Next Article in Journal
Lean and Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Furniture Industry
Next Article in Special Issue
Regional Products and Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crop Production and Management Practices, and Livestock: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rural Tourism Households Adapting to Seasonality: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 22
10.3390/su152215890
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Water Policymaking for the Hotel Industry: A Longitudinal Network Analysis of Policy Documents

by
Xiao Hu
1,*,
Tianyu Ying
2,
Brent Lovelock
3 and
Sarah Mager
4
1
Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau 999078, China
2
Department of Tourism and Hotel Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3
Department of Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
4
School of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(22), 15890; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215890
Submission received: 4 September 2023 / Revised: 28 October 2023 / Accepted: 6 November 2023 / Published: 13 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Translating the Concept of Sustainability into Tourism Practice – Destination Perspectives)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Safeguarding water resources in tourism contributes to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to the wider 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. However, sustainable management of water, in order to address both current and future demand for water resources in an equitable and environmentally sound manner, is one of the most significant challenges faced by tourist destinations. Using a case study approach, this research conducts a social network analysis (SNA) of the water policymaking system of Singapore’s hotel industry by longitudinally examining the structure of relations among policy themes and policy stakeholders. The network approach attempts to examine the structural evolution in the water demand management (WDM) policy network based on an analysis of 329 (co)produced policy documents (2001–2020) available in the public domain. A broad range of policy themes, together with divergent policy stakeholders, are uncovered in this interconnected dynamic policy system. Subsequently, systematic policy research is extended to discuss the interrelationships of policy stakeholders and policy themes over the past 20 years. Our findings highlight the network structure of the policy domain and suggest an openness and vibrancy of sustainable WDM as an interdisciplinary policy domain. Cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement has contributed to the evolution and complexity of the policy theme network. The study’s findings provide significant insights into the relationships of policy actors and the evolving network structure of a multidimensional policy framework.

1. Introduction

Tourism as an industry is recognised for its strong potential to contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1]. However, a critical aspect of achieving the economic development benefits of tourism is the sustainable management of the key environmental resources of tourist destinations, especially water resources. This is of the utmost importance for the sustainable socioeconomic development and prosperity of the industry [2]. Despite the demonstrated significance of destination viability and sustainability by the “Tourism and Water”-themed World Tourism Day 2013 and United Nations Water Conference 2023, policy domains related to the water tourism nexus deserve considerably more academic study [3,4].
As an essential component of tourism, the hotel industry should undeniably play a pivotal role in effective water management practices [2,5,6]. Studies of water issues in hotels have indicated that water demands vary tremendously owing to numerous variables, such as patterns of accommodations, tourist activities during their stays, geographical locations, and seasonality [4,7]. Nevertheless, hotels are major water consumers because people have much higher water consumption in hotels than in their homes [5,8]. The integrated demand-led water policy instruments in water-stressed tourist destinations therefore suggest measures that are ecologically nondegrading, resource-conserving, technically appropriate, financially viable, and socially acceptable [9].
Given that sustainability has been a buzzword in tourism for over a decade, modest academic progress has been observed regarding effective solutions to the ‘resource paradox’ issue for tourist destination development [10,11,12]. As research on sustainable tourism continues to evolve, varied approaches are being deployed to investigate this emerging research paradigm, which have included, for instance, the need for networks of tourism policy studies that focus on sustainability issues. Despite the widespread concern for sustainable tourism development, which has a heterogeneous and interdisciplinary nature, systematic policy analysis of water sustainability in tourism and hospitality constitutes a relatively new area of research [4,13]. As such, the current study addresses this research gap and presents a unique lens by conducting a longitudinal network analysis of public policy documents on sustainable water management in the hotel industry.
Water management is a policy arena of global importance; however, water stress issues are inherently local [14,15]. This study aims to understand the dynamics of policymaking (The scope of this paper does not allow the consideration of the different policymaking stages in greater detail. In this sense, the study admittedly maintains a broad focus on the sustainable tourism policymaking process without specifying a particular stage.) for sustainable tourism development at the destination level. Focusing on policymaking for water demand management (WDM) in Singapore’s hotel industry, this case study primarily investigates the interdisciplinary nature of policy themes and their prevailing interrelationships regarding this specific policy arena. This research also highlights the key policy themes and discusses the pertinent network structure characteristics and dynamics of policy themes through a longitudinal network analysis of policy themes addressed from public policy documents over the 20-year period from 2001 to 2020. The linkages of policy themes are documented based on their coappearance in a particular public policy document and recorded in correlation matrices that facilitate subsequent network analyses. The research findings highlight the significant potential of the network approach and generate insightful context-specific water policy implications.
In the reminder of this paper, the extant literature on water policies in tourism and network analysis of water policymaking is discussed, and the following section is dedicated to systematic research methods of research setting, raw data collection, and network analysis. Then, synthesised findings are comprehensively presented. Next, the discussion section puts the findings into a broad context. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the basis of the implications from this research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Policies for Water Demand Management in Tourism

