie region and included principles like safeguarding culture,
preservation, and heritage development, promoting eco-responsibility, participating in
governance and endogenous development, and sustainability of tourism activities. The authors
found that a compromise can be reached between academic and policy-maker approaches to
indicator formulation using the methods employed in their study.

121
Miller (2001) developed indicators to assist tourists in choosing holidays and promoting
sustainability in tourism. The author first identified a list of 74 sustainability indicators from
the literature on tourism sustainability. Then, the Delphi method was used to achieve consensus
on indicators that could be used to measure the movement of the tourism product at a
company/resort level towards a position of greater or lesser sustainability. The research
concluded that although there is general agreement on the need for sustainable tourism to focus
on long-term outcomes, there is little agreement on what policies should be employed over this
period. However, participation in sustainable tourism promotion is necessary.
Lee and Hsieh (2016) identified indicators for sustainable wetland tourism. The initial key
dimensions and indicators were identified using the fuzzy Delphi method. Using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP), the relative weights of these dimensions and indicators were then
examined. The empirical findings revealed a hierarchy of 141 indicators for sustainable
wetland tourism. The stakeholder indicators carried more weight than the environmental
dimensions at the initial level. The impact on community development was the second level's
most crucial factor within the stakeholder dimension. Respect for local cultural heritage,
respect for local customs, compliance with destination guidelines, transportation problems, the
degradation of the natural environment, presence of crowds at the destination, participation in
cultural activities, understanding the culture, assimilation into the local culture, overall effect
of tourism, benefit–cost differential, and reduction in environmental impact comprised 7.8 per
cent of the identified indicators. Several management implications were identified, including
the need to encourage stakeholder participation and collaboration to prioritise planning for
overall sustainable tourism development and the use of these indicators to manage wetland-
based sustainable tourist development.
Existing studies of sustainable tourism indicators used diverse methods to establish sustainable
ecotourism indicators, but few sought to understand the inherent complexity of ecotourism
opportunities. Understanding the complex adaptive nature of ecotourism opportunities helps
identify the interconnected nature between ecotourism opportunities dimensions, stakeholders,
and internal or external factors that contribute to sustainable efforts' sustainability and long-
term success (Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). The literature
review also demonstrates that few studies address the multiple ecotourism opportunity
dimensions under which sustainable indicators can be developed. For instance, Ashok et al.
(2017) employed five dimensions: nature-based, ecologically-sustainable, environmentally
educative, economically beneficial to the local community, and tourist satisfaction. Similarly,

122
Barzekar et al. (2011) also used five dimensions: social, ecological, cultural, economic, and
institutional. Tanguay et al. (2013) approach was based on environmental, social, and economic
dimensions. These studies provide a solid framework for evaluating sustainable ecotourism
indicators. They illustrate the multifaceted nature of ecotourism and the necessity to consider
various dimensions when evaluating sustainability. Despite these strengths, they lack an
organised, systematic mechanism for collecting these dimensions, a gap that this work sought
to address.
In contrast to existing studies, this research systematically used the ECOS model to categorise
ecotourism opportunities. After a comprehensive literature review, the ECOS model produced
five ecotourism opportunities dimensions: nature, environmental education/protection,
sustainability, socio-cultural benefits, and tourists' satisfaction. Finally, a preliminary list of 25
sustainable ecotourism indicators was compiled under these dimensions (Table 2.2). In
addition, while previous studies have employed similar dimensions, this study's approach
provides a deeper knowledge of the ecotourism dimensions. For instance, Ashok et al. (2017)
dimensions focus more on environmental and economic advantages to the local community
and satisfaction to tourists. While these are certainly significant, their framework does not
explicitly address the sociocultural benefits incorporated in this study. Barzekar et al. (2011)
dimensions incorporate social, cultural, and institutional dimensions, but they lack a dedicated
focus on environmental education and protection, a crucial element of ecotourism that is
addressed in this study. Likewise, Tanguay et al. (2013) study, despite embracing
environmental, social, and economic components, does not fully capture the breadth of
ecotourism prospects made possible by the ECOS model because it does not expressly
incorporate nature, environmental education/protection, and tourists' satisfaction.
This study contributes to ecotourism research by proposing an organised and methodical
method for defining comprehensive dimensions using the ECOS model and validating
indicators through the Delphi method. This methodology gives a more comprehensive
understanding of the ECOS model and provides a framework for future study that can be
replicated, assuring the incorporation of all essential aspects of sustainable ecotourism. This
study fills gaps in the literature by conducting a nuanced, methodical, and comprehensive
examination of sustainable ecotourism indicators.

4.3 Methodology
This chapter aimed to identify sustainable indicators and their associated sustainable
ecotourism opportunities. The previous chapter identified 145 variables (95 strengths, 15
123
weaknesses, 25 opportunities and 10 threats) using the SWOT and ECOS model under multiple
dimensions and their relevant criteria. This chapter’s analysis has applied 120 variables related
to strengths and opportunities. Weaknesses and threats are not included in this sustainability
evaluation procedure because they are not currently available in the destination, as discussed
in section 3.4.4. A preliminary list of 25 sustainability indicators was compiled through the
ECOS model (Table 2.2) during the literature review process. So, both the sustainable
indicators and ecotourism opportunities (strengths and opportunities) are taken as inputs in this
chapter. The Delphi method acquired the experts' consensus on these indicators and their
associated opportunities. The list of 25 SEOIs and their related 120 sustainable ecotourism
opportunities explored in this chapter were then used to develop a hypothetical construct that
has been used in Chapter 5 (section 5.3) to evaluate ecotourism opportunities quantitatively.
As described in Figure 4.2 shows the methodology flowchart for this chapter.

Figure 4.2. Methodology to evaluate sustainable ecotourism indicators

4.3.1 The Delphi-ECOS approach

This chapter developed a systematic approach that combined the ECOS model and the Delphi
method to identify SEOIs and their relevant, sustainable ecotourism opportunities. For that
purpose, 25 SEOIs were identified through the ECOS model using the five ecotourism
opportunities dimensions and thirteen criteria (section 2.4.2.4). Due to the complex, adaptable,
124
and interrelated nature of ecotourism opportunities, the ECOS model is critical for
systematically compiling a list of indicators through a comprehensive literature review. As the
previous chapter explained, ecotourism opportunities exist within a tourism system in which
various internal and external factors impact the opportunities. Consequently, the indicators
representing these opportunities should be collected under the ecotourism opportunities
dimensions. This task can be achieved through the ECOS model.
Existing research on this subject (Ashok et al., 2017, Ocampo et al., 2018), however, did not
use this methodical approach to the collection of sustainable indicators prior to implementing
the Delphi method and, therefore ignored the interconnected nature of ecotourism
opportunities. Besides, using the ECOS model can assist researchers in selecting sustainable
indicators without first generating and narrowing down many potential indicators. In addition,
using a concise and accurate set of indicators prevents experts from being confused about the
multiple similar indicators, which is frequent when choosing SEOIs (Barzekar et al., 2011,
Ashok et al., 2017).
The Delphi method was used to confirm the sustainability of these indicators and their related
opportunities. The combined ECOS-Delphi approach can provide a comprehensive strategy for
sustainable tourism planning. The ECOS model provides a framework for identifying and
evaluating ecotourism opportunities (Boyd and Butler, 1996, Açıksöz et al., 2016). The Delphi
method helps gather expert opinions on the sustainability of these ecotourism opportunities
(Miller, 2001, Ocampo et al., 2018). Together, these two methods can help tourism
stakeholders make educated decisions about the future of tourism that strike a balance between
economic, environmental, and social factors. This research also contributes to assessing Delphi
and ECOS’ approach applicability and generalizability in these broader contexts and enhances
the useability of these methods.

4.3.2 The concept of the Delphi Method

The Delphi method is a structured communication strategy used to collect and synthesize the
opinions of subject matter experts on a specific issue or topic (Linstone and Turoff, 1975, Green
et al., 1990). It has a wide range of applications in social science, including tourism research,
such as policy formulation, risk evaluation, community engagement in decision-making
processes, and program evaluation (Green et al., 1990, Miller, 2001, Okoli and Pawlowski,
2004, Landeta, 2006). This study employed the Delphi method to reach consensus among
experts on sustainable ecotourism indicators. RMIT’s Ethics Review Committee approved the
survey in August 2022 through the reference number 2022-25171-18490. However, the
125
iterative Delphi method is regarded as a reliable technique for identifying sustainable
ecotourism indicators (Miller, 2001, Ocampo et al., 2018). However, for a robust Delphi
method process, the expert panel selection, panel size, number of rounds, and consensus criteria
are crucial. These aspects of the methodology are described below.

4.3.2.1 Selection and size of the expert panel.

The initial step of the Delphi method is to assemble an expert panel. Experience and knowledge
determine the dependability and logic of the results, so expertise must be prioritized when
assembling an expert panel (Green et al., 1990, Giannarou and Zervas, 2014). Hence this
research adopted the following criteria proposed by multiple researchers to select the
respondents (Murry Jr and Hammons, 1995, Giannarou and Zervas, 2014, Ocampo et al.,
2018).
(i) The experts should have excellent knowledge and experience in the issue
(ii) They should have expertise in different fields of study
(iii) They should be willing and have enough time to participate actively
(iv) They should possess effective communication skills

Secondly, the panel size is also a significant decision for the Delphi method (Linstone and
Turoff, 1975, Barzekar et al., 2011). However, no strict rule is available to determine the panel
size. Scholars use different numbers of respondents (Linstone and Turoff, 1975, Green et al.,
1990, Miller, 2001). Following the above criteria, one hundred and twenty-five experts were
contacted for this study. However, one hundred and ten responses were received in the first
round and the same number in the second round. These experts have expertise in different
domains, such as engineering, academics, architecture, geology, hospitality, and tourism
professionals. Table 4.1 displays the composition and profiles of the Delphi method panel
members. The researcher believes the panel was well-balanced because its members came from
diverse tourism-related industries.
Table 4.1. Expertise of Study Respondents
Respondent’s field of Faculty Doctoral Industry
S. No Number
expertise members candidates practitioners
1 Engineering 14 4 0 10
2 Academic 56 51 3 0
3 Architects 18 7 2 9
5 Geologist 5 0 0 5
Hospitality and Tourism
6 17 3 1 13
Professional

126
4.3.2.2 The Delphi method rounds
Scholars recommend implementing two to four rounds for the Delphi method (Dajani et al.,
1979, Niederman et al., 1991, Hirt et al., 2020). Using more than one round is preferred so that
experts can give feedback, and discussion can help bring people together to reach a consensus,
and make the results more reliable, refine and test ideas and opinions, and, in the end, come to
a strong and reliable decision as a group (Dajani et al., 1979, Niederman et al., 1991, Hirt et
al., 2020).
This study implemented two rounds. In the first round, the researcher produced a list of 25
sustainable ecotourism indicators identified using the ECOS model and distributed it among
the 110-panel members. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed
that the indicators are relevant for sustainability on a 4-point Likert scale from strongly agree
(1) to strongly disagree (4), recommended by De Loe (1995) and Linstone and Turoff (1975).
The precise question posed to the experts was, "Rate the relevance of each indicator to
sustainability". After receiving the first-round responses, the information was summarized,
collated, categorized, and tabulated into the second questionnaire.
The second round started by contacting the 110 members of the first round a second time. All
of the Round 1 respondents again replied, taking an interest in this survey. There were 120
questions sent to the respondents in round 2. Each question included 25 SEOIs and their
relevant variables. The specific question asked to the respondents was about confirming the
availability of variables under each indicator layer and deciding on the sustainable relationship
between indicators and variables, again on a 4-point scale from rating the variable as highly
relevant to the indicator (1) to rating the variable as highly irrelevant to the indicator (4).

4.3.2.3 Consensus evaluation criteria

The purpose of the Delphi method is to achieve consensus among respondents. It is a group
opinion, a common agreement about a sentiment, or sometimes an absolute alignment of the
opinion of experts (Diamond et al., 2014, Jünger et al., 2017). The consensus evaluation helps
to reach experts’ agreement on an issue. Among others, the percentage agreement method to
evaluate consensus is very commonly used in implementations of the Delphi method (Putnam
et al., 1995, Stewart et al., 1999, Culley, 2011, Giannarou and Zervas, 2014). It typically uses
a predefined cut-off criterion (Zill et al., 2015).
Several implementations of the Delphi method (Stewart et al., 1999, Culley, 2011, Giannarou
and Zervas, 2014, Ashok et al., 2017) have applied a particular level of percentage agreement

127
to measure consensus among an expert panel. The specific percentage used depends upon the
importance of the issue which is going to be discussed. Some studies suggested that consensus
should be equated with 51% agreement among respondents (Loughlin and Moore, 1979,
McKenna, 1989, Giannarou and Zervas, 2014). For instance, when arranging a new cultural
festival, a simple majority of 51 per cent may be acceptable because such an event is unlikely
to have severe repercussions if the decision is flawed, and it is essential to allow room for
diverse ideas and creative input that a simple majority can provide, thereby fostering inclusivity
and representation (Keeney et al., 2006, McClimans et al., 2019). However, a 51% consensus
cut-off point could lead to low morale among panel members or disagreement among those
with a different opinion. Having only a 1% difference between whether there is consensus on
an issue seems harsh and may be difficult to justify. In other contexts, some researchers
suggested that > 70% should be the minimum level required for identifying consensus to ensure
a considerable majority of stakeholders agree with the sustainability measures, thereby
fostering a more extensive and effective adoption of sustainable practices in the tourism
business. This threshold emphasises the need for stakeholder consensus and tries to prevent
any conflicts and disagreements that could restrict progress towards sustainability goals
(Putnam et al., 1995, Stewart et al., 1999, Keeney et al., 2006, Culley, 2011, Zhang et al., 2021).
This research accepted that consensus on the sustainability of each indicator and variable was
achieved if it received more than > 80% agreement. A high level of consensus provides validity
to the results and promotes the construction of commonly accepted and effective sustainability
indicator frameworks.

4.3.3 The concept of a systems diagram

A systems diagram is a graphical representation of a complex system that employs symbols
and arrows to depict the links and interactions between the system's various components (Abel,
2003, Jun et al., 2011). It is employed in numerous fields to study complex systems, including
engineering, computer science, business management, environmental science, and tourism
(Guillen and Hugo, 1998, Jun et al., 2011, Briassoulis and Van Der Straaten, 2013, Ammirato
et al., 2022). In the context of tourism, it can be used to depict the dynamic relationships
between the system's diverse components (Abel, 2003, Jun et al., 2011). For instance, it can
demonstrate the relationships between tourists, destinations, transit routes, and tourism
destination regions. It illustrates how various tourist system components interact with one
another and how external or internal influences affect these components (Abel, 2003, Jun et
al., 2011).
128
By examining and comprehending these interrelationships, tourism stakeholders can
acknowledge the need to foster collaboration and formulate plans to manage resources, enhance
visitor experiences, and raise economic benefits. By visualizing these interactions, researchers
may also better examine the sustainability of ecotourism practices and propose ways to
optimize positive benefits and minimize negative ones. For example, Abel (2003) used systems
diagrams in his research project on the "sociocultural system," which included components
such as material assets, people, variation in social organization, cultural models, and language.
This diagram depicts the relationships between these components, the natural environment, and
the humans who continuously produce and renegotiate their shapes, which are sometimes
overlooked. Briassoulis and Van Der Straaten (2013) used a systems diagram to illustrate the
dynamics of sustainable tourism development in the Mediterranean region. They were able to
depict the interactions between tourists, local communities, and natural resources, which
assisted them in identifying crucial intervention locations to improve sustainability. In a
different study by Baggio et al. (2010a), a systems diagram was used to explain and illustrate
the interactions among and between the aspects of a destination system, specifically the tourism
community, the tourism sector, the tourists, and the environment. Their systems diagram
depicted the linkages between these aspects and assisted them in formulating recommendations
to safeguard the long-term viability of tourism locations. This chapter uses the systems diagram
to illustrate the relationships among ecotourism opportunities dimensions, indicators and
variables and the factors influencing these opportunities. It illustrates the complex, adaptive,
and dynamic behaviour of ecotourism opportunities dimensions, sustainable indicators, and
variables. The systems diagram has been built by the evidence from the literature and current
ecotourism opportunities development in Alula, Saudi Arabia.

4.4 Results
The results have been divided into six distinct parts, where the first four describe the results of
the Delphi survey and experts' consensus, the fifth explains a list of the preferable indicators
by experts, and the final part presents the system diagram outcomes. Figure 4.3 shows the
results structure.

129
Figure 4.3. The structure of the results section to evaluate the sustainability indicators

4.4.1 Results for the Delphi method round 1

A list of 25 SEOIs was provided to the expert panel. All the experts replied to all 25 questions,
showing the interest of the experts in sustainable indicators. In this round, a comment box was
also inserted against each question so respondents could explain their opinions. However, none
of the respondents provided reasons for all 25 ratings, showing less interest among respondents
in providing the reason for their answers. This may have been due to a lack of time. However,
23% of experts provided reasons for more than 20 questions, and 17% of experts provided
reasons in between 15-19 comment boxes. 60% of experts left many of the comment boxes
blank, as indicated in Table 4.2.

130
Table 4.2. The Delphi method respondents’ statistics for round 1
Total respondents 110
Total questions 25
Total number of comment boxes 25
Survey completion statistics Number Percentage
Questions completed 25 100
Fully complete comment boxes 0 0
Near to complete comment boxes (skipped between 1 and 5 boxes) 25 23
Moderately complete comment boxes (skipped between 6 and 10
19 17
comment boxes)
Less complete (skipped between 11 and 25 comment boxes) 66 60

4.4.2 Experts’ consensus on the Delphi method round 1

The experts were asked to validate the list of candidate SEOIs. Their ratings for each indicator
produced more than 80% agreement (sum of "agree" and "strongly agree"), indicating strong
consensus among the respondents. Appendix 5 is the final list of 25 SEOIs, their associated
ecotourism dimension, and the 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities. Figure 4.4 shows the
expert rating of each indicator.

131
 N25

N24
D5

N23

N22

N21

N20

N19
D4

N18

N17

N16

N15

N14
D3

N13

N12

N11

N10

N9
D2

N8

N7

N6

N5

N4
D1

N3

N2

N1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Figure 4.4 The Delphi method response distribution for the ratings of 25 potential sustainable
ecotourism opportunity indicators within five dimensions D1-D5

132
4.4.3 Results for the Delphi method round 2
The list of 25 SEOIs and their relevant ecotourism opportunities was provided to the expert
panel. The questionnaire was long and time-consuming. Twenty-three per cent of the
respondents completed all the questions, while 27% skipped 1-5 questions and were considered
near completion. 34% of respondents skipped 6-50 questions and were considered moderately
complete, and 16% skipped more than 50 questions and are considered less complete (Table
4.3). Respondents were also requested to weight the identified variables according to their
extent of availability in Alula (i.e., the case study location). This section was completed by
100% of the respondents, as reported in Table 4.3. The collected weights were retained for
further analysis in the third research question.
Table 4.3. The Delphi method respondents’ statistics for round 2
Total respondents 110
Total questions 120
Survey completion statistics Number Percentage
Completed 25 23
Near to complete (skip questions 1-5) 30 27
Moderately complete (Skip questions 6-50) 37 34
Less complete (Skip questions >50) 18 16
Completed questions related to weighing the variables 120 100

4.4.4 Experts’ consensus on the Delphi method round 2

The experts again produced more than 80% agreement (sum of “highly relevant” and
“somewhat relevant”) against each indicator’s relevance to their related ecotourism
opportunities, showing strong consensus among the panel members. The consensus agreement
has been reported in several figures. Due to the large number of variables, reducing it to a single
figure was difficult. Therefore, variables were divided into their five ecotourism opportunities
dimensions (from Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.9), each showing the consensus agreement on relevant
ecotourism opportunities for the indicators in the five dimensions.

133
 X57
N5

X55

X53

X51

X49

X47
N4

X45

X43

X41

X39

X37

X35
N3

X33

X31

X29

X27

X25

X23
N2

X21

X19

X17

X15

X13

X11

X9
N1

X7

X5

X3

X1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Variable is highly relevant to the indicator Variable is somewhat relevant to the indicator

Variable is somewhat irrelevant to the indicator Variable is highly irrelevant to the indicator

Figure 4.5. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 1 (Nature)

134
 X69
N10

X68
X67
N8 N9

X66
X65
X64
X63
N7

X62
X61
X60
N6

X59
X58

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Variable is highly relevant to the indicator Variable is somewhat relevant to the indicator
Variable is somewhat irrelevant to the indicator Variable is highly irrelevant to the indicator

Figure 4.6. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 2 (Environmental

education/protection)
N14 N15

X87
X86
X85
X84
X83
N13

X82
X81
X80
X79
X78
X77
N12

X76
X75
X74
X73
X72
X71
N11

X70

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Variable is highly relevant to the indicator Variable is somewhat relevant to the indicator
Variable is somewhat irrelevant to the indicator Variable is highly irrelevant to the indicator

Figure 4.7. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 3 (Sustainability)

135
 X104
N21

X103
X102
X101
N20

X100
X99
X98
N19

X97
X96
N18

X95
X94
N17

X93
X92
X91
X90
N16

X89
X88

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Variable is highly relevant to the indicator Variable is somewhat relevant to the indicator
Variable is somewhat irrelevant to the indicator Variable is highly irrelevant to the indicator

Figure 4.8. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 4 (Socio-cultural benefits)

X120
X119
X118
N25

X117
X116
X115
X114
N2

X113
4

X112
X111
N23

X110
X109
X108
X107
N22

X106
X105

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Variable is highly relevant to the indicator Variable is somewhat relevant to the indicator
Variable is somewhat irrelevant to the indicator Variable is highly irrelevant to the indicator

Figure 4.9. The Delphi method respondents’ ratings on dimension 5 (Tourists' satisfaction)
136
4.4.5 The most preferred indicators for sustainability
During the Delphi method's first round, respondents were asked to explain why they identified
a particular indicator as capturing sustainability by asking, “Could you please provide a reason
for your choice?” After examining these responses, a short-list set of indicators was developed.
These shortlisted indicators were those that received more comments, with experts expressing
high agreement levels. Experts viewed these particular indicators as contributing more
successfully to sustainable growth in an ecotourism destination if limited resources are
available for promotion. They may hold these views because of recent work within the case
study location related to these indicators, such as the protection of cultural heritage sites such
as Old Town Alula and the launching of an education programme for promoting sustainable
ecotourism as “The Integrated Design & Craft Education Programme”, “Scholarship
Programmes” and “Alula Fellowships Programme” (Experiencealula, 2021, Royal
Commission for Alula, 2022, UNESCO, 2023a). The expert opinions were compared to the
discussion of these indicators within the literature. The literature showed the importance of
these indicators along with other sustainable indicators (Orams, 1997, Honey, 1999, Stronza,
2001, Weaver, 2001, Besculides et al., 2002, Tao and Wall, 2009, George, 2010, Ballantyne
and Packer, 2011, Mowatt and Chancellor, 2011, Buckley, 2012, UNWTO, 2013, Koens et al.,
2018, The International Ecotourism Society, 2020, Legrand et al., 2022). Table 4.4 presents
the shortlists of the most critical indicators based on experts' opinions from the Delphi method
and literature evidence.
Table 4.4 Shortlisted sustainable ecotourism opportunities indicators
Dimensions The most preferred indicators
Nature Planning to conserve culture (N6)
Environmentally education/protection* Ecotourism awareness among local communities and
visitors (N9)
Sustainability Practices to support sustainable long-term economic
growth (N15)
Socio-cultural benefits Educational opportunities (N20)
Tourists’ satisfaction Tourist protection (N25)

137
4.4.6 Systems diagram for ecotourism opportunities
This chapter uses a systems diagram to illustrate the relationships among ecotourism
opportunities dimensions, indicators, and variables and the factors influencing these
opportunities. Figure 4.10 presents a systems diagram of the complex, adaptive, and dynamic
behaviour of ecotourism opportunities dimensions, sustainable indicators, and variables. The
systems diagram was built by self-observations based on evidence from the literature, Delphi
experts’ comments, and the actual current development of ecotourism opportunities in Alula,
Saudi Arabia. In the preceding sections (2.4.2.3), several and internal influences from Alula's
surroundings within and outside the country were recognised. However, the systems diagram
here illustrates the four influencing factors: Saudi Vision 2030, inspiration from Petra, Jordan,
COVID-19, and a new global outlook on oil and sustainability. Each of these is discussed in
turn below. Three types of correlations are indicated to show the strength of internal and
external influences: strong, moderate, and weak because the four external factors have
unequally impacted the five ecotourism opportunities dimensions. For example, Saudi Vision
2030 impacted all the dimensions strongly, but other external factors vary in their impact on
each dimension. Likewise, the indicators and variables under one dimension (such as Nature)
have been considered strongly correlated with each other, while other dimensions’ variables
and indicators vary in correlation with the “Nature” dimension. This is because these variables
and indicators often measure similar aspects of ecotourism. After all, they are based on the
same basic ideas (Blamey, 2001, Baggio, 2008). This means that they have a stronger effect on
each other. Most of the time, their properties are linked, so changes in one can affect others in
the same dimension. Lastly, from a statistical point of view, variables and indicators within a
dimension have a higher covariance because they have similar structures and attributes that are
linked to each other (Brown, 2006, Baral et al., 2012). Because of this, there are stronger
connections between indicators and variables within the same dimension than across different
dimensions. The following section explains the complexity of the system diagram (Figure
4.10). The related indicator or variable identifier is indicated in brackets following its
description.

• Saudi Vision 2030 is a significant external factor determining Alula's ecotourism

potential. This strategy seeks to diversify the nation's economy and reduce its reliance
on oil by encouraging the sustainability of expanding other industries, including
tourism and ecotourism (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Sahahiri et al., 2023). By
138
 investing in developing ecotourism opportunities, the vision strongly impacts all
dimensions, such as nature, environmental education/protection, sustainability, and
socio-cultural benefits (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).
For instance, incorporating the insights from Delphi survey experts about Saudi
Arabia's Vision 2030, it becomes evident that the Vision's emphasis on diversifying
away from oil and towards sustainable sectors such as ecotourism is crucial for assuring
long-term economic growth (N15). The experts were agreed on the need for a balanced
approach that promotes both economic development and ecological sustainability,
particularly through the development of ecotourism sites and destinations, emphasising
the complex relationship between long-term economic prosperity and the sustainability
of the ecotourism industry.
This purpose has stimulated long-term planning (V74), establishing initiatives such as
the RCU. The RCU is devoted to making Alula a global tourist destination,
consequently influencing the tourism indicator (N12). This transition requires the
collaboration of local and international professionals in archaeology, nature
conservation (N5), and cultural conservation (N6), all of which contribute to the
preservation of historical places (N16) and natural beauty (N5). In addition, the RCU's
mandate includes promoting education (such as environmental education (N8) and
employment opportunities (N21) for the local community, thereby supporting
sustainable economic development (N15). The development of critical infrastructural
services (N10) and visitor protection (N25) forms a comprehensive strategy for
achieving sustainable development in tourism and relates back to the basic goal of
Vision 2030. So, significant government investment in Alula's ecotourism has
developed a strong correlation between Saudi Vision 2030, five ecotourism
opportunities dimensions, 25 sustainable indicators, and 120 variables. As a result,
ecotourism opportunities are developing rapidly in multiple ecotourism opportunities
dimensions, and RCU has started several initiatives, such as developing Sharan Nature
Reserve and protecting historical places (such as Old Town Alula and Hegra) to
promote ecotourism in Alula (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula,
2021).
• Petra, Jordan, also inspired Alula's ecotourism opportunities. Petra, a UNESCO World
Heritage Site in Jordan, is a popular tourist site with sustainable tourism (Alhasanat and

139
 Hyasat, 2010, Alrwajfah et al., 2020, UNESCO, 2023b). Tourism managers in Alula,
drawing inspiration from Petra's model of sustainable tourism, identifying the potential
of Vision 2030 to enhance protection and promotion of local heritage (N17), with
experts confirming the substantial influence on reducing environmental footprint,
leveraging heritage as a key tourist attraction, and fostering cultural exchange. This
indicator moderately impacts the dimension “socio-cultural benefits (D4) and other
indicators and variables such as promoting cultural heritage (V81), managing cultural
events (V82), and planning to conserve historical heritage sites (N16). For instance, the
RCU signed an agreement with the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(Saudi ICOMOS) for the protection and promotion of local heritage (N17) (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). RCU and UNESCO also
announced a partnership to conserve Saudi Arabia's historical heritage sites (N16) in
Alula (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).
• The impacts of COVID-19 on the worldwide tourism industry also affected Alula’s
tourism industry. Numerous countries were forced to close their borders due to the
pandemic, resulting in a substantial fall in inbound visitors (Kock et al., 2020, Fotiadis
et al., 2021). This pandemic strongly impacted tourist satisfaction (D5), which further
moderately influences other indicators and associated variables such as tourists’
protection (N25), availability of eating and drinking places (V119), and availability of
security for visitors (V120). However, the epidemic has also provided chances for
domestic tourism as Alula strives to market itself as a premier destination for domestic
tourism (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). In light of the
continued travel limitations and public health concerns, Alula modified its tourism
initiatives to cater to local tourists by highlighting safety precautions and custom
experiences that emphasize the region's distinctive offerings (Royal Commission for
Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).
• The changing global attitudes about energy and sustainability further impact tourist
potential in Alula City. This trend is mirrored in Alula's tourism development as Saudi
Arabia, a nation historically dependent on oil, seeks to diversify its energy portfolio in
response to the worldwide transition toward sustainable energy sources (Middleton and
Hawkins, 1998, RCU, 2021). This external element encourages Alula to join the more
extensive sustainability campaign and strongly impacts the dimensions of

140
 environmental education/protection and sustainability (D2). The changing global
attitudes about energy and sustainability affect other dimensions such as sustainability
(D3), and variables such as long-ranging planning (V74) to promote practices that can
support sustainable long-term economic growth (N15). This indicator (N15) can
support other indicators, such as employment opportunities (N21) (Royal Commission
for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). For instance, to support sustainable long-term
economic growth (N15), the Saudi government has established RCU to promote
sustainable tourism in Alula. For that purpose, RCU aims to attract national and
international tourists to Alula and to improve their satisfaction, they are developing
accommodations (such as Sharan Resort, Habitas Alula), transportation (Flyness and
Saudi Airlines to Alula and development of Alula airport), natural, cultural and
historical heritage sites, and these projects are encouraging local business promotion
opportunities (N22) thereby creating employment opportunities (N21).

In conclusion, ecotourism opportunities are interconnected and pose impacts on each other
when external factors influence this system. The impacts may be strong, moderate, or weak.
Ecotourism potential is not evenly impacted by external factors, such as COVID-19, which
substantially impacts tourist satisfaction but has less impact on environmental protection. This
can be observed in Alula, where international tourist entry was stopped due to the closure of
the country’s border. However, the ecotourism opportunities development in nature,
environmental, sustainability, and socio-cultural dimensions continued (Royal Commission for
Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). The reasons for the different intensities of these impacts
also include the unique characteristics of each ecotourism opportunity system, which might be
influenced by a complex interaction of multiple factors, including the nature and duration of
the external factor, the adaptability and interconnectivity of the system, the reliance of the local
economy on ecotourism, and government policies and regulations (Zahra and Ryan, 2007,
Baggio et al., 2010a, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). For instance, COVID-19’s intense
impacts were felt for a short time compared to Saudi Vision 2030, which will likely impact
Alula’s tourism until 2030. Occasionally, external factors, which may only have a short-term
presence or effect, might have lasting effects or consequences that are noticeable long after the
factors themselves have faded away. In other words, even transient situations or occurrences
might result in lasting changes or consequences. For example, after COVID-19, the increase in
airfare, lodging, and transportation costs has significantly impacted tourism. This price increase
141
has drastically altered the dynamics of worldwide travel and tourism, affecting both the influx
and outflow of tourists (Kock et al., 2020, Fotiadis et al., 2021). So, different factors interact
in complex ways to determine the overall size of the impact. Hence, comprehensive knowledge
of these interconnections is essential for developing sustainable and effective tourism plans
that benefit all stakeholders. By analysing the influence of external factors like COVID-19 and
the trend toward sustainability, Alula can design a more secure and robust ecotourism system
that can respond to shifting global conditions.

Figure 4.10. Systems diagram to illustrate the complexity of ecotourism opportunities

142
4.5 Key observations and critical discussion
This chapter aimed to identify sustainable indicators and their associated sustainable
ecotourism opportunities. The previous chapter identified 145 variables (95 strengths, 15
weaknesses, 25 opportunities and 10 threats) using the SWOT and ECOS model under multiple
dimensions and their relevant criteria. This chapter has examined 120 variables related to
strengths and opportunities. However, 25 variables of weaknesses and threats are not included
in this sustainability evaluation procedure because these are not currently available in the
destination, as discussed in section 3.4.4. A preliminary list of 25 sustainability indicators was
compiled during the literature review process through the ECOS model (section 2.4.2.4). So,
both the sustainable indicators and ecotourism opportunities (strengths and opportunities) are
taken as input in this chapter. The Delphi method was used to understand experts’ consensus
on these indicators and their associated opportunities. Besides, a systems diagram was built by
evidence from the literature combined with the actual current development of ecotourism
opportunities in Alula, Saudi Arabia (section 4.4.6). It describes how external factors activate
adaptations among dimensions, indicators, and variables, finally influencing Alula's
sustainability and that of the entire ecotourism opportunities system.
As described in Figure 4.11, the key findings reveal a complex network of 25 interconnected
SEOIs and 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities developed under the five ecotourism
opportunities dimensions, as evidenced by the ECOS-Delphi approach results in Appendix 5.
Here, interconnection shows that there is a direct relation between dimensions, indicators and
variables: changes in one likely affect the other (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio, 2008). As
observed in the systems diagram, Vision 2030 influenced the sustainable indicator of long-term
economic growth (N15) strongly. This purpose has stimulated long-term planning (V74),
establishing initiatives such as developing RCU to promote sustainable ecotourism
opportunities in Alula. And this initiative impacted all the other ecotourism opportunities
dimensions and their connected indicators and variables. So, there is a direct interconnection
between dimensions, indicators and variables.
However, in an indirect link, Vision 2030 has also affected some other variables; such as for
long-term planning, the RCU was established to promote sustainable ecotourism in Alula. RCU
has started many initiatives such as protecting threatened species such as the “Arabian
Leopard” they developed the “Sharan nature reserve”. Furthermore, to promote the nature
heritage and to advertise it to the world, they started the “Name a Rock competition” (Royal

143
Commission for Alula, 2020, Vision 2030, 2023). Protecting threatened species or promoting
natural heritage is not a direct part of Vision 2030. However, it has affected these variables that
are essential for sustainable ecotourism development.
Furthermore, the distribution of indicators among ecotourism opportunities dimensions shows
the multi-dimensional nature of sustainable ecotourism and corresponds with studies
suggesting a comprehensive approach to developing sustainable ecotourism indicators (Ashok
et al., 2017, Ocampo et al., 2018). The fact that 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities were
found in relation to the SEOIs shows that each sustainability indicator cannot work in isolation.
Instead, each indicator evolves with various opportunities, such as the government planning to
promote tourism (N12) indicator, with (V64) destination marketing (V65) ecotourism markets,
and (V66) managing impacts of ecotourism. This interconnection develops a sustainability
network that starts from local destinations worldwide. It can be observed in Alula, where RCU
is developing collaboration between local and international professionals to develop
ecotourism opportunities in Alula (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021).
For instance, the RCU signed an agreement with the International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS) to protect and promote local heritage (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020,
Experiencealula, 2021). RCU and UNESCO also announced a partnership to conserve Saudi
Arabia's historical heritage sites in Alula (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula,
2021).
Ecotourism opportunities’ complexity has also been observed in the systems diagram (section
4.4.6), which illustrated how the changes in one indicator might have cascading impacts on
other indicators and variables due to external and internal influences, such as COVID-19 in the
system diagram, which impacted the tourist's satisfaction (D5) dimension, which in turn
affected the tourist's protection (N25) and other key indicators and variables such as
transportation, accommodation, and local economy. Due to COVID’s impact, in 2020, tourism
revenues decreased by $910 billion to $1.2 trillion. This had a broader effect, reducing the
world GDP by 1.5 percentage points to 2.8 percentage points (UNWTO, 2021b). So, this type
of complex relationship between the ecotourism opportunities and internal or external factors
stresses the need for management strategies that are adaptive to the changing needs of tourists
and the natural environment.
These findings contribute to the previous studies that did not take into account the above
complex nature of the ecotourism opportunities system when evaluating the sustainable

144
ecotourism indicators (Barzekar et al., 2011, Lee and Hsieh, 2016, Ashok et al., 2017). Thus,
they ignored the system's multi-dimensionality, interconnectedness, and adaptability. Failure
to understand ecotourism's complexity and adaptability can limit the research efforts,
preventing the finding of relationships between ecotourism opportunities, thus negatively
impacting sustainability. For example, ignoring the interrelationship between local
communities and ecotourism awareness among local communities could reduce the local
economic benefits and negatively impact tourism sustainability. Similarly, ignoring adaptation,
such as to COVID’s impacts, may result in unproductive, rigid planning that fails to achieve
sustainability (Baggio and Sainaghi, 2011, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). Figure 4.11
shows the summary of the findings of the second research question.

Figure 4.11. The summary of the second research question's findings

In addition, based on experts' feedback and literature evidence, the study can emphasize the
prevalence of specific indicators, as discussed in (section 4.4.5). The following section
critically discusses the most important indicators within each dimension based on experts’
opinions from the Delphi method and the literature evidence.

Nature
The results found six indicators under the nature dimension: topographical structures (N1),
suitable natural phenomena (N2), wildlife saturation (N3), protected places (N4), planning to
conserve nature (N5), and planning to conserve culture (N6). However, based on expert opinion
and existing relevant literature, "planning to conserve culture (N6)" is the most critical indicator
in sustainable ecotourism planning under the nature dimension. This indicator extends beyond
environmental preservation to incorporate broader societal considerations, providing a more
rational approach to ecotourism sustainability (Stronza, 2001, Besculides et al., 2002). This is

145
because cultural preservation is an essential part of sustainable ecotourism, which considers
not only natural environments but also human societies and their inherited traditions (Stronza,
2001, Besculides et al., 2002). Besides, according to the United Nations World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO), and The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), this factor is
critical because it safeguards indigenous and local customs, which are essential parts of a
destination's unique tourism attraction, hence supporting sustainable ecotourism. Such
planning prevents cultural erosion and promotes intercultural understanding, connecting with
a nature-centric approach in the ecotourism spectrum by tying together the protection of natural
landscapes and the continuity of human cultures that are integrally related to these ecosystems
(UNWTO, 2013, The International Ecotourism Society, 2020).
While other indicators are also important, "Planning to conserve culture" in ecotourism
combines nature and culture, which is essential for its long-term sustainability. It accomplishes
this by combining the conservation of natural resources with the preservation of local customs
and traditions. By utilising this strategy, traditional knowledge can assist ecological
preservation while cultural tourism can stimulate local economies. This union strengthens the
reciprocal support between cultural and natural conservation, exemplifying responsible travel,
environmental protection, and the prosperity of local communities (Stronza, 2001, Besculides
et al., 2002). For instance, to preserve local culture, RCU has organized numerous cultural
events, such as the “Alula Dates Festival” and the “Orange Festival”, honouring the local
harvesters and showcasing the various fruits they cultivate. The "Ancient Kingdoms Festival"
shows how Alula, Khaybar, and Tayma, three ancient oases in Northwest Arabia, are linked. It
also briefly gives glimpses of interactive experiences set in historic and natural landscapes
(Experiencealula, 2021, Royal Commission for Alula, 2022).
Some experts believed that the "topographical structure (N1)" indicator should be enhanced in
the case study destination. This indicator's improvement in Alula can significantly increase the
destination's appeal as an ecotourism destination. This may involve developing techniques to
safeguard and maintain natural characteristics, such as Alula's iconic rock formations and
desert landscapes. Promoting study into the geology and ecology of the region can shed light
on the most effective conservation methods. These distinctive topographical structures can be
preserved through careful management, attracting more tourists, and helping Alula's overall
sustainability.

146
Environmental education/protection
Similarly, in this dimension, six indicators were found: environmental protection awareness
among local communities (N7), environmental education (N8), ecotourism awareness among
local communities and visitors (N9), infrastructural services (N10), accommodation
opportunities for ecotourists (N11), and government planning to promote tourism (N12). The
“ecotourism awareness among local communities and visitors (N9)" indicator was deemed
essential for promoting sustainable tourism practices among the Delphi panel members, as it
supports sustainable interactions between tourists, the environment, and local communities.
Legrand et al. (2022) claim that such awareness strengthens comprehension of environmental
concerns and encourages environmentally responsible behaviour, hence strengthening
sustainable ecotourism. In addition, Tosun (2006) believes that well-informed residents may
effectively protect local culture and environmental assets, as they are frequently their primary
stewards. Enhanced understanding among tourists simultaneously promotes respect for local
customs and traditions, hence reducing cultural antagonism and the possibility of cultural
commodification where cultural customs and practices are packaged and presented for tourists,
potentially resulting in a distortion of traditional values and a loss of authenticity (Shepherd,
2002, Hollinshead, 2004, MacLeod, 2006). This understanding can also increase demand for
sustainable tourism, driving market trends toward more sustainable solutions (Weaver, 2001).
This indicator is an essential sustainable ecotourism indicator in the dimension of
environmental education/protection, as acknowledged by the UNWTO and TIES, as it protects
heritage and traditions and frequently encompasses generations' ecological knowledge and
sustainable behaviours (UNWTO, 2013, The International Ecotourism Society, 2020).
Increasing ecotourism knowledge among local communities and tourists is also a key objective
of Alula’s tourism promotion. In accordance with RCU's strategic objectives, the RCU
developed several educational programs such as “Scholarship Programmes” and “Alula
Fellowships Programme”. Among other objectives, it contributes to developing a society with
the essential knowledge, skills, and talents for sustainable tourism growth (Royal Commission
for Alula, 2022, UNESCO, 2023a). It also aims to educate both local communities about the
significance of environmental conservation, the region's unique biodiversity, and its cultural
and historical history (Royal Commission for Alula, 2022, UNESCO, 2023a). Moreover, “The
Integrated Design & Craft Education Programme” has been launched for Alula's main

147
education and cultural centre. It is an inspirational creative hub that generates genuine pride
for the region's heritage (Experiencealula, 2021, Royal Commission for Alula, 2022).
Some experts indicated that the environmental education (N8) indicator needs improvement in
the case study region. Improving environmental education is essential for promoting a greater
understanding and appreciation of Alula's distinctive ecosystems among both locals and
visitors. Workshops, guided tours, and interactive exhibits can serve as excellent means of
educating the public about local biodiversity, the significance of conservation, and the human
impact on the environment (Weaver, 2001, Legrand et al., 2022). These programmes can also
increase understanding of the significance of sustainable practices, resulting in more
responsible conduct and a stronger commitment to maintaining Alula's natural environment.

Sustainability
Under this dimension, three indicators were found: water availability and conservation policies,
practices to conserve the natural environment and people's health, and practices to support
sustainable long-term economic growth. The expert panel selected the indicator "practices to
support sustainable long-term economic growth (N 15)" as the critical part of the conversation
about sustainable ecotourism because it shows how ecotourism projects can be economically
sustainable and last for a long time. Such practices are based on the idea that the economic
benefits of ecotourism should be shared fairly and help local residents grow (Tao and Wall,
2009, Legrand et al., 2022). This approach is in line with what the United Nations World
Tourism Organization (UNWTO) says about how sustainable tourism should lead to true socio-
economic advantages, especially for local residents (UNWTO, 2013). Also, practices that lead
to sustainable economic growth can generate jobs and give local residents a stable income,
significantly lowering poverty. Importantly, these practices also include ways to put revenue
directly into local conservation efforts (Tao and Wall, 2009, Legrand et al., 2022). This
generates a positive cycle of sustainability in which money from tourism directly helps protect
the natural and cultural resources that attract tourists (Tao and Wall, 2009, Buckley, 2012).
The experts’ focus on "practices to support sustainable long-term economic growth" shows
how important it is for sustainable ecotourism development in Alula to balance economic
progress, environmental protection, and social equity. RCU launched several programs,
including the Alula Framework Plan, for that purpose. This comprehensive plan establishes
standards for responsible and sustainable development that safeguards the natural and cultural

148
legacy of the region while fostering economic growth. The plan prioritised infrastructure with
low environmental impacts, sustainable water management, and the preservation of important
places. In addition, as part of the RCU's global partnerships, Saudi Arabia and France are
collaborating on the sustainable development of Alula. The goal is to allow local, regional, and
worldwide tourists to Alula to experience Saudi Arabia's cultural history, Arabian civilizations,
and local values and assist Saudi Vision 2030's growing sustainable economy (Experiencealula,
2021, Royal Commission for Alula, 2022).
Nonetheless, the panel believed that "Practices to Conserve the Natural Environment and
People's Health (N14)" must be improved for Alula to be sustainable. Implementing rigorous
recycling and waste treatment programmes could aid in waste management, while renewable
energy initiatives, such as solar-powered housing, could reduce the area’s carbon footprint (Tao
and Wall, 2009, Legrand et al., 2022). Also, partnerships with health organisations could result
in health awareness campaigns and outdoor exercise programmes utilising Alula's natural
spaces.

Socio-cultural benefits
In the fourth ecotourism opportunities dimension, seven indicators were found, such as
planning to conserve historical heritage sites, protection and promotion of local heritage,
impact assessment, health facilities, educational opportunities, employment opportunities, and
local business promotion opportunities; however, the experts focused on the sustainable
"educational opportunities (N20)" indicator as discussed in Table 4.4. This sustainable
ecotourism indicator emphasizes the importance of information exchange and capacity
building in fostering sustainable activities. Ecotourism is inherently educational, providing
visitors with a deeper comprehension of the cultural and environmental importance of the
places they visit (Orams, 1997, Honey, 1999). In addition, these learning experiences can
influence tourist behaviour, encouraging a change toward more sustainable habits beyond their
travels. Educational opportunities extend to local communities since tourism projects can drive
learning and capacity building, promoting transferable skills applicable to various industries
and occupations (Ballantyne and Packer, 2011). This indicator is essential to ecotourism's
sustainability, functioning as a crucial socio-cultural indicator. As supported by the TIES and
UNWTO, these opportunities promote mutual understanding, respect, and conservation
consciousness among tourists and local populations. Thus, ecotourism's social and cultural

149
benefits are more effectively realized (UNWTO, 2013, The International Ecotourism Society,
2020).
The indicator "educational opportunities" highlights the learning attitudes of both tourists and
local residents, establishing education as a crucial tool for attaining ecotourism’s long-term
sustainability in Alula. For these objectives, RCU established an "International Scholarship
Programme" to study tourism, hospitality, agricultural technology, archaeology, and history.
Students can also earn diplomas, Bachelor's and Master's degrees through this programme
(Experiencealula, 2021, Royal Commission for Alula, 2022).
The expert panel identified that improvements in the case study region were needed for the
“Local Business Promotion Opportunities (N22)” indicator in the socio-cultural benefits
dimension. Setting up a local market space or a digital platform where local artists can sell their
handmade goods or locally grown food could be helpful. Local people can learn the business
skills they need to join the growing tourism industry and make money from it through training
programmes.

Tourist satisfaction
Finally, under this dimension, three indicators were identified: proximity to visiting places,
nature-based activities, and tourist protection. However, the experts identified "tourist
protection (N25)" as an essential sustainable ecotourism indicator under the tourist satisfaction
dimension. This indicator highlights the importance of safeguarding the safety and well-being
of tourists to preserve the economic sustainability and reputation of ecotourism destinations.
Security assurance can increase tourists' pleasure and willingness to engage in ecotourism
activities (Hill, 2000, George, 2010).
In addition, protecting tourists involves ensuring their health, especially in distant or wilderness
places where exposure to new ecosystems, wildlife, or diseases can pose concerns (Hill, 2000,
Mowatt and Chancellor, 2011). The supply of correct information about potential hazards and
protections also falls within the scope of tourist protection, allowing tourists to make educated
decisions and prepare accordingly (George, 2010, Mowatt and Chancellor, 2011). Ultimately,
preserving tourists' consumer rights, such as fair pricing and ethical business practices, leads
to a great overall tourism experience, which is essential to the industry's sustainability
(UNWTO, 2013). Therefore, "tourist protection" is a crucial indicator of sustainable
ecotourism, highlighting the significance of safety, health, information accuracy, and consumer

150
rights protection in fostering a satisfying and sustainable tourism experience. In this regard,
RCU has guaranteed that all visitors are provided with safety precautions and guidance. These
include safety measures for outdoor activities, emergency response methods, and guidelines
for visitor conduct at natural and historical sites. RCU has prioritised training local tour guides
equipped with the information and skills essential to ensure the safety and education of tourists
throughout their visits (Experiencealula, 2021, Royal Commission for Alula, 2022).
Additionally, the expert respondents think of improving the Nature-based Activities (N24)
indicator. More nature-based activities can be established by setting up guided bird-watching
tours, desert safaris, or rock-climbing opportunities. Dark sky ordinances could be made to
reduce light pollution and encourage star-gazing events. Special events could also be planned
around unique natural events, such as when animals migrate, or desert plants bloom.

Limitations
While this study was conducted comprehensively and systematically, it is essential to
acknowledge certain limitations. First, the complex nature of ecotourism opportunities and the
diverse adaptability of each indicator posed challenges in identifying and analyzing, ultimately
leading to the absence of universally accepted indicators. Second, indicators are subjective and
open to interpretation, which makes comparison and standardization challenging. Thirdly, data
collecting for such indicators may introduce biases, particularly in developing nations, due to
limited resources and infrastructure for data collection. Additionally, the study may have
overlooked the dynamic and evolving nature of ecotourism opportunities, as static indicators
often fail to reflect changes over time adequately. Recognizing these limitations is crucial in
comprehending the scope and applicability of the study's findings.

Research implications
In research implications, considering ecotourism opportunities as a CAS, this study evaluates
the sustainable ecotourism indicators using the ECOS model along with the Delphi method.
Together, these two methods can help tourism stakeholders make educated decisions about the
future of tourism that strike a balance between economic, environmental, and social factors.
This approach has important implications for ecotourism practitioners, policymakers, and
researchers, as it provides a solid foundation for future sustainable ecotourism evaluation,
informed decision-making, and the development of effective strategies and policies to ensure

151
the long-term success and sustainability of ecotourism ventures worldwide. Besides, it is
valuable to the scientific community because it provides a robust and replicable method for
identifying sustainable indicators under multiple ecotourism opportunity dimensions.
The interconnection of SEOIs, dimensions, and variables in Alula, Saudi Arabia, has
significant implications for local stakeholders, notably in the areas of policymaking, allocation
of resources, and community engagement. Understanding the dynamic and complex behaviour
of the SEOIs can help stakeholders develop plans that accommodate potential external and
internal changes, increasing the resilience and sustainability of the region's ecotourism industry
and creating a culturally collaborative and participative environment. Local stakeholders in
Alula, Saudi Arabia, can benefit from ecotourism sustainable indicators' complexity and
interconnectedness. For example, the tourist protection (N25) indicator can improve local
hospitality, significantly increasing visitor satisfaction. This can be accomplished by
implementing rigorous training programmes to integrate eco-friendly practices into local
hospitality sectors. This may include water conservation in hotel operations and waste
management in local restaurants. Improved services result in more satisfied tourists who are
more likely to return, recommend, and extend their stay, thereby increasing local revenue.
Likewise, planning to conserve historical heritage sites (N16) and protection and promotion of
local heritage (N17) indicators can enhance cultural preservation and bring ecotourism's
sustainability. RCU’s commitment to archaeotourism gains significance in this context. Hegra,
the country's first UNESCO World Heritage site, is a prominent example. By utilising these
resources, local stakeholders can promote and enhance visitors' understanding of Alula's rich
history and cultural heritage. By conducting guided tours, organising heritage walks, and
organising traditional arts and crafts demonstrations, these indicators can create an immersive
cultural experience that increases tourist satisfaction while preserving and promoting the local
heritage.
Next, the indicator employment opportunities (N21) can bring economic sustainability to local
residents. This indicator can allow the local stakeholders to monitor the percentage of local
employment that can enhance economic empowerment in the community. RCU has initiated
employment-generating programs such as the Alula Oasis. The RCU's ambitious aim to create
the world's largest living agricultural museum will necessitate a huge workforce, creating
employment opportunities for the local residents. By using an employment opportunities
indicator to track how many local people are hired for this project, professionals can see how

152
it helps the local economy. In another example, the success of the Sharaan Nature Reserve is a
prominent indication of sustainability in Alula. In this context, the wildlife saturation (N3)
sustainable indicator can be used to monitor the changes in animal populations, especially those
of reintroduced species, as part of conservation efforts, such as the Nubian ibex and Arabian
leopard, which can indicate their health and diversity. The success of these conservation
activities will benefit nature conservation and increase the reserve's nature-based activities for
visitors.
Also, the Saudi Arabian government may benefit from using SEOIs in policymaking
procedures. Considering the specified ecotourism indicators, government agencies, including
the RCU, could actively monitor the sustainable performance of each ecotourism district in
Alula. This would permit the construction of a system that continuously evaluates each
district’s strengths and weaknesses, leading to better informed and effective decision-making.
In Alula, Saudi Arabia, for example, the indicator "environmental protection awareness among
local communities" may show that the local people need to learn more about how to treat the
environment responsibly. The way people treat the environment can make a place more visitor-
friendly and increase visitor satisfaction. That can also help the government find problems with
infrastructure, like transportation and hygiene, that need to be fixed.
Furthermore, establishing a specialized committee or review panel to monitor the operation of
ecotourism in Alula can ensure that the local administration has consistent access to valuable
data. Such detailed information is crucial when allocating budgets and shaping policies
designed to preserve ecotourism sites and improve the welfare and inclusiveness of local
communities. Equally significant is the contribution of Alula's local people, who have direct
access to ecotourism sites and an intimate understanding of them. This is the object of the local
business promotion opportunities (N22) sustainable indicator. The government might
aggressively engage local people and RCU in ecotourism site management. RCU can be more
significant in promoting and protecting ecotourism resources within its jurisdiction if given the
proper authority to engage with local business communities. This may involve providing RCU
with incentives based on the performance of their ecotourism sites to encourage them to
improve their tourist efforts and also enhance their economies. Lastly, delegating obligations
to local government units could generate a sense of accountability and responsibility for
sustainable development. Regular updates on the success of their ecotourism sites help ensure
that RCU maintains an active role in managing and enhancing these resources. In conclusion,

153
this research can promote a more systematic, participative, and informed approach to
ecotourism management in Alula, Saudi Arabia, thereby contributing to its sustainability and
inclusivity.

4.6 Summary of the chapter

The chapter aimed to identify the SEOIs and their relevant, sustainable ecotourism
opportunities. The research employed the ECOS model to develop a list of sustainability
indicators and the associated ecotourism opportunities. Experts reached consensus regarding
these sustainable indicators and the accompanying ecotourism opportunities using the Delphi
method. So, the ECOS-Delphi approach helped to generate a complex network of 25 SEOIs
and 120 variables spanning the five dimensions of ecotourism opportunities. Also, a systems
diagram was developed by combining evidence from the literature and the current development
of ecotourism opportunities in Alula, Saudi Arabia. It discusses how external factors influence
ecotourism dimensions, sustainable indicators, and opportunities to change, which affects
Alula's ability to keep its ecotourism opportunities system sustainable.
The results draw attention to the fact that no one indicator functions in isolation. Instead,
indicators grow through several opportunities, developing a wide network for sustainability.
This interaction demonstrates the need for management strategies that are adaptable to the
changing needs of tourists and the natural environment. Consequently, the complex interaction
of SEOIs demonstrates the inherent complexity of ecotourism management. The identified
SEOIs can assist tourism management organizations in evaluating an ecotourism destination's
sustainability. This complexity and interdependence of ecotourism sustainability indicators
provide substantial benefits for Alula's stakeholders. Local stakeholders can utilize these
sustainable indicators to increase tourist satisfaction by providing a sustainable environment.
Organizing trips to promote local heritage, encouraging eco-friendly hospitality, and improving
tourists' experiences can earn revenue and benefit the local economy. Thus, SEOIs can
contribute to visitor enjoyment, local economic development, and environmental sustainability.
Including SEOIs in policymaking can also be of considerable assistance to Saudi Arabia. The
RCU and other government agencies can utilize these ecotourism indicators to monitor the
sustainability of each ecotourism district in Alula. This would enable the development of a
system that continuously evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of each district, thereby
enhancing decision-making. For example, the "Environmental protection knowledge among
local communities" indicator shows that Alula's residents require more environmental
154
awareness. Respect for the environment can improve the site's aesthetics, increase visitor
satisfaction, and aid in identifying infrastructure problems such as hygiene and transportation.
The findings provide important insights for ecotourism practitioners, policymakers, and
researchers, laying the groundwork for future sustainable ecotourism activities, informed
decision-making, and the design of effective strategies and regulations. This supports the
success and sustainability of ecotourism industries around the world. In addition, the findings
provide the scientific community with a credible and adaptable technique for identifying
sustainable indicators in different contexts.

155
5 Developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI)

5.1 Introduction
Measuring ecotourism opportunities and developing an index provides a standardised,
repeatable measure for evaluating tourist destinations (Priskin, 2001, Deng et al., 2002). This
index can help stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses, track destination
performance, and conserve natural and cultural resources (Priskin, 2001, Jafar and Bozorgnia,
2010). However, evaluating ecotourism opportunities requires sustainable indicators and an
understanding of sustainable tourism opportunities. For educated and effective tourism
planning, these indicators can ensure that ecotourism favourably impacts the environment,
local communities, and economy while safeguarding natural and cultural heritage.
The first research question identified the ecotourism opportunities (95 strengths, 15
weaknesses, 25 opportunities and 10 threats) within Alula, Saudi Arabia, while the second
research question evaluated the sustainability of these ecotourism opportunities (strengths and
opportunities) and identified 25 Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities Indicators (SEOIs) and
their relevant, sustainable 120 ecotourism opportunities. As described in Figure 5.1, this
chapter explores the answer to the third research question: “How can ecotourism opportunities
be evaluated to develop an index for assessing potential destinations?” It measures the extent
of ecotourism opportunities and develops an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI). The SEOIs
and their associated sustainable ecotourism opportunities (strengths and opportunities) from
the second research question are the inputs into this chapter. This chapter also used the
weaknesses and threats identified while answering the first research question. Weights of the
variables are measured using multiple methods such as the Weight Scoring Method (WSM),
Entropy Weight Method (EWM), Delphi method, and Ecotourism Opportunity Gap analysis
(EOGA). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) has been used to test the correlation between
ecotourism opportunities dimensions, indicators, and variables and to examine the validity and
reliability of the hypothesized constructs developed by the Delphi method. CFA was applied
in two stages, with the first round investigating the relationship between dimensions and their
relevant SEOIs and the second examining the relationship between SEOIs and their relevant,
sustainable ecotourism opportunities. Following a series of processes to assemble the index,
the EOI was finally calculated for Alula and its five districts, such as Old Town Alula,
Nabataen, Dedan, Jabal al-Ikmah, and Hegra.

156
Figure 5.1. Structure of Chapter 5: Developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI)

5.2 Background
Index development in tourism
In the context of social and economic indicators, an index is a composite measure that integrates
numerous variables or factors into a single value (Deng et al., 2002, Castellani and Sala, 2010).
Typically, the effectiveness of various entities, such as nations, companies, industries, or
markets, is evaluated using the index’s value (Fečiková, 2004, Fetscherin and Stephano, 2016).
It can also be used to assess the growth or efficiency of a certain activity or procedure. For
instance, the Human Development Index (HDI) was developed to measure how well an entire
population is doing (Sagar and Najam, 1998, Ranis et al., 2006).
When applied to tourism, an index is a measurement that determines how likely it is that a
particular destination will be prosperous (Khan et al., 2017, Torres-Delgado and Palomeque,
2018). An index could be used to collect information on a destination's physical environment,

157
infrastructure, socioeconomic environment, policy, and governance to estimate its capacity for
supporting tourism development. One example is the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness
Index (TTCI), which is compiled and maintained by the World Tourism Organization (WTO)
(Calderwood and Soshkin, 2019, World Tourism Organization, 2021). This index ranks nations
according to their competitiveness in the tourism industry. The TTCI measures the set of
conditions and policies that enable the sustainable development of the travel and tourism sector,
which contributes to the growth and competitiveness of a nation. It assesses, among other
conditions, infrastructure, safety and security, health and hygiene, natural and cultural
resources, and the business environment (Calderwood and Soshkin, 2019, World Tourism
Organization, 2021). While the TTCI provides valuable insights into a country's overall tourist
potential, it does not capture specific opportunities in the growing ecotourism industry. For
successful and sustainable ecotourism development, emphasising biodiversity, eco-
friendliness, community involvement, and conservation activities requires a systematic
approach to measure these ecotourism opportunities at particular destinations (Buckley, 1994,
Cabral and Dhar, 2020). Consequently, the potential to measure ecotourism opportunities
develops. By focusing on multiple ecotourism opportunities dimensions, academics and
industry practitioners can better understand how to promote ecotourism, to benefit local
economies and people and protect and maintain the environment.

Potential of measuring ecotourism opportunities

In the most recent few decades, the idea of ecotourism has gained much attention because it
has the potential to bring monetary and social benefits to local communities in addition to its
positive impacts on the environment (Wall, 1997, Blamey, 2001, The International Ecotourism
Society, 2020, Holloway and Humphreys, 2022). It emphasizes education about and
appreciation of the natural environment while working to lessen the negative impacts of human
activities (Wall, 1997, Blamey, 2001). However, measuring potential ecotourism opportunities
is essential to support ecotourism development that achieves its goals of creating sustainable
and responsible impacts (Wallace and Pierce, 1996, Ross and Wall, 1999b). Measuring
ecotourism opportunities is also essential to identify and evaluate potential options and
activities corresponding to sustainable development principles, thereby assuring lasting
positive impacts on the environment, local residents, and economy (Buckley, 2009, Kim et al.,
2015). Hence, it assists in successfully planning, managing, and monitoring ecotourism

158
development, thereby promoting responsible tourism policies and advocating for preserving
natural and cultural heritage (Mearns, 2011, Kiper, 2013). Through systematically evaluating
ecotourism opportunities, decision-makers can more effectively prioritize investment plans,
propose appropriate policy initiatives, and ensure ecotourism's sustainability and resilience in
the face of global challenges (Kumari et al., 2010, Kursah, 2017). However, measuring
ecotourism opportunities involves various challenges due to the ecotourism system's
multifaceted, interconnected, diversified and adaptive nature.

Challenges in measuring ecotourism opportunities

The findings of the first and second research questions revealed that ecotourism opportunities
develop in a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), involving multiple dimensions interacting with
each other and being influenced by internal or external factors to generate a unique and
dynamic environment (sections 3.5 and 4.5). This complexity produces diverse ecotourism
opportunities across different destinations due to the multifaceted adaptive nature of
ecotourism, which responds to the dynamic interplay between the location's environmental,
sociocultural, and economic characteristics. These opportunities vary by location. For example,
one destination, such as Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia, may offer bird-
watching ecotourism because of its diverse bird life (Suana et al., 2020), while another, such
as Alula, Saudi Arabia, may offer hiking trails due to its mountainous terrain (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2022). Furthermore, ecotourism opportunities' adaptive nature and
internal or external influences continuously produce new opportunities in the system (Baggio
and Sainaghi, 2011, Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019). An example of this is seen in Alula
when new opportunities (for instance, tourism infrastructure development, adopting
conservation and protecting policies for natural and cultural and historical heritage sites) have
developed due to the external influence of “Saudi Vision 2030” (Royal Commission for Alula,
2022).
Due to ecotourism's dynamic and diverse nature, no standard set of variables is available for
measuring ecotourism opportunities. This complexity enhances the difficulties of measuring
opportunities and needs comprehensive evaluation in which each factor must be examined. For
example, local communities and their cultures need to be taken into consideration, along with
the effects on biodiversity, the economic effects of tourism on the local economy, and the
intangible benefits of ecotourism, such as increased awareness of environmental issues,

159
improved public health, and improved quality of life for local communities (Deng et al., 2002,
Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010). Besides, the sustainability of ecotourism opportunities is highly
dependent on local conditions and people's willingness to adopt sustainable practices, which is
difficult to measure (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010). Therefore, measuring
ecotourism opportunities requires careful planning and systematic assessment approaches to
ensure they achieve their goals of creating a positive and long-lasting environmental impact.
However, various evaluation processes are available, followed by different scholars to measure
these opportunities (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar and Bozorgnia, 2010, Oladi and Bozorgnia, 2010,
Cheng et al., 2013).

Current approaches in measuring ecotourism opportunities

Approaches to evaluating ecotourism opportunities, include indicators such as the number of
available ecotourism activities, the number of visitors participating in those activities, and the
overall quality of the experience they have (Priskin, 2001, Oladi and Bozorgnia, 2010).
However, existing studies evaluate ecotourism opportunities qualitatively, often using
subjective criteria such as opinions, attitudes, or perceptions (Adeleke, 2015, Açıksöz et al.,
2016). These approaches are typically very descriptive and employ words or phrases to convey
how someone feels or what an idea entails (Dobrovolny and Fuentes, 2008, Cabrerizo et al.,
2010).
In contrast, quantitative evaluation entails evaluating items according to their numerical values.
It relies on numerical data or statistics to precisely evaluate the situation (Richmond et al.,
1999, Cabrerizo et al., 2010). This evaluation method helps measure specific data points and
draw conclusions based on accurate information. It provides a systematic method for
comprehending and predicting the dynamic interaction between ecological, social, and
economic components within ecotourism opportunities (Deng et al., 2002, Baggio et al.,
2010a).
However, researchers use various approaches to measure ecotourism opportunities to make
well-informed decisions about a destination. In this context, Priskin (2001) proposed three
methods for evaluating ecotourism opportunities based on their attractions or aesthetic beauty
using landscape evaluation methodologies. In these methods, the first is the landscape
consensus supplied by experts who rate a destination's natural beauty based on fieldwork, aerial

160
photographs, and other data. This method was utilized to identify England's Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (Natural England, 2017).
The second strategy is descriptive landscape studies in which landscape experts inventory and
document several or all of the landscape's entities (such as mountains, rivers, streams, and
forests). In this method, the availability and type of scenic resources in a region are typically
depicted on a map. Litton (1968) created one of the first models employing this methodology.
He characterised the landscape as a physical object and then used expert opinion to determine
aesthetic preferences on scenic quality. Litton created an evaluation method based on
landforms and land use, which he then implemented in California. He defined six categories
based on landforms and seven based on land use, which ranged from wild to urbanised.
Additionally, Litton arbitrarily gave numeric values to each category and developed maps.
The third technique for landscape evaluation is landscape preferences, which seeks to establish
which components of the environment are deemed attractive by visitors and experts. This
strategy may involve direct interviews with individuals and frequently uses images. In one of
the early studies on landscape preferences in the United States, Shafer Jr et al. (1969) utilised
100 photographs. Each photograph was assigned a value and then rated accordingly. Since
then, pictures have been regularly employed for estimating the aesthetic appeal of a place.
Moreover, the most prevalent tools for evaluating ecotourism opportunities include SWOT
analysis, the Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model, the Delphi method, and the
factor analysis technique as discussed in 2.4.2.2.
Still, few studies are available that have applied these approaches to quantitatively measure the
ecotourism opportunities covering all the dimensions, resulting in an index that offers a single
representative value indicating the potential of an ecotourism destination. The comprehensive
literature review reported in Chapter 2 (section 2.4.2.1) showed that existing studies do not
cover all the ecotourism opportunities dimensions. For example, Baral et al. (2012) surveyed
international visitors to the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal to determine how they
received information, evaluated ecotourism, and rated their degree of satisfaction with
ecotourism. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they created a seven-item scale for evaluating
ecotourism based on tourists' impressions of the socioeconomic and environmental effects of
ecotourism. These seven statements emphasise that ecotourism in Annapurna Conservation
Area reduces negative impacts on the environment and on local people, raises visitors'
awareness of the area's natural and cultural systems, improves visitors' contributions to the

161
conservation and management of legally protected areas, increases economic and other benefits
to local people, promotes the participation and empowerment of local people, and provides
adequate information to visitors prior to their visit. In conclusion, they discovered that visitors
to Annapurna Conservation Area were really pleased with their experience there. However,
this study focuses on socioeconomic and environmental education dimensions, so this
methodology needs to be expanded to cover all other dimensions, such as nature and
sustainability.
Xuling et al. (2009) developed an index of tourism’s ecological security at natural heritage sites
using the AHP and Delphi methodologies. Their system evaluated natural ecological security,
landscape visual security, and local cultural and ecological security. In the model's indices,
natural ecological security was rated highest, followed by tourist landscape visual security and
cultural, ecological security, reflecting the factors that influence tourism ecological security.
Then, this paper conducted an empirical investigation of the Kanas of Xinjiang Uygur
Autonomous Region, China, which is a potential World Heritage site. The ecological security
situation of Kanas was evaluated based on data gathered from a survey and on-site
observations, as well as responses to a questionnaire from tourists and local residents. The
outcome of this empirical investigation demonstrated that the ecological security of Kanas's
tourism industry had improved due to the significant efforts taken by local stakeholders to
ensure the ecological security of the region. Ecological security in tourism involves the
protection of natural surroundings, ecosystems, and biodiversity at tourist locations. In this
study, the researchers quantify ecological security at natural heritage sites by analysing various
variables such as air quality, cleanliness, water quality, and so on. Due to the complexity of the
tourism system, factors from outside the ecological security system, such as climate change,
global economic trends, pandemics, and so on, however, can also impact ecological security.
Yet, neither the complexity of tourism nor the impact of external factors are addressed in this
study.
Wang et al. (2014) developed an index evaluation model for ecological and environmental
protection measures and their impacts on protected areas. Using surveys of over 1110 protected
sites in 27 provinces (autonomous regions or municipalities), they analysed the touristic
environmental protection measures and their impacts quantitatively and spatially. The
comprehensiveness of ecotourism environmental protection measures for China's protected
regions was somewhat effective, but the implementation status of protection measures varied

162
by region. The efficiency of ecotourism environmental protection measures varied significantly
between provinces and areas. The effectiveness diminished from the east to the west. There
was a strong association between the assessment index values of environmental protection
measures and the effects of environmental protection on protected areas. While the study gives
valuable quantitative insights into the influence of ecological environmental protection
measures in China's protected areas, it may not accurately describe the complex and adaptive
nature of ecotourism, which involves dynamic interactions between local cultures, ecosystems,
and economic relations and cannot always be fully captured by numerical evaluations alone.
None of these studies considered the complexity of ecotourism opportunities, which is essential
to understand the dynamic, interconnected and adaptive behaviour of ecotourism opportunities
across different destinations. A comprehensive index that examines all ecotourism dimensions
has not yet been developed, although several different methods have been utilized to measure
potential ecotourism opportunities. This study aims to consider ecotourism opportunities as a
CAS and quantitatively measures their extent across all dimensions. It then develops an EOI to
improve current evaluation methods. An index of this kind would provide practitioners with a
helpful instrument that would allow them to assess the potential of ecotourism opportunities
and identify potential development opportunities.

5.3 Methods
In statistics, creating an index entails collecting data pertaining to the components being
measured, interpreting the data, and determining the index's value (Fečiková, 2004, Torres-
Delgado and Palomeque, 2014). In most cases, data is collected by conducting research through
surveys, interviews, or literature. After that, the information is usually analyzed using statistical
methods such as correlation and regression analysis. In the final step of the process, the index
is determined by averaging the values obtained from each of the measured individual factors
(Antony and Rao, 2007, Torres-Delgado and Palomeque, 2018).
In the context of this research, this chapter provides a systematic methodology that uses data
that have been collected from previous investigations described in chapters 3 and 4. The data
inputs comprise a hypothetical construct of 25 SEOIs and their associated 120 sustainable
ecotourism opportunities, labelled as strengths and opportunities, as described in Appendix 6.
In addition, it combines 15 identified weaknesses and 10 potential threats, as indicated in Table
3.4 and Table 3.6, respectively. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was adopted as a method

163
due to its extensive use in the scholarly literature to examine the validity and reliability of
hypothesised correlations between the inputs into the index developed by the Delphi method.
The weights for positive variables (sustainable ecotourism opportunities, including strengths
and opportunities) were calculated using the WSM and EWM values contained in Appendix 1
and Appendix 3. In the second round of the Delphi method, these variables were again weighted
(Appendix 5), and the linear combination method was used to combine these calculated
weights. Using the WSM and EWM, the weights were also assigned to negative variables
(weaknesses and threats), as reported in Appendix 2 and Appendix 4. Next, an EOGA was
conducted to calculate these weights again (Appendix 7). These calculated weights were also
then combined using the linear combination method. In order to develop the EOI, the linear
combination method's combined score of all variables (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats) was first normalised. Subsequently, the indicator score was measured by
calculating the average score of the variables. This score was then averaged once again to
determine the dimension score, whose average value reflected the EOI as described in
Appendix 8. Figure 5.2 depicts a flowchart of the methods described in this chapter.

164
Figure 5.2. Flow chart to develop the ecotourism opportunity index

Figure 5.3 Weighting the variables and developing the Ecotourism Opportunity Index

5.3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis in ecotourism opportunities evaluation

This research has adopted CFA to assess the reliability and validity of the hypothetical
construct developed between dimensions, indicators, and variables by the Delphi method, as
explained in Appendix 6. However, researchers adopt different approaches to using CFA in
relation to the Delphi method to reflect the requirements of their study.
Kuo et al. (2020) evaluated safety culture in hotels. For that purpose, they first compiled an
initial list of four dimensions, 13 sub-dimensions, and 107 items related to hotel safety culture,
and a questionnaire developed through a literature review indicating the hypothetical construct
of the study. The Delphi method was applied to build consensus among the experts. The Delphi
method experts identified five dimensions, adding one more dimension as “training” (training,
organization, environment, psychology and behaviour), 13 sub-dimensions, and 54 items
related to hotel safety culture. The final list of formal questionnaires was then distributed to
229 hotel employees to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Hotel Safety Culture Scale
using CFA. After the CFA, the number of items was reduced to 39 while the number of
dimensions and sub-dimensions remained the same at five and 13, respectively.
Lee et al. (2013) developed a reliable and valid research instrument to evaluate the
environmentally responsible behaviour of community-based visitors. This study's approach
consisted of three sections. In the first section, 48 measured items pertaining to environmentally
responsible behaviour were compiled using a literature review and the Delphi method. The

165
research instrument was developed and tested in Taomi, Taiwan, in the second section. They
provided questionnaires to visitors and academics regarding the 48 measurements for this aim.
Based on the comments made by two academic scholars, and feedback from the comments of
eight tourists, 14 items were removed. The final number of items measured was 34.
In a third study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to build a generic
measure of ecologically responsible behaviour and to test the instrument's cross-validation.
Lee and Jan (2018) studied ecotourism behaviour as a multidimensional construct and
developed a framework that offers a reliable and valid scale to assess ecotourism behaviour.
The authors applied literature review, content analysis, and the fuzzy Delphi method and
established 45 measurement items. Then, they distributed survey questionnaires to visitors to
collect data for developing a constructed element. The CFA then evaluated its reliability and
validity, and following this analysis, the measurement items were reduced to 37. Finally, cross-
validation of this research instrument was employed to assess ecotourism behaviour using two
populations of ecotourists in Taiwan at forest sites (Aowanda National Forest Recreation Area
forest sites and the Najenshan Ecological Reserve Area) and wetland sites (the Aogu wetland
in Chiayi County and the Cigu wetland in Tainan City). In the end, this rigorous research scale
comprised 30 items to analyse the behaviour of tourists, providing additional insight into the
behaviour of ecotourists.
Asmelash and Kumar (2019) developed and validated sustainability indicators using Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). Initially, they collected 160 potential sustainability indicators from
the literature and interviews. Then, they used the Delphi method to reduce their list of
indicators. After three Delphi method rounds, 60 indicators were retained. It was followed by
Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which reduced it further to 53. CFA was used to check
the validity of the retained indicator. These indicators were found to be free of multicollinearity
and to have excellent internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and
construct validity.
Building on these examples of studies that developed indicators, in this research, the
Ecotourism Opportunity Spectrum (ECOS) model was used to generate a preliminary list of 25
sustainable indicators and 120 ecotourism opportunities (variables). These were grouped
within five ecotourism opportunity dimensions and thirteen criteria, as determined by a
comprehensive literature analysis (refer to section 2.4.2.4). Then, using the Delphi method, the
sustainability of these indicators and their relevant opportunities were examined. This method

166
identified 25 SEOIs and 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities and developed a hypothetical
construct, as described in section 4.3 and Appendix 6. This chapter used CFA to examine the
validity and reliability of these hypothesised constructs. This was accomplished in two rounds:
The first round verified the correlation between five ecotourism opportunity dimensions and
the 25 SEOIs. The second round examined the correlation between 25 SEOIs and 120
sustainable ecotourism opportunities. The adoption of a systematic approach, such as the ECOS
model, for identifying a preliminary list and correspondingly confirming the sustainability of
the collected indicators and opportunities represents a significant improvement over previously
used methods (Martín-Ruiz et al., 2010, Baral et al., 2012, Kim and Eves, 2012, Lau et al.,
2017, Lee and Jan, 2018). Prior to the development of the index, the aforementioned
approaches did not use a systematic methodology to cover all the ecotourism opportunities
dimensions under which all the ecotourism opportunities within a destination can be identified,
nor did they evaluate the sustainability of these opportunities nor take the complexity of
ecotourism into account. Adopting a systematic methodology is essential for comprehending
the adaptive and interconnected nature of ecotourism opportunities, without which it may be
impossible to capture all of their dimensions and complex nature. Consequently, the
methodology provided in this study enhances the index's dependability and validity.
This study focuses on the application of CFA on variables, notably the destination's strengths
and opportunities. Variables that describe weaknesses and threats, which do not already exist
in the destination and therefore cannot be quantitatively measured there, have not been
considered in the CFA. Multiple justifications exist for this exclusion. Firstly, weaknesses and
threats are not observable. Threats and weaknesses cannot contribute to the construction of the
latent construct if these variables are absent from the collected data set (Gignac et al., 2005,
Brown, 2006). This absence is sufficient justification for their exclusion from the CFA.
Furthermore, including variables that are not observed at the destination may inject error or
bias into the suggested model, compromising the validity of the results (Do et al., 2015, Al-
Tokhais and Thapa, 2020). Therefore, it is preferable to use a model that precisely depicts the
observable variables, even if this involves excluding weaknesses and threats.
To find a way to incorporate information about weaknesses and threats, this study also
employed the EOGA (see section 5.3.2) to obtain negative weightings for weaknesses and
threats to include them in the EOI. This was done to identify ecotourism opportunities in need
of improvement. However, including these negative weights in the CFA may impact the

167
analysis and result in erroneous conclusions (Gignac et al., 2005, Brown, 2006). This
underscores one potential limitation of CFA as applied as a method in this study. This is in
particular reference to future situations in which changing conditions could result in the
emergence of weaknesses or threats that were not accounted for in the initial research. Despite
these limitations, CFA can still provide valuable insights about index components.

5.3.1.1 Expert sample size for confirmatory factor analysis

The data for the CFA has been derived from the Delphi method, where 110 experts have
participated. The number of experts assigned to the Delphi method does not necessarily need
to be high (Pérez et al., 2017, Ocampo et al., 2018). There is no strong relationship between
the number of respondents and the quality of the decisions generated by the group. Adding a
larger number but less experienced experts may weaken the results' accuracy (Saaty and
Özdemir, 2014). However, as a rule of thumb, scholars considered a sample size of 100 to be
excellent, 50 to be good, 30 to be fair, and less than 30 to be poor (Stevens, 2009, Terwee et
al., 2012). So, according to existing studies (Satorra and Bentler, 2001, Kline, 2015, Byrne,
2016), a sample size of 100 should be sufficient to use the outputs of the Delphi method with
CFA. Furthermore, ratios of respondents to variables ranging from 3 to 1 or higher are
recommended for index development (Everitt, 1975, Catell, 1978, Nunnally, 1978). In this
context, 25 variables in the form of SEOIs were employed to collect data through the Delphi
method. According to the suggested ratio of 3 to 1, 75 respondents should be sufficient for 25
variables and three factors. In this study, to meet the needs of the CFA analysis, 125
respondents were invited to participate in the Delphi method study. Of these 125 invitations,
we received 110 responses in both the first and second rounds of the Delphi method. So, in this
study, the Delphi method sample size of 110 respondents satisfies the requirements of CFA.

5.3.1.2 Validating scale and assessing model fit indices method

The CFA has been applied in two rounds using SPSS 22 and AMOS version 23. The first round
verified the correlation between five ecotourism opportunities dimensions and the 25 SEOIs
and was followed by the second round, examining the correlation between 25 SEOIs and 120
sustainable ecotourism opportunities. The overall fit of the CFA model can be judged by
examining the goodness-of-fit indices (Baral et al., 2012, Asmelash and Kumar, 2019). The
first analysis of this study is to measure the model fit indices that provide measures of overall
fit, which examine the discrepancy between the observed variables and the latent variables
168
based on the model's parameters (i.e., dimensions and indicators in this research). In this
research, multiple fit indices have been used as recommended by various scholars (Greenspoon
and Saklofske, 1998, Baral et al., 2012, Fetscherin and Stephano, 2016, Asmelash and Kumar,
2019, Asmelash and Kumar, 2020): Chi-square, the p-value, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI),
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), Root Mean
Square error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Match
Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI).
These indices evaluate the extent to which a particular model corresponds to observable data
(Brown, 2006, Baral et al., 2012). The Chi-square statistic represents the divergence between
the observed and calculated covariance matrices; a smaller value proportional to its degrees of
freedom indicates a good fit (Brown, 2006, Lee and Jan, 2018). Associated with this is the p-
value, with significant values (usually > 0.05) indicating that disparities are more likely due to
random variation than to model deficiencies (Brown, 2006, Asmelash and Kumar, 2019). These
are supplemented by indices such as the GFI and the AGFI, which evaluate the proportion of
variation explained by the model, with the latter also compensating for model complexity. Both
variables range from 0 to 1, with larger values indicating a better fit (Brown, 2006, Baral et al.,
2012, Kuo et al., 2020). The RMR and the SRMR provide an additional evaluation of the
average disparity between the observed and latent variables’ correlations, with smaller values
suggesting a better fit (Baral et al., 2012, Ghosh and Mandal, 2019). The RMSEA provides an
additional dimension by compensating for model complexity; values closer to zero suggest a
better fit. Comparison-based measures consist of the NFI, the CFI, and the IFI, each of which
compares the proposed model to a null model, with the CFI additionally adjusting for sample
size and the IFI taking into account model degrees of freedom (Brown, 2006, Martín-Ruiz et
al., 2010). The null model is a baseline model that implies there are no relationships or
correlations between the variables; it is used to evaluate the proposed model's fit (Brown, 2006,
Kuo et al., 2020). The TLI is a comparison metric that severely penalises model complexity
(Brown, 2006, Kuo et al., 2020).
In general, it is suggested that several indices be considered for a full evaluation of model fit
in CFA. Additionally, the CFA results are usually communicated using the model’s figure and
table. For instance, Figure 5.8 depicts the hypothesized model between observed and latent
variables. In the round 1 results, the oval represents the latent variable “dimensions”, and the
rectangles represent the observed variables “indicators”. While in the round 2 results, the oval

169
represents the latent variable “indicators”, and the rectangles represent the observed variable
“variables”. The values next to the connecting arrows directed from latent to observed variables
show the factor loadings. In CFA, factor loadings represent the correlations between the
observed and latent variables. Factor loadings indicate the degree to which each observed
variable contributes to the latent variable, and they can range from -1 to +1, with higher
absolute values indicating a stronger relationship (Greenspoon and Saklofske, 1998, Brown,
2006). There is no commonly accepted threshold or standard value for factor loadings.
However, many scholars recommend a minimum acceptable loading of 0.3, a moderately
acceptable loading of 0.3 to 0.7 and a highly acceptable loading of 0.7 to 1 (Brown, 2006,
Dimoliatis et al., 2010, Cottrell et al., 2013). Error terms (“e” in Figure 5.8) represent the
variation in observed variables not explained by the latent variables, essentially accounting for
measurement errors (Greenspoon and Saklofske, 1998, Brown, 2006). In general, lower error
terms are preferable, as they indicate that latent factors account for a significant fraction of the
variance in the observed variables (Greenspoon and Saklofske, 1998, Brown, 2006). There are
some co-variances on the error terms drawn on the same construct as on the observed variables
of the same latent variable. It helps to improve the overall results of factor analysis. However,
no threshold values exist in the literature, based on which co-variances can be drawn on error
terms between two variables. It can be initiated by drawing between two variables within the
same construct with high covariance values, then moving to variables with lower covariance
values, and so on, until the results reach their ideal values (Dimoliatis et al., 2010, Cottrell et
al., 2013). This analysis has created the co-variances for error terms based on Modification
Indices (MI) as MI>5 to improve the results.

5.3.2 The Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis (EOGA)

This study aimed to include strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to demonstrate
the availability of the extent of ecotourism opportunities and develop an EOI for Alula.
Including the weaknesses and threats can help the stakeholders identify the weak areas in the
ecotourism opportunity system. Addressing these is essential for sustainable ecotourism
promotion (Mahmoudi et al., 2011, Tsitsiloni et al., 2013). Though, in weaknesses, those
variables are not available in Alula, so it is impossible to measure the extent of the availability
of weaknesses. Likewise, threats are probable future threats, and measuring these factors'
availability is impossible before their emergence (refer to section 3.4.4). Therefore, it was

170
challenging to measure the extent of the availability of these factors. So, different approaches
were reviewed to find a way to evaluate these variables.
First, a frequency distribution analysis focuses on the frequency or occurrence of weaknesses
and threats and provides a visual illustration that quantitatively presents the weaknesses and
threats (Cillari et al., 2012, Marrero-Rodríguez et al., 2020). This strategy is effective when it
is possible to count factors such as violent crime, floods, and storms. However, this strategy
provides no information regarding the intensity of these weaknesses or threats, just their
numerosity, such as how many times an event such as rainfall, storm, or flood has occurred in
a specific time. It is also challenging to execute this method if there are weaknesses and threats
whose frequency cannot be measured, such as low-amount of forest, no water body (river,
lake), no ocean, and so on, as these are not the event, however, these are actually topographic
features within a destination that cannot repeat itself like rainfall, storm floods etc. A second
strategy entails developing a feature availability matrix highlighting the presence or absence of
crucial ecotourism opportunities and developing a visual presentation in binary codes (1 for
availability and 0 for unavailability) (Mahmoudi et al., 2011, Padin and Svensson, 2013).
However, this does not provide a quantitative analysis of weaknesses and threats, instead
relying solely on their presence or absence. Thirdly, the destination competitiveness method is
valuable for comparing ecotourism destinations' performance (Dwyer et al., 2016, Armenski et
al., 2018). However, it cannot accurately measure the exact gaps that must be fixed. It may
identify areas of overperformance or underperformance but fails to quantify the extent of the
weaknesses. Therefore, creating targeted improvement initiatives based solely on destination
competitiveness analysis may be challenging, needing additional extensive and specific
research. A fourth approach is feature gap analysis, which compares the destination's current
state with an ideal or benchmark destination and quantitatively highlights the gaps in
ecotourism opportunities (Yasin et al., 2011, Tsitsiloni et al., 2013, Valeriani and Wardhani,
2015). This approach evaluates the extent of these gaps quantitatively, which can assist the
tourism industry in improving the weak areas in the tourism system by raising its
competitiveness and fostering sustainable growth. A comparison of these four approaches has
been described in Figure 5.4.

171
Figure 5.4. A comparison of different approaches to evaluating weaknesses and threats

This chapter uses a feature gap analysis method called Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis
(EOGA) to incorporate weaknesses and threats into the index development procedure. This
approach was adopted as it provides a quantitative estimate of the gap between an ideal
benchmark destination and Alula's current state of availability of opportunities. However, it
was challenging to choose the standard benchmarks as each destination offers unique
opportunities depending on the geographical features. For instance, the arid climate of Alula
contrasts significantly with the humid conditions of Mt. Rigi, Switzerland (Wattanacharoensil
and Stettler, 2019, Royal Commission for Alula, 2020).
So, ideal benchmarks were collected from the destinations such as Turkey and Mallorca. These
destinations were preferred based on some criteria such as ecological diversity, cultural
attractions, destination potential level, and level of ecotourism awareness (Deng et al., 2002,
Fennell, 2007). Alula in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Mallorca offer rich ecological variety,
characterised by unique and diverse flora and fauna in their various Mediterranean and desert
climates. All three combine cultural and historical attractions with their natural assets. Turkey
and Mallorca's different levels of ecotourism awareness offer diverse lessons for developing
destinations such as Alula, and Turkey's and Mallorca's focused infrastructure can be used as

172
models for Alula's infrastructure development. So, the already measured benchmark data
against which each weakness and threat were compared was compiled by Kozak (2000) and
Kozak (2002). For that purpose, the following steps have been conducted (Tsitsiloni et al.,
2013, Valeriani and Wardhani, 2015, Sutoni et al., 2021). Figure 5.5 shows the steps to conduct
the EOGA. Using an EOGA, weaknesses and threats can be quantitatively and incorporated
into the EOI.
I. First, a combined list of all ecotourism weaknesses and threats is compiled under
dimensions and indicators (the weaknesses and threats were compiled using the SWOT-
ECOS analysis as described in Table 3.4 and Table 3.6)
II. Secondly, benchmark values related to weaknesses and threats were compiled from
studies of two destinations, Turkey and Mallorca, conducted by Kozak (2000) and
Kozak (2002).
III. Thirdly, the current availability status of each weakness and threat in Alula was
measured as described in Appendix 2 and Appendix 4. All these variables were input
in the index calculation process (as mentioned in Appendix 7) with negative signs due
to their negative impacts on the destination.
IV. In the fourth step, to calculate the gap’s extent, the current status of availability of each
weakness and threat was subtracted from its ideal benchmark value to determine the
gap such as:
W and T weights = Benchmark value- (current status of W or T) Equation 5.1

Here:

W and T= Weaknesses and Threats

This analysis provides information about areas with a gap for improvement. This strategy will
assist stakeholders in understanding the gaps that exist between their destination and a
benchmark or ideal destination, allowing them to take appropriate actions to improve the
attractiveness and sustainability of their ecotourism destination. The calculated weights have
been given in Appendix 7.