The 2030 Agenda recognises the centrality of water resources to the SDGs and the crucial role that sustainable water management plays in the overall sustainable development of tourist destinations [16,17]. The uncertainty and complexity around managing such environmental and natural resources requires a systematic and planned framework [18,19,20]. Approaches to sustainable water management are a rapidly evolving challenge and policy priority that are faced by a variety of tourist destinations on a global scale [21,22]. The increasingly complex and dynamic issues stemming from water stress require stakeholder engagement for more successful long-term socioeconomic and environmental outcomes [23,24,25]. In general, sustainable water management in tourism can be based on two broad policy streams: supply management and demand management [5,26]. The former is aimed at developing new sources of water provisions, whereas the latter is concerned with conserving (potable) water by tackling water use itself [27,28].
Demand-led sustainable water policies have played a crucial role in ensuring the viability of tourist destinations where the water supply cannot satisfy the demand of tourism and other economic sectors [29,30]. As an integrative approach, WDM policies can be classified into five main broad categories: water tariff mechanisms, regulatory management, technical and engineering measures, nonpotable water sources (In some cases, the distinction between supply sided and demand-sided water policies is blurring. For instance, nonpotable water sources could be considered as both provision of additional water to the end users as well as reducing the volume withdrawn from the (potable) water sources [3].), and public education programmes [31,32,33,34]. Arguably, many WDM techniques at a destination rely on the commitment of all relevant stakeholders, such as local public authorities, businesses, educational institutions, nongovernment organisations, and other citizen groups [27,35,36]. Although water consumption in tourism has become more complicated, the topics of water-centric themes and WDM in sustainable tourism still lack deep engagement compared with those of agriculture, households, and manufacturing [37,38,39].

2.2. Applying the Network Perspective to Water Policymaking

As noted above, water resource management requires cross-sectoral policy integration because the scope of current sustainability issues surpasses traditional sectoral boundaries [40,41,42]. Social network analysis (SNA) has been viewed as a valuable approach to systematically examine the structural characteristics of policy networks and their anticipated impacts on the interconnectedness of policy solutions with respect to (water) sustainability issues at a tourist destination [3,43]. Actors and links are the central properties of SNA [44]. Actors can include subjects and social entities [45]. Policy actors in this article are defined as organisational stakeholders (e.g., local governments, private businesses, and civil society) and relevant policy themes regarding the policymaking process of WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry. Links are seen as the relationships or connections between actors that result from information dissemination or (co)authorship [46]. From the perspective of policy research, SNA is an innovative lens through which to critically examine the intricate relationships and dynamics among a variety of actors within a given (e.g., water) policymaking process [47,48,49,50].
Quantitative methods for policy network analysis usually begin with documents for collaborative network analyses, which attempt to demonstrate the relationship between policy stakeholders, network structures among policy themes, and their impacts on policies [3,51]. Taking policy themes as the unit of analysis, there are few studies on the network perspective of the relevance and synergy of policy themes [52]. In the field of research subjects, to a large extent, the network analysis of texts/contents (such as that of scientific documents) explores knowledge flow, knowledge innovation, and knowledge linkages [53,54]. Although scholarly documentation on policy network analysis examines the nature of policy formulation and implementation among stakeholders, it lacks a study of relationships among policy themes [55,56].
Academic studies on the management of tourism and water resources have acknowledged the transdisciplinary nature of both [57,58,59]. The network notion particularly applies to water policymaking because water has been deemed a cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary policy issue that requires the participation of numerous social entities and subjects [49]. Over the last two decades, the network approach has been mobilised in the field of water management to illuminate the complexity and interconnectedness of water policy networks, as the formation and change in network relationships remain unclear [60,61]. Thus, further longitudinal studies are urged on “tracking how a [water policy] network develops over time” [62] for a holistic approach to sustainable development in tourism [63].