173
Figure 5.5. The steps to conducting Ecotourism Opportunity Gap Analysis (EOGA)

5.3.3 Developing the Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI)

This study adopted a systematic approach to developing the ecotourism opportunities index.
First, the SWOT-ECOS analysis identified the 145 variables (95 strengths, 15 weaknesses, 25
opportunities, and 10 threats); secondly, the Delphi method collected the 25 SEOIs and their
related 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities (strengths and opportunities). The weights
were assigned to variables by WSM, EWM, Delphi method and EOGA. This chapter used the
CFA to test the validity and reliability of the hypothetical constructs (dimensions and
indicators) developed through the ECOS-Delphi approach. Fourthly, the index was developed
by normalizing the score of all variables. Subsequently, the indicator score has measured by
calculating the average score of the variables. This score has then averaged once again to
determine the dimension score, whose average value reflected the EOI score of Alula and its
districts, as depicted in Figure 5.6. The following section describes the index development
approach in more detail.

174
Figure 5.6. Ecotourism Opportunity Index development process

5.3.3.1 Rescaling the variables or Normalization

In order to incorporate the different variables into a composite measure (i.e., the EOI), they
were first normalized so that they could be measured on the same scale. Data normalisation
involves transforming data values into the same numerical scale, such as between 0 to 1 (Alkire
and Foster, 2010, Sree and Bindu, 2018). When it comes to normalizing data, a few different
approaches can be taken, depending on the type of data and the desired output.
1. Z-score Normalization
In Z-score normalization, a data value is rescaled with a mean (average) value of zero and a
standard deviation value of one. To accomplish this, the feature's mean value is first subtracted
from all of the other values in the feature, and then the result is divided by the feature's standard
deviation (Patro and Sahu, 2015, Fei et al., 2021) as indicated in Equation 5.2. However, unlike
Min-Max, the Z-Score normalization does not confine values to a specific range [0,1], which
is problematic in the index calculation process as the index must fall in a specific range, such
as between 0-100. This limitation makes this process potentially less intuitive for models that
expect input features in a bounded interval. For instance, if a measurement's expected values
are in the [0,1] range, Z-Score normalization could introduce values that fall outside of this
optimal input range, potentially slowing down the learning process.
However, this method can be conducted using the following equation such as:

175
 X−μ Equation 5.2
Z=1− σ
Z = Z-score Normalization
X = Data values
µ = Mean value of the data
σ = standard deviation value of the data
2. Decimal Scaling
A data value can be rescaled using this method by dividing all of the values by a power of 10
as described in Equation 5.3. To accomplish this, all of the feature's values are divided by ten,
then multiplied by a power that is equal to the number of decimal places contained in the
feature's value with the most significance (Patro and Sahu, 2015, Manimekalai and Kavitha,
2018). However, decimal scaling's effectiveness can vary significantly with datasets, as it
depends on the maximum absolute value; in contrast, Min-Max provides consistent scaling
across various datasets. For instance, for a dataset with values ranging from 0.005 to 13,
decimal scaling might not scale as effectively as another dataset with values from 50 to 950. If
the dataset changes or more data is added, the scaling factor might need readjustment, which
isn't the case with Min-Max normalization.
The data can be normalized using this method as:

𝑉 Equation 5.3
𝑉𝑖 = 10𝑗
Vi = Decimal scale normalization
V= range of the variables as in the current thesis, 145 variables
J= smallest integer such that Max (|V|)<1. In simple words, J represents the number of digits
in the highest absolute value among variables.

3. Unit Vector Normalization

A third method is the unit vector normalization technique. This method makes the data more
comparable by dividing each feature value by the vector's total length (Viikki and Laurila,
1998, Miyato et al., 2018). To determine the length of the vector, the square root of the sum of
the squared values contained in the feature is taken, which gives the vector's length. This not
only ensures that all of the values in the feature are on a consistent scale, but it also makes it
much simpler to compare the values of various features with one another. However, Min-Max

176
guarantees a consistent scale for each feature, making it more suitable than unit vector
normalisation for algorithms sensitive to feature magnitude, which focuses on maintaining the
direction of data points in a high-dimensional environment.
The following equation can be used to calculate the unit vector normalization of a data set.

𝑉 Equation 5.4
𝑉𝑖 = |𝑉|

Vi= Unit vector normalization

V= Vector (variable) whose score is going to be calculated
|V|= Norm values of the vectors
4. Min-Max Normalization
A data value can be re-scaled using this method to fall somewhere between 0 and 1. In order
to accomplish this, first, the minimum value in the feature is subtracted from each value in the
feature, and then the result is divided by the range (max-min) (Saranya and Manikandan, 2013,
Patro and Sahu, 2015).
Min-Max Normalization is a simple and effective technique for transforming data to a common
scale. This technique helps compare values from different sources, as it normalizes the data to
a common range (Al Shalabi and Shaaban, 2006, Latha and Thangasamy, 2011). Additionally,
this technique helps transform values to a range of 0 to 1, which can be helpful for certain types
of algorithms, such as in index calculation methodologies where the variables range must be
between 0 to1 so that at the end of the calculation, the index value can be converted between 0
to 100. This technique is also relatively straightforward to calculate, making it a popular choice
for normalizing data. Finally, this technique is relatively easy to understand and is well-suited
for visualization purposes (Ahmad et al., 2014, Friedman and Komogortsev, 2019).
Due to these benefits, this method has been applied to normalize the data in this study by
applying the following formula:

Vnormalized = V
V−Vminimium Equation 5.5
maximum −Vminimum

Here,
V= variables (strengths and opportunities)
For negative variables (weaknesses and threats), the normalization has been calculated as:

Vnormalized = 1 −
V−Vminimium Equation 5.6
Vmaximum −Vminimum

V= variables (weaknesses and threats)

177
5.3.3.2 Calculating the sustainable indicators scores
The rescaled values for variables are then used to create indicator scores ranging from 0 to 100.
The indicator score was calculated by calculating the average score of all variables under each
indicator (Opportunity Nation, 2020, Rackers et al., 2020). Averaging is adopted in this study
as it is the recommended method in index calculation described by Opportunity Nation (2020)
and Rackers et al. (2020). This method helps when variables have various values to ensure a
consistent and interpretable scale. Summation can induce weight biases and overrepresent
particular variables, reducing the reliability of comparisons across contexts. In general,
averaging gives a more consistent and objective depiction of combined variables, hence
boosting its usefulness in academic and policy discussions.
v1 +v1 …………v145 Equation 5.7
Nscore =
Total number of counts

Here,
N= Indicator

5.3.3.3 Calculating the ecotourism opportunities dimensions scores

The rescaled values for indicators are then used to create dimension scores ranging from 0 to
100. The dimension score was calculated by calculating the average score of all indicators
under each dimension (Opportunity Nation, 2020, Rackers et al., 2020).

Dscore =
N1 +N1 …………N25 Equation 5.8
Total number of counts

Here,
D= Dimension

5.3.3.4 Calculating the Ecotourism Opportunity Index score

The EOI score for Alula, Saudi Arabia finally calculated by getting the mean value of
dimension scores. The indicator score was calculated by calculating the average score of all
variables under each indicator (Opportunity Nation, 2020, Rackers et al., 2020).

EOI =
D1 +D1 …………Dn Equation 5.9
Total number of counts

Finally, the EOI was calculated by the following formula:

𝐸𝑂𝐼 = Σ[(Σ(Σ(𝑉𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 ) ∗ (1/𝑛𝑖 )) ∗ (1/𝑛𝑗 )) ∗ (1/𝐷𝑡 )] − (𝑊 + 𝑇) Equation 5.10

For explanation:
178
Vnorm = Normalized values of variables
ni = The n variables in indicator i (the number of variables in each indicator)
nj = The n indicators in dimension j (the number of indicators in each dimension)
Dt = The total number of dimensions
W = Weaknesses
T = Threats
The EOI formula has five distinct parts; the first part normalizes the variable scores applying
“Min-Max Normalization” (see 4 under 5.3.3.1), the rescaled variable scores are then used to
create indicator scores (see 5.3.3.2). The indicator scores were then used to create dimension
scores as discussed in section 5.3.3.3. The EOI score was then calculated by using the mean
value of dimension scores as explained in 5.3.3.4. The negative factors (weaknesses and
threats) were subtracted from the indicator scores after the averaging process.

5.3.3.5 Calculating index score for each Alula’s district

The EOI that was initially computed for Alula was subsequently disaggregated to its local
districts: Old Town Alula, Dedan, Jabal Ikmah, Nabataean, and Hegra. This split was done
carefully considering the previously calculated scores of the whole of Alula, which were
assigned based on the availability and distribution of each variable within Alula. A
comprehensive analysis of the 145 variables was done, considering their existence in different
districts. Where variables were missing in certain districts, they were excluded from calculating
the district's score. This analytical approach enabled an accurate depiction of the unique
opportunities provided by each district. Multiple sources were used to construct this list of
opportunities, such as literature review, district maps and official government websites, as
described in Figure 3.2. In addition, a comprehensive search was conducted using online
Google Earth maps to provide a geospatial perspective. Additional in-depth geospatial analyses
were conducted for each district, considering slope, elevation, proximity, and visibility, as
already discussed in 2.4.2.3. This systematic approach ensured that the final distribution of EOI
across Alula's districts appropriately represented the ecotourism potential of each area. The
following three steps have been used to calculate index values for each district.
Determining variables’ presence or absence in each district: In the first step, the presence
or absence of each variable was examined, and the available variables were retained against
each district while the unavailable variables were eliminated.

179
Assign weight based on availability: In the second step, for variables present in a district,
further weighting was done based on their availability in each district through WSM, EWM,
and EOGA. The weights of the variables were first calculated in the first research question in
the context of the whole region of Alula, as described in Appendix 1 to Appendix 4. Alula city
has a large area than its inside historical district, as illustrated in Figure 3.3. The variables are
spread across Alula city in the diverse extent of availability and have different values compared
to Alula’s districts. For example, the Sharan nature reserve is situated outside Alula’s district,
so its value is minimised when calculating the index for protected areas in Alula’s district.
Besides, infrastructure availability is different in Alula and each district. So, the same weights
cannot be used in Alula’s district context. Therefore, again weighting was done for each of
Alula’s districts according to the availability of the variable in each district as described in
Appendix 9 to Appendix 13.
Considering common variables: In the third step, for the variables that were present
everywhere, such as slope and vegetation density, each district was assigned weights according
to the extent of these variables' suitability to the ecotourism opportunities in that district, as
these indicators are available across Alula and its district everywhere. Nevertheless, measuring
for each district where these variables are highly suitable is essential.

5.4 Results
The results section in this chapter has been divided into two parts (Figure 5.7). The first part
describes the CFA results of round 1 and round 2. It also discusses the ecotourism opportunities
complexity impacts on the CFA results. The second part describes the results of the EOI of
Alula and its five districts across five ecotourism opportunity dimensions and 25 SEOIs. The
first section describes each district's landscape potential results in this part. Then, the EOI score,
its dimensions and indicators for Alula. Its five districts have been described. Following this,
the index score of sustainable indicators and dimensions has been defined across Alula’s
districts. The conclusion of the result is the development of opportunities maps across the five
districts of Alula. This method permits a comprehensive and analytical investigation of Alula
and its constituent districts.

180
Figure 5.7. The structure of the results section into headings and sub-headings

5.4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis results

The purpose of the CFA was to test the validity and reliability of the constructs developed by
the Delphi method, as indicated in Appendix 6. For that purpose, the CFA results have been
divided into two rounds, the first of which examines the correlation between dimensions and
indicators, followed by an examination of indicators and variables relations. The results of the
second round are reported as five models according to the five ecotourism opportunities
dimensions. Then, the reliability and validity assessment of both rounds has been described.
The last section discusses the ecotourism opportunities complexity impacts on the CFA results.

5.4.1.1 Model fit indices result for round 1

The findings of the round 1 model's goodness-of-fit indices reveal an overall good fit between
dimensions and indicators (Table 5.1), (Figure 5.8).
181
The factor loading values in round 1 are mostly above 0.3, showing a moderate to strong
correlation between these variables (Dimoliatis et al., 2010, Cottrell et al., 2013). In Table 5.1,
the chi-square value of 1.6 indicates that the model properly describes the data, indicating a
satisfactory fit. Furthermore, the p-value of 0.01 suggests a statistically significant fit,
confirming the model's validity. The GFI value of 0.8 and the AGFI value of 0.78 shows an
acceptable match to the required threshold. The RMR value of 0.2 and the RMSEA value of
0.074 are below their respective criteria, indicating a good match. Although somewhat below
the suggested threshold, the NFI of 0.897 shows a satisfactory fit. The values of 0.92 for the
CFI, 0.89 for the IFI, and 0.91 for the TLI indicate a good to exceptional fit, exceeding their
respective standards. These results indicate that the dimensions provide a reasonable
explanation for the observed data, with some opportunity for improvement in particular
metrics, but generally indicating a satisfactory fit.

5.4.1.2 Model fit indices result for round 2

Again, using a variety of statistical measures, the fit of each model was assessed based on data
related to the five dimensions (D1 to D5) (from Figure 5.9 to Figure 5.13). These figures depict
the hypothesized model. The factor loading values in all these models are mostly above 0.3,
showing a moderate to strong correlation between these variables (Dimoliatis et al., 2010,
Cottrell et al., 2013). In Table 5.1, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom varied between
dimensions but was below 5, indicating a significant model fit. The p-values for all dimensions
were at or below 0.01, indicating a statistically significant fit. GFI and AGFI values for each
dimension were satisfactory, also indicating significant model fit. The RMR was largely stable
across dimensions, indicating a highly significant model-to-data fit; the RMSEA was also
stable across all the dimensions, showing a highly significant model fit. NFI, CFI, and IFI were
all close to 0.9 for all dimensions, indicating a highly significant model fit overall, with D5
demonstrating particularly strong results. However, the TLI displayed some variation, with D3
exhibiting a relatively low score, but other dimensions were a significant fit. In contrast, D5
exhibited the greatest relative match based on these measures. Overall, all models demonstrated
a generally acceptable fit.

182
Table 5.1. Model fit indices of round 1 and round 2 with cut-off values
Measures Cut-off References Round Round 2
(Goodness of values 1
fit for the (D1- D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
modified D5)
research
model)
Chi-square: Below 5 (Fetscherin and 1.6 1.561 1.426 2.472 1.293 1.368
X2 / df Stephano, 2016,
Asmelash and
Kumar, 2019)
P Below 0.05 (Greenspoon 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.009 0
and Saklofske,
1998, Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)
GFI Above 0.9 (Fetscherin and 0.8 0.79 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.84
or close to Stephano, 2016,
0.8 Asmelash and
Kumar, 2020)
AGFI Above 0.9 (Fetscherin and 0.78 0.773 0.782 0.773 0.802 0.775
or close to Stephano, 2016,
0.8 Asmelash and
Kumar, 2020)
RMR Below 0.5 (Baral et al., 0.2 0.028 0.021 0.021 0.02 0.028
2012, Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)
RMSEA Below 0.08 (Baral et al., 0.074 0.072 0.063 0.76 0.052 0.058
2012, Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)
NFI Above 0.9 (Fetscherin and 0.89 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.9 0.9
Stephano, 2016,
Asmelash and
Kumar, 2019)
CFI Above 0.9 (Greenspoon 0.92 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.93
and Saklofske,
1998, Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)
IFI Above 0.9 (Fetscherin and 0.89 0.86 0.9 0.93 0.92 0.935
Stephano, 2016,
Asmelash and
Kumar, 2020)
TLI Above 0.9 (Fetscherin and 0.91 0.91 0.816 0.71 0.89 0.912
Stephano, 2016,
Asmelash and
Kumar, 2020)

183
5.4.1.3 Assessing reliability and validity of rounds 1 and 2
The reliability and validity tests indicate that all the models in both rounds exhibit good
reliability and validity, as described in Table 5.2. The Cronbach's Alpha values, which assess
the internal consistency of the items within each dimension, range from 0.8 to 0.905, indicating
strong reliability. Similarly, the Composite Reliability (CR) values, another measure of internal
consistency, range from 0.84 to 0.93, further support the reliability of the items. The Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) values, which assess convergent validity, range from 0.52 to 0.72,
indicating that the items within each dimension share a substantial proportion of their variance.
These findings suggest that the measurement instruments used in both models are reliable and
valid, providing confidence in the accuracy of the data collected for analysis.
Table 5.2. Reliability and validity test for round 1 and round 2
Cut- Round 2
Round
Measures off References
1
values D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
(Greenspoon
and
Saklofske,
Above
Cronbach's Alpha 1998, 0.9 0.905 0.83 0.8 0.853 0.898
0.7
Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)
(Greenspoon
and
Saklofske,
Above
Composite reliability (CR) 1998, 0.90 0.93 0.89 0.84 0.91 0.93
0.9
Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)
(Greenspoon
and
Saklofske,
Above
Average variance extracted 1998, 0.72 0.55 0.52 0.67 0.64 0.61
0.5
Asmelash
and Kumar,
2019)

184
Figure 5.8. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 1

185
Figure 5.9. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Nature” dimension

186
Figure 5.10. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Environmental education /protection dimension”

187
Figure 5.11. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Sustainability” dimension

188
Figure 5.12. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Socio-cultural benefits” dimension

189
Figure 5.13. The measurement model for the latent and observed variables of round 2 for the
“Tourists’ satisfaction” dimension
190
5.4.1.4 Factor analysis on ecotourism opportunity complexity
The ecotourism opportunities system is interconnected, such that ecotourism opportunities
dimensions, indicators, and variables impact each other due to their inherent adaptability (as
discussed in the systems diagram in 4.4.6). Here, interconnection shows that there is a direct
relation between dimensions, indicators and variables: changes in one likely affect the other
(Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio, 2008). As the systems diagram shows, Vision 2030 influenced
some ecotourism opportunities strongly, such as the sustainable indicator of long-term
economic growth (N15). This external factor has stimulated long-term planning (V74),
establishing initiatives such as developing RCU to promote sustainable ecotourism
opportunities in Alula. Furthermore, this initiative impacted all the other ecotourism
opportunity dimensions and their connected indicators and variables. So, there is a direct
interconnection between dimensions, indicators and variables.
However, in an indirect link, Vision 2030 has also affected some other variables; such as for
long-term planning, the RCU was established to promote sustainable ecotourism in Alula. RCU
has started many initiatives such as protecting threatened species such as the “Arabian
Leopard”, and they developed the “Sharan nature reserve”. Besides, to promote natural heritage
and to advertise it to the world, they started the “Name a Rock competition” (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Vision 2030, 2023). Protecting threatened species or promoting
natural heritage is not a direct part of Vision 2030. However, it has affected these variables that
are essential for sustainable ecotourism promotion.
The CFA results of the factor loading values in Figure 5.8 show the strength of the correlation
between dimensions and indicators range from moderate to strong. "Environmental protection
awareness among local communities (N7)" has a factor loading of 0.5. This suggests a
moderate positive correlation with the dimension “environmental education/protection”,
meaning as environmental protection awareness among local communities increases, the
environmental education/protection level also increases. However, it does not mean that the
increase in environmental protection awareness among local communities is just the direct
cause of the improved environmental education/protection. Some other indicators, such as
environmental education (N8) and infrastructural services (N10), also play their role in
improving the environmental education/protection dimension.

191
So, both types of relations interconnection and correlation can be observed when discussing
the complexity of ecotourism opportunities.
Internal or external factors influence these relations from weak to moderate and strong for
multiple reasons. Geographical proximity, ecological connections, market competitiveness,
and local regulations and policies can all contribute to the correlations' various degrees of
influence (Blamey, 2001, Baggio, 2008). For instance, ecotourism opportunities in the same
geographic region or sharing the same environment may have stronger correlations based on
the shared dependence on the same natural resources and tourists (Buckley, 2009, Speakman
and Sharpley, 2012). Likewise, socioeconomic considerations, such as the participation of local
residents in ecotourism projects, can affect the correlation between opportunities. For example,
a community-based ecotourism project employing residents to provide lodging, guiding
services, and cultural experiences may strongly correlate with other socioeconomic
opportunities, such as job creation and revenue development (Goodwin and Santilli, 2009,
Stevenson et al., 2009). Also, an ecotourism project focusing on wildlife protection in a remote,
protected place may have only a moderate correlation with socioeconomic opportunities, as it
may provide local residents with few direct advantages. In another example, there may be a
stronger link between two ecotourism opportunities that work toward the same conservation
goals, like protecting endangered species, because their success depends on the same strategies
and the cooperation of all stakeholders (Honey, 1999, Baggio, 2008). However, ecotourism
opportunities that offer unique experiences, such as adventure and cultural tourism, may have
a weak correlation with each other since they appeal to diverse market segments but are not
directly dependent on each other's progress (Wood, 2002, Holden, 2005). So, implementing
effective strategies that encourage sustainable ecotourism development requires a thorough
grasp of the complexities of these correlations among ecotourism opportunity dimensions,
indicators, and their corresponding opportunity variables.
In the above confirmatory factor analysis, round 1 shows a moderate correlation between
ecotourism opportunities dimensions (D1 to D5) and 25 sustainable ecotourism opportunities
indicators (N1 to N25) (Figure 5.8). It is due to the moderate factor loading (between 0.3 to
0.7) found between dimensions and indicators. The factor loading values show the strength of
the correlation between variables (Muilenburg and Berge, 2001, Tavakol and Wetzel, 2020)
(Figure 5.8). As already discussed, ecotourism opportunities dimensions can moderately

192
correlate with sustainable ecotourism indicators in a CAS because ecotourism opportunities
develop within a CAS, where multiple factors interact and influence the sector's sustainability.
Owing to the complexity and dynamic nature of the relationships between dimensions and
indicators in the system, a moderate correlation may be detected when evaluating ecotourism
opportunities. The moderate correlation indicates that the connections between ecotourism
opportunities are not rigid or predetermined (Folke et al., 2004, Folke et al., 2005). This
produces flexibility in the system, allowing the external factors to infuse information into the
system, making it more adaptable to external factors, as it can more easily adjust to new
circumstances. This can be seen in Alula, where the ecotourism opportunities system positively
accepted the external factors (Saudi Vision 2030, inspiration from Petra, Jordan, COVID-19)
and emerged from obscurity (sections 3.4.5 and 4.4.6).
In addition, the moderate correlation illustrates the inherent complexity of ecotourism
opportunities within a CAS (Folke et al., 2004, Folke et al., 2005). This complexity can
promote learning and adaptation by motivating stakeholders to continually reevaluate their
tactics and assumptions in response to changing circumstances (Lazanski and Kljajić, 2006,
Baggio et al., 2010a). This learning behaviour helps the stakeholders in Alula to promote
sustainable ecotourism opportunities.
In round 2, moderate correlation (such as V88, V89, and V90 to N19 in Figure 5.12 ) to strong
correlation (such as V93 and V94 to N21 in Figure 5.12) has been found among 25 SEOIs and
their relevant variables. A strong correlation (above 0.7) between ecotourism opportunity
indicators and their related variables within a CAS signifies that these opportunities are closely
interconnected (Baggio, 2008, Jakulin, 2017, Tavakol and Wetzel, 2020). This strong
relationship may foster a sense of predictability and coherence, but it can also enhance the
system's adaptability to external factors. Because, in a more interconnected system, the
information from external factors can quickly move and alter the current situation. One
example is the case of COVID-19. On December 31, 2019, it was first reported to the World
Health Organization (WHO). The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19
outbreak a global health emergency on January 30, 2020, and a global pandemic on March 11,
2020 (Medscape, 2023). Due to the pandemic, the international border was closed, which
negatively impacted tourists, tourism-related businesses such as accommodation services and
food industries, and consequently, the local economy. This shows the quick influence of
COVID-19 due to the strong interconnection of opportunities. So, a comprehensive

193
understanding of the complexity of ecotourism opportunities can help to describe the
correlation among multiple dimensions, indicators and variables more thoroughly.

5.4.2 Ecotourism Opportunity Index scores

5.4.2.1 Results of landscape potential for each of Alula’s districts

The GIS analysis for ecotourism activities in the five districts of Alula, such as Old Town
Alula, Dedan, Jabal Ikmah, Nabataean, and Hegra, provided important insights into their
suitability for ecotourism activities. In this context, numerous factors were evaluated, such as
proximity to the road, proximity to historical and entertainment sites, elevation and slope
analysis, vegetation density, and visibility. These factors have been analyzed as these were the
most repeated influencing factors discussed by several studies identified through the literature
review, as depicted in section 2.4.2.3, which also compiled the cut-off values of these factors.
These factors were also conceptualized in research question 1, (2.4.2.3 and 3.3.3.2) while
identifying ecotourism opportunities in Alula. In this chapter, this analysis is again conducted
to examine the suitability for ecotourism opportunities in each district of Alula. So, based on
the previously defined sections, the following analysis has been developed to evaluate the
ecotourism potential for the districts of Alula.
• Proximity to roads is described in Figure 5.14. It shows that all the districts are located
within 8 kilometres of the roads. However, Old Town Alula and Hegra are the closest
to roads than other districts.
• When considering the proximity to historical (Figure 5.15), and entertainment sites
(Figure 5.16), all Alula’s districts are located between 0 to 8 kilometres showing
excellent opportunities for tourists to travel toward these areas.
• The Alula district's elevation ranges between 0 to 1200 metres. However, most of the
area across five districts is located in suitable range of 100 to 400 metres (Figure 5.17).
• The range of slope appropriateness is 0–35 %. The majority of the land in Alula’s
districts is situated within this suitable range, as shown in Figure 5.18, suggesting that
new recreational locations could be developed there.
• The vegetation density, a vital component for ecotourism, varies from 0.55 to 0.00, with
the highest found in Hegra and Nabataean, and the lowest found in the Jabal Ikmah
district (Figure 5.19).

194
 • From the observation points, suitable visibility has been found across Alula’s districts
(Figure 5.20). The observation points were selected near important tourist attraction
sites, proposed development areas, and popular visitor routes to determine optimal
viewpoints and enhance visitor experiences.
In conclusion, each area offers different ecotourism potential but provides a suitable
environment as they meet the cut-off criteria defined in Table 3.2 for ecotourism activities. Old
Town Alula and Hegra benefit from their proximity to roads and entertainment sites, while Old
Town Alula is also close to historical landmarks. Dedan has a wide range of altitudes, Jabal
Ikmah has the widest variety of slopes, and Hegra and Nabataean have the densest flora. These
qualities highlight the potential of ecotourism opportunities development across Alula’s
districts.

195
Figure 5.14. Proximity to roads across Alula’s districts (between 2-10 kilometres is suitable)

196
Figure 5.15. Proximity to historical sites across Alula’s districts (0-15 kilometres from
accommodation is suitable)

197
Figure 5.16 Proximity to entertainment sites across Alula’s districts (0-15 kilometres from the
accommodation is suitable for ecotourism activities)

198
Figure 5.17. Elevation across Alula’s districts (between 100 to 400 metres is suitable for
ecotourism activities)

199
Figure 5.18. Slope across Alula’s districts (0 to 35 % is suitable for ecotourism opportunities)

200
Figure 5.19. Vegetation density across Alula’s districts (0.2 to 1 is suitable for ecotourism)

201
Figure 5.20. Visibility across Alula’s districts

5.4.2.2 The index, indicator and dimension scores for all of Alula
The final EOI score for Alula is 52.40, showing moderate levels of potential ecotourism
opportunities. Looking further at the EOI components, in the first dimension (D1), “nature,”
202
Alula received a score of 47.54. In the second dimension (D2), “environmental
protection/preservation,” Alula received a score of 62.82, 46.88 for the third dimension (D3),
“sustainability,”, 56.80 for the fourth dimension (D4), “socio-cultural benefits,” and for the
fifth dimension (D5) “tourists satisfaction”, Alula gained a score of 47.98. The second
dimension received the highest score, indicating the region's greatest potential is in
environmental protection. This study's results indicate a moderate to high potential for
ecotourism in the region. While in calculating the indicator scores in Alula, the Infrastructural
Services (N10) 78.70 in D2 received the highest score, followed by the Educational
Opportunities (N20) 74.70 and Employment Opportunities (N21) 74.37 in D4. Figure 5.23
shows the EOI score for each district, where Old Town Alula (55.1) leads the other districts,
followed by Dedan (45.31), Nabataean (43.62), Jabal Ikmah (42.85), and Hegra (41.52);
complete details of these dimension and indicator scores are provided in the Appendix 9 to
Appendix 13.

5.4.2.3 The index score for sustainable indicators across Alula’s districts
The Ecotourism Opportunity Index Score, derived from a comprehensive analysis of twenty-
five variables (N1 to N25) across the five distinct districts of Alula, demonstrates that there are
clear differences as well as some similarities among the Ecotourism Opportunity Index Scores
across the five districts of Alula (Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.24 to Figure 5.28). For example:
• The top three performing indicators in Old Town Alula are local business promotion
opportunities (N22), with a score of 91.76, employment opportunities (N21), with a
score of 84.22; and planning to conserve historical heritage sites (N16), with a score of
82.39. These demonstrate the city's proficiency in promoting local enterprises,
preserving historical monuments, and delivering infrastructure services. However,
indicators, where Old Town Alula may do better are proximity to visiting places (N23)
with a score of 19.99, topographical structures with a score of 26.11, and planning to
conserve nature (N5) with a score of 33.94.
In Dedan, the highest-scoring categories are Infrastructure Services (N10), scoring 70.82;
accommodation opportunities for ecotourists (N11), scoring 64.73; and environmental
protection awareness among local communities (N7), scoring 60.68. Dedan features a well-
established infrastructure, an abundance of accommodations for ecotourists, and a population
with a high level of environmental preservation awareness. Practices to conserve the natural
environment and people's health (N14) scored 22.29, Topographical Structures (N1) scored
203
24.01, and planning to conserve historical heritage sites (N16) scored 27.75, meaning these are
among the areas requiring improvement in Dedan.
Jabal Ikmah excels in ecotourism awareness among local communities and visitors (N9), with
a score of 59.99; educational opportunities (N20), with a score of 53.96; and impact assessment
(N18), with a score of 48.49, demonstrating high levels of ecotourism awareness, significant
impact assessment procedures, and adequate educational opportunities. However, there is
potential for improvement with regard to tourist protection (N25), scoring 19.67; water
availability and conservation policies (N13), scoring 24.4; and accommodation opportunities
for ecotourists (N11), scoring 39.97.
In the Nabataean area, the indicators with the highest performance are infrastructural services
(N10) with a score of 71.81, suitable natural phenomena (N2) with a score of 48.66, and
planning to conserve nature (N5) with a score of 51.01. This emphasizes well-established
infrastructure, the presence of relevant natural features, and significant efforts in planning for
nature conservation. However, planning to conserve culture (N6), with a score of 29.21;
practices to conserve the natural environment and people's health (N14), with a score of 29.04;
and proximity to visiting places (N23), with a score of 27.32, are areas requiring improvement.
Lastly, in Hegra, the highest scores are for educational opportunities (N20), scoring 69.36;
health facilities (N19), scoring 61.08; and planning to conserve historical heritage sites (N16),
scoring 61.71. This demonstrates a concentration on education, the availability of proper
healthcare facilities, and efforts to preserve historical landmarks. Nevertheless, practices to
conserve the natural environment and people's health (N14), with a score of 9.63; proximity to
visiting places (N23), with a score of 17.92; and topographical structures (N1), with a score of
21.45, are areas that may benefit from additional attention. Here, health facilities (N19) include
the variables (V88) hospitals, (V89) governmental primary care centres and private clinics, and
(V90) Red Crescent and ambulance centres. These opportunities are highly available in Hegra.
So, this indicator has a good score. While Indicator (N14), “practices to conserve the natural
environment and people's health”, includes the variables (V70) water conservation, (V71)
moderate air quality, (V72) ecosystem conservation, (V73) low impact on the environment and
people’s health. The indicator's score is low among these variables due to moderate air quality
(V71).
The performance of all five districts indicates that three indicators have consistently high scores
in all districts. The first indicator is infrastructural services (N10), which had the most

204
significant scores in Old Town Alula (80.67), Dedan (70.82), and the Nabataean district
(71.81). The average score of this indicator is 71.43. The second is accommodation
opportunities for ecotourists (N11), particularly in Old Town Alula, with a score of 74.58, and
Dedan, with a score of 64.73. The average score of this indicator is 61.98. The third strength
all districts share is in employment opportunities (N21), with Old Town Alula and Hegra
receiving 84.22 and 57.54, respectively. This indicator’s average score is 58.58. On the
opposite side of the scale, several indicators consistently score low across all districts,
suggesting the need for focused improvement in some regions. One such measure is resilient
habitat (N23), which scores very low in Old Town Alula and Hegra. Topographical structures
(N1), which received a score of 26.11 in Old Town Alula and 24.01 in Dedan, is another
consistently low-scoring indicator. Lastly, practices to conserve the natural environment and
people's health could be enhanced, as indicated by its low score of 22.29 in Dedan and an
astonishingly low score of 9.0 in Hegra. Investing in research that comprehends these low-
score indicators, such as resilient habitats and topographical structures, is essential to improve
ecotourism opportunities. Collaborations with geologists and environmental planners can aid
in preserving and promoting these natural resources. In addition, the practices to conserve the
natural environment and people's health can be safeguarded during the growth of ecotourism
opportunities by organising workshops to enhance the local populations' awareness of
sustainable practices and adopting health monitoring systems.

205
 N25

N24

N23

N22

N21

N20

N19

N18

N17

N16

N15

N14

N13

N12

N11

N10

N9

N8

N7

N6

N5

N4

N3

N2

N1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Hegra Nabataean Jabal Ikmah Dedan Old Town Alula

Figure 5.21. District-wise ecotourism opportunity index values for the 25 sustainable indicators

206
5.4.2.4 Index scores for five dimensions across Alula’s districts
Within the five districts, distinct strengths are evident across each dimension, as illustrated in
Figure 5.22 and Figure 5.29.
• For the first dimension concerning “Nature”, Old Town Alula and Nabataean score
highest, indicating a rich natural landscape and effective conservation strategies, while
Jabal Ikmah has the lowest index value.
• Dedan and Alula stand out in the second dimension, which focuses on “Environmental
education/protection”, showcasing strong environmental protection efforts and
community engagement, and Hegra shows a lower score.
• The third dimension, centred on “Sustainability”, again sees Old Town Alula and
Dedan with the highest scores, reflecting the potential for sustainable development.
While Hegra again shows the lowest score.
• In the fourth dimension, which is about “Socio-cultural benefits”, Old Town Alula leads
first and Hegra second, indicating effective heritage preservation in that region, while
Nabataean indicates a low score.
• Lastly, Nabataean and Jabal Ikmah score highest for the fifth dimension regarding
“Tourist satisfaction”, suggesting they offer a rich array of recreational activities and
tourist attractions.
Hence, each district demonstrates its unique ecotourism advantages, fostering to a diverse and
balanced development across the entire region. Old Town Alula and Dedan exhibit the highest
index values across all dimensions, whereas Hegra displays comparatively lower index values.
Overall, environmental education/protection (D2) attains the highest average index score
among the five districts, at 53.97. Socio-cultural benefits (D4) follow closely in second place,
scoring 50.48, while sustainability (D3) ranks third at 42.808. Tourist satisfaction (D5) secures
the fourth position with a score of 40.70, followed by the Nature (D1) dimension, which scores
40.39.

207
 Hegra

Nabataean

Jabal Ikmah

Dedan

Old Town Alula

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Nature (D1) Environmental education/protectionD2

Sustainability (D3) Socio-cultural beneficial (D4)
Tourists satisfaction (D5)

Figure 5.22. Ecotourism opportunity index score for five dimensions across Alula’s districts

208
Figure 5.23. Ecotourism opportunity index score for Alula’s districts

209
Figure 5.24. Index scores for indicators in the “Nature” dimension

210
Figure 5.25. Index scores for indicators in the “Environmental education/protection”
dimension

Figure 5.26. Index scores for indicators in the “Sustainability” dimension

211
Figure 5.27. Index scores for indicators in the “Socio-cultural benefits” dimension

Figure 5.28. Index scores for indicators in the “Tourist satisfaction” dimension

212
Figure 5.29. Index scores for the five ecotourism opportunities dimensions across Alula’s
districts

213
5.4.2.5 Ecotourism opportunity map for Alula’s districts
Figure 5.30 shows the opportunity map of the five districts of Alula. The map shows the
potential ecotourism opportunities in Alula’s districts. However, showing all these individual
variables in this map was difficult due to the multiple opportunities. So, a classification was
developed based on the type of opportunities from the comprehensive literature review Table
5.3 (Honey, 1999, Weaver, 2001, Kozak, 2002, Fennell, 2007, Fennell, 2021).

Table 5.3. The description of opportunity classes, along with their opportunities
Sr.No. Opportunity classes Opportunities
1 Animal shelters Animal farms (stables, cattle farms)
2 Community and health services Community and public medical centres
3 Cultural heritage preservation Cultural sites
4 Education building Schools, colleges and education department offices
5 Government offices Government departments such as the Royal Commission for
Alula office, law and security offices
6 Historical landmark Historical places
7 Hospitality and leisure services Cafes, hotels, restaurants, event halls, hostels, homestays, rest
stops, and lodging
8 Museum All the museums in Alula and its districts
9 Nature-based leisure venues Farm, flower lounge, farm, parks, garden and rest stops
10 Outdoor adventure sites Camping sites and hiking areas

11 Public amenities and attractions Grocery store, observation deck, playground, and other tourist
attractions
12 Recreational and wellness facilities Athletic field and yoga retreat centre
13 Travel and tourism services Public parking spaces, tour operators, and travel agencies

Furthermore, the ecotourism opportunity map offers a diverse range of Alula's five districts'
destinations. Old Town Alula offers a rich historical experience, and Dedan offers an
unprecedented exploration of natural beauty. This historically rich area provides opportunities
for cultural ecotourism. Tourists might learn about the region's rich cultural legacy through
guided tours. Narrow, winding tracks and old mud-brick dwellings are conducive to walking
tours. In addition, there is potential to involve local artisans, crafters, and storytellers to create
immersive experiences. Archaeologically significant Dedan provides the chance to establish
archaeological ecotourism. Under the direction of professional guides, tourists could tour the

214
ancient ruins, tombs, and inscriptions. This district's historical significance could also serve as
the basis for archaeology and history-centred educational programs and workshops.
Jabal Ikmah contains fascinating ancient artifacts. It is a natural outdoor museum with ancient
inscriptions on rocks. Hiking trips could incorporate these inscriptions' historical and cultural
contexts with physical activity. Considering the district's distant location and clear skies,
nighttime stargazing events could enhance the ecotourism experience. The Nabataean area is
recognized for its combination of historical significance and natural beauty. It is noted for its
beautiful oasis and agricultural opportunities, making it suitable for ecotourism. Visitors could
learn about conventional farming techniques, regional crops, and sustainable agriculture. In
addition to nature walks, birdwatching, and photography, its views provide stunning chances
for these activities. Hegra is renowned for its world heritage sites. Hegra is home to Saudi
Arabia's first UNESCO World Heritage site, rich with ancient monuments and tombs. The
preserved condition of these structures affords visitors a glimpse of ancient civilizations, hence
creating prospects for archaeological and heritage ecotourism. To educate tourists on the
historical significance of these locations, tours might be organized around them. In addition to
these unique sights, each district also offers a variety of lifestyle facilities, including cafes,
restaurants, farms, gardens, and other tourist attractions, increasing the entire tourist
experience. These additional opportunities, dispersed throughout all regions, provide a
complete and rewarding tourist experience.

215
Figure 5.30. Map of the distribution of ecotourism opportunities across Alula’s districts

5.5 Key observations and critical discussion

This question measures the extent of ecotourism opportunities and develops an EOI for Alula
with the input from findings derived from the first and second research questions. It includes
145 variables involving 95 strengths, 25 opportunities, 15 weaknesses, 10 threats, and 25
SEOIs. In this chapter, the strengths and opportunities were input as positive variables, while
weaknesses and threats were negative variables that were subtracted before averaging in the
index developing process. The weights of strengths and opportunities were already calculated
through WSM and EWM (first question) (Appendix 1 and Appendix 3) and the Delphi method
(second question), as shown in Appendix 5. Weaknesses and threats’ weights were calculated
through WSM, EWM, and EOGA (Appendix 2, Appendix 4, and Appendix 7). CFA was
applied to check the validity and reliability of the hypothesized constructs developed by the

216
ECOS-Delphi approach, as described in Appendix 6. CFA was applied in two rounds, with the
first round investigating the relationship between dimensions and their relevant SEOIs and the
second examining the relationship between SEOIs and their relevant, sustainable ecotourism
opportunities. Lastly, the EOI was developed by, first, normalizing each variable, then the
normalized values of all the variables under each indicator averaged indicator scours. The
average score of all indicators under each dimension was calculated to get the dimension score,
whose average led to the total EOI score. While calculating each district’s EOI score, the
variables and weights of each district were shortlisted based on their availability in their
relevant district. The final EOI score for each district was generated by averaging variables in
each indicator in each dimension for the district and then averaging the dimension scores.
Significant findings of the third research question, as summarized in Figure 5.31, include the
existence of a complex correlation between the ecotourism opportunities dimensions,
indicators, and variables of the ecotourism opportunities system of Alula, evidenced by
sections 5.4.1.1 to 5.4.1.4. This complexity was initially found in the first research question
through complexity analysis and SWOT-ECOS analysis (section 3.5), then in the second
research question by the systems diagram and results found through ECOS-Delphi Approach
(section 4.5) and finally through CFA (section 5.4.1).
The first research question concluded that ecotourism opportunities develop in a CAS due to
the influences of external and internal factors, thereby fostering the emergence of ecotourism
opportunities from a chaotic to a developing state. Similarly, the SWOT-ECOS analysis
revealed that external factors (opportunities) could influence internal factors (strengths), and
the ecotourism opportunities system becomes even more complex.
The second research question investigated this in depth, showing that ecotourism opportunities
established a complex and interconnected network in which SEOIs and their relevant
ecotourism opportunities develop under the ecotourism opportunities dimensions, making the
system interconnected and adaptive to external or internal influences. Here, interconnection
shows that there is a direct relation between dimensions, indicators and variables: changes in
one likely affect the other, such as in the case of Alula, Vision 2030 strongly influenced the
sustainable indicator of long-term economic growth because the Vision aims to develop a
sustainable economy across the country (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Vision 2030,
2023). This indicator has directly stimulated long-term planning, so economic resources other
than oil can be introduced into the country. This long-term planning has started some

217
initiatives, such as developing Royal Commission for Alula (RCU) to promote sustainable
ecotourism opportunities in Alula (Royal Commission for Alula, 2020, Vision 2030, 2023).
So, a direct link is observed here as Vision 2030 directly impacts the long-term economic
growth, which directly started the long-term planning which initiated RCU. However, in an
indirect link, Vision 2030 has also affected some other variables; such as for long-term
planning, the RCU was established to promote sustainable ecotourism in Alula. RCU has
started many initiatives such as protecting threatened species such as the “Arabian Leopard”
they developed the “Sharan nature reserve”. Moreover, to promote the nature heritage and to
explore it to the world, they started the “Name a Rock competition” (Royal Commission for
Alula, 2020, Vision 2030, 2023). So, protecting threatened species or promoting nature heritage
is not a direct part of Vision 2030. However, it has affected these variables that are essential
for sustainable ecotourism promotion.
Answering the question revealed that there is also a correlation among the dimensions,
indicators and variables. In this case, the correlation in ecotourism opportunities refers to the
statistical relationships between various dimensions, variables, and indicators without
necessarily showing a direct link. If two variables are correlated, indicates that they tend to
change similarly. However, one variable does not always affect the other directly. For instance,
as discussed in section 5.4.1.4, the "Environmental protection awareness among local
communities" has a moderate positive correlation with the dimension “Environmental
education/protection”, meaning as environmental protection awareness among local
communities increases, the environmental education/protection level also increases. However,
it does not mean that just the increase in environmental protection awareness among local
communities is the direct cause of the improved environmental education/protection. Some
other indicators, such as environmental education and infrastructural services, also play their
role in improving the environmental education/protection dimension.
So, both types of relationships exist, such as interconnection and correlation among
dimensions, indicators and variables. However, during internal or external influences (such as
Saudi Vision 2030 and the COVID-19 pandemic), these relations among the variables can vary
from weak to moderate and strong, as observed in the systems diagram (section 4.4.6) and the
CFA where the factor loading values represent the correlation strength between observed and
latent variables (Figure 5.8). This complexity shows the unique learning capability of each
variable, indicator, and dimension towards external factors, hence introducing unpredictability

218
into the overall ecotourism opportunities system. For instance, as observed in the systems
diagram (section 4.4.6), external factors impacted Alula’s ecotourism opportunities diversely.
For example, inspiration from Petra inspired the tourism managers in Alula, who viewed Petra
as an example of sustainable tourist development, posing stronger impacts than other indicators
in boosting protection and promoting local heritage indicators (N17). This resulted in
rehabilitation being begun to protect Old Town Alula, Alula Tantora, and other historical sites
(Royal Commission for Alula, 2023, Vision 2030, 2023). Similarly, COVID-19 mostly
impacted the tourists satisfaction dimension more than others due to the closing of international
airports (Duro et al., 2021, Fotiadis et al., 2021)
So, this adaptability indicates the unique learning capability of ecotourism opportunities
towards external factors due to unpredictability in the system. These findings are consistent
with the ideas of CAS, in which system components continuously adapt and learn from their
environment, resulting in unpredictable consequences (Baggio, 2008, Wattanacharoensil and
Stettler, 2019). However, this study contributed to these ideas by analysing the adaptive
capacity of the system components through CFA, such as dimensions, indicators, and variables,
where the correlation between dimensions, indicators, and variables also vary, such as in Figure
5.12, indicator “N22” has a strong correlation with variable “V97” with a factor loading value
0.81 while “N22” has a moderate correlation with “V96” with a factor loading value 0.4. So, it
adds an additional degree of information to our knowledge of ecotourism systems.
Consequently, this unequal distribution of relations is evidence of the inherent variables’
unique adaptive capacities of different ecotourism opportunity dimensions, indicators, and
variables. Therefore, the different adaptive capacities and continued evolution of diverse
opportunities, even in the face of a global health crisis, demonstrate ecotourism's dynamic,
adaptive nature and its capacity to achieve sustainable goals in accordance with initiatives such
as Saudi Vision 2030.

Potential ecotourism opportunities in Alula City

The evaluation of ecotourism potential found that Alula has an average EOI score of 52.40
(Appendix 8). Among its districts, Old Town Alula was at the top of the list, scoring 55.1,
because of its cultural history, artistic explorations, and cultural scene. Dadan was at second,
scoring 45.31, with its beautiful red rocks and historical significance. Third was the Nabataean,
with a score of 43.62, which is known for its beautiful landscapes and strange rock shapes.

219
Fourth was the Jabal Ikmah, with a score of 42.85, with ancient writings on rocks showing how
people lived. Fifth was the historical city of Hegra, scoring 41.52, which is the region's crown
jewel. It is a UNESCO World Heritage site with awe-inspiring Nabataean civilization ruins
(UNESCO, 2008). Hegra received a low score despite being a UNESCO World Heritage site
because UNESCO's recognition of Hegra is based on criteria (ii) and (iii), which highlight the
site's importance as a crossroads of ancient civilizations and its unique witness to the Nabataean
era. These criteria underline Hegra's historical, architectural, and civilizational value,
emphasising its role as a hub for cultural interactions and an example of Nabataean architectural
brilliance (UNESCO, 2008).
On the other hand, the ecotourism opportunity index comprises five fundamental dimensions:
nature, environmental education/protection, sustainability, sociocultural benefits, and tourist
satisfaction. This index seeks to quantify a destination's potential to provide comprehensive
and responsible tourism experiences that highlight natural beauty, promote sustainable
practices, and foster profound cultural relationships. Given this framework, a site like Hegra,
with its strong historical and architectural leanings, may not receive as high a score due to its
limited fit to the index's broader ecotourism dimensions.
Among ecotourism opportunities dimensions, as described in 5.4.2.2, from highest to lowest,
the environmental education/protection dimension obtained the highest scores (62.82) across
five districts, highlighting its essential significance in Alula's ecotourism potential; the socio-
cultural benefit was at second, scoring 56.80; tourist satisfaction was third, scoring 47.98; the
nature dimension was at fourth, scoring 47.54, and sustainability was last, scoring 46.88, and
needing improvement across the five districts of Alula. These findings are consistent with
existing research highlighting environmental education's importance in promoting sustainable
tourism practices Zeppel (2008) and Ballantyne et al. (2011) proposed that "environmental
education/protection" links directly with sustainability by integrating tourism with programs
that educate visitors about the environment and contribute to its protection. Consequently, the
high score attained by environmental education/protection components in Alula is in line with
worldwide tourist trends and highlights the significance of education in accomplishing
sustainable tourism objectives (The International Ecotourism Society, 2020, United Nations,
2020).
Among the sustainable indicators, the “infrastructural services” indicator scored highest among
the 25 indicators in Alula. This highlights the role of this indicator in developing sustainable

220
tourism in the environmental protection dimension (section 5.4.2.2). These findings also
highlight the significance of infrastructure services and environment-focused initiatives within
ecotourism methods, supporting other research that encourages the integration of
environmental protection and sustainability into the tourism industry (Zeppel, 2008, Ballantyne
et al., 2011). Moreover, the findings of the Delphi method (section 4.5) and the subsequent
construction of the EOI exhibit substantial consistency, strengthening the research procedure's
reliability and importance. According to the consistency of the respondents' comments and the
reliability of the index, the crucial indicators were substantially the same in both techniques.
Both methodologies deemed the environmental education/protection dimension as the most
critical sustainability dimension. However, a disparity was seen in the leading indicators for
this dimension. Respondents to the Delphi method identified "ecotourism awareness among
local residents and visitors" as the most significant indicator, although the index suggested
"infrastructure services" as the most important indicator. This disparity may be attributable to
possible weighting or interpretation variations between the survey and the index. As a
consensus-based tool, the Delphi method shows what experts think as a group, which may put
more emphasis on the awareness aspect. On the other hand, the more quantitative index may
emphasise the tangible parts of the infrastructure that can be measured and judged more
directly. This difference should be looked into more to make the EOI easier to understand and
more helpful in sustainably developing ecotourism.

Potential ecotourism opportunities in Alula districts

The EOI score for all SEOIs in each dimension has been calculated and mapped along each
district, as evidenced by Figure 5.24 to Figure 5.28. All indicators described their importance
for sustainable ecotourism promotion, generating moderate to high EOI scores. However,
infrastructural services (N10), accommodation opportunities for ecotourists (N11), and
employment opportunities (N21) achieved the highest scores compared with other indicators.
The infrastructure services indicator again achieved the highest score among all indicators.
This conclusion underscores the significance of well-developed infrastructure, in line with
prior research highlighting the function of this indicator in enhancing tourist experiences and
facilitating sustainable tourism development (Ocampo et al., 2018, Dwyer, 2022). For instance,

221
it indicates that investments in ecotourism-related infrastructural development directly impact
a destination's ecotourism attractiveness.
A specific example is Alula, which has recently had a significant increase in infrastructure
development, including airports (Alula International Airport), highways, and ecotourism-
oriented luxury resorts (Sharaan Hotel Resort) (Experiencealula, 2021, Royal Commission for
Alula, 2022). Royal Commission for Alula (RCU) is very conscious of developing
infrastructural services. This is evidenced by the 6th edition of the Future Investment Initiative
(FII) in Riyadh, the RCU, and a consortium of French engineering firms Setec, Egis, and
Assystem (SEA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The consortium's leader,
Egis, stated that the MoU would enhance the existing infrastructure development agreement
between SEA and RCU for the Alula project (Experiencealula, 2021, Royal Commission for
Alula, 2022). This investment has not only improved accessibility but also increased the
region's attraction as a leading ecotourism destination.
The district-wise ecotourism opportunity index analysis showed the potential ecotourism
opportunities dimensions ranking environmental education/protection (D2) was at first, Socio-
cultural benefits (D4) at second, Sustainability (D3) at third, Tourists satisfaction (D5) at
fourth and last, the Nature (D1) dimension. Among the ecotourism opportunities dimensions,
again, “environmental education/protection” has achieved the highest score across all the
districts. This result coincides with the increasing global emphasis on integrating tourism with
environmental education and conservation programs (Zeppel, 2008, Ballantyne et al., 2011).
This is due to the essence of ecotourism, which consists of promoting environmentally and
naturally responsible travel. This principle is directly aligned with the "environmental
education/protection" dimension, which integrates tourism with activities that educate visitors
about the environment that leads to its protection (Gössling, 1999, Fennell, 2007). Therefore,
promoting this dimension not only contributes to the preservation of the environmental and
natural integrity of these locations but also provides tourists with a unique and enriching
experience, making it a consistent dimension across diverse ecotourism settings (Zeppel, 2008,
Ballantyne et al., 2011). The highest average dimension index score of the environmental
education/protection dimension indicated that all districts had adequately implemented
environmental awareness and education programs. For example, Alula has made considerable
efforts to educate locals and tourists about the significance of protecting its distinctive desert
habitat, cultural heritage sites, and local traditions. For instance, “The Integrated Design &

222
Craft Education Programme” was launched for Alula's main education and cultural centre. It
is an inspirational creative hub that generates genuine pride for the region's heritage. However,
it is equally crucial to address areas requiring improvement, such as the Nature dimension (D1)
and indicator topographic structure (N1), which scored the lowest. This suggests a need for
enhanced efforts in conserving the natural environment and cultural heritage. Alula could draw
from this insight by investing in comprehensive conservation strategies that preserve its natural

223
landscapes and archaeological sites. Figure 5.31 summarizes the findings of the third research
question.

Figure 5.31. The summary of the third research question's findings

Limitations
One limitation of this study is the lack of longitudinal data available for this study. The study
focused on collecting data at a specific time during this research. As ecotourism opportunities
are complex and adaptive, this may induce new variables in the system. So, the collected data
is limited to this research and cannot be used over an extended period to evaluate ecotourism
opportunities. This data should be continuously updated over time to make it more applicable
in future studies.
Geographic specificity is also the limitation of this investigation. The EOI, which was
developed using case studies such as Alula, Saudi Arabia, looks at the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats of multiple Alula districts. However, different destinations offer
different types of opportunities depending on the geographical features. For instance, the arid
climate of Alula contrasts significantly with the humid conditions of Mt. Rigi, Switzerland
(Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019, Royal Commission for Alula, 2020). Consequently, the
findings and conclusions of this study, mostly based on Alula's data, may not be applicable
224
generically to sites with diverse geographical characteristics. This restriction could impact the
understanding and growth of ecotourism opportunities in varied geographic situations.
This study's limitation is the challenge of capturing all the variables linked with ecotourism
opportunities. Ecotourism is a complicated and interconnected concept whose components
might vary between regions and circumstances. Due to the adaptable and varied nature of the
phenomenon, it is difficult to identify and integrate all relevant variables in the index produced
for this study. Consequently, it is possible that certain variables pertaining to ecotourism
prospects were neglected or missed during the construction of the index. This constraint may
affect the index's comprehensiveness or exhaustiveness, as it may not capture all ecotourism
prospects in a specific region.

Research implications
This study's implications are multifaceted and can potentially influence future ecotourism
researchers and practitioners. The development of the EOI represents an innovative method for
evaluating ecotourism opportunities qualitatively and quantitatively. This study provides a
systematic methodology for researchers and tourism practitioners and illustrates that
ecotourism opportunities can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively, filling a gap in the
existing literature, which depends primarily on qualitative evaluations (Deng et al., 2002, Jafar
and Bozorgnia, 2010, Kumari et al., 2010, Baral et al., 2012, Kim and Eves, 2012, Adeleke,
2015). The EOI introduces a new degree of rigour for visitors and tourism practitioners to
evaluate ecotourism opportunities. It allows them to more accurately compare the ecotourism
destinations and activities compared with the existing coarse-grained evaluation techniques
indicating the potential destinations as good or bad.
In addition, the application of CAS theory to study provides a more comprehensive
understanding of the dynamics that shape ecotourism opportunities. Applying the CAS theory
to the measurement of ecotourism opportunities and index development, this study broadens
the theoretical landscape of the field and may serve as a crucial step for future research
employing this theoretical lens.
This EOI methodology may provide a repeatable model for future research and practical
ecotourism planning and management applications. This study evaluated ecotourism
opportunities and, developed an EOI for Alula, Saudi Arabia, and compared Alula's five
districts. Likewise, by using the EOI, scholars might conduct a comparative analysis of

225
different regions in Saudi Arabia or other nations to comprehend the diversity and potential of
ecotourism opportunities and to discover best practices that can be utilized in various
circumstances.
This study employed CFA to verify the validity and reliability of the constructs produced using
the ECOS-Delphi approach. Its indications of validity and reliability increase the confidence
in the findings of this approach.
This study also applied GIS analysis to consider variables such as proximity, roads, historical
and entertainment sites, vegetation density, and visibility. These variables are crucial for
identifying potential ecotourism destinations. Such analysis helps in understanding how
accessible and attractive a location is for tourists, considering both natural and cultural aspects
(Çetinkaya et al., 2018, Adigana and Setyono, 2019). GIS analysis indicates that Alula, Saudi
Arabia, is a very suitable location for ecotourism. The natural vegetation and the close
proximity to well-connected roads make the area's rich historical sites more aesthetically
pleasing and easily accessible. Alula's attractiveness is further highlighted by the visibility
analysis, which guarantees that the region's distinctive landscapes and cultural sites are not
only visible but also easily accessible. Alula's accessibility, natural beauty, historical
significance, and superior visibility all work together to make it a desirable, sustainable, and
engaging travel destination for ecotourists.
Additionally, in contrast to prior studies, which concentrated on particular dimensions of
ecotourism, this study takes an integrative approach. The EOI considers all dimensions of
ecotourism, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the industry. This larger reach provides
a more inclusive and accurate evaluation of ecotourism opportunities, ensuring that none of the
most important factors are neglected. In conclusion, this study contributes to the ecotourism
sector by presenting a new, more comprehensive methodology and demonstrating the
theoretical approach's applicability. It sets the stage for scientific, multidimensional ecotourism
potential and sustainability assessments, supporting more efficient sector planning and
administration.
Furthermore, the study can serve numerous important purposes, highlighting its significance to
local stakeholders. First and foremost, such an index facilitates the prioritization of
opportunities by emphasizing places with the most significant potential for ecotourism growth
and identifying the places that need improvement, so enabling stakeholders to direct their
efforts towards regions with the highest potential for investment return. For instance, Alula's

226
natural landscapes are valuable assets, like the rock formations such as “elephant rock” in the
desert and the Sharaan Nature Reserve. The EOI can assist in measuring these opportunities’
attractiveness, thereby identifying the potential for ecotours, animal watching, and nature
photography. Equally noteworthy are cultural resources such as the ancient tombs of Hegra
and the Old Town Alula. In this way, the EOI can also measure the potential for educational
tourism, heritage walks, and cultural immersion experiences at these exceptional
archaeological sites. Additionally,
The RCU intends to transform the Alula Oasis into the largest living agricultural museum in
the world. This revolutionary concept is spread throughout the districts of Alula. The results of
EOI provide crucial insights for this endeavour. The EOI measurement, which is based on
factors such as nature, environmental education/protection, sustainability, socio-cultural
benefits, and tourist satisfaction, suggests that Alula's districts have particular strengths, for
instance, "strong potential for nature”. These strengths can be utilised to increase Alula Oasis's
tourist attraction and tourist retention rate. In addition, the index can identify areas for
improvement, such as "socio-cultural engagements," that the RCU may wish to address to fully
achieve the Oasis's potential as a significant ecotourism destination. Additionally, Alula’s
districts with lower EOI scores can use these findings to identify their weaknesses and threats
and to develop strategies that leverage their strengths and opportunities. For instance, districts
with rich historical World Heritage sites, like Hegra, could focus on improving infrastructure
services, health facilities, and planning to conserve nature, significantly contributing to the EOI
score.
The EOI is a comprehensive analysis tool incorporating a destination's current ecotourism
infrastructure. By comprehensively evaluating current ecotourism opportunities, the EOI also
focuses especially on common weaknesses, allowing for the possibility of proactive solutions.
For example, the absence of public transportation in Alula is an essential finding of the SWOT-
ECOS analysis (section Table 3.4). This weakness forces tourists to rely primarily on personal
or private transportation. This trend could worsen traffic congestion, thereby aggravating
environmental issues such as air pollution. In addition, it might entail the increase of parking
facilities that perhaps use more land, and the greater expenditures due to private transportation
can reduce the number of potential tourists in Alula. Consequently, the EOI is a crucial method,
delivering early warning signals highlighting infrastructure and environmental concerns in a
specific area. The RCU has launched employment-generating projects in Alula Oasis,

227
especially in light of its ambitious aim to establish the largest living agricultural museum in the
world. This endeavour will inevitably necessitate a sizable labour force, hence generating
countless employment opportunities for the local residents. Designed to evaluate ecotourism
opportunities across various dimensions, the EOI can play a crucial role in directing these
employment projects. In particular, the socio-cultural benefits aspect of the EOI might shed
light on the tendency and willingness of local citizens to participate in such projects, hence
assisting RCU in strategizing its recruiting processes. Moreover, the environmental
education/protection factor can uncover possible opportunities for fostering and employing
local expertise, such as eco-guiding or traditional agricultural techniques. This means that by
evaluating local skills, knowledge, and preferences through the EOI, the RCU can better align
the employment opportunities of the project with the community's strengths. Initial results from
the EOI may indicate that there is a great deal of opportunity for jobs in eco-guiding,
supervising local farm operations, and crafting goods indicative of traditional farming
processes.
Furthermore, community engagement is vital for the sustainability of ecotourism. For this
reason, RCU's "Hammayah" programme encourages residents to become stewards of Alula's
cultural and natural legacy to boost community engagement in the region. By incorporating
EOI, the RCU can monitor this programme's success by measuring its factors, such as
ecotourism awareness of local residents and local business promotion. It is also a potent
instrument for policy formulation. Understanding the potential of various regions enables
policymakers to develop strategies and policies that promote sustainable tourism. For instance,
EOI can help evaluate potential policies such as “RCU Ambitious to protect nature and
wildlife” enacted to protect local flora and fauna or to guarantee that waste management from
tourist activities is managed effectively. The EOI can also contribute to economic development,
particularly in rural areas and less-known regions. By identifying ecotourism potential, the
index can drive job creation and economic growth, with local communities benefiting from
tourism money through new business options.
EOI can also evaluate the ecotourism opportunities of Alula’s districts and attract visitors by
giving them a clear quantitative indication of these regions. Attracting more visitors can
develop a sustainable local economy by providing the local residents with more business
opportunities and creating more jobs. The index also helps sustainable tourism management by
evaluating the impacts of tourism over time, assisting stakeholders in maintaining sustainable

228
tourist activities, safeguarding the environment and cultural heritage, and contributing to
conservation initiatives. Clear indicators of ecotourism potential indicated by the index can
attract investments from the private and public sectors, pushing improvements to local
infrastructure, services, and attractions. Lastly, developing and implementing an ecotourism
index can serve an educational purpose by educating local communities, tourists, and the
general public about the worth of natural and cultural resources and the significance of their
preservation. This heightened understanding can inspire responsible conduct and foster a sense
of pride and stewardship among local communities, all of which contribute to the success and
sustainability of ecotourism projects as a whole. In a CAS, EOI can also serve as early warning
signals to detect potential future problems in ecotourism destinations and help governments
and private agencies achieve the U.N.’s SDGs 8 and 11.

5.6 Summary of the chapter

This chapter aimed to measure the extent of ecotourism opportunities in Alula and develop an
EOI. The data included 25 SEOIs, and 145 (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats)
variables collected from research questions one and two. The WSM and the EWM were used
to determine the weights of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The Delphi
method also weighted strengths and opportunities, and EOGA was used to determine the
weights for weaknesses and threats. Then, these weights were combined through linear
combination methods to produce the final weights for index development. The index was
constructed by normalizing the variable weights, averaging the variables within each indicator
and indicators within each dimension, and then averaging the scores for each dimension,
producing the EOI score for Alula and its five districts.
The chapter revealed the correlation between Alula's ecotourism opportunities system's
dimensions, indicators, and variables. However, this correlation may vary from strong to
moderate and low depending on the nature of relations between dimensions, indicators and
variables. This strengthened the CAS hypothesis by highlighting the adaptive learning capacity
of system components. The overall EOI score for Alula was determined to be 52.40, with Old
Town Alula having the most significant ecotourism potential. Environmental
education/protection (D2) and infrastructure services (N10) obtained the highest grades in
Alula and its five districts, highlighting their importance to Alula's ecotourism potential.
This study contributes to ecotourism by presenting a rigorous methodology and theoretical
approach. It opens the door for scientific, multidimensional assessments of ecotourism
229
potential and sustainability, supporting more efficient sector planning and administration.
Additionally, the study's findings are crucial for local stakeholders since they enable the
prioritization of opportunities by emphasizing places with the most significant potential for
ecotourism expansion. This allows policymakers to develop sustainable tourist promotion
plans and policies. If used to measure the effects of tourism over time, it can also contribute to
the management of tourism in a sustainable manner. Also, districts with lower EOI scores can
use these findings to identify their weaknesses and threats and to develop strategies that
leverage their strengths and opportunities. For instance, districts with rich historical World
Heritage sites, like Hegra, could focus on improving infrastructure services, practices to
conserve the natural environment and people's health, and planning to conserve nature,
significantly contributing to the EOI score. Ultimately, these efforts would help elevate their
EOI scores and achieve sustainable ecotourism development. This information helps
stakeholders maintain sustainable tourism practices, protect the environment and cultural
heritage, and contribute to conservation initiatives. This research provides a systematic and
comprehensive framework for evaluating and enhancing ecotourism opportunities, which can
significantly assist decision-makers, researchers, and practitioners in the field.

230
6 Summary and conclusion

6.1 Overview
Evaluating ecotourism opportunities is essential for sustainable tourism management.
However, the inherent complexity of the ecotourism system presents considerable challenges.
This complexity arises from ecotourism opportunities' continuous adaptation, diversification,
and interconnectedness. The continuous adaptation makes it difficult to accurately predict
future outcomes, adding another challenge for planners seeking to evaluate these opportunities.
Furthermore, the current approaches to evaluating ecotourism opportunities depend primarily
on qualitative measures and fail to sufficiently capture the system's complexity. These methods
lack a comprehensive understanding of the interconnectedness between local communities,
tourists, and the natural environment. This absence of comprehension regarding the complex
interactions among these stakeholders limits the evaluation of ecotourism opportunities as a
sustainable development strategy. A more systematic and comprehensive approach is needed
to address this complexity. Considering the development of ecotourism opportunities in a
Complex Adaptive System (CAS), this study proposes a systematic method for measuring the
extent of ecotourism opportunities and developing an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI).
Alula, Saudi Arabia, was selected as a case study due to its rapidly expanding ecotourism
opportunities, providing an efficient environment to comprehend the system’s complexity.
Measuring ecotourism opportunities demands a comprehensive methodology that identifies the
ecotourism opportunities in a CAS, confirms the sustainability of these opportunities, and
finally quantifies them to develop EOI. So, three questions have been set for this study as
described in Figure 6.1. The following sections summarise these three questions and their
findings.

231
Figure 6.1. The structure of Chapter 6: Summary and conclusions

6.2 Summary of research question 1

The first question is described as follows:
“What types of ecotourism opportunities coexist in Alula?”
The first question aimed to identify the ecotourism opportunities within a CAS. The ecotourism
opportunities’ complex and adaptive nature challenges the ecotourism opportunities
identification and demands a systematic approach. So, a SWOT-ECOS analysis was conducted
with five ecotourism opportunities dimensions and thirteen criteria. Data were collected for
four SWOT factors (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) under each ECOS model
dimension and criteria from different sources, including visitors and local residents, local
government departments, official websites, geospatial analysis and by different types of
literature reviews. The CAS concepts were studied qualitatively and quantitatively to analyze
the complexity of ecotourism opportunities. For quantitative analysis, weights were assigned
to the identified ecotourism opportunities through the Weight Scoring Method (WSM) and
Entropy Weight Method (EWM), and a linear combination approach was used to combine these
232
methods’ scores. This methodology provided a balanced approach to evaluating ecotourism
opportunities and helped to comprehend the complexity of the ecotourism opportunity system.

The key observations include that the development of ecotourism opportunities occurs in a
CAS due to the influences of external and internal factors. This development leads to an
increase in the number of ecotourism destinations, an improvement in the quality of
experiences, and a wider variety of opportunities for tourists with diverse priorities, as has been
observed in Alula’s ecotourism destination that emerged from an unknown place to a
developing destination, after the influence of Saudi Vision 2030. Alula also reinvigorated its
historical districts, introducing new ecotourism destinations such as Old Town Alula, Dedan,
Jabal Ikmah, Nabataean and Hegra, now offering multiple tourist ecotourism opportunities.

Furthermore, the SWOT-ECOS analysis shows that the destination provides potential
ecotourism opportunities (95 strengths, 15 weaknesses, 25 opportunities and 10 threats) under
five dimensions and thirteen criteria. However, among the five dimensions, the nature
dimension offers more opportunities (13), and strengths (32), while fewer opportunities (2) and
strengths (7) have been observed in the sustainability dimension. The same pattern has been
observed in all other dimensions, such as more opportunities, more strengths, and fewer
opportunities with fewer strengths. This relation provides evidence about the influences of
external factors (opportunities) that can affect the development of internal factors (strengths).
So, it highlights that ecotourism opportunities do not develop alone but are influenced by
external factors.
Wattanacharoensil and Stettler (2019) also revealed the same idea that tourism development in
a destination does not take place in isolation but rather involves numerous tourism-
interdependent components that are influenced by external and internal factors and can have
both positive and negative impacts. So, this research supports Wattanacharoensil and Stettler’s
idea by providing an in-depth analysis of ecotourism opportunities’ interconnected and
adaptive behaviour. However, it also reveals that in addition to interconnected and adaptive
behaviour, the current destination potential (developed, developing, or least developed) of the
ecotourism destinations also decides the level of adaptation in response to internal or external
factors.
Destinations can behave differently depending on each destination's specific circumstances and
characteristics and the extent and nature of the internal and external factors (Baggio, 2008,
Gershenson and Fernández, 2012). For instance, the Saudi Vision 2030 impacted Alula, a
233
developing destination, more than Al-Balad, Jeddah, a developed destination (Royal Embassy
of Saudi Arabia in Rome, 2018, Royal Commission for Alula, 2022). Furthermore, the recent
COVID-19 pandemic has impacted developed destinations (France, Italy, Spain) more severely
than developing (Saudi Arabia) and least-developed locations (Pakistan) (Farzanegan et al.,
2021, Fernández et al., 2022). So, in the case of Alula, where the ecotourism opportunities were
suffering from their obscureness, quick response to external factors such as Vision 2030 was
noted, and the number of ecotourism opportunities increased, as depicted by SWOT-ECOS
analysis.
The development of ecotourism opportunities is due to the self-organization process in Alula
that emerges from a chaotic condition quickly after external and internal factors influence the
destination. So, this study demonstrates the value of applying CAS theory to identifying
ecotourism opportunities, thereby extending the existing methodologies to account for the
complex nature of ecotourism opportunities (Deng et al., 2002, Açıksöz et al., 2016, Cengiz et
al., 2016). Besides, the results demonstrate that the SWOT-ECOS analysis provided a
comprehensive tool for evaluating and comprehending the complex interconnected
opportunities associated with ecotourism. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the SWOT-
ECOS analysis provided a comprehensive tool for evaluating and comprehending the complex
interconnected opportunities associated with ecotourism. So, applying the SWOT-ECOS
analysis is a novel addition to the ecotourism opportunities evaluation research. The
combination of these approaches provides a thorough examination of ecotourism opportunities
and their sustainability by combining internal and external factors, strategic planning, and
expert judgement.

6.3 Summary of research question 2

The second research question was stated as follows:
"Will these opportunities contribute to sustainable tourism?"
The second research question was to identify the Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities
Indicators (SEOIs) and their associated sustainable ecotourism opportunities in Alula, Saudi
Arabia. The research utilized the ECOS model to generate a list of sustainable indicators from
existing literature while their relevant ecotourism opportunities (strengths and weaknesses)
were already complied with in the first question. However, weaknesses and threats are not
included in this sustainability evaluation procedure because these are not currently available in
the destination. Experts reached consensus on these sustainable indicators and their related
234
ecotourism opportunities using the Delphi method. Also, a systems diagram was built to
describe how external or internal factors activate adaptations among the interconnected
dimensions, indicators, and variables, finally influencing Alula's sustainability within the entire
ecotourism opportunities system.
The analysis revealed a complex network of interconnected 25 SEOIs and 120 variables
developed under the five ecotourism opportunities dimensions, including nature,
environmental education/protection, sustainability, sociocultural benefits, and tourists'
satisfaction. Here, interconnections show that there is a direct relation between dimensions,
indicators and variables: changes in one likely affect the other (Zahra and Ryan, 2007, Baggio,
2008). As observed in the systems diagram, Saudi Vision 2030 influenced the sustainable
indicator of long-term economic growth more strongly than water (N15) more strongly than
other indicators. This has stimulated long-term planning (V74), establishing initiatives such as
developing RCU to promote sustainable ecotourism opportunities in Alula. And this initiative
impacted all the other ecotourism opportunities dimensions and their connected indicators and
variables. So, there is a direct interconnection between dimensions, indicators and variables.
However, in an indirect link, Vision 2030 has also affected some other variables; such as for
long-term planning, the RCU was established to promote sustainable ecotourism in Alula. RCU
has started many initiatives such as protecting threatened species such as the “Arabian
Leopard” they developed the “Sharan nature reserve”. Also, to promote the natural heritage
and to advertise it to the world, they started the “Name a Rock competition” (Royal
Commission for Alula, 2020, Vision 2030, 2023). So, protecting threatened species or
promoting natural heritage is not a direct part of Vision 2030. However, it has affected these
variables that are essential for sustainable ecotourism promotion.
Besides, the distribution of indicators among ecotourism opportunities dimensions shows the
multi-dimensional nature of sustainable ecotourism and corresponds with studies suggesting a
comprehensive approach to developing sustainable ecotourism indicators (Ashok et al., 2017,
Ocampo et al., 2018). The fact that 120 sustainable ecotourism opportunities have been found
in relation to the SEOIs shows that each sustainability indicator cannot work in isolation.
Instead, each indicator develops with multiple opportunities, creating an interconnected
sustainability network. This finding is again observed in the systems diagram analysis where
changes in one indicator may have cascading impacts on other indicators and variables due to
external and internal influences such as Saudi Vision 2030, inspiration from Petra, Jordan,

235
COVID-19, and changing patterns of the global economy from oil to more sustainable sources.
These findings contributed to previous ecotourism studies that did not account for the inherent
complexity of the ecotourism opportunities system when evaluating sustainable ecotourism
indicators (Barzekar et al., 2011, Lee and Hsieh, 2016, Ashok et al., 2017). This question also
contributes to assessing the ECOS-Delphi approach's applicability and generalizability in the
broader contexts of the ecotourism field and enhances the utility of these methods for the
sustainability evaluation of ecotourism.

6.4 Summary of research question 3

The third research question elaborated as follows:
How can ecotourism opportunities be evaluated to develop an index for assessing
potential destinations?
This study's third research question aimed to measure the extent of ecotourism opportunities in
Alula and developed an Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI). Utilized data comprised 25
SEOIs and 145 variables (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) gathered from two
previous research questions. Among these variables, sustainable ecotourism opportunities (95
strengths and 25 opportunities) were input as positive factors, whereas 15 weaknesses and 10
threats were negative factors subtracted during index calculation. The weights for 145 variables
were obtained using the WSM and the EWM. However, strengths and opportunities were once
again weighted based on a Delphi method, whereas weaknesses and threats were determined
and weighted using an Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis (EOGA). The linear
combination method then combined the scores for positive and negative factors. The
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to test the validity and reliability of
hypothesised constructs developed through the ECOS-Delphi approach. The EOI score for
Alula and its five districts was derived by normalizing the variable weights, averaging the
variables within each indicator and indicators within each dimension, and then averaging the
scores of each dimension.
Significant critical findings of the study include the existence of a complex correlation between
the ecotourism opportunities dimensions, indicators, and variables of the ecotourism
opportunities system of Alula. Here, the correlation in ecotourism opportunities relates to the
statistical relationships between different dimensions, variables and indicators without
necessarily indicating a direct connection (Brown, 2006, Baral et al., 2012). For example, when
two variables are correlated, it indicates that they tend to change in the same way, although one
236
variable does not always affect the other. For instance, in CFA results, the factor loading values
in Figure 5.8 show the strength of correlation between dimensions and indicators from
moderate to strong, Whereas, "Environmental protection awareness among local communities
(N7)" has a factor loading of 0.5. This suggests a moderate positive correlation with the
dimension “Environmental education/protection”, meaning as environmental protection
awareness among local communities increases, the environmental education/protection level
also increases. However, it does not mean that just the increase in environmental protection
awareness among local communities is the direct cause of the improved environmental
education/protection. Some other indicators, such as environmental education (N8) and
infrastructural Services (N10), also play their role in improving the environmental
education/protection dimension. So, both types of relationships exist, such as interconnections
(found in the second question) and variables. However, the intensity of these relations can
fluctuate from strong to moderate or even weak due to the unique learning capability of each
variable, indicator, and dimension towards external factors, hence introducing unpredictability
into the overall ecotourism opportunities system.
External influences, such as the Saudi Vision 2030, the global energy shift to sustainable
sources of COVID-19, and inspirations from well-known sites such as Petra and Jordan, have
influenced various ecotourism opportunity dimensions. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the
disparate influence distribution across five ecotourism opportunity dimensions. However, the
closure of international borders due to a pandemic significantly impacted the tourist satisfaction
dimension most strongly (Zhang et al., 2021, UNWTO, 2022).
The other dimensions, such as nature, environmental education and protection, sustainability,
and socio-cultural benefits, exhibited significant resilience. These findings are consistent with
the ideas of CAS, in which system components continuously adapt and learn from their
environment, resulting in unpredictable consequences (Baggio, 2008, Wattanacharoensil and
Stettler, 2019).
This study contributed to these ideas by analysing the unique adaptive capacity of the system
components through CFA, such as dimensions, indicators, and variables, where the correlation
between dimensions, indicators, and variables also varies, such as in Figure 5.12, indicator
“N22” has a strong correlation with variable “V97” with a factor loading value 0.81. In contrast,
“N22” has a moderate correlation with “V96” with a factor loading value of 0.4. So, it adds an
additional degree of complexity to our knowledge of ecotourism systems. Consequently, this

237
unequal distribution of relations is evidence of the inherent, variable adaptive capacities of
different ecotourism opportunity dimensions, indicators, and variables. Therefore, the different
adaptive capacities and continued evolution of diverse opportunities, even in the face of a
global health crisis, demonstrate ecotourism's dynamic, adaptive nature and its capacity to
achieve sustainable goals in accordance with initiatives such as Saudi Vision 2030.
This chapter proposed a novel method for developing the Ecotourism Opportunity Index (EOI),
a tool for evaluating potential ecotourism destinations. This innovative methodology
substantially improves current comprehension of ecotourism opportunities' complex and
multidimensional nature and provides a systematic framework for evaluating them through the
SWOT-ECOS analysis. The robustness of the EOI is increased by incorporating sustainable
indicators and their related sustainable opportunities through the Delphi approach. This
combination provides a full evaluation of ecotourism potential across multiple dimensions,
hence boosting the probability of obtaining sustainable outcomes. In addition, creating an
innovative EOI provides a rigorous tool for evaluating potential opportunities. These
methodological developments expand ecotourism evaluations' breadth, adaptability, and
empirical underpinning, building a solid platform for future study and implementation in
sustainable tourism. Figure 6.2 shows the summary of the findings of three research questions.

238
Figure 6.2. The summary of the three research questions’ findings

239
6.5 The main implications of the study
The research findings on ecotourism opportunities in Alula can contribute to future ecotourism
development in the region and other areas in several ways:

Contributions to Local Stakeholders and Global Organizations:

1. Prioritizing Opportunities: EOI can assist local stakeholders in identifying and
prioritising ecotourism destinations' potential. The prioritizing can provide weak or
robust opportunities by which the destinations may enhance their economic and
environmental benefits while improving their sustainability in line with the United
Nations' sustainable development goals if the stakeholders concentrate their efforts and
resources on these areas (United Nations, 2020). Local organizations such as Royal
Commission for Aula (RCU) might rate Alula's attractions, such as natural and
environmental opportunities, based on their ecotourism potential by using the EOI. This
enables RCU to effectively prioritize its conservation and promotion efforts, ensuring
that high-potential locations receive the necessary focus and resources. The analysis
may also offer measures to improve each site's EOI score. For instance, if a location
has a poor score for accessibility, the RCU may investigate options for enhancing
transportation connectivity to that site. If a site receives a low score for community
participation, the RCU could implement programs to encourage community
participation in ecotourism activities. In this way, this index can help to develop
sustainable ecotourism opportunities in the destination.
2. Collaboration and Information Sharing: Understanding Alula's ecotourism
opportunities' potential and interconnected and adaptable nature helps develop a culture
of collaboration and information exchange among stakeholders. This can involve
multiple organizations, from local, such as RCU, to global, like UNWTO and
UNESCO, resulting in more coordinated and successful sustainable tourism
management activities. Alula’s potential ecotourism opportunities have already helped
build collaboration between RCU and other international organizations. For instance,
the RCU signed an agreement with the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(Saudi ICOMOS) to protect and promote local heritage (Royal Commission for Alula,
2020, Experiencealula, 2021). RCU and UNESCO also announced a partnership to
conserve Saudi Arabia's historical heritage sites in Alula (UNESCO, 2008, Royal

240
 Commission for Alula, 2020, Experiencealula, 2021). The RCU may also engage with
local community members to develop educational programs regarding Alula's legacy
and biodiversity as part of a potential collaborative effort. If collaboration and
information sharing are not adequately supported, there may be a lack of knowledge
and consensus on ecotourism management, resulting in potential conflicts or underuse
of resources.
3. Sustainable Tourism Policies and Strategies: The research provides a reasonable
basis, such as Sustainable Ecotourism Opportunities Indicators (SEOIs), for
establishing policies and strategies that encourage sustainable ecotourism
opportunities. By understanding their interconnections and interdependencies,
stakeholders may employ SEOIs effectively. This comprehension offers a
comprehensive approach to ecotourism sustainability. For instance, a decision to
improve one indicator, such as biodiversity conservation, must consider its effects on
others, such as local community participation or tourist satisfaction. To address these
complex relationships amongst SEOIs, stakeholders may apply multi-criteria decision-
making frameworks, systems thinking, or integrated assessment techniques. Rather
than focusing on particular indicators in isolation, such tools provide a balanced
approach that promotes the overall sustainability of ecotourism. Using these findings,
policymakers can create legislation and recommendations that promote ecotourism
while safeguarding natural and cultural resources. This can result in long-term
advantages for local residents, the tourism industry, and the global environment. For
instance, the findings could use the RCU to build a strategy for the sustainable
management of tourist flows to the ancient tombs of Hegra or other historical or cultural
sites, assuring their preservation for future generations. Without such laws, unrestrained
tourism could destroy or degrade historic sites and natural ecosystems.
4. Capacity Building and Education: The study underlines the significance of
environmental education and awareness in ecotourism. Destinations like Alula can
develop a sense of duty and stewardship by increasing awareness among local
communities, tourists, and the broader public on the importance of natural and cultural
resources and their preservation. This can contribute to the overall success of
ecotourism programs by enhancing the visitor experience and promoting sustainable
behaviour. Using the findings of this study, an educational project might be established

241
 to teach community members about tour guiding, sharing local folklore, and managing
guest amenities. There is a risk of disengagement and lost possibilities for local
economic growth if local communities are uneducated or inactive.
5. Sustainable Development Goals: The research's comprehensive methodology
corresponds with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United
Nations, 2020). By merging the ideas of sustainability, economic development, and
environmental preservation, this study helps the advancement of Sustainable
Development Goals, notably Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and Goal
11 (Protect the Planet from Climate Change) (Sustainable Cities and Communities)
(United Nations, 2020). The RCU can inspire more sustainable practices in the region
by demonstrating how ecotourism can help local job creation and income generation
while conserving Alula's legacy. If local actions do not coincide with sustainable aims,
environmental and cultural preservation may be lost for economic development.

Contributions to scholars and policymakers in the ecotourism field:

1. Replicability and adaptability of EOI: The research methodology and framework
developed for analyzing Alula's ecotourism opportunities can serve as a model for other
destinations. By considering the interdependence of multiple variables, including
quantitative and qualitative measurements, and addressing the adaptability of
ecotourism systems, other regions could adapt and use comparable methodologies to
analyze and develop their own ecotourism potential. The EOI could serve as a template
for stakeholders in other locations of Saudi Arabia (such as Shaybah Wildlife Refuge,
the island of Jabal Hassan, and so on) to evaluate the potential ecotourism sites. If the
EOI is not adaptive, it may not capture the distinctive qualities of various regions,
resulting in poor ecotourism development initiatives.
2. Theoretical contribution: This study makes substantial theoretical contributions to
sustainable tourism. It uses the CAS theory and the SWOT-ECOS analysis to develop
an EOI, thereby boosting the knowledge of the dynamic nature of ecotourism
opportunities. This method offers a novel approach, identifying ecotourism
opportunities as a CAS. In addition, the study bridges the gap between theory and
practice by providing stakeholders with a helpful tool, the EOI, to evaluate ecotourism

242
 destinations, thereby enhancing theoretical knowledge and building a framework for
future research in this subject.
3. Heritage Preservation Policy Insights: The outcomes of this study highlight the
relationship between cultural and natural heritage protection and ecotourism
development in Alula. It can guide future policy decisions that strive to strike a balance
between tourist attractions and natural, cultural, historical and environmental
preservation, not only for Alula but also for other sites around the globe. Using the data
of this research, RCU might develop regulations to protect the ancient tombs of Hegra
and the distinctive rock formations of the Lihyan Kingdom from the effects of tourism.
These irreplaceable materials could be lost or harmed if preserving the past is not a
priority.
4. Contribution to Socio-economic Development Literature: This study indicates that
ecotourism can encourage socioeconomic development. This adds to the current
scholarly discussion on the role of ecotourism in community development and poverty
alleviation. This research could assist RCU in comprehending how to balance tourist
demand with sustainable practices, helping to create local jobs and income. Without
such insights, there is a risk of missing out on economic opportunities or overusing
resources, which might be detrimental to long-term sustainability.
5. Promotion of Interdisciplinary Research: This research's interdisciplinary nature,
which bridges environmental science, economics, cultural studies, and politics,
promotes a more integrated approach to ecotourism studies. This motivates future
scholars to adopt a multidisciplinary perspective, thereby expanding ecotourism
research in new directions. This study could motivate RCU to evaluate the economic
benefits of ecotourism and the environmental, cultural, and social consequences.
Without a multidisciplinary approach, there is a risk of overlooking essential aspects,
resulting in an unbalanced plan that may be less long-lasting or advantageous.
The research provides valuable insights and tools that can influence the future development of
ecotourism in Alula and serve as a benchmark for other locations. It contributes to the
development of ecotourism in a way that benefits local communities, tourists, and the
environment by promoting sustainability, collaboration, and informed decision-making.