3. Methods

3.1. Research Setting—Singapore

This study employs the case study of Singapore to rigorously and systematically address the network of its policy themes and the longitudinal evolution of the policy network in different phases that influence water WDM policymaking in the hotel industry. Due to substantial physical vulnerabilities to natural freshwater supply and climate change [64,65,66], this small-scale urbanised island destination has been categorised as a country under extreme water stress [67,68,69]. With a total population of approximately 5.64 million [70], this prime destination attracted more than 19 million international visitors in 2019 [71]. Undoubtedly, the growing tourism industry of Singapore is projected to worsen the current water shortage and will inevitably result in water conflicts between travellers and Singaporeans. Tourists pursuing a “pleasure approach” arguably have a much higher demand for consumptive and nonconsumptive water than local residents [72,73].
On the other hand, Singapore is regarded as a success story in the area of water management [17,74]. As early as 1981, a comprehensive Water Conservation Plan was initiated in Singapore for reducing water demand [75]. A three-pronged water demand strategy was then set out, namely, pricing, regulations, and incentives [76]. On average, the water use of each hotel guest night (i.e., 537 L) in Singapore is estimated to be nearly four times the per capita local household water use per day [14,77]. Even though it seems that sustainable water strategies would undoubtedly help to secure a future of tourism in Singapore, effective policymaking requires the engagement of government agencies, businesses, and civil society with interdisciplinary WDM policies [78,79].

3.2. Identification of Policy Stakeholders

This research employs a network approach to examine the policymaking process of WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry. The initial and most critical phase of policy network analysis is to claim clearly defined network boundaries [80,81]. All the sample policy stakeholders were categorised based on the event participation methodology [82]. Three important events for water policymaking between 2014 and 2020 were selected to identify ‘seed’ stakeholders in the policy community of WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry. A snowballing technique is also employed for further relevant stakeholders and a more comprehensive web of policy participants. After consulting with experts in academia, government officials, and industry practitioners according to the Delphi technique approach [83], a total of 33 major policy stakeholders spread across the public, private, and third sectors (see Appendix A Table A1) are ultimately uncovered.

3.3. Identification of Policy Themes

The drafted policy categories and policy themes were delivered to the senior officials of the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the specialists in water policymaking for Singapore’s hotel industry [84], and other selected representatives of organisational stakeholders; these entities were requested to comment on the appropriateness and comprehension according to the local context. Finally, 5 policy streams, 14 policy subcategories, and 76 policy themes (see Appendix A Table A2) were confirmed for forthcoming network analyses.
Policy documents accessible to the general public (e.g., blueprints, annual reports, corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports, circulars, and public relations releases) were selected for subsequent analyses, as they are commonly viewed as barometres of local policy issues [25]. Document review is a frequently used and powerful method as it provides critical insight and advanced empirical and theoretical understanding of a policy issue [85].
The raw data were collected via printed sources and electronic datasets at the National Library Singapore and the library of the National University of Singapore (NUS), both of which offer comprehensive coverage of publications in a wide variety of disciplines. Because of its cross-disciplinary nature, a series of headword searches were conducted on the libraries’ online catalogue, namely, water conservation, water saving, water management, water policy, sustainable hotels, sustainable tourism, sustainable development, and sustainability. More than 900 relevant public policy documents were gathered using a span of 20 years (2001–2020). The year 2001 was a milestone in which the PUB of Singapore was reconstituted to become Singapore’s national water authority [86]. Public policy documents produced before 2001, non-Singapore-related documents, nonhotel industry-related documents, and themes of water supply management were excluded. A total of 209 results were selected for further investigation. To minimise missing data, an additional round of complementary raw data collection was performed by screening the policy documents from corporate libraries and official websites of the known policy stakeholders. After adding 110 relevant entries to the previous search results, 329 entries produced during 2001–2020 were finalised as WDM-related entries in Singapore’s hotel industry. For each policy document generated, the following data were gathered: year of production, author(s), policy categor(ies), policy subcategor(ies), and policy theme(s).

3.4. Policy Network Construction and Visualisation

In this article, network analyses of policy stakeholders and policy themes are facilitated by the process of constructing and transforming data matrices. To analyse the policy themes involved in the identified documents, binary table matrices of document-by-policy stakeholders and document-by-policy themes are constructed, with documents in rows and policy stakeholders and policy themes in columns. In a given matrix, xij = 1 if the ith document has engaged the jth policy stakeholder or policy theme, and xij = 0 otherwise. Adopting UCINET’s matrix algebra capacities, the aforementioned document-by-policy stakeholder and document-by-policy theme matrices are transformed into policy stakeholder-by-policy stakeholder and policy theme-by-policy theme data matrices, respectively. The final two data metrics indicate information about the linkage of each pair of 33 policy stakeholders and 76 policy themes from the total of 329 public policy documents. In these matrices of 33 × 33 and 76 × 76 components, the value of the ijth (if i ≠ j) element reveals the frequency of the ith and jth policy stakeholders and policy themes coappearing with respect to the selected documents. The matrices where the diagonal values present the cumulative frequencies of a specific policy stakeholder and policy theme (co-)appear in particular documents. Since this article concentrates on studying the presence of relationships among network nodes (i.e., policy stakeholders and policy themes), their binary (dichotomous) values are shown as either “1” (presence of a connection) or “0” (absence of a connection) [87]. To study dynamic relationships, five 4-year periodic policy theme-by-policy theme data matrices for 2001–2004, 2005–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2016, and 2017–2020 are constructed in an identical way.

3.5. Data Analysis

The data analysis process consists of five main stages as follows. First, an overview of a descriptive nature is presented on uncovered documents produced between 2001 and 2020; the employment of policy themes for these policy documents is also reviewed. Second, to visualise the interconnection of policy themes, the policy theme networks are constructed by NetDraw (NetDraw is one of the most popular software programmes for visualising social network data on attributes and relationships.) [88]. A series of network indicators are then quantitatively conducted using UCINET VI (UCINET VI for Windows is a comprehensive software package for the dynamic analysis of social network data as well as other one-mode and two-mode data.) [46] for a structural interpretation of how policy themes are interconnected. In the following phase, a temporal factor is involved, the overall policy theme network is divided into five 4-year periodic networks, and the evolution of the policy networks is longitudinally and comparatively studied within the local context [89]. Fourth, the significance of the uncovered (ego) key policy themes and their egocentric network structures are further examined within the entire policy theme network. These analyses aim to discover the associations of the key policy themes in policymaking for WDM over time. Finally, with a correspondence analysis, an organisational factor is introduced to explore the potential stakeholder interests (preferences) in policy options.

4. Research Results

4.1. Descriptive Overview

The annual production of public policy documents experienced substantial growth from 2001–2004 (n = 20) to 2017–2020 (n = 170). The average number of policy themes per document varied over time despite an annual mean of 6 policy themes per document over the past 20 years, gradually increasing from one policy theme in 2001 to an average of 8 policy themes per policy document in 2005.
Among these 329 policy documents, the number of policy themes in a policy document ranged between 1 and 22. On average, 4 cocontributing documents were launched annually, and the total number of cocontributing documents was 286, accounting for almost 87% of the selected entries. Cross-sectoral cocontributions were fairly common over the 20-year period. Specifically, 216 policy documents (75.6%) were launched with cross-sectoral cocontributions. However, sectoral cocontributions within the third sector itself rarely appeared over the study period. Additionally, there were no cocontributions found among private businesses over the initial two periods (2001–2004 and 2005–2008). It is apparent that cocontribution within the public sector was the primary source of sectoral cocontributions, with a proportion of 31.6% within the first period under analysis. This begins to decline as cocontributions within the private sector increased from 0% in 2001–2004 to 16.4% in 2017–2020 and that of cross-sectoral cocontributions from 68.4% in 2001–2004 to 75.5% in 2017–2020 (see Table 1).