243
6.6 Limitations of the research
It is essential to note the research limits to guide future studies and put the results in context.
Here are the limitations of this study:
1. Geographical specificity: Geographic specificity is the foremost limitation of this
investigation. The EOI, which was developed using a case study of Alula, Saudi Arabia,
looks at the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of multiple Alula districts.
However, different destinations offer different types of opportunities depending on the
geographical features. For instance, the arid climate of Alula contrasts significantly with
the humid conditions of Mt. Rigi, Switzerland (Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019,
Royal Commission for Alula, 2020). Consequently, the findings and conclusions of this
study, mostly based on Alula's data, may not be applicable generically to sites with
diverse geographical characteristics. This restriction could impact the understanding and
growth of ecotourism opportunities in varied geographic situations.
2. Sample size: In this study, 110 experts participated in a Delphi method, and their results
were applied to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Due to the limited sample size,
the research may lack statistical power. Consequently, the results may not accurately
represent the total Alula population, and it may be challenging to identify the full scope
of ecotourism opportunities.
3. Lack of longitudinal data: The study focuses on collecting data at a specific time
during this research. As ecotourism opportunities are complex and adaptive, this may
induce new variables in the system. So, the collected data is limited to this research and
cannot be used over an extended period to evaluate ecotourism opportunities. This data
should be regularly updated over time to make it more applicable in future studies.
4. Self-report bias: Self-report bias is a limitation of surveys in which respondents may
not provide completely accurate or honest responses (Johnson and Fendrich, 2005,
Ezzati et al., 2006). As with many other surveys, there is a possibility of self-report bias
in this study, which can affect the validity of the results.
5. Cultural bias in responses: The respondents' responses may have been influenced by
the cultural norms and societal expectations prevalent in Alula, potentially introducing
bias and impacting the accuracy of the results.
6. Limited validation of the EOI: The limitation of this study relates to the research's
ability to validate the EOI. Although the EOI is a significant innovation, its applicability

244
 and efficacy may be limited in varied geographical and cultural contexts. This drawback
stems from the fact that the EOI has not been rigorously validated or tested in many
environments outside the scope of this study. Therefore, care should be taken while
applying the EOI in such contexts since its accuracy and applicability may vary.
Additional research and validation activities are required to improve the robustness and
generalizability of the EOI across various geographic and cultural contexts.
7. Limitations in identifying ecotourism opportunities: A limitation of this study is the
challenge of capturing all the variables linked with ecotourism opportunities.
Ecotourism is a complicated and interconnected concept whose components might vary
between regions and circumstances. Due to the adaptable and varied nature of the
phenomenon, it is difficult to identify and integrate all relevant variables in the index
produced for this study. Consequently, it is possible that certain variables pertaining to
ecotourism prospects were neglected or missed during the construction of the index.
This constraint may affect the index's comprehensiveness or exhaustiveness, as it may
not capture all ecotourism prospects in a specific region.
8. Limitations in weighing the variables: In this study, the variables' weights were also
determined using the Weight Scoring Method (WSM) and the Entropy Weight Method
(EWM). Both the WSM and EWM have limits that must be taken into account. These
include subjectivity in weighting assignment, a potential lack of data-driven
methodology, insufficient evaluation of interdependencies between variables, the
sensitivity of input data, and a limited scope of research (Fang et al., 2017, Kumar et al.,
2021). Consequently, these weights can also reduce the efficacy of EOI.
9. Limitations of quantitative approaches: It is likely that the quantitative research
approach does not capture the entire complexity of human-environment interactions and
subjective impressions associated with ecotourism opportunities.
10. Insufficient emphasis on the policy and regulatory environment: While the study
presents policy recommendations, it could not present a deep analysis of Alula's existing
policy and regulatory framework and its impact on ecotourism development.
11. Addressing heteroscedasticity and non-linear relationships: The handling of
heteroscedasticity and non-linear correlations within the high-dimensional data is also
one of the limitations of this study. Although the study offers insightful information, the

245
 intricacy of multidimensional data may have impacted the accuracy of the results,
possibly impacting interpretations of the correlations between the variables.
The worth of this research work is not diminished by acknowledging these limits. Instead, it
assists in outlining areas for future research and provides more context for research findings.

6.7 Future Directions

Certainly, this research is an ideal starting point for additional inquiries into ecotourism
opportunities. Here are some potential future research directions that scholars may like to
examine.
1. Comparative evaluation of ecotourism opportunities: This study evaluated
ecotourism opportunities and developed an EOI for Alula, Saudi Arabia, as well as
compared Alula's five districts. Likewise, scholars might conduct a comparative
analysis of different regions in Saudi Arabia or other nations to comprehend the
diversity and potential of ecotourism opportunities and to discover best practices that
can be utilized in various circumstances.
2. Longitudinal ecotourism development study: The development of an EOI gives a
quantitative measure of ecotourism potential. Future research can use this index as a
starting point to study ecotourism's long-term effects and sustainability. By looking at
how the development of ecotourism has changed over time, researchers can give
policymakers and practitioners evidence-based suggestions for ensuring that growth is
sustainable and minimises negative effects on local communities and environments.
3. Dynamic ecotourism suitability assessment: The use of fixed thresholds in
ecotourism suitability analysis emphasises the necessity of dynamic modelling in
subsequent studies. Extending the boundaries to incorporate diverse environmental
factors and stakeholder viewpoints might enhance the precision and relevance of
evaluations related to ecotourism. Using dynamic models will help researchers better
understand how ecotourism is evolving, which would be a significant advancement in
improving research techniques.
4. Comprehending influencing factors on ecotourism opportunities: Future research
should focus on explaining the complexities of ecotourism opportunities by analysing
the external and internal factors identified in this study. Researchers can fully
understand the complexities surrounding the development of ecotourism opportunities
within destinations by delving deeper into these issues. Besides, examining the effects
246
 of these factors on the growth of ecotourism potential can give policymakers,
destination managers, and other stakeholders significant information. Such in-depth
investigations of these factors will increase researchers' understanding of ecotourism
potential and inform future ecotourism development plans and decision-making
processes.
5. Ecotourism opportunity index modification: To improve the applicability and
reliability of the EOI, future research should examine modifying and expanding the
index to account for the broad array of ecotourism opportunities found in various
destinations. By including more destination-specific opportunities, the EOI can reflect
each site's distinctive qualities and potential more accurately. This development of the
index will help to a more comprehensive understanding of ecotourism opportunities
and permit more precise comparisons across varied destinations.
6. Study on ecotourism opportunities dimensions: In this study, the index development
approach included five dimensions: nature, environmental education/protection,
sustainability, sociocultural benefits, and tourist satisfaction. However, future
ecotourism evaluation studies may adopt a more targeted strategy by studying certain
dimensions and their associated opportunities in full detail. By performing in-depth
analyses of particular dimensions, researchers can acquire a more nuanced view of each
dimension's strengths, weaknesses, and potential for growth. This targeted analysis can
provide helpful insights for refining ecotourism practices and optimising results in areas
such as nature conservation, environmental education, sociocultural participation, and
visitor satisfaction. Such a targeted evaluation strategy can help develop and the
efficacy of ecotourism efforts and methods, resulting in more sustainable and
significant consequences.
7. Assessing policy's impact on ecotourism opportunities: This study found that “Saudi
Vision 2030” strongly impacts ecotourism opportunities development in Alula, Saudi
Arabia. Scholars may investigate some other types of policies that affect ecotourism
opportunities and the success of ecotourism endeavours, such as “Master Plan Rigi
2016” for Mt. Rigi Switzerland (Wattanacharoensil and Stettler, 2019).
8. Technology's contribution to enhanced ecotourism opportunities: The EOI was
developed to evaluate potential ecotourism destinations. In the future, researchers can
use this index to evaluate potential ecotourism destinations and then use the latest

247
 technology (like augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR), Internet of Things (IoT),
and artificial intelligence (AI)) to promote and advertise these ecotourism
opportunities, since many industries are going through a digital transformation. For,
instance, EOI can help to develop the database of potential ecotourism destinations that
can be used by these emerging technologies to promote the ecotourism destinations and
attract visitors.
9. Ecotourism marketing strategies: Considering worldwide visitor patterns and
consumer behaviour, additional research can investigate marketing and communication
strategies that effectively promote ecotourism opportunities. Using the findings of the
EOI or ecotourism opportunities evaluations, researchers can build novel ways of
marketing destinations that captivate and engage target audiences. This
multidisciplinary approach, combining the evaluation of ecotourism potential with
successful marketing techniques, can promote sustainable tourism growth and
contribute to preserving natural and cultural resources.
10. Ecotourism and the conservation of heritage: In the future, researchers can look into
how ecotourism helps to preserve and develop heritage, promote local heritage, and
improve the experience of visitors. By combining the results of the Ecotourism
Opportunities Index or evaluations of ecotourism opportunities, researchers can find
strategies that fit with regional culture, get visitors interested, and promote sustainable
tourism practices while protecting heritage. This research linkage will help to make
ecotourism more sustainable, improve visitors' cultural experiences, and help local
communities.
11. Ecotourism's effects on biodiversity: Given the close relationship between
ecotourism and biodiversity, using the EOI, future research might evaluate the influence
of ecotourism opportunities on local biodiversity and ecosystem health, resulting in
better management techniques.
12. Enhancing data analysis in ecotourism research: Additionally, this study also
suggests that logarithmic transformations could be explored to stabilise
heteroscedasticity and linearize non-linear interactions, and principal component
analysis (PCA) be used to reduce dimensionality if there is multicollinearity present.
Exploring these techniques may make the evaluation process more concise and
increase the findings' application in ecotourism settings.

248
 13. Enhancing ecotourism research with big data and advanced technologies: Future
research should make use of big data analytics to obtain timely insights into the interests
of tourists, including social media and blogs. Furthermore, deepening researchers’
awareness of local ecotourism trends through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and
hyperspectral remote sensing would make studies more thorough and timely.

Each of these possible directions for future research builds on the work already done and thus
could give academics new ways to investigate the interesting growth of ecotourism
opportunities.

249
Bibliography
ABBAS, J., MUBEEN, R., IOREMBER, P. T., RAZA, S. & MAMIRKULOVA, G. 2021. Exploring the impact
of COVID-19 on tourism: Transformational potential and implications for a sustainable recovery of the
travel and leisure industry. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, p.100033.
ABEL, T. 2003. Understanding complex human ecosystems: The case of ecotourism on Bonaire. Conservation
Ecology, 7(3), p.10.
ABOU-ELNOUR, A., PALLATHUCHERIL, V. & ABOU-ELNOUR, A. Site suitability evaluation for
ecotourism potential areas using RS and GIS: A case study of Wadi Wurayah, Fujairah, UAE. Remote
Sensing and Modeling of Ecosystems for Sustainability XII, 4 September 2015 San Diego, USA.
International Society for Optics and Photonics, 961002.
ABUHJEELEH, M. 2019. Rethinking tourism in Saudi Arabia: Royal vision 2030 perspective. African Journal
of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(5), p.1-16.
AÇıKSÖZ, S., CIFTCIOGLU, G. C., UZUN, O., NEMUTLU, F. E. & ILKE, E. F. 2016. Linkages among
ecotourism, landscape and natural resource management, and livelihood diversification in the region of
Sugla Lake, Turkey. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 23(1), p.15-
27.
AÇIKSÖZ, S., GÖRMÜŞ, S. & KARADENIZ 2010. Determination of ecotourism potential in national parks:
Kure mountains national park, Kastamonu-Bartin, Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research
5(8), p.589-599.
ADELEKE, B. O. 2015. Assessment of residents’ attitude towards ecotourism in KwaZulu-Natal protected areas.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(3), p.316-328.
ADIGANA, M. & SETYONO, J. S. 2019. Ecotourism site suitability using GIS and AHP: A case study of
Ngargoyoso district in Karanganyar Regency. International Journal of Industrial Engineering
Computations, 4(8), p.1893-1898.
AH-KENG, K. 1993. Evaluating the attractiveness of a new theme park: A cross-cultural comparison. Tourism
Management, 14(3), p.202-210.
AHMAD, S. M. T., HAQUE, S. & KHAN, P. S. 2014. Privacy preserving in data mining by normalization.
International Journal of Computer Applications, 96(6), p.0975–8887.
AHMADI SANI, N., BABAIE KAFAKY, S., PUKKALA, T. & MATAJI, A. 2016. Integrated use of GIS, remote
sensing and multi-criteria decision analysis to assess ecological land suitability in multi-functional
forestry. Journal of Forestry Research, 27(5), p.1127-1135.
AKBARIAN, S. R., ROSHAN, G. H. R. & NEGAHBAN, S. 2016. Assessment of tourism climate opportunities
and threats for villages located in the Northern Coasts of Iran. International Journal of Environmental
Research, 10(4), p.601-612.
AL-JOHANY, A. 2007. Distribution and conservation of the Arabian Leopard Panthera pardus nimr in Saudi
Arabia. Journal of Arid Environments, 68(1), p.20-30.
AL-SUHAIBANI, A. & AL-THEEB, S. 2022. New Dadanite inscription from Al-ʼUla: Saudi Arabia. Abgadiyat,
16(16), p.120-127.
AL-TOKHAIS, A. & THAPA, B. 2020. Management issues and challenges of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in
Saudi Arabia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(1), p.103-110.
AL‐NASIF, A. 1981. Al‐'Ula (Saudi Arabia): a report on a historical and archaeological survey. British Journal
of Middle Eastern Studies, 8(1), p.30-32.
AL NAJDAWI, B. M., KHALEEFAH, Q. Q., SHATNAWI, H. S. & AL MOMANI, E. M. 2017. Measuring local
tourists' perceptions in Petra city as one of seven wonders of world. Journal of Environmental
Management & Tourism, 8(2), p.427-435.
AL SHALABI, L. & SHAABAN, Z. Normalization as a preprocessing engine for data mining and the approach
of preference matrix. International conference on dependability of computer systems, 25-27 May 2006
Szklarska Poreba, Poland. IEEE, 207-214.
ALAHMADI, A., BUTLER, G. & SZILI, G. 2022. Tourism development at the Al-Hijr Archaeological Site,
Saudi Arabia: SME sentiments and emerging concerns. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 17(5), p.533-547.
ALEXOVA, D. I. 2019. Sustainable Development of Cultural Tourism on Example of Botevgrad Municipality:
A Model for Local Tourist Development. In: AKKUCUK, U. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Creating
Sustainable Value in the Global Economy. Pennsylvania, USA: IGI Global.
ALHADDI, H. 2015. Triple bottom line and sustainability: A literature review. Business and Management
Studies, 1(2), p.6-10.
ALHASANAT, S. & HYASAT, A. S. 2010. Sociocultural impacts of tourism on the local community at Petra,
Jordan. European Journal of Scientific Research, 44(3), p.374-386.
250
ALIZADEH-ZOERAM, A. & AGHAJANI, H. 2019. Identifying ecotourism potentials using dematel-gis hybrid
approach. A case study of Mashhad urban area, Iran. Journal of Environmental Management and
Tourism, 10(2), p.385-395.
ALKIRE, S. & FOSTER, J. E. 2010. Designing the inequality-adjusted human development index. Oxford
Poverty & Human Development Initiative, 37(2), p.1-24.
ALLISON, W. 1996. Snorkeler damage to reef corals in the Maldive Islands. Journal of Coral Reef Studies, 15(4),
p.215-218.
ALRAWAIBAH, A., EXELL, K. & RICO, T. 2014. Archaeological site management in the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia: Protection or isolation. In: EXELL, K. & RICO, T. (eds.) Cultural heritage in the Arabian
Peninsula: Debates, discourses, practices. London,UK: Taylor & Francis Group.
ALRWAJFAH, M. M., ALMEIDA-GARCÍA, F. & CORTÉS-MACÍAS, R. 2020. Females' perspectives on
tourism's impact and their employment in the sector: The case of Petra, Jordan. Tourism Management,
78, p.104069.
AMAGOH, F. 2008. Perspectives on organizational change: Systems and complexity theories. The Public Sector
Innovation Journal, 13(3), p.1-14.
AMIR, A. F., ABD GHAPAR, A., JAMAL, S. A. & AHMAD, K. N. 2015. Sustainable tourism development: A
study on community resilience for rural tourism in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
168, p.116-122.
AMMIRATO, S., LINZALONE, R. & FELICETTI, A. M. 2022. The value of system dynamics' diagrams for
business model innovation. Management Decision, 60(4), p.1056-1075.
AMRAN, Y. A., AMRAN, Y. M., ALYOUSEF, R. & ALABDULJABBAR, H. 2020. Renewable and sustainable
energy production in Saudi Arabia according to Saudi Vision 2030; Current status and future prospects.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, p.119602.
ANSARI, A. A., SIDDIQUI, Z. H., ALATAWI, F. A., ALHARBI, B. M. & ALOTAIBI, A. S. 2022. An
Assessment of Biodiversity in Tabuk Region of Saudi Arabia: A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability,
14(17), p.10564.
ANTONY, G. M. & RAO, K. V. 2007. A composite index to explain variations in poverty, health, nutritional
status and standard of living: Use of multivariate statistical methods. Public Health, 121(8), p.578-587.
ARCHER, B., COOPER, C. & RUHANEN, L. 2005. The positive and negative impacts of tourism. In:
THEOBALD, W. F. (ed.) Global Tourism. Burlington, USA: Butterworth Heinemann.
ARCHER, B., COOPER, C. & RUHANEN, L. 2012. The positive and negative impacts of tourism. In:
THEOBALD, W. F. (ed.) Global Tourism. UK: Routledge.
ARMENSKI, T., DWYER, L. & PAVLUKOVIĆ, V. 2018. Destination competitiveness: Public and private sector
tourism management in Serbia. Journal of Travel Research, 57(3), p.384-398.
AROMATARIS, E. & PEARSON, A. 2014. The systematic review: An overview. The American Journal of
Nursing, 114(3), p.53-58.
AROMATARIS, E. & RIITANO, D. 2014. Systematic reviews: Constructing a search strategy and searching for
evidence. The American Journal of Nursing, 114(5), p.49-56.
AROWOSHEGBE, A. O., EMMANUEL, U. & GINA, A. 2016. Sustainability and triple bottom line: An
overview of two interrelated concepts. Igbinedion University Journal of Accounting, 2(16), p.88-126.
ARSIĆ, S., NIKOLIĆ, D. & ŽIVKOVIĆ, Ž. 2017. Hybrid SWOT-ANP-FANP model for prioritization strategies
of sustainable development of ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia. Forest Policy and
Economics, 80, p.11-26.
ARYAL, C. & MAHARJAN, K. K. 2018. Assessment of ecotourism potential of Koshi Tappu wildlife reserve,
Eastern Nepal. Journal of Tourism and Adventure, 1(1), p.48-67.
ASHAMU, E. 2011. Centre for minority rights development (Kenya) and minority rights group international on
behalf of Endorois Welfare Council Kenya: A landmark decision from the African Commission. Journal
of African Law, 55(2), p.300-313.
ASHOK, S., TEWARI, H., BEHERA, M. & MAJUMDAR, A. 2017. Development of ecotourism sustainability
assessment framework employing Delphi, C&I and participatory methods: A case study of KBR, West
Sikkim, India. Tourism Management Perspectives, 21, p.24-41.
ASMELASH, A. G. & KUMAR, S. 2019. Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating
sustainability indicators. Tourism Management, 71, p.67-83.
ASMELASH, A. G. & KUMAR, S. 2020. Tourist satisfaction-loyalty nexus in Tigrai, Ethiopia: Implication for
sustainable tourism development. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), p.1836750.
AZIZI, M., DANEHKAR, A. & SHABAN, H. 2012. Determination of indicators and standards for tourism
impacts in protected Karaj River, Iran. Tourism Management, 33(1), p.61-63.

251
BADAMPUDI, D., WOHLIN, C. & PETERSEN, K. Experiences from using snowballing and database searches
in systematic literature studies. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and
Assessment in Software Engineering, April 27-29 2015 Nanjing, China. 1-10.
BAER, S. M. & ERNEUX, T. 1986. Singular hopf bifurcation to relaxation oscillations. SIAM Journal on Applied
Mathematics, 46(5), p.721-739.
BAGGIO, R. 2008. Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system. Tourism Analysis, 13(1), p.1-32.
BAGGIO, R. & SAINAGHI, R. 2011. Complex and chaotic tourism systems: towards a quantitative approach.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(6), p.840-861.
BAGGIO, R. & SAINAGHI, R. 2016. Mapping time series into networks as a tool to assess the complex dynamics
of tourism systems. Tourism Management, 54, p.23-33.
BAGGIO, R., SCOTT, N. & COOPER, C. 2010a. Improving tourism destination governance: A complexity
science approach. Tourism Review, 65(4), p.51-60.
BAGGIO, R., SCOTT, N. & COOPER, C. 2010b. Network science: A review focused on tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(3), p.802-827.
BAGHERI, M., SULAIMAN, W. N. A. & VAGHEFI, N. 2013. Application of geographic information system
technique and analytical hierarchy process model for land-use suitability analysis on Coastal Area.
Journal of Coastal Conservation, 17, p.1-10.
BALLANTYNE, R. & PACKER, J. 2011. Using tourism free‐choice learning experiences to promote
environmentally sustainable behaviour: The role of post‐visit ‘action resources’. Environmental
Education Research, 17(2), p.201-215.
BALLANTYNE, R., PACKER, J. & SUTHERLAND, L. A. 2011. Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism:
Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management, 32(4), p.770-
779.
BAOUALI, R., BAZIZ, A. & HADJIEDJ, A. 2019. Comparative competitiveness indicators, which ranking for
the Algerian tourism? Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites, 24(1), p.133-145.
BARAL, N. 2015. Assessing the temporal stability of the ecotourism evaluation scale: Testing the role and value
of replication studies as a reliable management tool. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(2), p.280-293.
BARAL, N., STERN, M. J. & HAMMETT, A. 2012. Developing a scale for evaluating ecotourism by visitors: A
study in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(7), p.975-989.
BARKAUSKIENE, K. & SNIESKA, V. 2013. Ecotourism as an integral part of sustainable tourism development.
Economics and Management, 18(3), p.449-456.
BARZEKAR, G., AZIZ, A., MARIAPAN, M. & ISMAIL, M. H. 2011. Delphi technique for generating criteria
and indicators in monitoring ecotourism sustainability in Northern forests of Iran: Case study on Dohezar
and Sehezar Watersheds. Folia Forestalia Polonica, 53(2), p.130–141.
BATTA, R. N. 2006. Evaluating ecotourism in mountain areas: A study of three Himalayan destinations.
International Review for Environmental Strategies, 6(1), p.41-62.
BAY, M. A. 2014. Adobe fabric and the future of heritage tourism: A case study analysis of the old historical city
of Alula, Saudi Arabia. Master of Science dissertation, University of Colorado at Denver.
BEEDASY, J. & WHYATT, D. 1999. Diverting the tourists: A spatial decision-support system for tourism
planning on a developing island. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, 1(3-4), p.163-174.
BEGO, F. & MALLTEZI, J. 2011. Ecotourism opportunities and challenges in Butrint, Albania, a unique
UNESCO and Ramsar site. Journal of Coastal Research, 61, p.150-157.
BEIRMAN, D. 2020. Restoring tourism destinations in crisis: A strategic marketing approach, London, UK,
Routledge.
BELL, C. & RUHANEN, L. 2016. The diffusion and adoption of eco-innovations amongst tourism businesses:
The role of the social system. Tourism Recreation Research, 41(3), p.291-301.
BENEDICT, R. 2019. Patterns of culture, London, UK, Routledge.
BERKMAN, L. F., GLASS, T., BRISSETTE, I. & SEEMAN, T. E. 2000. From social integration to health:
Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science Medicine, 51(6), p.843-857.
BESCULIDES, A., LEE, M. E. & MCCORMICK, P. J. 2002. Residents' perceptions of the cultural benefits of
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), p.303-319.
BEYENE, B. 2016. Review on ecotourism opportunities and the challenges for natural resource management in
Ethiopia. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Sports, 21, p.28-35.
BHUIYAN, M. A. H., SIWAR, C. & ISMAIL, S. M. 2016. Sustainability measurement for ecotourism destination
in Malaysia: A study on Lake Kenyir, Terengganu. Social Indicators Research, 128(3), p.1029-1045.
BLAMEY, R. K. 1997. Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
5(2), p.109-130.
252
BLAMEY, R. K. 2001. Principles of ecotourism. In: WEAVER, D. B. (ed.) The encyclopedia of ecotourism. New
York: CABI.
BLANCAS, F. J., LOZANO-OYOLA, M., GONZÁLEZ, M. & CABALLERO, R. 2018. A dynamic sustainable
tourism evaluation using multiple benchmarks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, p.1190-1203.
BLASCO LÓPEZ, M. F., NURIA RECUERO, V., JOAQUIN ALDAS, M. & GARCIA-MADARIAGA, J. 2018.
Tourism sustainability in archaeological sites. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and
Sustainable Development, 8(3), p.276-292.
BOAVIDA-PORTUGAL, I., ROCHA, J. & FERREIRA, C. C. 2016. Exploring the impacts of future tourism
development on land use/cover changes. Applied Geography, 77, p.82-91.
BORG, D. 2017. The development of cultural heritage in Gozo, and its potential as a tourism niche. International
Journal of Tourism Cities, 3(2), p.184-195.
BOUKAS, N. & ZIAKAS, V. 2014. A chaos theory perspective of destination crisis and sustainable tourism
development in islands: the case of Cyprus. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(2), p.191-209.
BOWEN, D. & CLARKE, J. 2002. Reflections on tourist satisfaction research: Past, present and future. Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), p.297-308.
BOWLES, L. & RUHANEN, L. 2018. Disseminating environmental ethics and values: A study of ecotourism
business owners. Tourism Review, 73(2), p.252-261.
BOYD, S. W. & BUTLER, R. W. 1996. Managing ecotourism: An opportunity spectrum approach. Tourism
Management, 17(8), p.557-566.
BRAMWELL, B. & LANE, B. 2011. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4-5), p.411-421.
BRIASSOULIS, H. & VAN DER STRAATEN, J. 2013. Tourism and the environment: Regional, economic,
cultural and policy issues, Dordrecht, Netherland, Springer Dordrecht.
BROCK, W. A. 1990. Chaos and complexity in economic and financial science. In: FURSTENBERG, G. M. (ed.)
Acting under uncertainty: Multidisciplinary conceptions. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer
Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
BROWN, T. A. 2006. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, New York, USA, Guilford Press.
BUCKLEY, R. 1994. A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), p.661-669.
BUCKLEY, R. 2004. Environmental impacts of ecotourism, Cambridge, USA, CABI publishing.
BUCKLEY, R. 2009. Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment
and future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), p.643-672.
BUCKLEY, R. 2012. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), p.528-546.
BUCKLEY, R. 2013. Defining ecotourism: Consensus on core, disagreement on detail. In: BALLANTYNE, R.
& PACKER, J. (eds.) International handbook on ecotourism. Northampton,UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
BUCKLEY, W. 2017. Society as a complex adaptive system. In: BUCKLEY, W. (ed.) Systems Research for
Behavioral Science. New York, USA: Routledge.
BUHALIS, D. 2000. Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), p.97-116.
BUNN, D. W. 1985. Statistical efficiency in the linear combination of forecasts. International Journal of
Forecasting, 1(2), p.151-163.
BUNRUAMKAEW, K., MURAYAM, Y. & SCIENCES, B. 2011. Site suitability evaluation for ecotourism using
GIS & AHP: A case study of Surat Thani province, Thailand. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences,,
21, p.269-278.
BURKART, A. J. & MEDLIK, S. 1981. Tourism: past, present and future, London, UK, William Heinemann
Ltd.
BURNES, B. 2005. Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 7(2), p.73-90.
BYRNE, B. M. 2016. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming,
New York, USA, Routledge.
BYRNE, D. 1998. Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction, London, UK, Routledge.
CABRAL, C. & DHAR, R. L. 2020. Ecotourism research in India: From an integrative literature review to a future
research framework. Journal of Ecotourism, 19(1), p.23-49.
CABRERIZO, F. J., ALONSO, S., HERRERA-VIEDMA, E. & HERRERA, F. 2010. q2-Index: Quantitative and
qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. Journal of
Informetrics, 4(1), p.23-28.
CALDERWOOD, L. U. & SOSHKIN, M. 2019. The travel and tourism competitiveness report 2019. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

253
CAMARDA, D. & GRASSINI, L. 2003. Environmental impacts of tourism. International Centre for Advanced
Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, 57, p.263-270.
CAMBEL, A. B. 1993. Applied chaos theory: A paradigm for complexity, San Diego, USA, Academic Press Inc.
CAMPRUBÍ, R. & COROMINA, L. 2016. Content analysis in tourism research. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 18, p.134-140.
CANG, S. 2014. A comparative analysis of three types of tourism demand forecasting models: Individual, linear
combination and non‐linear combination. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(6), p.596-607.
CAO, L., LUO, J., GALLAGHER, A., JIN, X., HAN, J. & HUANG, T. S. Aworldwide tourism recommendation
system based on geotaggedweb photos. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing, 14-19 March 2010 Dallas, TX, USA. IEEE, 2274-2277.
CAPRA, F. 1996. The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter, London, UK, HarperCollins Publishers.
CASTELLANI, V. & SALA, S. 2010. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tourism
Management, 31(6), p.871-880.
CATELL, R. B. 1978. The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences, New York, USA,
Plenum Press.
CENGIZ, A., AYHAN, C. & TIMUR, U. P. 2016. Method for determination of the potential for ecotourism in
the Canakkale wars gallipoli historical area (Canakkale, Turkey). Oxidation Communications, 39(1-II),
p.641-660.
ÇETINKAYA, C., KABAK, M., ERBAŞ, M. & ÖZCEYLAN, E. 2018. Evaluation of ecotourism sites: A GIS-
based multi-criteria decision analysis. Kybernetes, 47(8), p.1664-1686.
CHALASTANI, V. I., MANETOS, P., AL-SUWAILEM, A. M., HALE, J. A., VIJAYAN, A. P., PAGANO, J.,
WILLIAMSON, I., HENSHAW, S. D., ALBASEET, R. & BUTT, F. 2020. Reconciling tourism
development and conservation outcomes through marine spatial planning for a Saudi Giga-Project in the
Red Sea (The Red Sea Project, Vision 2030). Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, p.168.
CHÁVEZ-CORTÉS, M. & MAYA, J. A. A. 2010. Identifying and structuring values to guide the choice of
sustainability indicators for tourism development. Sustainability, 2(9), p.3074-3099.
CHEN, C. 2006. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific
literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), p.359-377.
CHEN, C. 2014. The citespace manual. College of Computing and Informatics, 1(1), p.1-84.
CHEN, H. S. 2015. The establishment and application of environment sustainability evaluation indicators for
ecotourism environments. Sustainability, 7(4), p.4727-4746.
CHENG, Q., SU, B. & TAN, J. 2013. Developing an evaluation index system for low-carbon tourist attractions
in China- A case study examining the Xixi wetland. Tourism Management, 36, p.314-320.
CHIU, Y.-T. H., LEE, W.-I. & CHEN, T.-H. 2014. Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism:
Antecedents and implications. Tourism Management, 40, p.321-329.
CHOU, J.-R. 2013. A weighted linear combination ranking technique for multi-criteria decision analysis. South
African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 16(5), p.28-41.
CILLARI, T., FALAUTANO, M., CASTRIOTA, L., MARINO, V., VIVONA, P. & ANDALORO, F. 2012. The
use of bottom longline on soft bottoms: An opportunity of development for fishing tourism along a
coastal area of the Strait of Sicily (Mediterranean Sea). Ocean & Coastal Management, 55, p.20-26.
CLARK, R. N. & STANKEY, G. H. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning,
management, and research, General Technical Report PNW-98, Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, USA.
COCHRAN, W. G. 1954. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10(1), p.101-
129.
COCHRANE, J. 2010. The sphere of tourism resilience. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), p.173-185.
COCOLA-GANT, A. & GAGO, A. 2021. Airbnb, buy-to-let investment and tourism-driven displacement: A case
study in Lisbon. Environment and Planning A Economy and Space, 53(7), p.1671-1688.
CODERRE, T. J., FUNDYTUS, M. E., MCKENNA, J. E., DALAL, S. & MELZACK, R. 1993. The formalin
test: A validation of the weighted-scores method of behavioural pain rating. Pain, 54(1), p.43-50.
COLE, S. 2006. Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of sustainable
tourism, 14(6), p.629-644.
COMFORT, L. K. 1994. Self-organization in complex systems. Journal of Public Administration Research
Theory, 4(3), p.393-410.
CONTE, R., GILBERT, N., BONELLI, G., CIOFFI-REVILLA, C., DEFFUANT, G., KERTESZ, J., LORETO,
V., MOAT, S., NADAL, J.-P. & SANCHEZ, A. 2012. Manifesto of computational social science. The
European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214, p.325-346.

254
COOKE-DAVIES, T., CICMIL, S., CRAWFORD, L. & RICHARDSON, K. 2007. We're not in Kansas anymore,
Toto: Mapping the strange landscape of complexity theory, and its relationship to project management.
Project Management Journal, 38(2), p.50-61.
CORIA, J. & CALFUCURA, E. 2012. Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good,
the bad, and the ugly. Ecological Economics, 73, p.47-55.
COROS, M. M., GICA, O. A., YALLOP, A. C. & MOISESCU, O. I. 2017. Innovative and sustainable tourism
strategies: A viable alternative for Romania's economic development. Worldwide Hospitality and
Tourism Themes, 9(5), p.504-515.
COSMA, S. A. 2012. Measurement tourism performance of urban destinations. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Research, 12(1), p.50-60.
COTTRELL, S. P., VASKE, J. J. & ROEMER, J. M. 2013. Resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism: The
case of Frankenwald Nature Park, Germany. Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, p.42-48.
COWBURN, B., MORITZ, C., BIRRELL, C., GRIMSDITCH, G. & ABDULLA, A. 2018. Can luxury and
environmental sustainability co-exist? Assessing the environmental impact of resort tourism on coral
reefs in the Maldives. Ocean & Coastal Management, 158, p.120-127.
CROCE, V. 2016. Can tourism confidence index improve tourism demand forecasts? Journal of Tourism Futures,
2(1), p.6-21.
CROUCH, G. I. & RITCHIE, J. B. 1999. Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business
Research, 44(3), p.137-152.
CUI, L. 2012. Applying fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to evaluate quality in crisis and emergency
management. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 41(21), p.3942-3959.
CULLEY, J. M. 2011. Use of a computer-mediated Delphi process to validate a mass casualty conceptual model.
Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 29(5), p.272–279.
CUSICK, J., MCCLURE, B. & COX, L. 2010. Representations of ecotourism in the Hawaiian Islands: A content
analysis of local media. Journal of Ecotourism, 9(1), p.21-35.
DAJANI, J. S., SINCOFF, M. Z. & TALLEY, W. K. 1979. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of
Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 13(1), p.83-90.
DARCY, S. 2010. Inherent complexity: Disability, accessible tourism and accommodation information
preferences. Tourism Management, 31(6), p.816-826.
DE BOT, K. 2017. Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory. In: ORTEGA, L. & HAN, A. Z. (eds.)
Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
DE LOE, R. C. 1995. Exploring complex policy questions using the policy Delphi: A multi-round, interactive
survey method. Applied Geography, 15(1), p.53-68.
DELGADO, A. & ROMERO, I. 2016. Environmental conflict analysis using an integrated grey clustering and
entropy-weight method: A case study of a mining project in Peru. Environmental Modelling & Software,
77, p.108-121.
DELLA CORTE, V. & ARIA, M. 2016. Competition and sustainable competitive advantage. The case of tourist
destinations. Tourism Management, 54, p.524-540.
DENG, F., FANG, Y., XU, L. & LI, Z. 2020. Tourism, transportation and low-carbon city system coupling
coordination degree: A case study in Chongqing Municipality, China. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), p.792.
DENG, J., KING, B. & BAUER, T. 2002. Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
29(2), p.422-438.
DIAMANTIS, D. 1999. The concept of ecotourism: Evolution and trends. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2-3), p.93-
122.
DIAMOND, I. R., GRANT, R. C., FELDMAN, B. M., PENCHARZ, P. B., LING, S. C., MOORE, A. M. &
WALES, P. W. 2014. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for
reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), p.401-409.
DIEBOLD, F. X. & LOPEZ, J. A. 1996. 8 Forecast evaluation and combination. Handbook of Statistics, 14, p.241-
268.
DIMOLIATIS, I., VASILAKI, E., ANASTASSOPOULOS, P., IOANNIDIS, J. & ROFF, S. 2010. Validation of
the Greek translation of the Dundee ready education environment measure (DREEM). Education for
Health, 23(1), p.348-348.
DINATALE, S., LEWIS, R. & PARKER, R. 2018. Short-term rentals in small cities in Oregon: Impacts and
regulations. Land Use Policy, 79, p.407-423.
DO, Y., KIM, S.-B., KIM, J. Y. & JOO, G.-J. 2015. Wetland-based tourism in South Korea: who, when, and why.
Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23(4), p.779-787.
255
DOBROVOLNY, J. L. & FUENTES, S. C. G. 2008. Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: A tool to decide
which to use. Performance Improvement, 47(4), p.7-14.
DONOHOE, H. M. 2011. Defining culturally sensitive ecotourism: A Delphi consensus. Current Issues In
Tourism, 14(1), p.27-45.
DONOHOE, H. M. & NEEDHAM, R. D. 2006. Ecotourism: The evolving contemporary definition. Journal of
Ecotourism, 5(3), p.192-210.
DORAN, R., HANSS, D. & LARSEN, S. 2015. Attitudes, efficacy beliefs, and willingness to pay for
environmental protection when travelling. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), p.281-292.
DURO, J. A., PEREZ-LABORDA, A., TURRION-PRATS, J. & FERNÁNDEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, M. 2021. Covid-
19 and tourism vulnerability. Tourism Management Perspectives, 38, p.100819.
DWYER, L. 2022. Tourism economics and policy. In: BUHALIS, D. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Tourism Management
and Marketing. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
DWYER, L., DRAGIĆEVIĆ, V., ARMENSKI, T., MIHALIČ, T. & KNEŽEVIĆ CVELBAR, L. 2016. Achieving
destination competitiveness: an importance–performance analysis of Serbia. Current Issues in Tourism,
19(13), p.1309-1336.
DWYER, L. & EDWARDS, D. 2009. Tourism product and service innovation to avoid ‘strategic drift’.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(4), p.321-335.
DWYER, L., EDWARDS, D., MISTILIS, N., ROMAN, C. & SCOTT, N. 2009. Destination and enterprise
management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30(1), p.63-74.
EDENSOR, T. 2000. Staging tourism: Tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), p.322-344.
EDGELL, D. L., ALLEN, M. D., SMITH, G. & SWANSON, J. 2008. Tourism policy and planning: Yesterday,
today, and tomorrow, Amsterdam,Holland, Routledge.
ELKINGTON, J. & ROWLANDS, I. H. 1999. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business. Alternatives Journal, 25(4), p.42-43.
EMANCIPATOR, K. & KROLL, M. H. 1993. A quantitative measure of nonlinearity. Clinical chemistry, 39(5),
p.766-772.
ESTOL, J. & FONT, X. 2016. European tourism policy: Its evolution and structure. Tourism Management, 52,
p.230-241.
EVERITT, B. S. 1975. Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 126(3), p.237-240.
EXPERIENCEALULA. 2021. Adventure trail in Alula [Online]. Available:
https://www.experiencealula.com/en/plan-your-trip/what-to-do/adventure-trail [Accessed 28 November
2021].
EZZATI, M., MARTIN, H., SKJOLD, S., HOORN, S. V. & MURRAY, C. J. 2006. Trends in national and state-
level obesity in the USA after correction for self-report bias: analysis of health surveys. Journal of the
Royal Society of Medicine, 99(5), p.250-257.
FABAC, R. & ZVER, I. 2011. Applying the modified SWOT–AHP method to the tourism of Gornje Međimurje.
Tourism and Hospitality Management, 17(2), p.201-215.
FAGGINI, M. & PARZIALE, A. 2016. More than 20 years of chaos in economics. Mind&Society, 15, p.53-69.
FANG, R., SHANG, R., WANG, Y. & GUO, X. 2017. Identification of vulnerable lines in power grids with wind
power integration based on a weighted entropy analysis method. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 42(31), p.20269-20276.
FANG, W. T., LIEN, C. Y., HUANG, Y. W., HAN, G. S., SHYU, G. S., CHOU, J. Y. & NG, E. 2018.
Environmental literacy on ecotourism: A study on student knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intentions
in China and Taiwan. Sustainability, 10(6), p.1-22.
FANG YAN, YIN, J. & WU, B. 2018. Climate change and tourism: A scientometric analysis using CiteSpace.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), p.108-126.
FARAZMAND, A. 2003. Chaos and transformation theories: A theoretical analysis with implications for
organization theory and public management. Public Organization Review, 3(4), p.339-372.
FARRELL, B. & TWINING-WARD, L. 2005. Seven steps towards sustainability: Tourism in the context of new
knowledge. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(2), p.109-122.
FARRELL, B. H. & TWINING-WARD, L. 2004. Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2),
p.274-295.
FARSARI, I., BUTLER, R. W. & SZIVAS, E. 2011. Complexity in tourism policies: A cognitive mapping
approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), p.1110-1134.
FARZANEGAN, M. R., GHOLIPOUR, H. F., FEIZI, M., NUNKOO, R. & ANDARGOLI, A. E. 2021.
International tourism and outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19): A cross-country analysis. Journal of
Travel Research, 60(3), p.687-692.
256
FAULKNER, B. & RUSSELL, R. 1997. Chaos and complexity in tourism: In search of a new perspective. Pacific
Tourism Review, 1(2), p.93-102.
FAULKNER, B. & RUSSELL, R. 2001. Turbulence, chaos and complexity in tourism systems: A research
direction for the new millennium. In: FAULKNER, B. M., G.; LAWS, E. (ed.) Tourism in the twenty-
first century: reflections on experience.
FAULKNER, B. & RUSSELL, R. 2003. Chaos and complexity in tourism: In search of a new perspective. In:
FAULKNER, B. (ed.) Progressing Tourism Research. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.
FEČIKOVÁ, I. 2004. An index method for measurement of customer satisfaction. The TQM Magazine, 16(1),
p.57-66.
FEI, N., GAO, Y., LU, Z. & XIANG, T. Z-score normalization, hubness, and few-shot learning. Proceedings of
the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, October 11-17 2021 Online. 142-151.
FENG, H., CHEN, X., HECK, P. & MIAO, H. 2014. An entropy-perspective study on the sustainable development
potential of tourism destination ecosystem in Dunhuang, China. Sustainability, 6(12), p.8980-9006.
FENNELL, D. A. 2001. A content analysis of ecotourism definitions. Current Issues in Tourism, 4(5), p.403-421.
FENNELL, D. A. 2007. Ecotourism, London, UK, Routledge.
FENNELL, D. A. 2021. Routledge Handbook of Ecotourism, Abingdon, UK, Routledge.
FERNÁNDEZ, J. A. S., MARTÍNEZ, J. M. G. & MARTÍN, J. M. M. 2022. An analysis of the competitiveness
of the tourism industry in a context of economic recovery following the COVID19 pandemic.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, p.121301.
FETSCHERIN, M. & STEPHANO, R.-M. 2016. The medical tourism index: Scale development and validation.
Tourism Management, 52, p.539-556.
FOLKE, C., CARPENTER, S., WALKER, B., SCHEFFER, M., ELMQVIST, T., GUNDERSON, L. &
HOLLING, C. S. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), p.557-581.
FOLKE, C., COLDING, J. & BERKES, F. 2003. Synthesis: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-
ecological systems. In: FIKRET BERKES, J. C., CARL FOLKE (ed.) Navigating social-ecological
systems: Building resilience for complexity change.
FOLKE, C., HAHN, T., OLSSON, P. & NORBERG, J. 2005. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Annual Review Environment and Resources, 30, p.441-473.
FORAN, B., LENZEN, M., DEY, C. & BILEK, M. 2005. Integrating sustainable chain management with triple
bottom line accounting. Ecological Economics, 52(2), p.143-157.
FOTIADIS, A., POLYZOS, S. & HUAN, T.-C. T. 2021. The good, the bad and the ugly on COVID-19 tourism
recovery. Annals of Tourism Research, 87, p.103117.
FRIEDMAN, L. & KOMOGORTSEV, O. V. 2019. Assessment of the effectiveness of seven biometric feature
normalization techniques. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 14(10), p.2528-
2536.
FULLER, D., BUULTJENS, J. & CUMMINGS, E. 2005. Ecotourism and indigenous micro-enterprise formation
in northern Australia opportunities and constraints. Tourism Management, 26(6), p.891-904.
GALLEGO, J., MARGOTTINI, C., SPIZZICHINO, D., BOLDINI, D. & ABUL, J. 2022. Geomorphological
processes and rock slope instabilities affecting the AlUla archaeological region. In: RENATO
LANCELLOTTA, C. V., ALESSANDRO FLORA, FILOMENA DE SILVA, LUCIA MELE (ed.)
Geotechnical Engineering for the Preservation of Monuments and Historic Sites III. London, UK: CRC
Press.
GANGLMAIR-WOOLISCROFT, A. & WOOLISCROFT, B. 2016. Diffusion of innovation: The case of ethical
tourism behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), p.2711-2720.
GANJALI, S. 2014. Environmental and strategic assessment of ecotourism potential in Anzali Wetland using
SWOT analysis. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 12(1), p.155-165.
GÂRBEA, R. V. 2014. Tourist attractiveness of the urban environment in Moldavia. Management & Marketing-
Craiova, 12(1), p.84-90.
GARCÍA-MELÓN, M., GÓMEZ-NAVARRO, T. & ACUÑA-DUTRA, S. 2012. A combined ANP-Delphi
approach to evaluate sustainable tourism. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34, p.41-50.
GARE, A. 2000. Systems theory and complexity: Introduction. Democracy & Nature, 6(3), p.327-339.
GELL-MANN, M. 1992. Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In: BENNETT, C. H. & HAWKINS, J. A.
(eds.) The Evolution of Human Languages. Calfornia, USA: U.S. Department of Energy.
GEORGE, R. 2010. Visitor perceptions of crime-safety and attitudes towards risk: The case of Table Mountain
National Park, Cape Town. Tourism Management, 31(6), p.806-815.
GERSHENSON, C. & FERNÁNDEZ, N. 2012. Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self‐
organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity, 18(2), p.29-44.
257
GHORBANI, A., RAUFIRAD, V., RAFIAANI, P. & AZADI, H. 2015. Ecotourism sustainable development
strategies using SWOT and QSPM model: A case study of Kaji Namakzar Wetland, South Khorasan
Province, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, p.290-297.
GHOSH, T. & MANDAL, S. 2019. Medical Tourism Experience: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and
Validation. Journal of Travel Research, 58(8), p.1288-1301.
GIANNAROU, L. & ZERVAS, E. 2014. Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. International
Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 9(2), p.65-82.
GIGNAC, G. E., PALMER, B. R., MANOCHA, R. & STOUGH, C. 2005. An examination of the factor structure
of the Schutte self-report emotional intelligence (SSREI) scale via confirmatory factor analysis.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), p.1029-1042.
GIGOVIĆ, L., PAMUČAR, D., LUKIĆ, D. & MARKOVIĆ, S. 2016. GIS-Fuzzy DEMATEL MCDA model for
the evaluation of the sites for ecotourism development: A case study of “Dunavski ključ” region, Serbia.
Land use policy, 58, p.348-365.
GONZÁLEZ, A. T. 2018. Venice: The problem of overtourism and the impact of cruises. Journal of Regional
Research, 42, p.35-51.
GOODWIN, H. 1996. In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity & Conservation, 5(3), p.277-291.
GOODWIN, H. 2017. The challenge of overtourism. Responsible Tourism Partnership, 4, p.1-19.
GOODWIN, H. & SANTILLI, R. 2009. Community-based tourism: A success. Responsible Tourism, 11(1), p.37.
GÖSSLING, S. 1999. Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological
Economics, 29(2), p.303-320.
GRAND, S. & WOLFF, K. 2020. Assessing Saudi Vision 2030: A 2020 Review. Atlantic Council, Washington
DC, USA.
GREEN, D. & LAVESSON, N. 2019. Chaos theory and artificial intelligence may provide insights on disability
outcomes. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 61(10), p.1120.
GREEN, H., HUNTER, C. & MOORE, B. 1990. Application of the Delphi technique in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 17(2), p.270-279.
GREENSPOON, P. J. & SAKLOFSKE, D. H. 1998. Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional
students’ life satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), p.965-971.
GROS‐BALTHAZARD, M., BATTESTI, V., FLOWERS, J. M., FERRAND, S., BREIL, M., IVORRA, S.,
TERRAL, J. F., PURUGGANAN, M. D., WING, R. A. & MOHAMMED, N. 2023. What lies behind a
fruit crop variety name? A case study of the barnī date palm from al‐‘Ulā oasis, Saudi Arabia. Plants,
People, Planet, 5(1), p.82-97.
GUILLEN, T. & HUGO, A. 1998. Sustainability of ecotourism and traditional agricultural practices in Chiapas,
México. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
GULTEKIN, P. & UZUN, O. 2019. Ecological, Cultural and Participation (ECP) method for the development of
ecotourism planning and management strategies: Example of Ugursuyu and Aksu Basins. European
Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1), p.409-409.
HALL, C. M. 2009. Degrowing tourism: Décroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism.
Anatolia, 20(1), p.46-61.
HALL, C. M. 2019. Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology
of sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(7), p.1044-1060.
HALL, C. M., GÖSSLING, S. & SCOTT, D. 2015. Tourism and sustainability: An introduction. In: C. MICHAEL
HALL, GOSSLING, S. & SCOTT, D. (eds.) The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability.
Abingdon,UK: Routledge.
HALL, C. M. & JENKINS, J. 2004. Tourism and public policy. In: ALAN, A., LEW, C., HALL, M. &
WILLIAMS, A. M. (eds.) A companion to tourism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
HALL, C. M. & LEW, A. A. 2009. Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach,
London, UK, Routledge.
HAN, H., AL-ANSI, A., OLYA, H. G. & KIM, W. 2019. Exploring halal-friendly destination attributes in South
Korea: Perceptions and behaviors of Muslim travelers toward a Non-Muslim destination. Tourism
Management, 71, p.151-164.
HARDY, A., BEETON, R. J. & PEARSON, L. 2002. Sustainable tourism: An overview of the concept and its
position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(6), p.475-496.
HARGROVE, C. M. 2012. Heritage tourism. In: SEBA, J. (ed.) Tourism and Hospitality. New York, USA: Apple
Academic Press.
HARIRI-RIFAI, W. & HARIRI-RIFAI, M. 1990. The heritage of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Washington,
USA, GDG Publications.

258
HARTMAN, S. 2016. Towards adaptive tourism areas? A complexity perspective to examine the conditions for
adaptive capacity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(2), p.299-314.
HARTMAN, S. 2020. Adaptive tourism areas in times of change. Annals of Tourism Research, 87, p.102987.
HARTMAN, S. 2021. Destination governance in times of change: A complex adaptive systems perspective to
improve tourism destination development. Journal of Tourism Futures, 9(2), p.267-278.
HASHEMI, N. & GHAFFARY, G. 2017. A proposed Sustainable Rural Development Index (SRDI): Lessons
from Hajij village, Iran. Tourism Management, 59, p.130-138.
HASSAN, S. S. 2000. Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism
industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), p.239-245.
HEIKO, A. 2012. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality
assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), p.1525-1536.
HERRERA-FRANCO, G., MONTALVÁN-BURBANO, N., CARRIÓN-MERO, P., APOLO-MASACHE, B. &
JAYA-MONTALVO, M. 2020. Research trends in geotourism: A bibliometric analysis using the scopus
database. Geosciences, 10(10), p.1-29.
HEYLIGHEN, F. 2001. The science of self-organization and adaptivity. The Encyclopedia of Life Support
Systems.
HIGGINS-DESBIOLLES, F. 2006. More than an “industry”: The forgotten power of tourism as a social force.
Tourism Management, 27(6), p.1192-1208.
HIGGINS-DESBIOLLES, F. 2010. The elusiveness of sustainability in tourism: The culture-ideology of
consumerism and its implications. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10(2), p.116-129.
HIGGINS-DESBIOLLES, F. 2020. The “war over tourism”: challenges to sustainable tourism in the tourism
academy after COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(4), p.551-569.
HIGHAM, J. E. 2007. Critical issues in ecotourism: Understanding a complex tourism phenomenon, Oxford, UK,
Routledge.
HILL, D. R. 2000. Health problems in a large cohort of Americans traveling to developing countries. Journal of
Travel Medicine, 7(5), p.259-266.
HIRT, J., NORDHAUSEN, T., APPENZELLER-HERZOG, C. & EWALD, H. 2020. Using citation tracking for
systematic literature searching-study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a
Delphi study. F1000Research, 9, p.1386.
HOLDEN, A. 2016. Environment and tourism, New York, USA, Routledge.
HOLDEN, L. M. 2005. Complex adaptive systems: Concept analysis. Journal of advanced nursing, 52(6), p.651-
657.
HOLLAND, J. H. 1992. Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), p.17-30.
HOLLINSHEAD, K. 2004. Tourism and new sense. In: HALL, M. C. & TUCKER, H. (eds.) Tourism and
Postcolonialism: Contested Discourses, Identities and Representations. London: Routledge.
HOLLOWAY, J. C. & HUMPHREYS, C. 2022. The business of tourism, London, UK, Sage.
HONEY, M. 1999. Ecotourism and sustainable development. Who owns paradise?, Washington, DC,USA, Island
Press.
HOSSEINALIPOUR, S. M., TOHIDI, A., MASHAEI, P. R. & MUJUMDAR, A. S. 2014. Experimental
investigation of mixing in a novel continuous chaotic mixer. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
31, p.1757-1765.
HOSSEINI, K., STEFANIEC, A. & HOSSEINI, S. P. 2021. World Heritage Sites in developing countries:
Assessing impacts and handling complexities toward sustainable tourism. Journal of Destination
Marketing Management, 20, p.100616.
HSIAO, J. P.-H., JAW, C., HUAN, T.-C. & WOODSIDE, A. G. 2015. Applying complexity theory to solve
hospitality contrarian case conundrums: Illuminating happy-low and unhappy-high performing frontline
service employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(4), p.608-647.
HSIAO, T. Y. 2016. Developing a dual-perspective low-carbon tourism evaluation index system for travel
agencies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(12), p.1604-1623.
HSU, C. H., WOLFE, K. & KANG, S. K. 2004. Image assessment for a destination with limited comparative
advantages. Tourism Management, 25(1), p.121-126.
HUANG, C. & CONFER, J. 2009. Applying the Tourism Opportunity Spectrum model in nature-based tourism
management. Managing Leisure, 14(4), p.247-257.
HUANG, S., MING, B., HUANG, Q., LENG, G. & HOU, B. 2017. A case study on a combination NDVI
forecasting model based on the entropy weight method. Water Resources Management, 31, p.3667-3681.
HULTMAN, M., KAZEMINIA, A. & GHASEMI, V. 2015. Intention to visit and willingness to pay premium for
ecotourism: The impact of attitude, materialism, and motivation. Journal of Business Research, 68(9),
p.1854-1861.
259
HUNTER, C. 1997. Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), p.850-867.
IANDOLO, F., FULCO, I., BASSANO, C. & D’AMORE, R. 2019. Managing a tourism destination as a viable
complex system. The case of Arbatax Park. Land Use Policy, 84, p.21-30.
IBRAHIM, A. O., BASHIR, F. M., OJOBO, H., DODO, Y. A., ABDULMUMIN, I. & CHRISTIAN, O. I. 2021.
Opting for enriching Saudi Arabia’s tourism attraction sites towards the Realization of Vision 2030.
International Journal on Innovations, 20(5), p.4101-4114.
ISMAIL, F., IMRAN, A., KHAN, N. & QURESHI, M. I. 2021. Past, present and future of ecotourism, a
systematic literature review from last decade. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(4), p.1-13.
JACKSON, S. E., JOSHI, A. & ERHARDT, N. L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity:
SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), p.801-830.
JACOBSON, S. K. & ROBLES, R. 1992. Ecotourism, sustainable development, and conservation education:
Development of a tour guide training program in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Environmental Management,
16(6), p.701-713.
JACQUIER, E., KANE, A. & MARCUS, A. J. 2003. Geometric or arithmetic mean: A reconsideration. Financial
Analysts Journal, 59(6), p.46-53.
JADHAV, A. & SONAR, R. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), weighted scoring method (WSM), and hybrid
knowledge based system (HKBS) for software selection: A comparative study. Second International
Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology, 16-18 December 2009 Nagpur, India.
IEEE, 991-997.
JAFAR, O. & BOZORGNIA, D. 2010. Evaluating the ecotourism potentials of Naharkhoran Area in Gorgan
using remote sensing and geographic information system. Earth Resources and Environmental Remote
Sensing/GIS Applications. Toulouse, France: SPIE Remote Sensing.
JAKULIN, T. J. 2017. Systems approach to tourism: A methodology for defining complex tourism system.
Organizacija, 50(3), p.208-215.
JERE JAKULIN, T. 2017. Systems approach to tourism: A methodology for defining complex tourism system.
Organizacija, 50(3), p.208-215.
JESSON, J., MATHESON, L. & LACEY, F. M. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic
techniques, London, UK, SAGE.
JET, J. 2018. How is overtourism impacting travel to popular destinations? [Online]. Available:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnyjet/2018/08/20/how-is-overtourism-impacting-travel-to-popular-
destinations/#8d0d23e35b84 [Accessed 31 August 2020].
JOHNSON, T. & FENDRICH, M. 2005. Modeling sources of self-report bias in a survey of drug use
epidemiology. Annals of Epidemiology, 15(5), p.381-389.
JOSEPH, S. & KULKARNI, A. V. 2020. Creating Sustainable Contribution to the Environment: Case Studies
From MSMEs in Pune. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD),
11(4), p.1-14.
JOVICIC, D. Z. 2016. Key issues in the conceptualization of tourism destinations. Tourism Geographies, 18(4),
p.445-457.
JUN, S., KIM, M. & LEE, J. 2011. The system diagrams: Shifting perspectives. Design Issues, 27(2), p.72-89.
JÜNGER, S., PAYNE, S. A., BRINE, J., RADBRUCH, L. & BREARLEY, S. G. 2017. Guidance on Conducting
and Reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological
systematic review. Palliative Medicine, 31(8), p.684-706.
KAPLAN, R. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter‐cultural education. Language Learning, 16(1‐2), p.1-20.
KARA, F. 2019. Venice becomes the front line in the battle against overtourism [Online]. Available:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/venice-tourism-overcrowding-intl/index.html [Accessed 25 August
2020].
KARKI, S., BARAL, K., GAUTAM, D., JANDUG, C. M. B., KHANAL, L. & BIJAYA, D. 2019. Assessing the
opportunities of promoting Ecotourism in Gabhar Valley: A case study from buffer zone of Banke
National Park. Asian Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Studies, 2(2), p.57-66.
KEANE, W. 1997. Signs of recognition: powers and hazards of representation in an Indonesian society, Los
Angeles, California, USA, Univ of California Press.
KEENEY, S., HASSON, F. & MCKENNA, H. 2006. Consulting the oracle: Ten lessons from using the Delphi
technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(2), p.205-212.
KENNEDY, M. A., MCMAHON, J., THOMAS, H., BOYER, D. D., REPPER, R., DALTON, M. & ALKHALDI,
K. 2021. Dating the pendant burials of north‐west Arabia: First radiometric results from the Khaybar
Oasis, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology Epigraphy, 32(S1), p.183-197.

260
KHAMWON, A. & RACHBUAKOAT, W. 2015. Destination brand experience, satisfaction, and word of mouth:
Evidence from Chiang Khan, Loei Province. Conference of the International Journal of Arts & Sciences,
17(1), p.19-22.
KHAN, M. U. H. 2016. Saudi Arabia's vision 2030. Defence Journal, 19(11), p.36.
KHAN, S. A. R., QIANLI, D., SONGBO, W., ZAMAN, K. & ZHANG, Y. 2017. Travel and tourism
competitiveness index: The impact of air transportation, railways transportation, travel and transport
services on international inbound and outbound tourism. Journal of Air Transport Management, 58,
p.125-134.
KHANRA, S., DHIR, A., KAUR, P. & MÄNTYMÄKI, M. 2021. Bibliometric analysis and literature review of
ecotourism: Toward sustainable development. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, p.100777.
KIEL, L. D. & ELLIOTT, E. W. 1997. Chaos theory in the social sciences: Foundations and applications,
Michigan, USA, University of Michigan press.
KIM, H., JOUN, H. J., CHOE, Y. & SCHROEDER, A. 2019. How can a destination better manage its offering to
visitors? Observing visitor experiences via online reviews. Sustainability, 11(17), p.4660.
KIM, J.-H. 2014. The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The development of a scale to measure the
destination attributes associated with memorable experiences. Tourism Management, 44, p.34-45.
KIM, W., JUN, H. M., WALKER, M. & DRANE, D. 2015. Evaluating the perceived social impacts of hosting
large-scale sport tourism events: Scale development and validation. Tourism Management, 48, p.21-32.
KIM, Y.-T., KIM, S.-C. & JIANG, Y. 2013. Study on ecotourism attitude of auto-campers and its feasibility of
market segmentation based on ECOS model. Hotel Management Research, 22(2), p.239-263.
KIM, Y. G. & EVES, A. 2012. Construction and validation of a scale to measure tourist motivation to consume
local food. Tourism Management, 33(6), p.1458-1467.
KINCHIN, I. M., HAY, D. B. & ADAMS, A. 2000. How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be
used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1),
p.43-57.
KIPER, T. 2013. Role of ecotourism in sustainable development. In: ÖZYAVUZ, M. (ed.) Advances in Landscape
Architecture. Rijeka, Croatia: IntechOpen.
KIPER, T., UZUN, O. & ÜSTÜN TOPAL, T. 2017. Rural development oriented ecotourism planning on
catchment basin scale: The case of Pabuçdere and Kazandere catchment basin. Journal of Agricultural
Science and Technology, 19(2), p.293-305.
KLIJN, E.-H. 2008. Complexity theory and public administration: What's new? Key concepts in complexity
theory compared to their counterparts in public administration research. Public Management Review,
10(3), p.299-317.
KLINE, R. B. 2015. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, New York, USA, Guilford Press.
KOCK, F., NØRFELT, A., JOSIASSEN, A., ASSAF, A. G. & TSIONAS, M. G. 2020. Understanding the
COVID-19 tourist psyche: The evolutionary tourism paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 85,
p.103053.
KOENS, K., POSTMA, A. & PAPP, B. 2018. Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in
a city context. Sustainability, 10(12), p.4384.
KOZAK, M. 2000. Destination benchmarking: facilities, customer satisfaction and levels of tourist expenditure,
Sheffield, UK, Sheffield Hallam University.
KOZAK, M. 2002. Destination benchmarking. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), p.497-519.
KRÜGER, O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in conservation: Panacea or Pandora’s box? Biodiversity &
Conservation, 14(3), p.579-600.
KUBALÍKOVÁ, L. 2019. Assessing geotourism resources on a local level: A case study from Southern Moravia
(Czech Republic). Resources, 8(3), p.150.
KUMAR, R., SINGH, S., BILGA, P. S., SINGH, J., SINGH, S., SCUTARU, M.-L. & PRUNCU, C. I. 2021.
Revealing the benefits of entropy weights method for multi-objective optimization in machining
operations: A critical review. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 10, p.1471-1492.
KUMARI, S., BEHERA, M. & TEWARI, H. 2010. Identification of potential ecotourism sites in West District,
Sikkim using geospatial tools. Tropical Ecology, 51(1), p.75-85.
KUNASEKARAN, P., GILL, S. S., RAMACHANDRAN, S., SHUIB, A., BAUM, T. & HERMAN
MOHAMMAD AFANDI, S. 2017. Measuring sustainable indigenous tourism indicators: A case of Mah
Meri ethnic group in Carey Island, Malaysia. Sustainability, 9(7), p.1256.
KUO, N.-T., CHENG, Y.-S., CHANG, K.-C. & YING, W.-H. 2020. Establishing a measurement scale for safety
culture in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42, p.12-28.
KURSAH, M. B. 2017. A quantitative methodology for assessing sustainable tourism potentials. Tourism Review
International, 21(1), p.63-80.
261
KURTTILA, M., PESONEN, M., KANGAS, J. & KAJANUS, M. 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest
policy and economics, 1(1), p.41-52.
LANDETA, J. 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and
Social change, 73(5), p.467-482.
LANSING, J. S. 2003. Complex adaptive systems. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(1), p.183-204.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
18(2), p.141-165.
LATHA, L. & THANGASAMY, S. 2011. Efficient approach to normalization of multimodal biometric scores.
International Journal of Computer Applications, 32(10), p.57-64.
LAU, P.-L., KOO, T. T. & DWYER, L. 2017. Metrics to measure the geographic characteristics of tourism
markets: An integrated approach based on Gini index decomposition. Tourism Management, 59, p.171-
181.
LAZANSKI, T. J. & KLJAJIĆ, M. 2006. Systems approach to complex systems modelling with special regards
to tourism. Kybernetes, 35(7/8), p.1048-1058.
LEE, J. W. & SYAH, A. M. 2018. Economic and environmental impacts of mass tourism on regional tourism
destinations in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(3), p.31-41.
LEE, T. H. & HSIEH, H.-P. 2016. Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from a Taiwan's wetland.
Ecological Indicators, 67, p.779-787.
LEE, T. H., JAN, F.-H. & LIU, J.-T. 2021. Developing an indicator framework for assessing sustainable tourism:
Evidence from a Taiwan ecological resort. Ecological Indicators, 125, p.107596.
LEE, T. H., JAN, F.-H. & YANG, C.-C. 2013. Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible
behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tourism Management, 36, p.454-468.
LEE, T. H. & JAN, F. H. 2018. Development and validation of the ecotourism behavior scale. The International
Journal of Tourism Research, 20(2), p.191-203.
LEE, W. H. & MOSCARDO, G. 2005. Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’
environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), p.546-565.
LEGRAND, W., CHEN, J. S. & LAEIS, G. C. 2022. Sustainability in the hospitality industry: Principles of
sustainable operations, London, UK, Taylor & Francis.
LEVIN, S. A. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1(5), p.431-436.
LI, T., FAN, H., GARCÍA, J. & CORCHADO, J. M. 2019. Second-order statistics analysis and comparison
between arithmetic and geometric average fusion: Application to multi-sensor target tracking.
Information Fusion, 51, p.233-243.
LIAGHAT, M., SHAHABI, H., DEILAMI, B. R., ARDABILI, F. S. & SEYEDI, S. N. 2013. A multi-criteria
evaluation using the analytic hierarchy process technique to analyze coastal tourism sites. Apcbee
Procedia, 5, p.479-485.
LIDDLE, M. 1997. Recreation ecology: The ecological impact of outdoor recreation and ecotourism, London,
UK, Chapman & Hall Ltd.
LIM, C. & MCALEER, M. 2005. Ecologically sustainable tourism management. Environmental Modelling
Software, 20(11), p.1431-1438.
LIN, C.-P., CHEN, S.-H., TRAC, L. V. T. & WU, C.-F. 2021. An expert-knowledge-based model for evaluating
cultural tourism strategies: A case of Tainan City, Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 49, p.214-225.
LINDBERG, K. & MCKERCHER 1997. Ecotourism: A critical overview. Pacific Tourism Review, 1(1), p.65-
79.
LINDSEY, P. A., ALEXANDER, R., MILLS, M., ROMAÑACH, S. & WOODROFFE, R. 2007. Wildlife
viewing preferences of visitors to protected areas in South Africa: Implications for the role of ecotourism
in conservation. Journal of Ecotourism, 6(1), p.19-33.
LINSTONE, H. A. & TUROFF, M. 1975. The Delphi method techniques and applications, Boston, USA,
Addison-Wesley.
LITTON, R. B. 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories: A basis for land planning and design,
Berkeley, USA, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.
LIU, L., ZHOU, J., AN, X., ZHANG, Y. & YANG, L. 2010. Using fuzzy theory and information entropy for
water quality assessment in Three Gorges region, China. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3),
p.2517-2521.
LIU, Y., HUANG, C., WANG, Q., LUAN, J. & DING, M. 2018. Assessment of sustainable livelihood and
geographic detection of settlement sites in ethnically contiguous poverty-stricken areas in the Aba
Prefecture, China. International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(1), p.16.
262
LONG, N. T. & NGUYEN, T.-L. 2018. Sustainable development of rural tourism in an Giang Province, Vietnam.
Sustainability, 10(4), p.953.
LOUGHLIN, K. G. & MOORE, L. F. 1979. Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a
pediatrics department. Journal of Medical Education, 54(2), p.101-106.
LU, A. C. C., GURSOY, D. & DEL CHIAPPA, G. 2016. The influence of materialism on ecotourism attitudes
and behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2), p.176-189.
LU, J. & NEPAL, S. K. 2009. Sustainable tourism research: An analysis of papers published in the Journal of
Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), p.5-16.
LYNCH, G. 2012. Becoming indigenous in the pursuit of justice: The African commission on human and peoples'
rights and the Endorois. African Affairs, 111(442), p.24-45.
MACLEOD, N. 2006. Cultural tourism: Aspects of authenticity and commodification. In: SMITH, M. K. &
ROBINSON, M. (eds.) Cultural tourism in a changing world: Politics, participation and
(Re)presentation. Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.
MAHMOUDI, B., HAGHSETAN, A. & MALEKI, R. 2011. Investigation of obstacles and strategies of rural
tourism development using SWOT Matrix. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(2), p.136.
MALCZEWSKI, J. 2000. On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice
approaches. Transactions in GIS, 4(1), p.5-22.
MALCZEWSKI, J. 2011. Local weighted linear combination. Transactions in GIS, 15(4), p.439-455.
MANE, A. 2020. Environmental Ethics and Sustainability: A Case Study of Pune [Online]. The Indian views for
sustainable development. Available: https://theindianviews.com/questionnaire-environmental-ethics-
sustainability/ [Accessed 26 Jun 2021].
MANIMEKALAI, K. & KAVITHA, A. 2018. Missing value imputation and normalization techniques in
myocardial infarction. ICTACT Journal on Soft Computing, 8(3), p.1655-1662.
MANSOUR, S., AL-AWHADI, T. & AL-HATRUSHI, S. 2020. Geospatial based multi-criteria analysis for
ecotourism land suitability using GIS & AHP: a case study of Masirah Island, Oman. Journal of
Ecotourism, 19(2), p.148-167.
MARION, R. & UHL-BIEN, M. 2001. Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4),
p.389-418.
MARRERO-RODRÍGUEZ, R., MORINI-MARRERO, S. & RAMOS-HENRIQUEZ, J. M. 2020. Tourism jobs
in demand: Where the best contracts and high salaries go at online offers. Tourism Management
Perspectives, 35, p.100721.
MARTÍN-RUIZ, D., CASTELLANOS-VERDUGO, M. & DE LOS ÁNGELES OVIEDO-GARCÍA, M. 2010. A
visitors' evaluation index for a visit to an archaeological site. Tourism Management, 31(5), p.590-596.
MARTIN, D. S., ZO, R. & MARTIN, W. S. 2011. MEDTOUR: a scale for measuring medical tourism intentions.
Tourism Review of AIEST - International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism, 66(1/2), p.45-56.
MARZUKI, A. 2011. Resident attitudes towards impacts from tourism development in Langkawi Islands,
Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12, p.25-34.
MASCARENHAS, A., NUNES, L. M. & RAMOS, T. B. 2015. Selection of sustainability indicators for planning:
combining stakeholders' participation and data reduction techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production, 92,
p.295-307.
MASON, P. 2008. Tourism impacts, planning and management, New York, USA, Routledge.
MCCLIMANS, L., PRESSGROVE, G. & CAMPBELL, E. 2019. Objectives and outcomes of clinical ethics
services: a Delphi study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(12), p.761-769.
MCCOOL, S. F. & MARTIN, S. R. 1994. Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development.
Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), p.29-34.
MCDONALD, J. R. 2009. Complexity science: an alternative world view for understanding sustainable tourism
development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(4), p.455-471.
MCKENNA, H. P. 1989. The selection by ward managers of an appropriate nursing model for long‐stay
psychiatric patient care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14(9), p.762-775.
MCKERCHER, B. 1999. A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism management, 20(4), p.425-434.
MEARNS, K. F. 2011. Using sustainable tourism indicators to measure the sustainability of a community-based
ecotourism venture. Tourism Review International, 15(1-2), p.135-147.
MEDSCAPE. 2023. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) [Online]. Available:
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2500114-overview?form=fpf [Accessed 3 August 2023].
MEEKAEW, N. & SRISONTISUK, S. Chiangkhan: cultural commodification for tourism and its impact on local
community. International Conference on Knowledge, Culture and Society, 2012 Jeju Island, South
Korea. Citeseer.

263
MEHRAN, J. & OLYA, H. G. 2020. Canal boat tourism: Application of complexity theory. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 53, p.101954.
MELE, B. H., RUSSO, L. & D'ALELIO, D. 2019. Combining marine ecology and economy to roadmap the
integrated coastal management: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(16), p.4393.
MIDDLETON, V. T. & HAWKINS, R. 1998. Sustainable tourism: A marketing perspective, Oxford, UK,
Routledge.
MILLER, G. 2001. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism
researchers. Tourism Management, 22(4), p.351-362.
MILLER, G., RATHOUSE, K., SCARLES, C., HOLMES, K. & TRIBE, J. 2010. Public Understanding of
Sustainable Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), p.627-645.
MILLER, J. H. & PAGE, S. 2009. Complex adaptive systems, New Jersey,USA, Princeton University Press.
MINLI, Z. & WENPO, Y. 2012. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method applied in the real estate investment
risks research. Physics Procedia, 24, p.1815-1821.
MIYATO, T., KATAOKA, T., KOYAMA, M. & YOSHIDA, Y. 2018. Spectral normalization for generative
adversarial networks. The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations. Online.
MOBARAKI, O., ABDOLLAHZADEH, M. & KAMELIFAR, Z. 2014. Site suitability evaluation for ecotourism
using GIS and AHP: Acase study of Isfahan Townships, Iran. Management Science Letters, 4(8), p.1893-
1898.
MOEINADDINI, M., KHORASANI, N., DANEHKAR, A. & DARVISHSEFAT, A. A. 2010. Siting MSW
landfill using weighted linear combination and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodology in GIS
environment (case study: Karaj). Waste Management, 30(5), p.912-920.
MOHER, D., LIBERATI, A., TETZLAFF, J. & ALTMAN, D. G. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), p.1006.
MONDAL, M. & HAQUE, S. 2017. SWOT analysis and strategies to develop sustainable tourism in Bangladesh.
UTMS Journal of Economics, 8(2), p.159-167.
MORGAN, R. 2017. An investigation of constraints upon fisheries diversification using the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP). Marine Policy, 86, p.24-30.
MOSHASHAI, D., LEBER, A. M. & SAVAGE, J. D. 2020. Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision
2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies, 47(3), p.381-401.
MOVONO, A., DAHLES, H. & BECKEN, S. 2018. Fijian culture and the environment: A focus on the ecological
and social interconnectedness of tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(3), p.451-
469.
MOWATT, R. A. & CHANCELLOR, C. H. 2011. Visiting death and life: Dark tourism and slave castles. Annals
of Tourism Research, 38(4), p.1410-1434.
MUILENBURG, L. & BERGE, Z. L. 2001. Barriers to distance education: A factor‐analytic study. American
Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), p.7-22.
MUNIER, N. & HONTORIA, E. 2021. Uses and Limitations of the AHP Method, Switzerland, Springer Cham.
MURRY JR, J. W. & HAMMONS, J. O. 1995. Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative
research. The Review of Higher Education, 18(4), p.423-436.
NASA, M. & HASSAN, F. B. 2016. Assessment of tourism resource potential at Buriram Province, Thailand.
Asian Social Science, 12(10), p.27-34.
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. 2018. Geography, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Physical Geography
[Online]. Available: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/altitude/ [Accessed 13 July
2021].
NATURAL ENGLAND. 2017. Areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs): designation and management
[Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/areas-of-outstanding-natural-beauty-aonbs-
designation-and-management [Accessed 11 October 2022].
NAVARRO, A., JOSÉ-LUIS, MARTÍNEZ, A., MARÍA-ENCARNACIÓN, JIMÉNEZ, M. & JUAN-ANTONIO
2020. An approach to measuring sustainable tourism at the local level in Europe. Current Issues in
Tourism, 23(4), p.423-437.
NETO, F. 2003. A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyond environmental protection.
Natural Resources forum, 27(3), p.212-222.
NIEDERMAN, F., BRANCHEAU, J. C. & WETHERBE, J. C. 1991. Information systems management issues
for the 1990s. MIS Quarterly, 15(4), p.475-500.
NIEDZIÓŁKA, I. 2014. Sustainable tourism development. Regional Formation and Development Studies, 8(3),
p.157-166.

264
NIEUWLAND, S. & VAN MELIK, R. 2020. Regulating Airbnb: how cities deal with perceived negative
externalities of short-term rentals. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), p.811-825.
NIGHTINGALE, A. 2009. A guide to systematic literature reviews. Surgery (Oxford), 27(9), p.381-384.
NIÑEROLA, A., SÁNCHEZ-REBULL, M.-V. & HERNÁNDEZ-LARA, A.-B. 2019. Tourism research on
sustainability: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 11(5), p.1377.
NINO, K., MAMO, Y., MENGESHA, G. & KIBRET, K. S. 2017. GIS based ecotourism potential assessment in
Munessa Shashemene Concession Forest and its surrounding area, Ethiopia. Applied Geography, 82,
p.48-58.
NOR, M., NURUL, A. I. & RUSIMAN, M. A hybrid approach on tourism demand forecasting. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 28-29 October 2018 Malaysia. IOP Publishing, 012034.
NORBERG, J. & CUMMING, G. 2008. Complexity theory for a sustainable future, New York, USA, Columbia
University Press.
NOURI, J., DANEHKAR, A. & SHARIFIPOUR, R. 2008. Evaluation of ecotourism potential in the northern
coastline of the Persian Gulf. Environmental Geology, 55, p.681-686.
NUNNALLY, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory, New York, USA, McGraw-Hill.
O'DELL, T. & BILLING, P. 2005. Experiencescapes: Tourism, culture and economy, Copenhagen, Denmark,
Business School Press.
OCAMPO, L., EBISA, J. A., OMBE, J. & ESCOTO, M. G. 2018. Sustainable ecotourism indicators with fuzzy
Delphi method–A Philippine perspective. Ecological Indicators, 93, p.874-888.
ODU, G. 2019. Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique. Journal of Applied Sciences and
Environmental Management, 23(8), p.1449-1457.
OHADI, S., DORBEIKI, M. & BAHMANPOUR, H. 2013. Ecotourism zoning in protected areas using GIS.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(4), p.677-683.
OKOLI, C. & PAWLOWSKI, S. D. 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design
considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), p.15-29.
OLADI, J. & BOZORGNIA, D. Evaluating the ecotourism potentials of Naharkhoran area in Gorgan using remote
sensing and geographic information system. Earth Resources and Environmental Remote Sensing/GIS
Applications, 2010 Toulouse, France. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 783114.
OLIVEIRA, E. 2013. Digital complexity in destination branding: a preliminary analysis to destination Portugal.
Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 4(2(8)), p.65-76.
OLIVER, P. 2012. Succeeding with your literature review: A handbook for students, Maidenhead, UK, McGraw-
Hill Education.
OLSSON, P., FOLKE, C. & HAHN, T. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the
development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology Society,
9(4), p.26.
OLYA, H. G. & AL-ANSI, A. 2018. Risk assessment of halal products and services: Implication for tourism
industry. Tourism Management, 65, p.279-291.
OLYA, H. G. & MEHRAN, J. 2017. Modelling tourism expenditure using complexity theory. Journal of Business
Research, 75, p.147-158.
OPPORTUNITY NATION. 2020. What is the Opportunity Index [Online]. Available:
https://opportunityindex.org/about/ [Accessed 3 May 2020].
ORAMS, M. B. 1995. Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management, 16(1), p.3-8.
ORAMS, M. B. 1997. The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn tourists into"greenies'?
Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(4), p.295-306.
ORBASLI, A. & WOODWARD, S. 2009. Tourism and heritage conservation. In: JAMAL, T. & ROBINSON,
M. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. London, UK: SAGE Publications, Limited.
ORBAŞLI, A. & WOODWARD, S. 2008. A railway ‘route’as a linear heritage attraction: The Hijaz Railway in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3(3), p.159-175.
ORESKI, D. 2012. Strategy development by using SWOT-AHP. Tem Journal, 1(4), p.283-291.
ORHAN, T. & KARAHAN, F. 2011. Evaluation of ecotourism potential of uzundere district and its environs.
Artvin Çoruh Universitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), p.27-42.
PADIN, C. & SVENSSON, G. 2013. A multi‐layer matrix model of sustainable tourism: Process, measurement
areas, gap and reconnection analyses. European Business Review, 25(2), p.206-216.
PAN, B. 2015. The power of search engine ranking for tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 47, p.79–87.
PANWANITDUMRONG, K. & CHEN, C.-L. 2021. Investigating factors influencing tourists' environmentally
responsible behavior with extended theory of planned behavior for coastal tourism in Thailand. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 169, p.112507.

265
PAPATHEODOROU, A. 2004. Exploring the evolution of tourism resorts. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1),
p.219-237.
PARK, H.-J. & LEE, T. J. 2019. Influence of the ‘slow city’ brand association on the behavioural intention of
potential tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(12), p.1405-1422.
PATI, D. & LORUSSO, L. N. 2018. How to write a systematic review of the literature. Health Environments
Research & Design Journal, 11(1), p.15-30.
PATRO, S. G. & SAHU, K. K. 2015. Normalization: A preprocessing stage. arXiv preprint arXiv.1503.06462.
PENG, J. & ZHANG, J. 2022. Urban flooding risk assessment based on GIS-game theory combination weight: A
case study of Zhengzhou City. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 77, p.103080.
PENM, J., VAILLANCOURT, R. & POULIOT, A. 2019. Defining and identifying concepts of medication
reconciliation: An international pharmacy perspective. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy,
15(6), p.632-640.
PEREZ, V., HERNANDEZ, A., GUERRERO, F., LEON, M. A., DA SILVA, C. L. & CABALLERO, R. 2016.
Sustainability ranking for Cuban tourist destinations Based on composite indexes. Social Indicators
Research, 129(1), p.425-444.
PÉREZ, V. E., SANTOYO, A. H., GUERRERO, F., LEÓN, M. A., DA SILVA, C. L. & CABALLERO, R. 2017.
Measuring the sustainability of Cuban tourism destinations considering stakeholders' perceptions.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(3), p.318-328.
PERFETTO, M. C., VARGAS-SÁNCHEZ, A. & PRESENZA, A. 2016. Managing a complex adaptive
ecosystem: Towards a smart management of industrial heritage tourism. Journal of Spatial and
Organizational Dynamics, 4(3), p.243-264.
PIAGET, J. 1972. Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15(1), p.1-12.
PICKERING, C. & BYRNE, J. 2014. The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for
PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3),
p.534-548.
PLACKETT, R. L. 1958. Studies in the history of probability and statistics: VII. The principle of the arithmetic
mean. Biometrika, 45(1-2), p.130-135.
PLUMMER, R. & FENNELL, D. A. 2009. Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: prospects for
adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), p.149-168.
POSAVAC, E. J. 2015. Program evaluation: Methods and case studies, New York, USA, Routledge.
PRALONG, J.-P. 2005. A method for assessing tourist potential and use of geomorphological sites.
Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement, 11(3), p.189-196.
PRISKIN, J. 2001. Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism: The case of the central coast region
of Western Australia. Tourism Management, 22(6), p.637-648.
PROFILLIDIS, V. 2000. Econometric and fuzzy models for the forecast of demand in the airport of Rhodes.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 6(2), p.95-100.
PRYOR, R. G. & BRIGHT, J. E. 2007. Applying chaos theory to careers: Attraction and attractors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 71(3), p.375-400.
PURWOKO, A., KUSWANDA, W., SITUMORANG, R. O. P., HUTAPEA, F. J., SAPUTRA, M. H. &
PASARIBU, P. H. P. 2022. Orangutan ecotourism on Sumatra Island: Current conditions and a call for
further development. Sustainability, 14(18), p.11328.
PUTNAM, J. W., SPIEGEL, A. N. & BRUININKS, R. H. 1995. Future directions in education and inclusion of
students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), p.553-576.
PUVANESWARAN, K., GILL, S. S., RAMACHANDRAN, S., SHUIB, A., BAUM, T. & SYAMSUL
HERMAN MOHAMMAD, A. 2017. Measuring sustainable indigenous tourism indicators: A case of
Mah Meri Ethnic group in Carey Island, Malaysia. Sustainability, 9(7), p.1256.
QUALTRICS. 2020. Sample Size [Online]. Available: https://www.qualtrics.com/ [Accessed 30 Jun 2021].
RACKERS, H., LANTOS, H. & VILLATORO, S. 2020. The 2019 opportunity index & 2020 indicators preview
technical supplement. USA: Opportunity Nation.
RAHMAN, A. A. 2014. Ecotourism opportunity spectrum (ECOS): A preliminary study on Lata Kijang
Recreational Forest. In: RAHMAN, A., RAHIM, A., NASIR, M., HASSAN, A., FADZIL, A., MAJID,
A., RICHARD, A. M. & LATIFF, A. (eds.) Gunung Benom, Krau Wildlife Reserve, Pahang: Geology,
Biodiversity, and Socio-economic Environment: Proceedings of the Seminar on Gunung Benom
Scientific Expedition. Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia.
RAMALINGAM, B., JONES, H., REBA, T. & YOUNG, J. 2008. Exploring the science of complexity: Ideas and
implications for development and humanitarian efforts, London, UK, Overseas Development Institute.
RAMAMOORTY, T., ABDULLAH, N. & ZENIAN, S. 2020. Scoring model in operational research on cultural-
tourism: A case study in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Pakistan Journal of Geology, 4(1), p.28-33.
266
RAMKISSOON, H. 2023. Perceived social impacts of tourism and quality-of-life: A new conceptual model.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 31(2), p.442-459.
RANIS, G., STEWART, F. & SAMMAN, E. 2006. Human development: Beyond the human development index.
Journal of Human Development, 7(3), p.323-358.
RCU 2019. The Cultural Manifesto of Alula. French Agency for Alula development.
RCU. 2021. Alula [Online]. Available: https://www.rcu.gov.sa/en/initiatives/ [Accessed 16 July 2021].
REIHANIAN, A., MAHMOOD, N. Z. B., KAHROM, E. & HIN, T. W. 2012. Sustainable tourism development
strategy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National Park, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, p.223-
228.
REPPER, R., KENNEDY, M., MCMAHON, J., BOYER, D., DALTON, M., THOMAS, H. & KENNEDY, D.
2022. Kites of AlUla County and the Ḥarrat ʿUwayriḍ, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology Epigraphy,
33(1), p.3-22.
RICHMOND, R. L., KEHOE, L., HAILSTONE, S., WODAK, A. & UEBEL‐YAN, M. 1999. Quantitative and
qualitative evaluations of brief interventions to change excessive drinking, smoking and stress in the
police force. Addiction, 94(10), p.1509-1521.
RICKLES, D., HAWE, P. & SHIELL, A. 2007. A simple guide to chaos and complexity. Journal of Epidemiology
& Community Health, 61(11), p.933-937.
RITCHIE, B. W. 2004. Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism
industry. Tourism Management, 25(6), p.669-683.
ROESSNER, V., ROTHE, J., KOHLS, G., SCHOMERUS, G., EHRLICH, S. & BESTE, C. 2021. Taming the
chaos?! Using eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to tackle the complexity in mental health
research. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(8), p.1143-1146.
ROMERO-BRITO, T. P., BUCKLEY, R. C. & BYRNE, J. 2016. NGO partnerships in using ecotourism for
conservation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 11(11), p.e0166919.
ROSS, S. & WALL, G. 1999a. Ecotourism: Towards congruence between theory and practice. Tourism
Management, 20(1), p.123-132.
ROSS, S. & WALL, G. 1999b. Evaluating ecotourism: The case of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Tourism
Management, 20(6), p.673-682.
ROYAL COMMISSION FOR ALULA. 2020. About Alula [Online]. Available: https://www.rcu.gov.sa/en/about-
us/about-alula/ [Accessed 14 May 2020].
ROYAL COMMISSION FOR ALULA. 2022. About Alula [Online]. Available: https://www.rcu.gov.sa/en/about-
us/about-alula/ [Accessed 23 May 2021].
ROYAL COMMISSION FOR ALULA 2023. About RCU, Bergamo, Italy, Gallimard.
ROYAL EMBASSY OF SAUDI ARABIA IN ROME 2018. Towards Vision 2030. Italy, Rome.
RUSSELL, R. & FAULKNER, B. 1999. Movers and shakers: Chaos makers in tourism development. Tourism
Management, 20(4), p.411-423.
RUSSELL, R. & FAULKNER, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(3), p.556-579.
SAATY, T. L. & ÖZDEMIR, M. S. 2014. How many judges should there be in a group? Annals of Data Science,
1(3-4), p.359-368.
SAGAR, A. D. & NAJAM, A. 1998. The human development index: A critical review. Ecological Economics,
25(3), p.249-264.
SAHAHIRI, R., ARROWSMITH, C. & ALITANY, A. A. 2019. Mapping the historical places: A case study of
promoting tourism in Jeddah, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), p.1691315.
SAHAHIRI, R. M., GRIFFIN, A. L. & SUN, Q. 2023. Investigating Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements in
a Complex Adaptive System: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 15(3), p.2678.
SAHANI, N. 2020. Application of analytical hierarchy process and GIS for ecotourism potentiality mapping in
Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(7), p.6187-
6211.
SAHANI, N. 2021. Application of hybrid SWOT-AHP-FuzzyAHP model for formulation and prioritization of
ecotourism strategies in Western Himalaya, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9(3),
p.349-362.
SAIDMAMATOV, O., MATYAKUBOV, U., RUDENKO, I., FILIMONAU, V., DAY, J. & LUTHE, T. 2020.
Employing ecotourism opportunities for sustainability in the Aral Sea Region: Prospects and challenges.
Sustainability, 12(21), p.9249.
SALEMI, M., JOZI, S. A., MALMASI, S. & REZAIAN, S. 2019. Conceptual framework for evaluation of
ecotourism carrying capacity for sustainable development of Karkheh protected area, Iran. International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 26(4), p.354-366.
267
SALICI, A. 2018. Application of ecotourism opportunities spectrum method in ecotourism resources: A case
study of Samandag coastal areas in southern Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research,
16(3), p.2701-2715.
SARANYA, C. & MANIKANDAN, G. 2013. A study on normalization techniques for privacy preserving data
mining. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET), 5(3), p.2701-2704.
SARKAR, S. K., AU, N. & LAW, R. 2014. Analysing ecotourists’ satisfaction in socialisation and knowledge
sharing intentions via social media. In: XIANG, Z. & TUSSYADIAH, I. (eds.) Information and
communication technologies in tourism 2014. New York, USA: Springer International Publishing.
SARKIS, J. & DHAVALE, D. G. 2015. Supplier selection for sustainable operations: A triple-bottom-line
approach using a Bayesian framework. International Journal of Production Economics, 166, p.177-191.
SATORRA, A. & BENTLER, P. M. 2001. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure
analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), p.507-514.
SAUDI COMMISSION FOR TOURISM & ANTIQUITIES. 2020. Saudi Vision 2030 [Online]. Available:
https://www.scega.gov.sa/en/pages/aboutscta.aspx [Accessed 16 March 2020].
SAYYED, M. 2013. SWOT analysis of Tandooreh National Park (NE Iran) for sustainable ecotourism.
Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 3(4), p.296.
SCHEYVENS, R. 1999. Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2),
p.245-249.
SCHIANETZ, K. & KAVANAGH, L. 2008. Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: A complex
adaptive systems approach using systemic indicator systems. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(6),
p.601-628.
SCHNEIDER, M. & SOMERS, M. 2006. Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity
theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), p.351-365.
SCHUBERT, S. F., BRIDA, J. G. & RISSO, W. A. 2011. The impacts of international tourism demand on
economic growth of small economies dependent on tourism. Tourism Management, 32(2), p.377-385.
SCOTT, D., GÖSSLING, S. & DE FREITAS, C. 2007. Climate preferences for tourism: An exploratory tri-nation
comparison. Developments in tourism climatology, p.18-23.
SCOTT, N., BAGGIO, R. & COOPER, C. 2008a. Network analysis and tourism: From theory to practice, New
York, USA, Chanel View Publications.
SCOTT, N., COOPER, C. & BAGGIO, R. 2008b. Destination networks: Four Australian cases. Annals of Tourism
Research, 35(1), p.169-188.
SERAPHIN, H., SHEERAN, P. & PILATO, M. 2018. Over-tourism and the fall of Venice as a destination.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9, p.374-376.
SHAFER JR, E. L., HAMILTON JR, J. F. & SCHMIDT, E. A. 1969. Natural landscape preferences: a predictive
model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1(1), p.1-19.
SHARPLEY, R. & TELFER, D. J. 2002. Tourism and development: Concepts and issues, New York, USA,
Channel View Publications.
SHAYAN, S. A. 2021. Analyzing Complex Adaptive Systems, Washington, USA, Independent Publisher,
Amazone.
SHENKER, O. R. 1994. Fractal geometry is not the geometry of nature. Studies in History Philosophy of Science,
25(6), p.967-981.
SHEPHERD, R. 2002. Commodification, culture and tourism. Tourist Studies, 2(2), p.183-201.
SHIRMOHAMMADI, F. & TOHIDI, A. 2019. Mixing enhancement using chaos theory in fluid dynamics:
Experimental and numerical study. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 141, p.350-360.
SILBERBERG, T. 1995. Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism
Management, 16(5), p.361-365.
SIRAKAYA, E., JAMAL, T. B. & CHOI, H.-S. 2001. Developing indicators for destination sustainability. In:
WEAVER, D. B. (ed.) The encyclopedia of ecotourism. New York,USA: CABI.
SMITH, N. G., PASSONE, L., AL-SAID, S., AL-FARHAN, M. & LEVY, T. E. 2014. Drones in archaeology:
integrated data capture, processing, and dissemination in the al-Ula Valley, Saudi Arabia. Near Eastern
Archaeology, 77(3), p.176-181.
SÖNMEZ, S. F. 1998. Tourism, terrorism, and political instability. Journal of Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2),
p.416-456.
SPEAKMAN, M. 2017. A paradigm for the twenty-first century or metaphorical nonsense? the enigma of
complexity theory and tourism research. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(2), p.282-296.
SPEAKMAN, M. & DÍAZ GARAY, A. 2016. Perspectives on tourism development planning in Acapulco:
conventional methods and complexity theory. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 16(4), p.203-
221.
268
SPEAKMAN, M. & SHARPLEY, R. 2012. A chaos theory perspective on destination crisis management:
Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), p.67-77.
SREE, K. & BINDU, C. 2018. Data analytics: Why data normalization. International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 7, p.209-213.
STABLER, M. J., PAPATHEODOROU, A. & SINCLAIR, M. T. 2010. The Economics of Tourism, New York,
USA, Routledge.
STANCHEV, H., STANCHEVA, M. & YOUNG, R. 2015. Implications of population and tourism development
growth for Bulgarian coastal zone. Journal of coastal conservation, 19(1), p.59-72.
STEM, C. J., LASSOIE, J. P., LEE, D. R., DESHLER, D. D. & SCHELHAS, J. W. 2003. Community
participation in ecotourism benefits: The link to conservation practices and perspectives. Society
&Natural Resources, 16(5), p.387-413.
STEMLER, S. 2000. An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 7(1), p.17.
STEPCHENKOVA, S., KIRILENKO, A. P. & MORRISON, A. M. 2009. Facilitating content analysis in tourism
research. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), p.454-469.
STEVENS, J. P. 2009. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, New York, USA, Routledge.
STEVENSON, N., AIREY, D. & MILLER, G. 2009. Complexity theory and tourism policy research.
International Journal of Tourism Policy, 2(3), p.206-220.
STEWART, E. J., WILSON, J., ESPINER, S., PURDIE, H., LEMIEUX, C. & DAWSON, J. 2016. Implications
of climate change for glacier tourism. Tourism Geographies, 18(4), p.377-398.
STEWART, J., O'HALLORAN, C., HARRIGAN, P., SPENCER, J. A., BARTON, J. R. & SINGLETON, S. J.
1999. Identifying appropriate tasks for the preregistration year: Modified Delphi technique. British
Medical Journal, 319(7204), p.224-229.
STONE, M. & WALL, G. 2004. Ecotourism and community development: case studies from Hainan, China.
Environmental Management, 33, p.12-24.
STREETON, R., COOKE, M. & CAMPBELL, J. 2004. Researching the researchers: Using a snowballing
technique. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), p.35-47.
STRONZA, A. 2001. Anthropology of tourism: Forging new ground for ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 30(1), p.261-283.
STRONZA, A. & GORDILLO, J. 2008. Community views of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2),
p.448-468.
SUANA, I. W., AHYADI, H., HADIPRAYITNO, G., AMIN, S., SUKMARING, L. A. T. T. W. &
SUDARYANTO, F. X. 2020. Environment carrying capacity and willingness to pay for bird-watching
ecotourism in Kerandangan Natural Park, Lombok, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological
Diversity, 21(5).
SUTCLIFFE, S. R. & BARNES, M. L. 2018. The role of shark ecotourism in conservation behaviour: Evidence
from Hawaii. Marine Policy, 97, p.27-33.
SUTONI, A., LEGIAWAN, M. K. & RENALDI, A. Tourism industry development strategy: A concept and case
study of a tourism village. 1st Paris Van Java International Seminar on Health, Economics, Social
Science and Humanities (PVJ-ISHESSH 2020), 8 March 2021. Atlantis Press, 404-408.
SWARBROOKE, J. 1999. Sustainable tourism management, New York, USA, CABI.
TANG, Z. 2015. An integrated approach to evaluating the coupling coordination between tourism and the
environment. Tourism Management, 46, p.11-19.
TANG, Z., LIU, L., LI, X., SHI, C., ZHANG, N., ZHU, Z. & BI, J. 2019. Evaluation on the eco-innovation level
of the tourism industry in Heilongjiang province, China: From the perspective of dynamic evolution and
spatial difference. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 14(3), p.202-215.
TANGUAY, G. A., RAJAONSON, J. & THERRIEN, M.-C. 2013. Sustainable tourism indicators: Selection
criteria for policy implementation and scientific recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(6),
p.862-879.
TAO, T. C. & WALL, G. 2009. Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism Management, 30(1), p.90-
98.
TAŞKN, Z. & AYDINOGLU, A. U. 2015. Collaborative interdisciplinary astrobiology research: A bibliometric
study of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. Scientometrics, 103(3), p.1003-1022.
TAVAKOL, M. & WETZEL, A. 2020. Factor Analysis: A means for theory and instrument development in
support of construct validity. International Journal of Medical Education, 11, p.245.
TAYE, B., GEBRE, S. L., GEMEDA, D. O. & GETAHUN, K. 2019. Using geospatial techniques in the selection
of potential ecotourism sites in Menz-geramidir district, Ethiopia. Ghana Journal of Geography, 11(1),
p.201-227.