4.2. Network Analysis of Policy Stakeholders

Construction and Visualisation of the Overall Policy Stakeholder Network

The whole WDM policy stakeholder network in Singapore’s hotel industry (2001–2020) is visualised by NetDraw (see Figure 1). Policy stakeholders are represented by the nodes in the map, and linkages suggest observed collaborations of policy stakeholders in the identified policy documents. Adopting a spring-embedding algorithm, all network nodes are repositioned by Netdraw to reveal the overall network structure on connectivity. Specifically, geodesic distance can provide insights into how closely connected or related different policy stakeholders are. A shorter geodesic distance between two policy stakeholders suggests a stronger and more direct connection between them in terms of policy considerations, interactions, or collaboration in the public policy documents.
The following policy stakeholders appear most connected and remarkably form the core cluster in the network: PUB, National Environment Agency (NEA), Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) (Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) was renamed Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) on 27 July 2020 to better reflect the Singaporean government’s emphasis on environmental sustainability [62].), Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING), Building and Construction Authority (BCA), hotel property developers/architects/builders, and hotel entities. The central positions of collaborative policy stakeholders implicitly suggest their significance in the policy community [32]. Instead, some other policy stakeholders from the public sector (“Sustainability 15 15890 i001”, e.g., STB), private sector (“Sustainability 15 15890 i002”, e.g., waterwise fixture suppliers/plumbers), and third sector (“Sustainability 15 15890 i003”, e.g., Singapore Water Association [SWA]) appear to be structurally marginalised. These outlying stakeholders in the map indicate their much less influential roles in WDM policymaking due to their lack of access to those powerful policymakers.

4.3. Network Analysis of Policy Themes

Construction and Visualisation of the Overall Policy Theme Network

Likewise, the overall WDM policy theme network (2001–2020) is also constructed by Netdraw (see Figure 2). Policy themes are denoted by the nodes in the map, and linkages represent interconnections of policy themes in the documents. Furthermore, an overview of the 76 policy themes from five different policy categories is depicted in Figure 2 (i.e., “Sustainability 15 15890 i004” for water pricing strategies, “Sustainability 15 15890 i005” for management and regulatory solutions, “Sustainability 15 15890 i006” for engineering and technical instruments, “Sustainability 15 15890 i007” for education and involvement programmes, and “Sustainability 15 15890 i008” for alternate sources of water for nonpotable purposes).
The most connected policy themes sit centrally in the network, some of which are as follows: corporate culture and management commitment (T3), appliances, apparatuses and products (recommended/voluntary) (T8), NEWater (T13), performance measurement benchmarking/water key performance indicators of hotels (T21), and information and water conservation awareness (WCA) strategies (T28). These inter/multidisciplinary policy themes appear more connected and cohesive among themselves than with others. Conversely, some other policy themes, such as the greywater recycling system (code of practice) (T56), Code of practice for construction for rainwater collection systems (T68), and the use of seawater/saltwater (T69), appear on the periphery of the policy network structure. Indeed, such fragmented themes might be considered noticeable policy fronts or emerging policy subdomains. Following this, the structurally isolated policy themes are situated at the upper left corner, namely, NParks’ Pilot Incentive Scheme for Green Roofs (T59), Builder Certificate in Plumbing and Pipefitting (T61), and SEC Eco-Hotel Certification (T70). These three policy themes are relatively distinct in the policy context in that they have had no connections (i.e., coappearance) with others and potentially exert very limited influence in WDM policymaking.