269
TEISMAN, G. R. & KLIJN, E.-H. 2008. Complexity theory and public management: An introduction. Public
Management Review, 10(3), p.287-297.
TERWEE, C. B., MOKKINK, L. B., KNOL, D. L., OSTELO, R. W., BOUTER, L. M. & DE VET, H. C. 2012.
Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring
system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), p.651-657.
THATHSARANI, U. & GUNARATNE, L. 2018. Constructing and index to measure the adaptive capacity to
climate change in Sri Lanka. Procedia engineering, 212, p.278-285.
THE INTERNATIONAL ECOTOURISM SOCIETY. 2020. What is ecotourism? [Online]. Available:
https://ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism/ [Accessed 23 July 2020].
THEOBALD, W. 1979. Evaluation of recreation and park programs, Ontario,Canada, John Wiley and Sons Inc.
TIMOTHY, D. J. & BOYD, S. W. 2006. Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new
perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), p.1-16.
TOMCZEWSKA-POPOWYCZ, N. & QUIRINI-POPŁAWSKI, Ł. 2021. Political instability equals the collapse
of tourism in Ukraine? Sustainability, 13(8), p.4126.
TORRES-DELGADO, A. & PALOMEQUE, F. L. 2014. Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level.
Annals of Tourism Research, 49, p.122-137.
TORRES-DELGADO, A. & PALOMEQUE, F. L. 2018. The ISOST index: A tool for studying sustainable
tourism. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, p.281-289.
TOSUN, C. 2006. Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management,
27(3), p.493-504.
TRIBE, J. 2006. The truth about tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), p.360-381.
TSAUR, S.-H., LIN, Y.-C. & LIN, J.-H. 2006. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated
perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tourism Management, 27(4), p.640-653.
TSITSILONI, M., GRIGOROUDIS, E. & ZOPOUNIDIS, C. Service quality evaluation in the tourism industry:
A SWOT analysis approach. Optimization Theory, Decision Making, and Operations Research
Applications: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium and 10th Balkan Conference on
Operational Research, 2013 New York. Springer, 249-266.
TURNER, J. R. & BAKER, R. M. 2019. Complexity theory: An overview with potential applications for the
social sciences. Systems, 7(1), p.4.
UEDA, N. 2000. Optimal linear combination of neural networks for improving classification performance. IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(2), p.207-215.
UNESCO. 2008. Hegra archaeological site (Al-Hijr / Madā ͐ in Ṣāliḥ) [Online]. Available:
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1293 [Accessed 6 Jun 2020].
UNESCO. 2023a. UNESCO / Kingdoms Institute: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – AlUla fellowships programme
[Online]. Available:
https://www.unesco.org/en/fellowships/alula?TSPD_101_R0=080713870fab2000b2c5dbe3c1d030e9eb
e841d0b701cb3fb34d3d30be95f0235cd23aaa51ea0829082343e82b143000f4abeaf90f0a30d13ce8b2ba
442a40941e3931b60eeb0ec9fa6f81532de93a2a957b71a5f9aeceeb8a7ea4a3dfe78b3b [Accessed 2 Jun
2023].
UNESCO. 2023b. World Heritage List [Online]. Available: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ [Accessed 1 Jun 2023].
UNITED NATIONS. 2020. 17 Goals to transform our world [Online]. Available:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ [Accessed 15 December 2020].
UNWTO. 2013. Sustainable tourism for development guidebook - enhancing capacities for sustainable tourism
for development in developing countries [Online]. Available: https://www.e-
unwto.org/doi/book/10.18111/9789284415496 [Accessed 15 May 2023].
UNWTO. 2021a. Sustainable Development [Online]. Available: https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development
[Accessed 18 December 2022].
UNWTO. 2021b. Tourism and COVID-19 – unprecedented economic impacts [Online]. Available:
https://www.unwto.org/tourism-and-covid-19-unprecedented-economic-impacts [Accessed 17 July
2023].
UNWTO. 2022. Impact assessment of the COVID-19 outbreak on international tourism [Online]. Available:
https://www.unwto.org/impact-assessment-of-the-covid-19-outbreak-on-international-tourism
[Accessed 16 October 2022].
VALERI, M. & BAGGIO, R. 2021a. Italian tourism intermediaries: A social network analysis exploration.
Current Issues in Tourism, 24(9), p.1270-1283.
VALERI, M. & BAGGIO, R. 2021b. Social network analysis: Organizational implications in tourism
management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(2), p.342-353.

270
VALERIANI, D. & WARDHANI, R. S. 2015. Alternative tourism in the Belitung island with the blue tourism
concepts as the effort to achieve the quality of life, quality of opportunity and quality of experience.
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(5 S5), p.46.
VAN AMEROM, M. 2006. African foreign relations as a factor in ecotourism development: The case of South
Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1-2), p.112-127.
VAN DER MERWE, J. H. & VAN NIEKERK, A. 2013. Application of geospatial technology for gap analysis in
tourism planning for the Western Cape. South African Journal of Science, 109(3), p.1-10.
VAN KNIPPENBERG, D. & SLEEBOS, E. 2006. Organizational identification versus organizational
commitment: self‐definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
27(5), p.571-584.
VIIKKI, O. & LAURILA, K. 1998. Cepstral domain segmental feature vector normalization for noise robust
speech recognition. Speech Communication, 25(1-3), p.133-147.
VIPRIYANTI, N. U., SEMADI, I. G. N. M. D. & FAUZI, A. 2022. Developing mangrove ecotourism in Nusa
Penida Sacred Island, Bali, Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, p.1-14.
VISION 2030. 2023. Saudi Vision 2030 [Online]. Available: https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/v2030/overview/
[Accessed 26 December 2023].
VOGT, C. C. & COTTRELL, G. W. 1999. Fusion via a linear combination of scores. Information Retrieval, 1(3),
p.151-173.
WALL, G. 1997. Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental Management, 21(4), p.483-491.
WALLACE, G. N. & PIERCE, S. M. 1996. An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23(4), p.843-873.
WANG, C., ZHANG, J., YU, P. & HU, H. 2018. The theory of planned behavior as a model for understanding
tourists’ responsible environmental behaviors: The moderating role of environmental interpretations.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, p.425-434.
WANG, L. & LIN, L. 2007. A methodological framework for the triple bottom line accounting and management
of industry enterprises. International Journal of Production Research, 45(5), p.1063-1088.
WANG, L. E., ZHONG, L. S., ZHANG, Y. J. & ZHOU, B. 2014. Ecotourism environmental protection measures
and their effects on protected areas in China. Sustainability, 6(10), p.6781-6798.
WANG, S.-H., LEE, M.-T., CHÂTEAU, P.-A. & CHANG, Y.-C. 2016a. Performance indicator framework for
evaluation of sustainable tourism in the Taiwan coastal zone. Sustainability, 8(7), p.652.
WANG, X., LI, X. R., ZHEN, F. & ZHANG, J. 2016b. How smart is your tourist attraction?: Measuring tourist
preferences of smart tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tourism Management, 54,
p.309-320.
WANG, Y., YANG, W., LI, M. & LIU, X. 2012. Risk assessment of floor water inrush in coal mines based on
secondary fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 52, p.50-55.
WANYONYI, J. W., IMWATI, A. & BOITT, M. 2016. GIS in analysis of potential sites for ecotourism: A case
study of Kwale County. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 10(10),
p.43-49.
WARDANA, I. M., SUKAATMADJA, I. P. G., YASA, N. N. K. & ASTAWA, I. P. 2019. Cultural tourism and
ecotourism empowerment in the sustainable tourism development and destination competitiveness
enhancement. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 10(4 (36)), p.753-762.
WATTANACHAROENSIL, W. & STETTLER, J. 2019. Complexity theory in tourism: The case of Mount Rigi,
Switzerland. In: PEARCE, P. L. & OKTADIANA, H. (eds.) Delivering tourism intelligence: From
analysis to action. Bingley ,UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
WEARING, S. & NEIL, J. 2009. Ecotourism, Abingdon, UK, Routledge.
WEAVER, D. & OPPERMANN, M. 2000. Tourism management, Milton, Australia, John Wiley and Sons.
WEAVER, D. B. 2001. The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, New York, USA, CABI.
WEAVER, D. B. 2005. Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
32(2), p.439-455.
WEAVER, D. B. & LAWTON, L. J. 2007. Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourism research.
Tourism Management, 28(5), p.1168-1179.
WHITE, N. E., BUULTJENS, J. & SHOEBRIDGE, A. 2013. Complex interrelationships between ecotourism and
indigenous peoples. In: BALLANTYNE, R. & PACKER, J. (eds.) International handbook on
ecotourism. Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

271
WOHLIN, C. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering.
Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering,
2014. 1-10.
WOLF-BRANIGIN, M. 2013. Using complexity theory for research and program evaluation, Oxford, New York,
Oxford University Press.
WONG, P. P. W. 2018. Role of components of destination competitiveness in the relationship between customer-
based brand equity and destination loyalty. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(5), p.504-528.
WOOD, M. 2002. Ecotourism: Principles, practices and policies for sustainability, New York,USA, UNEP.
WOODSIDE, A. G., NAGY, G. & MEGEHEE, C. M. 2018. Applying complexity theory: A primer for identifying
and modeling firm anomalies. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(1), p.9-25.
WORLD TOURISM ORGANIZATION. 2021. Tourism [Online]. Available: https://www.unwto.org/ [Accessed
25 April 2022].
WORLD TRAVEL & TOURISM COUNCIL. 2022. Economic Impact Reports [Online]. Available:
https://wttc.org/research/economic-impact [Accessed 19 August 2022].
WU, D., LI, J. & LIANG, Y. 2013. Linear combination of multiple case-based reasoning with optimized weight
for software effort estimation. The Journal of Supercomputing, 64, p.898-918.
XIANG, Y. 2013. The characteristics of independent Chinese outbound tourists. Tourism Planning Development,
10(2), p.134-148.
XIE, T. & XU, C. 2017. Numerical and experimental investigations of chaotic mixing behavior in an oscillating
feedback micromixer. Chemical Engineering Science, 171, p.303-317.
XU, H., MA, C., LIAN, J., XU, K. & CHAIMA, E. 2018. Urban flooding risk assessment based on an integrated
k-means cluster algorithm and improved entropy weight method in the region of Haikou, China. Journal
of Hydrology, 563, p.975-986.
XULING, L., ZHAOPING, Y., FENG, D. & XUEGANG, C. 2009. Evaluation on tourism ecological security in
nature heritage sites-case of Kanas nature reserve of Xinjiang, China. Chinese Geographical Science,
19(3), p.265-273.
YASIN, M., ALAVI, J., KOUBIDA, S. & SMALL, M. H. 2011. An assessment of the competitiveness of the
Moroccan tourism industry: Benchmarking implications. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
18(1), p.6-22.
YILMAZ, O., MANSUROGLU, S. & YILMAZ, R. 2013. Swot analysis of ecotourism as a tool for sustainable
development: A case research in north-west black sea coastal zone of Turkey. Journal of Environmental
Protection and Ecology, 14(2), p.786-798.
YU, C.-P., CHANCELLOR, H. C. & COLE, S. T. 2011. Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable
tourism: A reexamination of the sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1),
p.57-63.
YU, D. W., HENDRICKSON, T. & CASTILLO, A. 1997. Ecotourism and conservation in Amazonian Peru:
Short-term and long-term challenges. Environmental Conservation, 24(2), p.130-138.
ZAHRA, A. & RYAN, C. 2005. Complexity in tourism structures–The embedded system of New Zealand’s
regional tourism organisation. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 5(1), p.1-17.
ZAHRA, A. & RYAN, C. 2007. From chaos to cohesion—Complexity in tourism structures: An analysis of New
Zealand's regional tourism organizations. Tourism Management, 28(3), p.854-862.
ZARDARI, N. H., AHMED, K., SHIRAZI, S. M. & YUSOP, Z. B. 2015. Weighting methods and their effects on
multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management, Skudai,Malaysia,
Springer.
ZARGHI, A. H., BIDKHORI, A. & HOSSEINI, S. M. 2019. Site Suitability Evaluation for Ecotourism Using
GIS & MCDM: A Case Study of Bazangan Lake Watershed, Iran. Journal of Novel Applied Sciences,
8(8), p.170-181.
ZEPPEL, H. 2008. Education and conservation benefits of marine wildlife tours: Developing free-choice learning
experiences. The journal of Environmental Education, 39(3), p.3-18.
ZHANG, H., GU, C.-L., GU, L.-W. & ZHANG, Y. 2011. The evaluation of tourism destination competitiveness
by TOPSIS & information entropy–A case in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Tourism Management,
32(2), p.443-451.
ZHANG, H., SONG, H., WEN, L. & LIU, C. 2021. Forecasting tourism recovery amid COVID-19. Annals of
Tourism Research, 87, p.103149.
ZHANG, J. & JENSEN, C. 2007. Comparative advantage: explaining tourism flows. Annals of Tourism Research,
34(1), p.223-243.
ZHANG, X., WANG, C., LI, E. & XU, C. 2014. Assessment model of ecoenvironmental vulnerability based on
improved entropy weight method. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, p.797814-7.
272
ZHAO, H. & SHI, Y.-Q. 2013. Detecting covert channels in computer networks based on chaos theory. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 8(2), p.273-282.
ZHONG, L., BUCKLEY, R. C., WARDLE, C. & WANG, L. 2015. Environmental and visitor management in a
thousand protected areas in China. Biological Conservation, 181, p.219-225.
ZHU, Y., TIAN, D. & YAN, F. 2020. Effectiveness of entropy weight method in decision-making. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2020, p.1-5.
ZIBOLD, T., NICKLAS, E., GROSS, C. & OBERTHALER, M. K. 2010. Classical bifurcation at the transition
from Rabi to Josephson dynamics. Physical Review Letters, 105(20), p.204101.
ZILL, J. M., SCHOLL, I., HÄRTER, M. & DIRMAIER, J. 2015. Which dimensions of patient-centeredness
matter?-Results of a web-based expert delphi survey. PloS One, 10(11), p.e0141978.

273
Appendices
Appendix 1. WSM and EWM scores for strengths
Linear combination score of WSM and
Variables WSM EWM
EWM
S1 70.00 85.74 77.87
S2 76.00 89.84 82.92
S3 74.28 87.72 81.00
S4 70.62 87.19 78.91
S5 80.29 88.53 84.41
S6 79.44 82.79 81.11
S7 81.47 82.27 81.87
S8 70.00 83.17 76.58
S9 60.62 83.01 71.82
S10 72.50 87.63 80.06
S11 68.88 83.70 76.29
S12 69.41 83.70 76.55
S13 71.17 82.64 76.91
S14 66.47 83.04 74.75
S15 64.70 82.91 73.81
S16 78.82 83.29 81.05
S17 79.41 83.20 81.30
S18 73.52 83.47 78.50
S19 70.00 83.25 76.62
S20 71.76 83.17 77.47
S21 75.88 83.00 79.44
S22 74.11 83.125 78.62
S23 71.17 83.67 77.42
S24 71.17 82.64 76.91
S25 74.11 82.03 78.07
S26 72.35 81.96 77.15
S27 76.47 82.27 79.37
S28 72.35 81.96 77.15
S29 78.82 82.07 80.44
S30 75.00 81.85 78.42

274
S31 75.00 81.85 78.42
S32 72.50 81.91 77.20
S33 73.82 84.26 79.04
S34 75.00 82.98 78.99
S35 75.55 82.04 78.80
S36 77.50 81.85 79.67
S37 76.25 81.85 79.05
S38 78.75 81.85 80.30
S39 80.00 81.85 80.92
S40 71.42 83.20 77.31
S41 76.33 82.82 79.57
S42 73.66 82.84 78.25
S43 73.75 82.60 78.17
S44 75.00 81.85 78.42
S45 80.00 82.66 81.33
S46 78.88 83.23 81.06
S47 80.00 83.71 81.85
S48 78.82 82.67 80.74
S49 76.47 81.90 79.18
S50 75.71 82.93 79.32
S51 71.76 83.26 77.51
S52 75.00 81.85 78.42
S53 78.75 83.56 81.15
S54 75.00 83.34 79.17
S55 75.00 81.85 78.42
S56 74.11 82.00 78.06
S57 73.33 85.16 79.24
S58 77.14 84.45 80.79
S59 73.12 83.89 78.50
S60 78.12 86.50 82.31
S61 75.71 83.06 79.39
S62 74.64 83.90 79.27
S63 76.33 82.82 79.58
S64 74.00 83.58 78.79

275
S65 68.23 82.76 75.49
S66 72.50 85.28 78.89
S67 73.33 82.01 77.67
S68 77.77 83.017 80.39
S69 77.50 85.33 81.41
S70 77.18 81.94 79.56
S71 77.50 82.44 79.97
S72 78.88 81.98 80.43
S73 75.71 83.39 79.55
S74 79.37 82.65 81.01
S75 73.33 83.54 78.43
S76 75.55 83.09 79.32
S77 76.25 82.24 79.24
S78 80.50 81.86 81.18
S79 72.50 82.73 77.61
S80 70.62 83.50 77.06
S81 71.25 82.68 76.96
S82 70.27 82.82 76.55
S83 70.00 84.18 77.09
S84 72.50 89.16 80.83
S85 72.91 86.05 79.48
S86 73.33 83.45 78.39
S87 74.37 83.79 79.08
S88 72.50 82.11 77.30
S89 75.29 82.90 79.09
S90 80.58 82.17 81.38
S91 78.23 82.11 80.17
S92 79.70 82.54 81.12
S93 81.87 83.01 82.44
S94 80.88 83.50 82.19
S95 78.82 82.13 80.48

276
Appendix 2. WSM and EWM scores for Weaknesses

Variables WSM EWM Linear combination score of WSM and EWM

W1 76.25 65.69 70.97

W2 88.57 66.26 77.41
W3 77.14 67.53 72.34
W4 73.33 65.69 69.51
W5 74.38 68.52 71.45
W6 81.67 63.85 72.76
W7 73.57 66.26 69.91
W8 71.67 65.69 68.68
W9 83.33 67.85 75.59
W10 73.33 67.85 70.59
W11 68.89 68.52 68.70
W12 76.67 65.26 70.97
W13 70.00 66.26 68.13
W14 74.17 68.52 71.34
W15 83.57 66.26 74.91

277
Appendix 3. WSM and EWM scores for Opportunities

Variables WSM EWM Linear combination score of WSM and EWM

O1 71.67 83.94 77.81

O2 73.75 83.44 78.60
O3 72.50 82.65 77.57
O4 71.00 83.51 77.25
O5 74.33 83.57 78.95
O6 73.33 84.19 78.76
O7 73.53 83.80 78.67
O8 69.09 87.49 78.29
O9 70.00 82.07 76.04
O10 79.29 83.53 81.41
O11 76.43 82.87 79.65
O12 77.50 81.86 79.68
O13 71.67 83.60 77.63
O14 78.82 82.43 80.63
O15 75.01 82.44 78.73
O16 78.75 82.93 80.84
O17 77.75 81.87 79.81
O18 77.06 82.57 79.81
O19 75.00 81.86 78.43
O20 70.63 82.22 76.42
O21 71.76 82.17 76.97
O22 77.06 83.47 80.26
O23 78.75 86.84 82.79
O24 77.00 87.03 82.01
O25 79.67 81.95 80.81

278
Appendix 4.WSM and EWM scores for Threats

Variables WSM EWM Linear combination score of WSM and EWM

T1 69.41 83.70 76.56

T2 71.18 82.65 76.92
T3 66.47 83.04 74.76
T4 64.71 82.91 73.81
T5 78.82 83.29 81.06
T6 79.41 83.20 81.31
T7 73.53 83.48 78.51
T8 70.00 83.25 76.63
T9 71.76 83.18 77.47
T10 75.88 83.01 79.45

279
Appendix 5. Strengths (S) and Opportunities (O) scores collected through the Delphi method
Variables Score V Score V Score V Score V Score
(V)
S1 68.93 S26 78.95 S51 79.41 S76 75.61 S101 77.77
S2 78.52 S27 73.22 S52 78.55 S77 75.89 S102 76.96
S3 75.16 S28 70.79 S53 71.60 S78 72.97 S103 81.78
S4 72.59 S29 71.03 S54 75.55 S79 74.78 S104 72.82
S5 82.82 S30 73.83 S55 74.30 S80 75.93 S105 70.20
S6 81.20 S31 74.74 S56 75.72 S81 74.33 S106 71.29
S7 82.64 S32 72.16 S57 74.73 S82 74.39 S107 71.96
S8 73.89 S33 72.83 S58 79.77 S83 75.27 S108 71.73
S9 61.56 S34 73.04 S59 79.88 S84 72.64 S109 72.57
S10 73.99 S35 72.36 S60 78.81 S85 67.58 S110 71.35
S11 69.03 S36 74.21 S61 78.95 S86 72.04 S111 73.71
O12 72.23 S37 72.92 S62 79.95 S87 73.88 S112 73.33
O13 74.12 S38 77.50 S63 76.75 S88 73.39 S113 72.62
O14 72.25 O39 78.88 S64 74.70 S89 79.56 S114 74.62
O15 72.12 O40 76.68 S65 74.38 S90 78.58 S115 80.90
O16 74.85 S41 75.56 S66 72.47 S91 76.69 S116 79.94
O17 74.95 O42 75.51 S67 75.46 S92 79.35 S117 80.70
O18 73.94 S43 75.58 S68 74.57 S93 77.55 S118 81.42
O19 69.06 S44 72.45 S69 73.70 S94 77.39 S119 82.62
O20 70.19 O45 72.84 S70 75.24 S95 75.63 S120 79.41
S21 69.06 S46 74.51 S71 77.23 S96 73.57
S22 69.26 S47 76.05 S72 78.85 S97 78.93
S23 67.81 S48 75.55 S73 75.63 S98 78.58
S24 65.74 S49 78.73 S74 73.89 S99 76.86
S25 76.98 S50 78.40 S75 76.59 S100 77.39

280
Appendix 6. Hypothetical construct developed between ecotourism opportunities dimensions,
sustainable ecotourism opportunities indicators and their relevant sustainable ecotourism
opportunities
Dimension Criteria Indicator Variables
Nature (D1) Natural Topographical (V1) Foliage,
attraction (C1) structures (N1) (V2) Canyons and ravines (Red-
rock canyons, steep-sided
ravines)
(V3) Grove
(V4) Deserts
(V5) Sandstone mountain
(V6) Mountain
(V7) Oasis
(V8) Forests
(V9) Valleys
( V10) Trees
( V11) Caves
Suitable natural (V12) Suitable temperature
phenomenon (N2) (V13) Low annual rainfall
(V14) Low altitude
(V15) Moderate aspect ratio
toward the south
(V16) Good slope for tourists
activities
(V17) Moderate vegetation in
some areas (vegetation density -
0. 0.5)
(V18) Suitable visibility
(V19) Low population density
(V20) Suitable elevation for
ecotourism

Wildlife saturation (V21) Acacia woodland

(N3) (V22) Nubian Ibex
(V23) Red-Necked Ostrich
(V24) Idmi Gazelles
(V25) Arabian Leopard
(V26) Arabian Wolf
(V27) Red Fox
(V28) Green Bee-eater
(V29) Laughing Dove
(V30) Crested Lark
(V31) Eagles
(V32) Harriers
(V33) long-legged Buzzards

281
Dimension Criteria Indicator Variables
Reservation/ Protected places (V34) Nabataen Horizone
sensitive areas (N4) District
(C2) (V35) Hegra
(V36) Ikmah
(V37) Dedan
(V38) Old Town Alula
Conservative Planning to (V39) Protection of Natural
measures (C3) conserve nature places
(N5) (V40) Revenue for nature
conservation
(V41) Mix land use
(V42) Conservation of threatened
species
Planning to (V43) Cultural events and
conserve culture festivals,
(N6) (V44) Promoting cultural art
(V45) Close Proximity to cultural
and historical sites 0-15 km
Environmental Education and Environmental (V46) Responsible
education/prot study (C4) protection environmental behavior
ection (D2) awareness among (V47) Environmental Ethics
local communities (V48) Recognition of
(N7) environmental responsibilities
(V49) Environmental protection
Environmental (V50) Understanding of the
education (N8) natural environment and its
protection
(V51) Community development
programme
(V52) Conserve resources
learning
(V53) Seeking Non-consumptive
activities
Ecotourism (V54) Awareness of ecotourism
awareness among among local communities
local communities (V55) Awareness of ecotourism
and visitors (N9) among visitors
(V56) Resource management
(V57) Developing Agriculture
land
Managing Infrastructural (V58) Sewerage
opportunities Services (N10) (V59) Electricity
(C5) (V60) Water

282
Dimension Criteria Indicator Variables
Accommodation (V61) Good accommodation
opportunities for (V62) Far from negative factors
ecotourists (N11) such as industrial areas
(V63) Close Proximity from road
0 to 2 km
Government (V64) Destination Marketing
planning to (V65) Ecotourism markets
promote tourism (V66) Managing impacts of
(N12) ecotourism
Sustainability Ecological Water availability (V67) Conservation of water
(D3) sustainability and conservation (V68) Good surface water quality
(C6) policies (N13) (V69) Groundwater is generally
moderately hard and slightly
alkaline
Practices to (V70) Strategies to control the
conserve the natural water pollution
Environmental and (V71) Moderate Air quality
people's health (V72) Ecosystem conservation
(N14) (V73) Low impact on the
environment and people’s health
Economic Practices to support (V74) long-range planning
sustainability sustainable long- (V75) Equal opportunity to
(C7) term economic participate in the economy
growth (N 15) (V76) Moderate cost of living
(V77) Improving Quality of life
Socio-cultural Culture and Planning to (V78) Protection of Historical
benefits (D4) traditions (C8) conserve historical Sites and buildings.
heritage sites (N16) (V79) Promoting the history
(V80) Museum
Protection and (V81) Promoting Cultural
promotion of local Heritage
heritage (N17) (V82) Managing Cultural events
(V83) Promoting Cultural
Awareness
(V84) Historical-archeological
assets
Low Impact assessment (V85) Reducing social and
impact/non- indicator (N18) cultural impacts of tourism
consumptive (V86) Promoting a sustainable
(C9) economy and reducing negative
economic impacts
(V87) Low Environmental
impacts

283
Dimension Criteria Indicator Variables
Benefits local Health facilities (V88) Hospitals
residents (N19) (V89) Governmental primary
/long-term care centres and private clinics
benefits (C10) (V90) Red Crescent and
Ambulance Centers
Educational (V91) Schools
opportunities (N20) (V92) Universities

Employment (V93) Availability of

opportunities (N21) employment opportunities
(V94) Ease of access
(V95) Communication Networks
Local business (V96) Local business promotion
promotion (V97) Revenue for local
opportunities (N22) development project
Tourists' Accessibility Resilient habitat (V98) Close Proximity from
satisfaction (C11) (N23) populated centres 10 to 20 km
(D5) (V99) Very far from fault lines
(V100) Close to drinking water
(V101) Far from flood-risk areas
Adventure Nature-based (V102) Walking trails
(C12) activities (N24) (V103) Camping
(V104) Mountaineering
(V105) Trekking
(V106) Mountain biking
(V107) Cycling
(V108) Rafting
(V109) Zip-lining
(V110) Paragliding
(V111) Hiking
(V112) Exploring
(V113) Canyoneering
(V114) Sandboarding
(V115) Caving
(V116) Rock climbing
(V117) Hot air balloon

Enjoyment/app Tourist protection (V118) Availability of Tour

reciation (C13) (N25) guide
(V119) Availability of eating and
drinking places
(V120) Availability of security
for visitors

284
Appendix 7. The Ecotourism Opportunities Gap Analysis (EOGA) score of Weaknesses
(W) and Threats (T)

The Gap between A

Benchmark values Current Status Alula
Variables and B
(Turkey, Mallorca) (A) (EWM, WSM) (B)
=A-(-B)
W1 13.28 70.97 84.25
W2 13.21 77.41 90.63
W3 13.21 72.34 85.55
W4 13.21 69.51 82.72
W5 13.28 71.45 84.73
T6 13.28 76.56 89.84
T7 13.28 76.92 90.20
T8 6.77 74.76 81.53
T9 13.28 73.81 87.09
W10 13.28 72.76 86.04
X11 11.20 81.06 92.26
W12 7.86 69.91 77.77
T13 13.28 81.31 94.59
T14 18.08 78.51 96.58
T15 12.13 76.63 88.76
T16 9.09 77.47 86.56
T17 9.08 79.45 88.53
S18 12.93 68.68 81.60
S19 16.20 75.59 91.79
S20 18.00 70.59 88.59
S21 13.21 68.70 81.91
S22 4.20 70.97 75.17
S23 6.62 68.13 74.75
S24 4.24 71.34 75.58
S25 12.93 74.91 87.84

285
 Appendix 8. The ecotourism opportunity index for the whole of Alula city
Variable’s Indicator’s Dimension’s EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score score score score
S1 39.64
S2 82.89
S3 67.27
S4 53.51
S5 99.98
S6 85.47
S7 91.94
S8 50.49
S9 -0.01
S10 61.07 N1 27.04
S11 35.28
W12 -3.72
W13 -41.38
W14 -11.41
D1 47.54 52.40
W15 5.30
W16 -6.54
T17 -36.72
T18 -38.84
T19 -20.50
O20 45.50
O21 52.13
O22 40.24
O23 37.06
O24 66.52 N2 49.32
O25 67.58
O26 56.32
O27 36.33
O28 42.18

286
 Variable’s Indicator’s Dimension’s EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score score score score
S29 44.67
S30 42.84
S31 35.00
S32 27.37
S33 64.03
S34 67.14
S35 56.75 N3 50.02
S36 43.02
S37 53.45
S38 55.77
S39 58.45
S40 47.22
S41 54.61
S42 55.08
S43 52.53
S44 60.57
N4 51.26
S45 54.90
S46 72.13
T47 12.36
O48 78.06
W49 -14.30
O50 60.90 N5 49.83
S51 64.27
O52 60.20
S53 60.18
S54 51.68 N6 57.76
O55 61.43
S56 65.54
N7 69.54 D2 62.82
S57 72.46

287
 Variable’s Indicator’s Dimension’s EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score score score score
S58 67.70
S59 72.46
S60 71.91
S61 69.53
S62 69.70
N8 41.98
S63 57.23
W64 34.53
T65 -51.00
S66 63.01
S67 57.15
N9 60.31
S68 60.24
S69 60.85
S70 80.30
S71 73.86 N10 78.70
S72 81.93
S73 73.73
S74 76.33 N11 72.61
S75 67.77
S76 59.40
S77 48.73 N12 53.75
S78 53.12
S79 58.34
S80 63.76 N13 62.10
S81 64.19
S82 63.26
D3 46.88
S83 70.34
S84 76.53 N14 14.69
S85 64.39
T86 -64.77

288
 Variable’s Indicator’s Dimension’s EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score score score score
T87 -76.57
T88 -30.33
S89 63.57
S90 63.93
N15 63.86
S91 63.65
S92 64.26
S93 61.35
S94 56.17 N16 58.48
S95 57.92
S96 52.91
S97 51.85
S98 56.07 N17 40.56
S99 59.33
T100 -17.34
S101 40.44
S102 50.36 N18 49.55
S103 57.84
D4 56.80
S104 51.15
S105 74.67 N19 68.11
S106 78.51
S107 69.36
N20 74.70
S108 80.03
S109 78.59
S110 77.41 N21 74.37
S111 67.12
S112 53.14
S113 71.30 N22 31.82
T114 -28.97
S115 67.26 N23 28.43 D5 47.98

289
 Variable’s Indicator’s Dimension’s EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score score score score
S116 61.25
S117 67.81
S118 68.38
W119 11.91
W120 -48.27
W121 -29.34
S122 65.71
S123 78.83
S124 45.69
S125 53.83
S126 51.85
S127 53.93
S128 47.21
S129 58.54
S130 49.30
S131 62.53
N24 56.08
S132 58.36
S133 56.28
S134 58.08
S135 70.69
S136 69.49
S137 81.48
W138 10.07
W139 49.94
W140 52.40
W141 47.48
S142 91.07
S143 92.31 N25 59.43
W144 -24.92

290
 Variable’s Indicator’s Dimension’s EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score score score score
S145 79.26

Appendix 9. The ecotourism opportunity index for Old Town Alula

Variable’s Indicator's Dimensions' EOI

Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S1 39.64
S3 67.27
S4 53.51
S5 99.98
S6 85.47
S7 91.94
S8 50.49
S9 -0.01
N1 26.11
S10 61.07
W12 -3.72
W13 -41.38
W14 -11.41 D1 46.42 55.1
W15 5.3
W16 -6.54
T17 -36.72
T18 -38.84
O20 45.5
O21 52.13
O22 40.24
O24 66.52 N2 44.57
O25 29.18
O26 44.5
O27 36.33

291
 Variable’s Indicator's Dimensions' EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

O28 42.18
S29 44.67
S30 42.84
S31 35
S32 27.37
S33 64.03
S34 67.14
S35 56.75 N3 50.02
S36 43.02
S37 53.45
S38 55.77
S39 58.45
S40 47.22
S41 54.61
S46 72.13 N4 72.13
O48 78.06
W49 -14.3
N5 33.94
O50 60.9
S51 11.11
S53 42.46
S54 51.68 N6 51.86
O55 61.43
S56 33.06
S57 31.11
N7 34.84
S58 26.35
D2 60.6
S59 48.83
S60 51.23
N8 64.13
S61 69.53

292
 Variable’s Indicator's Dimensions' EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S62 90.37
S63 63.14
W64 46.35
S66 63.01
S67 36.47
N9 47.76
S68 72.05
S69 19.5
S70 77.35
S71 79.77 N10 80.67
S72 84.89
S73 50.1
S74 94.05 N11 74.58
S75 79.58
S76 94.84 N12 61.63
S79 58.34
S80 72.62 N13 51.27
S81 22.85
S82 57.35
S83 73.3 D3 59.04
S84 38.14 N14 52.38
S85 70.29
T88 22.83
S89 66.53 N15 73.45
S93 79.07
N16 82.39
S94 85.7
S96 82.44 N17 60.06 D4 68.09
S101 28.63 N18 37.73
S104 51.15 N19 51.15

293
 Variable’s Indicator's Dimensions' EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S107 69.36 N20 69.36

S109 87.45 N21 84.22
S112 82.68
N22 91.76
S113 100.83
S115 96.8
S116 90.78
S117 97.35
S118 92 N23 19.99
W119 -88.5
W120 -60.08
D5 41.33
W121 -88.41
S122 39.13 N24 36.45
S142 94.03
S143 98.22
N25 67.55
W144 -7.2
S145 85.17

294
 Appendix 10. The ecotourism opportunity index for Dedan district

Indicators Dimension
Variables Variable’s score Indicators Dimensions EOI score
Score Score

S1 54.4
S2 82.89
S3 52.51
S6 73.66
S7 65.36
S9 11.81
S10 61.07
W12 43.53 N1 24.01
W13 -41.38
W14 -11.41
W15 5.3
W16 58.44
T17 -36.72
T18 -38.84
D1 41.7 45.31
T19 -20.5
O20 45.49702
O21 52.1292
O22 40.2389
O23 37.05812
O24 34.02963 N2 39.14
O25 38.04478
O26 29.73569
O27 33.37807
O28 42.1813
S29 21.04
S36 43.02
N3 35.42
S37 38.68
S38 49.86

295
 Indicators Dimension
Variables Variable’s score Indicators Dimensions EOI score
Score Score

S39 40.73
S40 23.59
S41 30.98
S45 54.9
N4 54.9
T47 83.24
O48 51.47713
W49 32.96
O50 54.9931 N5 52.78
S51 64.27
O52 60.20123
S53 42.46
S54 45.77 N6 43.98
O55 43.70541
S56 53.73
S57 57.69
N7 60.68
S58 61.79
S59 69.5
S60 68.95
S61 66.58
S62 66.75
N8 43.95
S63 54.28
W64 34.53 D2 55.43
T65 -27.38
S66 45.29
S67 57.15
N9 51.45
S68 39.56
S69 63.8
S70 56.67
S71 73.86 N10 70.82
S72 81.93

296
 Indicators Dimension
Variables Variable’s score Indicators Dimensions EOI score
Score Score

S73 53.05
S74 73.38 N11 64.73
S75 67.77
S76 23.96
S77 45.78 N12 40.95
S78 53.12
S79 55.39
S80 54.9 N13 50.29
S81 40.57
S82 57.35
S83 64.44
S84 70.62
S85 58.48 N14 22.29
D3 40.55
T86 -41.15
T87 -23.41
T88 -30.33
S89 34.04
S90 58.03
N15 49.09
S91 60.7
S92 43.59
S93 17.05
N16 27.75
S94 38.45
S96 55.86
S97 51.85
S98 50.16 N17 42.93
D4 48.29
S99 32.75
T100 24.01
S101 37.49
S102 50.36 N18 46.59
S103 51.93

297
 Indicators Dimension
Variables Variable’s score Indicators Dimensions EOI score
Score Score

S104 36.38
S105 51.04 N19 52.36
S106 69.65
S107 47.21 N20 47.21
S109 60.51
S110 56.79 N21 57.54
S111 55.31
S112 53.14
S113 64.66 N22 63.67
T114 73.21
S115 67.26
S116 61.25
S117 67.81
S118 66.61 N23 36.36
W119 11.91
W120 9.02
W121 -29.34
S122 59.77
S124 40.08
S125 47.63
D5 40.55
S126 31.17
S127 33.2
S128 32.44
S129 31.04 N24 28.83
S130 32.17
S131 35.95
S132 -145.12
S133 32.38
S136 57.41
W138 -4.69

298
 Indicators Dimension
Variables Variable’s score Indicators Dimensions EOI score
Score Score

W139 83.6
W140 48.5
W141 45.71
S142 88.12
S143 86.4
N25 56.46
W144 -24.92
S145 76.25

Appendix 11. The ecotourism opportunity index for Jabal Ikmah district

Variable's Indicator Dimension EOI

Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S1 24.87
S2 71.07
S3 40.69
S6 76.61
S7 80.12
S9 -0.01
S10 55.16
W12 -15.54 N1 19.67
W13 -23.66 D1 36.29 42.85
W14 -11.41
W15 5.30
W16 46.62
T17 -13.09
T18 -32.94
T19 -8.69
O20 45.50
N2 39.80
O21 52.13

299
 Variable's Indicator Dimension EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

O22 46.15
O23 37.06
O24 28.12
O25 32.14
O26 38.60
O27 39.28
O28 39.23
S29 29.90
S36 28.25
S37 26.87
S38 38.05
S39 46.64 N3 33.31
S40 29.50
S41 33.93
S44 60.57
T47 71.42
O48 60.34
W49 21.14
O50 57.95 N5 51.60
S51 58.36
O52 60.20
S53 39.51
S54 39.87 N6 37.09
O55 31.89
S56 50.78
S57 48.83
N7 55.51
S58 55.88
D2 51.40
S59 66.55
S60 63.05
N8 42.88
S61 60.67

300
 Variable's Indicator Dimension EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S62 60.84
S63 51.32
T65 -21.47
S66 39.39
N9 46.28
S67 54.19
S68 33.66
S69 57.89
S70 53.72
S71 70.91 N10 59.99
S72 55.35
S73 50.10
S74 76.33 N11 63.75
S75 64.81
S76 29.87
S77 39.87 N12 39.97
S78 50.17
S79 58.34
S80 46.04 N13 50.29
S81 46.47
S82 54.40
S83 49.67
S84 64.72
S85 55.53 N14 24.40
D3 39.53
T86 -23.43
T87 6.12
T88 -36.24
S89 36.99
S90 49.17
N15 43.92
S91 54.79
S92 34.73

301
 Variable's Indicator Dimension EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S93 25.91
N16 38.09
S94 50.26
S96 47.00
S97 51.85
S98 29.49 N17 31.70
S99 29.80
T100 0.38
S101 34.53
S102 47.40 N18 43.64
S103 48.98
D4 44.77
S104 33.43
S105 45.13 N19 48.49
S106 66.90
S107 40.04 N20 40.04
S109 57.71
S110 54.37 N21 53.96
S111 49.82
S112 49.01
S113 62.44 N22 57.46
T114 60.93
S115 55.15
S116 62.16
S117 53.87
S118 66.84 N23 30.14
W119 -1.08
D5 42.26
W120 1.70
W121 -27.69
S122 55.58
S124 37.19 N24 39.59
S125 44.73

302
 Variable's Indicator Dimension EOI
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score score

S126 45.94
S127 30.30
S128 41.30
S129 46.22
S130 36.28
S131 35.75
S132 28.83
S133 43.87
S136 62.40
W138 -1.86
W139 72.26
W140 3.20
W141 51.44
S142 84.90
S143 84.10
N25 57.05
W144 -13.11
S145 72.32

303
Appendix 12. The ecotourism opportunity index for Nabataean

variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for

Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Nabataean

S1 69.17
S2 56.31
S3 67.27
S6 85.47
S7 91.94
S10 49.25
W12 -3.72
N1 33.74
W13 -11.85
W14 -11.41
W15 5.30
W16 28.90
T17 34.16
T18 -9.31
T19 20.84
O20 45.50
O21 52.13
O22 49.10
O23 37.06
D1 41.23 43.62
O24 57.66 N2 48.66
O25 67.58
O26 47.46
O27 45.19
O28 36.27
S29 38.76
S36 25.30
S37 12.10
S38 26.23 N3 30.35
S39 52.55
S40 32.45
S41 25.07
S42 55.08
N4 54.39
T47 53.70
O48 72.15
W49 27.05
N5 51.01
O50 49.09
S51 46.55

304
 variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Nabataean

O52 60.20
S53 33.60
S54 33.96 N6 29.21
O55 20.08
S56 41.92
S57 42.92
N7 49.60
S58 49.98
S59 63.60
S60 57.14
S61 54.77
S62 57.89 N8 41.70
S63 48.37
T65 -9.66
S66 33.48
S67 48.29
N9 42.59 D2 52.23
S68 27.75
S69 60.85
S70 77.35
S71 67.95 N10 71.81
S72 70.12
S73 47.15
S74 82.24 N11 62.77
S75 58.91
S76 38.73
S77 48.73 N12 44.89
S78 47.21
S79 52.44
S80 40.14 N13 48.32
S81 52.38
S82 48.49
S83 52.62
S84 67.67 D3 39.93
S85 46.67 N14 29.04
T86 -35.24
T87 41.56
T88 -18.52
S89 45.85 N15 42.44

305
 variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Nabataean

S90 43.26
S91 48.89
S92 31.78
S93 31.82
N16 43.99
S94 56.17
S96 44.05
S97 51.85
S98 38.35 N17 35.25
S99 35.71
T100 6.29
S101 31.58
S102 35.59 N18 37.73
S103 46.03
D4 41.92
S104 27.52
S105 42.18 N19 44.42
S106 63.56
S107 34.40 N20 34.40
S109 52.01
S110 51.09 N21 48.96
S111 43.79
S112 42.95
S113 59.49 N22 48.69
T114 43.62
S115 50.49
S116 63.11
S117 59.75
S118 67.49 N23 27.32
W119 -10.88
W120 -10.70
W121 -27.98
D5 42.80
S122 49.62
S123 64.21
S124 34.79
S125 35.96 N24 44.40
S126 42.99
S127 30.30
S128 47.21

306
 variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Nabataean

S129 42.44
S130 39.97
S131 62.53
S132 37.10
S133 49.48
S136 69.49
S137 66.42
W138 -1.86
W139 64.11
W140 22.87
W141 41.57
S142 79.26
S143 75.56
N25 56.69
W144 4.61
S145 67.33

307
Appendix 13. The ecotourism opportunity index for Hegra district

Variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for

Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Alula

S1 -16.48
S2 32.68
S4 6.26
S6 79.56
S10 2.00
W12 -33.26
N1 21.45
W14 -11.41
W15 5.30
W16 -6.54
T17 81.42
T18 79.29
T19 38.56
O20 45.50
O21 52.13
O22 63.87
O23 37.06
O24 66.52 N2 46.69
O25 -6.26
D1 36.32 41.52
O26 56.32
O27 71.77
O28 33.32
S29 44.67
S36 7.58
S37 -5.62
S38 2.61 N3 26.13
S39 58.45
S40 35.41
S41 39.84
S43 52.53
N4 44.26
T47 35.98
O48 78.06
W49 -14.30
N5 46.22
O50 60.90
O52 60.20
S53 45.42
N6 33.15
S54 51.68
308
 Variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Alula

O55 2.36
S56 33.06
S57 37.02
N7 42.96
S58 41.12
S59 60.64
S60 51.23
S61 40.00
S62 49.03 N8 38.75
S63 45.42
D2 50.20
T65 8.06
S68 42.52 N9 42.52
S72 70.12 N10 70.12
S74 88.12
N11 67.87
S75 47.63
S76 59.40
S77 19.20 N12 38.98
S78 38.35
S80 37.18
N13 46.26
S81 55.33
S82 42.59
S83 46.72
S84 52.90
N14 19.08
S85 43.71
D3 35.19
T87 -70.67
T88 -0.80
S89 54.71
S90 34.40
N15 40.23
S91 45.93
S92 25.87
S93 61.35
N16 61.71
S94 62.07
S96 52.91
S97 51.85
D4 49.33
S98 56.07 N17 40.56
S99 59.33
T100 -17.34
S101 28.63 N18 31.83

309
 Variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Alula

S102 32.64
S103 34.21
S106 61.08 N19 61.08
S107 69.36 N20 69.36
S109 45.24
S110 47.87 N21 44.74
S111 41.10
S112 33.68
S113 56.12 N22 36.03
T114 18.28
S115 37.43
S116 62.49
S117 48.00
S118 67.82 N23 17.92
W119 -11.59
W120 -48.27
W121 -30.46
S122 65.71
S123 67.52
S124 37.54
S125 24.00
S126 51.85
S127 27.35
S128 56.07 D5 36.55
S129 58.54
S130 49.30
S131 66.70 N24 48.14
S132 58.36
S133 34.42
S134 36.84
S136 69.16
S137 77.38
W138 -4.69
W139 60.15
W140 34.03
W141 44.35
S142 61.24 N25 43.59

310
 Variables' Indicator Dimension EOI for
Variables Indicators Dimensions
score Score Score Alula

S143 63.43
W144 -24.92
S145 74.62

311
Appendix 14. The survey questionnaire to identify ecotourism opportunities in Alula city
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
Demographic Q.1. Where is your home Local residents Author
information located? and visitors developed
(Section 1) A. Alula (go to Q3)
B. Other, please mention
here: (go to Q2)

Q.2. Have you ever visited Alula Local residents Author

A. Yes and visitors developed
B. No
Q.3. What is your current Local residents Author
education level? and visitors developed
A. < 12 years of schooling
B. Completed secondary
school
C. Diploma
D. Bachelors degree
E. Master's degree and
above
Q.4. What is your gender? Local residents Author
A. Male and visitors developed
B. Female
C. Prefer to self-describe:
Q.5. What is your occupational Local residents Author
status? and visitors developed
A. Employed full-time
B. Employed part-time
C. Unemployed
D. Student
E. Retired

312
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
Q.6. What is your age? Local residents Author
A. 18-25 and visitors developed
B. 25-35
C. 36-45
D. 46-60
E. Over 60
Awareness about Q.1. Ecotourism provides (Baral et al.,
ecotourism economic benefits to the local 2012,
(Section 2) community. Bhuiyan et
A. Strongly agree al., 2016,
B. Agree Ocampo et
C. Don’t know al., 2018)
D. Disagree Local residents
E. Strongly disagree
Q.2. Ecotourism protects natural Local residents (Kim and
heritage sites. Eves, 2012,
A. Strongly agree Adeleke,
B. Agree 2015)
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Q.3. Ecotourism protects Local residents
cultural heritage sites. (Kim and
A. Strongly agree Eves, 2012,
B. Agree Adeleke,
C. Don’t know 2015)
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

313
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
Q.4. Ecotourism is a sustainable Local residents (Ocampo et
form of tourism al., 2018)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Q.5. There is a growing number Local residents
of ecotourism opportunities at
Alula.
A. Yes
B. No
Awareness about Q.1. Sustainable development Local residents (Wang et al.,
environmental takes into consideration the and visitors 2014,
protection economic and environmental Bhuiyan et
(Section 3) needs of future generations. al., 2016)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Q.2. A sustainable environment Local residents (Wang et al.,
can be achieved by avoiding the and visitors 2014,
depletion of natural resources. Bhuiyan et
A. Strongly agree al., 2016)
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

314
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
Q.3. Environmental ethics Local residents (Joseph and
consider the wise use of and visitors Kulkarni,
resources and the protection of 2020, Mane,
the Earth. 2020)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Assessing Q.1. Alula is a natural heritage Visitors Developed by
ecotourism site. author
opportunities in A. Strongly agree
Alula B. Agree
(Section 4) C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Q.2. Alula is a cultural heritage Visitors Developed by
site author
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Q.3. Alula is a historical heritage Visitors Developed by
site. author
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

315
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
Q.4. Local government bodies Visitors Developed by
are trying to make development author
in different sectors for the local
communities of Alula.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

Q.5. Local communities are Visitors Developed by

enjoying equal opportunities in author
education.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

Q.6. Local communities are Visitors Developed by

enjoying equal opportunities in author
health.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

316
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
Q.7. Local communities are Visitors Developed by
enjoying equal opportunities in author
the economy.
A.Strongly agree
B.Agree
C.Don’t know
D.Disagree
E.Strongly disagree
Q.8. Tourism promotion in Alula Visitors Developed by
will protect natural heritage author
sites.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
Q.9. Tourism promotion in Alula Visitors Developed by
will protect cultural heritage author
sites.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

Q.10. Tourism promotion in Visitors Developed by

Alula will protect historical author
heritage sites.
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
317
Variables Questions Respondents Reference
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

Q.11. Which district offers the Visitors Developed by

most ecotourism opportunities? author
A. Alula Old Town
B. Daden
C. Jabal Ikma
D. Nabataen
E. Ancient Hegra

Q.12. Alula provides a good Visitors Developed by

quality of experience for tourists. author
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Don’t know
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree

Q.13. What kind of activity have Visitors Developed by

you been doing in Alula? author
A. Adventures (Hiking, trail
etc.)
B. Wildlife viewing
C. Nature or animal
conservation
D. Involvement with local
residents and their
culture
E. Other (Please mention
here………….)
318
Appendix 15. The Delphi method survey questionnaire round 1
Sr.
Questions
No. Respondents reply
Biographic section
Q1 If you consent to participate in this study, please type your name in the box below.
Q2 If you consent to participate in this study, please type your profession in the box below.
Sustainable ecotourism indicators
Rate the relevance of the diversity of
Strongly Strongly
topographical structures to sustainability in Agree Disagree
Q1 Agree disagree
ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of nature-based activities to Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q2 sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of Suitable Natural
Strongly Strongly
Phenomenon (Temperature, Visibility, Agree Disagree
Q3 Agree disagree
Altitude, etc.) to sustainability
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of environment protection
Strongly Strongly
awareness among local communities and Agree Disagree
Q4 Agree disagree
visitors to sustainability in ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of water availability and
Strongly Strongly
conservation policies to sustainability in Agree Disagree
Q5 Agree disagree
ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of planning to conserve Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q6 nature to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of planning to conserve Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q7 culture to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

319
 Rate the relevance of planning to conserve
Strongly Strongly
historical heritage sites to sustainability in Agree Disagree
Q8 Agree disagree
ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of ecotourism awareness
Strongly Strongly
among local communities and visitors to Agree Disagree
Q9 Agree disagree
sustainability.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of Environmental
Strongly Strongly
Educational Institutions to sustainability in Agree Disagree
Q10 Agree disagree
ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of infrastructural services Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q11 to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of accommodation
Strongly Strongly
opportunities for ecotourists to sustainability Agree Disagree
Q12 Agree disagree
in ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of government planning to
Strongly Strongly
promote ecotourism to sustainability in Agree Disagree
Q13 Agree disagree
ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of practices to support
Strongly Strongly
long-term economic growth to sustainability Agree Disagree
Q14 Agree disagree
in ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of practices to conserve the
Strongly Strongly
natural environment and people's health to Agree Disagree
Q15 Agree disagree
sustainability in ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of health facilities to Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q16 sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

320
 Rate the relevance of local business promotion Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q17 opportunities to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of employment Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q18 opportunities to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of educational Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q19 opportunities to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of impact assessment Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q 20 indicators to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of protection and
Strongly Strongly
promotion of local heritage to sustainability in Agree Disagree
Q21 Agree disagree
ecotourism.
Could you please provide a reason for your choice?
Rate the relevance of proximity to visiting Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q22 places to sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of tourist protection to Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q23 sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of wildlife saturation to Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q24 sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Rate the relevance of protected places to Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
Q25 sustainability in ecotourism. Agree disagree

Could you please provide a reason for your choice?

Appendix 16. The Delphi method survey questionnaire round 2

Questions Respondents Reply
Biographic section
Q1. If you consent to participate in this study, please type your name in the box below.

321
 Q.2. If you consent to participate in this study, please type your profession in the box
below.
Sustainable opportunities in relation to sustainable indicators

Q.1. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Availability of a diversity of
topographical structures (N1) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V1) Foliage, relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V2) Canyons and ravines (Red-rock
canyons, steep-sided ravines)
(V3) Grove
(V4) Deserts
(V5) Sandstone mountain
(V6) Mountain
(V7) Oasis
(V8) Forests
(V9) Valleys
(V10) Trees
(V11) Caves
Q.2. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Suitable Natural Phenomenon
indicator (N2).
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V12) Suitable temperature relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V13) Low annual rainfall
(V14) Low altitude

322
(V15) Moderate Aspect ratio toward
the south
(V16) Good slope for tourists activities
(V17) Moderate vegetation in some
areas ( Vegetation density -0. 0.5)
(V18) Suitable visibility
(V19) Low population density
(V20) Suitable Elevation for
ecotourism
Q.3. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Wildlife saturation (N3)
indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V21) Acacia woodland relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V22) Nubian Ibex
(V23) Red-Necked Ostrich
(V24) Idmi Gazelles
(V25) Arabian Leopard
(V26) Arabian Wolf
(V27) Red Fox
(V28) Green Bee-eater
(V29) Laughing Dove
(V30) Crested Lark
(V31) Eagles
(V32) Harriers
(V33) long-legged Buzzards

Q.4. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Protected Places (N4) indicator.

Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is

(V34) Nabataen Horizone District
is highly somewhat highly highly

323
 relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V35) Hegra
(V36) Ikmah
(V37) Dedan
(V38) Old Town Alula
Q.5. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Planning to Conserve Nature
(N5) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V39) Protection of Natural places relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V40) Revenue for nature conservation
(V41) Mix land use
(V42) Conservation of threatened
species
Q.6. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Planning to Conserve Culture
(N6) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V43) Cultural events and festivals, relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V44) Promoting cultural art
(V45) Close Proximity to cultural and
historical sites 0-15 km
Q.7. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Environmental Protection
Awareness Among Local Communities (N7) indicator.

324
 Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V46) Responsible environmental
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
behaviour
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V47) Environmental Ethics
(V48)Recognition of environmental
responsibilities
(V49) Environmental protection
Q.8. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Environmental Education (N8)
indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V50) Understanding of the natural
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
environment and its protection
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V51) Community development
programme
(V52) Conserve resources for learning
(V53) Seeking Non-consumptive
activities

Q.9. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Ecotourism awareness among
local communities and visitors (N9) indicator.

Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is

is highly somewhat highly highly
(V54) Awareness of ecotourism
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
among local communities
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V55) Awareness of ecotourism
among visitors

325
(V56) Resource management
(V57) Developing Agriculture land

Q.10. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Infrastructural Services (N10)
indicator.

Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is

is highly somewhat highly highly
(V58) Sewerage relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V59) Electricity
(V60) Water
Q.11. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Accommodation
Opportunities for Ecotourists (N11) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V61) Good accommodation relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V62) Far from negative factors such
as industrial areas
(V63) Close Proximity from road 0 to
2 km
Q.12. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Government Planning to
Promote Tourism (N12) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V64) Destination Marketing relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V65) Ecotourism markets

326
(V66) Managing impacts of
ecotourism
Q.13. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Practices to Water
Availability and Conservation Policies (N13) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V67) Conservation of water relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator

(V68) Good surface water quality

(V69) Groundwater is generally

moderately hard and slightly alkaline

Q.14. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Practices to Conserve the
Practices to Conserve the Natural Environmental and People's Health (N14) indicator.

Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is

is highly somewhat highly highly
(V70) Water conservation relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V71) Moderate Air quality
(V72) Ecosystem conservation
(V73) Low impact on the environment
and people’s health

Q.15. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Practices to Support
Sustainable Long-term Economic Growth (N 15) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
(V74) long-range planning is highly somewhat highly highly
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant

327
 to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V75) Equal opportunity to participate
in the economy
(V76) Moderate cost of living
(V77) Improving Quality of life
Q.16. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Planning to Conserve
Historical Heritage Sites (N16) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V78) Protection of Historical Sites
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
and buildings.
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V79) Promoting the history
(V80) Museum
Q.17. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Protection and Promotion of
Local Heritage (N17) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V81) Promoting Cultural Heritage relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V82) Managing Cultural events
(V83) Promoting Cultural Awareness
(V84) Historical-archeological assets
Q.18. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Impact Assessment indicator
(N18) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
(V85) Reducing social and cultural
is highly somewhat highly highly
impacts of tourism
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant

328
 to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V86) Promoting a sustainable
economy and reducing negative
economic impacts
(V87) Low Environmental impacts
Q.19. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Health Facilities (N19)
indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V88) Hospitals relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V89) Governmental primary care
centres and private clinics
(V90) Red Crescent and Ambulance
Centers
Q.20. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Educational Opportunities
(N20) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V91) Schools relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V92) Universities
Q.21. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Employment Opportunities
(N21) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
(V93) Availability of employment
is highly somewhat highly highly
opportunities
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant

329
 to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V94) Ease of access
(V95) Communication Networks
Q.22. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Local Business Promotion
Opportunities (N22) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V96) Local business promotion relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V97) Revenue for local development
project
Q.23. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Proximity to Visiting Places
indicator (N23) indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V98) Close Proximity from populated
relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
centres 10 to 20 km
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V99) Very far from fault lines
(V100) Close to drinking water
(V101) Far from flood-risk areas
Q.24. Rate the relevance of the following variables to the Nature-based activities (N24)
indicator.
Variable Variable is Variable is Variable is
is highly somewhat highly highly
(V102) Walking trails relevant relevant to irrelevant irrelevant
to the the to the to the
indicator indicator indicator indicator
(V103) Camping
330
(V104) Mountaineering
(V105) Trekking
(V106) Mountain biking
(V107) Cycling
(V108) Rafting
(V109) Zip-lining
(V110) Paragliding
(V111) Hiking
(V112) Exploring
(V113) Canyoneering
(V114) Sandboarding
(V115) Caving
(V116) Rock climbing
(V117) Hot air balloon
Q.25. Rate the relevance of the
following variables to the Tourist
Protection (N25) indicator.
(V118)Availability of Tour guide
(V119)Availability of eating and
drinking places
(V120) Availability of security for
visitors

331
 Appendix 17. Variable’s criteria to assign weight to ecotourism opportunities
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X1) Foliage Outdoor Indoor foliage Conservation Covering 35% Temperatur

foliage plantation of foliage to 60% e 16-27 C
plantation

(X2) Canyons River Canyons Low danger Walking trail No life risk and Security
and ravines of weathering ease to access
(Red-rock and erosion
canyons,
steep-sided
ravines)

(X3) Grove Well preserved No life risk No solid waste Near to Security
and ease to and noise accommodation
access pollution and having
eating drinking
facilities

(X4) Deserts Protected area Ecotourism Events and Preserving Security

in deserts and resorts in biological
conservation desert resources across
goals in deserts
deserts

(X5) Represents Mountaineeri Hiking trails First aid and Security

Sandstone local culture ng eating facilities
mountain and history

(X6) Mountain Represents Mountaineeri Hiking trails First aid and Security
local culture ng eating facilities
and history

(X7) Oasis Showing Stunning Hot and cold Support the Security
cultural and desert springs local
natural landscapes community
heritage system
resources
and interesting
history

332
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X8) Forests Protection of Promotion of Respect for Recognition of Security

ecologically the health and the multiple free, prior and
important well-being of functions of informed
forest areas forest forests to consent of
communities society indigenous
peoples.

(X9) Valleys Flora Fauna Nature Cultural River, lakes

conservation heritage and peeks

(X10) Trees Shady streets Indoor trees Outdoor tress Conservation Planting
tree
strategies

(X11) Caves Showing Easy to visit Archaeologica Scientific value Security

cultural and l site (geography,
natural geomorphology,
heritage hydrology,
resources speleology,
and interesting karstology,
history biospeleology,
ecology,
paleontology
dan
archaeology)
(X12) Suitable 17 C-19 C 20 C- 22 C 22 C- 24 C 24 C- 26 C >26 C
temperature

(X13) Low Supports Reduce Enhance the Moderates Clean the

annual rainfall healthy pollution vegetation temperature air by
ecosystems growth washing
away
pollutants
(X14) Low >2400 m 1800-2400 m 1200-1800 m 600- 1200 m 0-600 m
altitude

333
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X15) Capturing the Capturing a Capturing the Provide Capturing

Moderate full beauty of a wide-angle entire panoramic the full
Aspect ratio place view of the landscape of a views of a place beauty of a
toward the place place in one place
south shot

(X16) Good Develop local Promote Create cultural Develop Foster

slope for attractions existing events marketing collaboratio
tourists attractions strategies n
activities

(X17) Enhancing the Providing a Offering Supporting Enhancing

Moderate Visual Setting for Educational Local Environme
vegetation in Landscape Outdoor Opportunities Economies ntal
some areas ( Recreation Protection
Vegetation
density 0. 0.5)

(X18) Suitable Increase public Provide Create Offer cultural Provide

visibility awareness and educational recreational experiences wildlife
appreciation of opportunities opportunities such as refuge and
nature to learn about such as hiking traditional habitat
the and wildlife ceremonies protection
environment viewing

(X19) Low 1500-1000 1000-400 151-400 1-150 0

population People/km² People/km² People/km² People/km² People/km²
density

(X20) Suitable Create Provide Develop Encourage Establish a

Elevation for promotional educational partnerships visitors to use network of
ecotourism campaigns for programs and with local public transport certified
ecotourism activities organizations ecotourism
operators

334
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X21) Acacia Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

woodland conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X22) Nubian Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Ibex conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X23) Red- Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Necked conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
Ostrich through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X24) Idmi Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Gazelles conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X25) Arabian Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Leopard conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

335
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X26) Arabian Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Wolf conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X27) Red Fox Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X28) Green Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Bee-eater conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X29) Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Laughing conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
Dove through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X30) Crested Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

Lark conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

336
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X31) Eagles Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X32) Harriers Net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X33) long- net Habitat Reduction in Removal of Implementa

legged conservation restoration habitat feral predators tion of
Buzzards through damage Anti-
private poaching
reserves policies and
strategies

(X34) Presenting Providing Provide Provide Availability

Nabataen cultural relaxation to adventure learning of museum
Horizone heritage visitors activities environment
District

(X35) Hegra Presenting Providing Provide Provide Availability

cultural relaxation to adventure learning of museum
heritage visitors activities environment

(X36) Ikmah Presenting Providing Provide Provide Availability

cultural relaxation to adventure learning of museum
heritage visitors activities environment

(X37) Dedan Presenting Providing Provide Provide Availability

cultural relaxation to adventure learning of museum
heritage visitors activities environment

337
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X38) Old Presenting Providing Provide Provide Availability

Town Alula cultural relaxation to adventure learning of museum
heritage visitors activities environment

(X39) Increase Support Local Boost Local Promote Enhance

Protection of Awareness of Community Economy Sustainable Biodiversit
Natural places Nature Projects Practices y
Conservation

(X40) Increase Support Local Boost Local Promote Enhance

Revenue for Awareness of Community Economy Sustainable Biodiversit
nature Nature Projects Practices y
conservation Conservation

(X41) Mix Increase Increase More Improve public Improve

land use economic investment amenities spaces access
activity

(X42) Availability of Availability Availability of Availability of Availability

Conservation zoos of botanical aquaria strict nature of national
of threatened garden reserve (SNR) Park
species

(X43) Cultural Generates Increases Strengthens Enhances Generates

events and increased business community cultural tourism
festivals tourism activity awareness revenue

(X44) The public The Theatre and The The

Promoting presentation or publishing of musical implementation release of
cultural art publication of periodical and productions and public audio and
art reflections non- and presentation of visual
periodical presentations works of visual recordings
publications art

338
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X45) Close 0-5Km 5-10 Km 10-15 km 15-30 km (Not 30-45 km

Proximity to (Suitable) (Suitable) (Suitable) suitable) (Not
cultural and Suitable)
historical sites
0-15 km
(X46) Encourage Promote Educate Create waste Advocate
Responsible sustainable responsible visitors on the management for the
environmental tourism wildlife importance of systems protection
behavior viewing and leaving only of fragile
ethical animal footprints ecosystems
encounters and habitats

(X47) Encourage Promote Educate Create waste Advocate

Environmental sustainable responsible visitors on the management for the
Ethics tourism wildlife importance of systems protection
viewing and leaving only of fragile
ethical animal footprints ecosystems
encounters. and habitats
(X48)Recognit Recognition of Support local Implementing Create waste Advocate
ion of environment communities policies to management for the
environmental responsibilities reduce energy systems protection
responsibilities consumption of fragile
and carbon ecosystems
emissions and habitats
(X49) Low impact on Zero Eco-friendly Sustainable Zero waste
Environmental nature Pollution
protection

(X50) Low impact on Zero Eco-friendly Sustainable Zero waste

Understanding nature Pollution
of the natural
environment
and its
protection

339
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X51) Socio- Job creation Health care Sustainable

Community Economic Environmental facilities developme
development Beneficial education nt
programme and awareness

(X52) Reduce, reuse, Renewable Trees Sustainability Conservati

Conserve and recycle energy plantation on policies
resources strategy and
learning strategies

(X53) Seeking Logging Mining Culling Recreational Conserving

Non- hunting nature
consumptive including
activities fishing

(X54) Awareness of ecotourism among local

communities A section of identifying these variables (54 and
55) is already written in 1st survey
(X55) Awareness of ecotourism among visitors questionnaire. That has also used to identify
these variables (see ection Error! Reference s
ource not found.)
(X56) Practice of Allocating Money, and Protected areas Nature
Resource planning and people technology reserves
management scheduling

(X57) Combines the Attracts Designed to Provides Strategies

Developing essential members of increase farm recreation, to develop
Agriculture elements of the public to income entertainment, agriculture
land the tourism visit and/or land
and agriculture agricultural educational
industries operations experiences to
visitors

(X58) Upgrading the Preserving Saving and Sustainable Flooding

Sewerage quality of life the natural processing development control
environment waters and tourism

340
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X59) Sustainable Energy for Easily Low life threats Obtained

Electricity and safe maximum accessible from
(pollution free) period of time Renewable
for the sources
environment.

(X60) Water Conservation Conservation Treatments Water recycling Clean

in households in industries plants Water Act
& Safe
Drinking
Water Act
(X61) Good Easy access Security Room Service and Trained
accommodatio and shared facilities and education staff
n areas cleanliness

(X62) Far Develop Offer Design and Create unique Develop

from negative outdoor educational promote eco- culinary special
factors such as recreation and and cultural tourism experiences and events and
industrial areas attractions experiences activities host food festivals to
festivals attract
visitors

(X63) Close 10-7 Km 7-5 Km 5- 3 Km 3-1 Km Less than 1

Proximity Km
from road 0 to
2 km

(X64) Attractions Accessibility Accommodati Activities Amenities

Destination on,
Marketing

341
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X65) Provide Preserve and Create Provide unique Foster

Ecotourism opportunities protect the additional and educational cross-
markets for sustainable environment income for experiences to cultural
tourism by promoting local travelers exchange,
practices and responsible communities, allowing
development. tourism helping to travelers
reduce poverty the
opportunity
to learn
about
different
cultures
(X66) Promoting Eco-friendly Encouraging Promoting local Waste-free
Managing sustainability activities local people & culture and tools
impacts of businesses traditions
ecotourism
(X67) Educate Install water- Utilize Encourage the Establish
Conservation tourists on the saving locally- use of water- water
of water importance of devices such sourced water, efficient conservatio
conserving as low-flow such as appliances and n policies
water and the showerheads, rainwater, to equipment in and
potential toilets, and supplement hotels and other regulations
impact of their faucets traditional tourism for tourism
water usage. sources facilities sites and
attractions
(X68) Good Conservation Conservation Treatments Water recycling Clean water
surface water in households in industries plants act & safe
quality drinking
water act

(X69) Conservation Conservation Treatments Water recycling Clean water

Groundwater in households in industries plants act & safe
is generally drinking
moderately water act
hard and
slightly
alkaline

342
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X70) Educate Install water- Utilize Encourage the Establish

Strategies to tourists on the saving locally- use of water- water
control the importance of devices such sourced water, efficient conservatio
water pollution conserving as low-flow such as appliances and n policies
water and the showerheads, rainwater, to equipment in and
potential toilets, and supplement hotels and other regulations
impact of their faucets traditional tourism for tourism
water usage. sources facilities sites and
attractions
(X71) Develop Encourage Create Promote green Develop
Moderate Air educational the use of incentives for tours and green
quality and awareness public hotels and activities that infrastructu
programs to transportation restaurants to focus on eco- re such as
inform tourists and bicycles reduce their tourism and green roofs,
about air for tourists to environmental sustainability green
quality and the reduce air impact by walls, and
importance of pollution introducing urban
preserving it green gardens to
technologies enhance air
such as solar quality
panels and
energy
efficient
appliances
(X72) Increase Support local Reduce Improve health Promote
Ecosystem awareness communities pressure on and well-being sustainable
conservation natural developme
resources nt

(X73) Low Promote Provide Encourage the Use eco- Invest in

impact on the sustainable education on use of friendly local
environment transportation the renewable materials and communitie
and people’s options such importance of energy sources processes in the s and
health as walking, environmenta such as solar construction of businesses
biking, and l conservation and wind tourism to reduce
public and power. infrastructure the
transportation sustainability environmen
tal and
social
impacts of
tourism
(X74) long- Countries' Local area Establishment Local Providing
range planning vision development of commission community healthcare
vision to promote encouragement and
ecotourism education
facilities

343
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X75) Equal Job Unbiasedness Religious Equality in Political

opportunity to opportunity for in race, color independency justice stability
participate in both men and and gender
the economy women

(X76) Low cast of Low cast of Low cast of Low cast of Low rate of
Moderate cost food housing clothes healthcare taxes
of living

(X77) Quality Education The Physical and Employment Safety and

of life recreation and sustainable mental health freedom
leisure time environment

(X78) Create Enhance local Generate Increase Preserve

Protection of educational economy revenue cultural heritage
historical sites opportunities understanding
and buildings.

(X79) Tours Host special Community Availability of Historic

Promoting the arrangements events workshops volunteer group publication
history to Historical s
places

(X80) Promote Showing Depicts Deliver Supporting

Museum heritage cultural historical economic local
tourism heritage heritage benefits to local festivals
economies
(X81) Cultural Tangible Tangible Natural Preservation of Policies
Heritage culture (such culture (such heritage cultural heritage and
as buildings, as folklore, (including strategies to
monuments, traditions, culturally protect
landscapes, language, and significant cultural
books, works knowledge) landscapes, heritage
of art, and and sites
artifacts) biodiversity)

(X82) Cultural Performing Visual Arts Local foods Cultural centres Exhibitions
events Arts (music, (crafts, fine and drinks of artistic
dance, etc.) art, etc.) festivals works

344
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X83) The public The Theatre and The The

Promoting presentation or publishing of musical implementation release of
Cultural publication of periodical and productions and public audio and
Awarenesses art reflections non- and presentation of visual
periodical presentations works of visual recordings
publications art

(X84) Provide Provide Provide Provide Provide

Historical- educational cultural economic preservation community
archeological opportunities exchange development opportunities engagemen
assets for tourists opportunities opportunities t
for local opportuniti
businesses es for
visitors
(X85) Increase Involve local Appropriate Promoting Protect the
Reducing awareness of communities infrastructure respect for local environmen
social and the potential in the cultures t
cultural social and development
impacts of cultural and
tourism impacts of management
tourism of tourism

(X86) Encourage Invest in Promote Support local Develop

Promoting a sustainable green responsible businesses sustainable
sustainable tourism infrastructure travel tourism
economy and practices policies
reducing
negative
economic
impacts

(X87) Low Low impact Conservation Encouraging Local Protected

Environmental upon a of nature local communities area
impacts protected community development developme
area’s natural nt
resources and
recreation
techniques

345
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X88) Community Federal Primary health Private Welfare

Hospitals Hospitals Government care hospitals hospitals
Hospitals.

(X89) Improve Provide Provide cost Provide Provide a

Governmental patient care quality savings to convenient sense of
primary care assurance to tourists accessibility to professiona
centers and tourists tourists lism to
private clinics tourists

(X90) Red Emergency Offer first aid Provide health Provide medical Provide
Crescent and medical training to education to tourism services emergency
Ambulance assistance tourists tourists transportati
Centers on to
tourists

(X91) Schools Offering Inviting Hosting Providing Partnering

educational international special events, internships and with local
tours for students to such as job shadowing tourism
visitors to visit and conferences opportunities organizatio
learn about participate in and for students ns to create
local cultural workshops, interested in the new and
geography, exchange for tourism tourism innovative
history, and activities. professionals. industry. tourism
culture. experiences
.
(X92) Offering Inviting Hosting Providing Partnering
Universities educational international special events, internships and with local
tours for students to such as job shadowing tourism
visitors to visit and conferences opportunities organizatio
learn about participate in and for students ns to create
local cultural workshops, interested in the new and
geography, exchange for tourism tourism innovative
history, and activities. professionals. industry. tourism
culture. experiences
.

346
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X93) Job Job Job Internships Part time

Availability of opportunities opportunities opportunities programme jobs
employment for local for men for women availability
opportunities communities

(X94) Ease of Food Transportatio Accommodati Tourists site Tourists'

access n on guide

(X95) Telephone Internet Availability of Televisions Warless

Communicatio facility facilities radio phone for
n Networks tourists

(X96) Local Advertising Sales Public relation Direct Local

business promotion marketing community
promotion encourage
ment

(X97) Allocation of Income Jobs and tax Special funds Local

Revenue for funds in generation revenues for local community
local annual budget strategies development involvemen
development t in local
project developme
nt

(X98) Close 0-5 Km (Not 5-10 Km 10 to 20 km 20-30 Km 30-40 Km

Proximity Suitable)
from
populated
centers 10 to
20 km

347
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X99) Very far 28-20 Km 20-13 Km 13-8.6 8.5-5.4 0-2.3 and

from fault less Km
lines

(X100) Close Improved The ability Increased New Increased

to drinking access to clean for tourists to awareness of educational opportuniti
water drinking water explore and water opportunities es for local
for tourists experience conservation for tourists to businesses
local water and learn about to develop
sources. sustainability water-related products
issues. and
services
related to
water.
(X101) Far No flood risk Far from Low Availability of Water
from flood- flooded areas floodplain weather forecast drainage
risk areas area department system in
urban area

(X102) Increased Improved Increased Improved Improved

Walking trails visitor accessibility cultural physical and safety
numbers awareness mental
wellbeing

(X103) Increase Increase Improve Improve Improve

Camping Visibility Education Infrastructure Accessibility Quality of
Opportunities Life

(X104) hills or Good stimulate local Good climate, Security

Mountaineerin mountains communicati economic biodiversity and
g on services growth and (flora and strategies to
social change fauna) encourage
mountainee
ring

348
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X105) Trails in Rainforest Wilderness Desert trails Traditional

Trekking national parks and tracks backcountr
mountains y trails
walks

(X106) Presence of Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate

Mountain trails and clean air topography, biodiversity local
biking beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X107) Presence of Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate

Cycling trails and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X108) Presence of Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate

Rafting trails and clean air, topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X109) Zip- Mechanism for Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate
lining ziplining and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and 3 fauna) growth and
to 9% slope social
change

(X110) Presence of Good climate varied Good climate, Stimulate

Paragliding trails and clean air, topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

349
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X111) Hiking Trekking trails Good climate varied Good climate, Stimulate
and clean air, topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X112) Exploring Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate

Exploring geography, and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
geomorpholog scenery and fauna) growth and
y, hydrology, steep slopes social
speleology, change
karstology,
biospeleology,
ecology,
paleontology
dan
archaeology
(X113) Mechanism for Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate
Canyoneering Canyoneering and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X114) Deserts Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate

Sandboarding and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X115) Caving Caves Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate

and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

350
Variables Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

(X116) Rock Mechanism for Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate
climbing rock climbing and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X117) Hot air Hot air balloon Good climate Varied Good climate, Stimulate
balloon festivals and clean air topography, biodiversity local
beautiful (flora and economic
scenery and fauna) growth and
steep slopes social
change

(X118) Enhancing Interprets the Guide to Provide security Provide

Availability of visitors' cultural and organise, to tourists experiences
Tour guide experience natural inform and in local
heritage of an entertain history and
area culture

(X119) Food and Local foods Low food cost Easy to access Hygenic
Availability of drink festivals, food
eating and events and
drinking markets
places

(X120) Low crime and Reliability of Availability of Low rate of Low

Availability of violence police tourist guides road accidents terrorist
security for services activities
visitors

351
 Appendix 18.Articles used in the literature review
No. Refrences
1 (Açıksöz et al., 2016)
2 (Adeleke, 2015)
3 (Adigana and Setyono, 2019)
4 (Ah-Keng, 1993)
5 (Akbarian et al., 2016)
6 (Al Najdawi et al., 2017)
7 (Alhaddi, 2015)
8 (Alizadeh-Zoeram and Aghajani, 2019)
9 (Amir et al., 2015)
10 (Archer et al., 2012)
11 (Armenski et al., 2018)
12 (Ashok et al., 2017)
13 (Asmelash and Kumar, 2019)
14 (Azizi et al., 2012)
15 (Baggio and Sainaghi, 2016)
16 (Baggio et al., 2010a)
17 (Ballantyne and Packer, 2011)
18 (Ballantyne et al., 2011)
19 (Baouali et al., 2019)
20 (Baral et al., 2012)
21 (Baral, 2015)
22 (Barkauskiene and Snieska, 2013)
23 (Barzekar et al., 2011)
24 (Bego and Malltezi, 2011)
25 (Bell and Ruhanen, 2016)
26 (Bhuiyan et al., 2016)
27 (Blancas et al., 2018)
28 (Blasco López et al., 2018)
29 (Borg, 2017)
30 (Bowles and Ruhanen, 2018)
31 (Buckley, 2012)
32 (Buckley, 2013)
352
33 (Cang, 2014)
34 (Cao et al., 2010)
35 (Castellani and Sala, 2010)
36 (Cengiz et al., 2016)
37 (Chávez-Cortés and Maya, 2010)
38 (Chen, 2015)
40 (Cheng et al., 2013)
41 (Coros et al., 2017)
42 (Cosma, 2012)
43 (Cottrell et al., 2013)
44 (Croce, 2016)
45 (Culley, 2011)
46 (Cusick et al., 2010)
47 (Darcy, 2010)
48 (Deng et al., 2002)
49 (Fang et al., 2018)
50 (Fang Yan et al., 2018)
51 (Farsari et al., 2011)
52 (Feng et al., 2014)
53 (Fetscherin and Stephano, 2016)
54 (Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft, 2016)
55 (Ganjali, 2014)
56 (García-Melón et al., 2012)
39 (Ghorbani et al., 2015)
57 (Giannarou and Zervas, 2014)
58 (Goodwin, 2017)
59 (Gultekin and Uzun, 2019)
60 (Hall, 2009)
61 (Hall, 2019)
62 (Han et al., 2019)
63 (Hartman, 2016)
64 (Hashemi and Ghaffary, 2017)
65 (Heiko, 2012)
66 (Hsiao et al., 2015)
67 (Hsiao, 2016)
68 (Huang and Confer, 2009)
69 (Jakulin, 2017)
70 (Jere Jakulin, 2017)
71 (Jet, 2018)
72 (Jovicic, 2016)
73 (Karki et al., 2019)
74 (Khan et al., 2017)
75 (Kim and Eves, 2012)
76 (Kim et al., 2013)
353
77 (Kim et al., 2015)
78 (Kim et al., 2019)
79 (Kim, 2014)
80 (Kiper et al., 2017)
81 (Kiper, 2013)
82 (Koens et al., 2018)
83 (Kumari et al., 2010)
84 (Kunasekaran et al., 2017)
85 (Kursah, 2017)
86 (Lau et al., 2017)
87 (Lee and Hsieh, 2016)
88 (Lee and Jan, 2018)
89 (Lee et al., 2013)
90 (Liaghat et al., 2013)
91 (Liu et al., 2010)
92 (Liu et al., 2018)
93 (Lu et al., 2016)
94 (Martin et al., 2011)
95 (Martín-Ruiz et al., 2010)
96 (Mascarenhas et al., 2015)
97 (McDonald, 2009)
98 (Mehran and Olya, 2020)
99 (Miller et al., 2010)
100 (Nino et al., 2017)
101 (Ocampo et al., 2018)
102 (Oliveira, 2013)
103 (Olya and Mehran, 2017)
104 (Orhan and Karahan, 2011)
105 (Park and Lee, 2019)
106 (Penm et al., 2019)
107 (Perez et al., 2016)
108 (Pérez et al., 2017)
109 (Puvaneswaran et al., 2017)
110 (Salemi et al., 2019)
111 (Sarkar et al., 2014)
112 (Schubert et al., 2011)
113 (Speakman and Sharpley, 2012)
114 (Stevenson et al., 2009)
115 (Stewart et al., 2016)
116 (Tang et al., 2019)
117 (Turner and Baker, 2019)
118 (Van Amerom, 2006)
119 (Wang et al., 2012)
120 (Wang et al., 2014)
354
121 (Wang et al., 2016a)
122 (Wong, 2018)
123 (Woodside et al., 2018)
124 (Xuling et al., 2009)
125 (Yu et al., 2011)
126 (Zhang et al., 2011)
127 (Zhong et al., 2015)

355
Appendix 19. Notice of approval for conducting survey of ecotourism opportunities
identification

356
357
Appendix 20. Notice of approval for conducting Delphi method survey

358
359