4.4. Longitudinal Policy Theme Network Analysis

A longitudinal network analysis tracks how network structures of policy themes evolve within a given time interval [90]. Although longitudinal data with equal time intervals are preferable, there is no ‘optimal’ time interval in a given research context [91]. Due to the characteristics of the small policy community in Singapore, ‘compact’ water policy networks tend to be reasonably responsive [40]. In this case, therefore, longitudinal analyses are facilitated by the construction of five 4-year periodic policy theme networks. Figure 3 below illustrates the graphs of these periodic networks. There is no policy theme that is entirely isolated from others in any of the networks. For each study period, the size of the network, number of connections among policy themes, density of the network, average degree of the network, and network centralisation are determined and presented (see Table 2).
The increasing number of policy themes in the network suggests that the periodic network sizes expand within the 20-year period at a stable increment. This means that a relatively large number of new policy themes have continuously emerged in public policy documents since 2001. Specifically, policy document production continues to grow from 2001 to 2004 (size = 24) and peaks in 2017–2020 (size = 70).
Network density provides insights into the extent of connections between nodes within a network [92]. The values typically range from “0” (no connections) to “1” (a fully connected network) [93]. A higher network density implies stronger connectivity and potentially more efficient information flow of policy themes within the networks [88]. The results show that the policy theme networks encounter a significant drop in density and reach the floor for the study period—merely 35% of possible direct connections of policy themes during 2017–2020 actually manifest. The findings echo the argument that network densities decrease in response to the increased size of networks [46].
The findings of the average degree reveal that network cohesion among policy themes generally rose (except for the 2013–2016 period) and reached its highest point in the 2017–2020 period. This structure may imply an increased incorporation in the policy domain in the study period. Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, once declared that “every other policy has to bend at the knees of water survival”, which explains the increasing engagement with water policy themes in the new millennium [94].
The degree of centralisation quantifies how many nodes in a network have significantly more connections (or neighbours) than others. It measures how much influence or control a single node or a group of nodes have over the whole network based on their connectivity [44]. Even the peaked centralisation score for the periodic network fails to reach as much as 50%. The centralisation index of 2001–2004, for instance, remains as low as 17%, suggesting diversity in the policy themes of public policy documents. In contrast, the pattern towards diversifying policy options fails to become a long-lasting trend, as the centralisations for the following periods have evidently risen. Specifically, the centralisation indices in the periods of 2005–2008 and 2017–2020 approach 50%, which suggests that a certain small number of policy themes appear to be influential throughout both periods above.

4.5. Structural Correlations of Periodic Policy Theme Networks

The periodic policy theme networks are reconstructed on the basis of the full list of 76 policy themes to study the structural correlations of the five 4-year periods. If a certain policy theme is not observed in a particular period, a value of “0” is recorded in the periodic data matrix, indicating that the theme has no connections with any others. In this way, a single dataset of UCINET is generated for measuring its metric correlations (see Table 3). A metric multidimensional scaling (MDC) tool is also employed to examine the pattern of similarity/dissimilarity in the tie profile among the nodes as a graph in multidimensional space [95]. Therefore, all five periodic policy theme networks, represented by squares, are demonstrated in a two-dimensional space (see Figure 4). The scaled scatter plot in the map discloses the proximity (similarity) of the nodes [46]. If two policy theme network spots are situated closely, both networks tend to possess structural similarities and vice versa. Chronologically, the five period icons are linked with one-way arrows in the MDC diagram.
Visually examining the spatial positions of the periodic network spots (Figure 4) enables the researcher to derive several implications. First, meaningful tight clusters of spots are helpful to identify cases that are highly similar on both dimensions. Two clusters of periodic policy theme networks are noticeable according to their structural similarities/dissimilarities. The initial periods of 2001–2004 and 2005–2008 form one cluster, while the other cluster consists of networks for the three most recent periods (i.e., 2009–2012, 2013–2016, and 2017–2020). This clustering may suggest a relatively different pattern in network structures of the (key) policy theme from the initial two periods compared to those in the latter phases. Following this, the most significant structural transformations are observed from the 2005–2008 period to the 2009–2012 period, which suggests a prominent evolution in important policy fronts and emerging policy areas and/or policy theme patterns regarding the WDM of Singapore’s hotel industry. Since then, the shift in network structure appears to follow relatively static directions. This transition in the evolution of policy theme network structures suggests that much more attention may have shifted to nonhousehold water users (e.g., the hotel sector) since the 2009–2012 period. For instance, the first released Sustainable Singapore Blueprint was unveiled in 2009 [96], which attempts to establish a framework for responding to water challenges of the nonhousehold front (e.g., hotel entities) in addition to residential water consumers [97].

4.6. Ego-Network Analysis of Policy Themes

The structure of the whole network barely measures how and to what degree an individual policy theme is embedded in the overall policy theme network. SNA enables an improved interpretation of the “close neighbourhood” (egocentric networks) of a policy theme in terms of the interconnectivity of a specific (ego) policy theme over the study period. An egocentric network is made of an ego (or focal) policy theme and its immediate neighbours (or alter policy themes) that directly interact with the ego [88]. In Table 4, the 33 most popular policy themes are presented and measured in an ego-network analysis.
Ego-network size measures the interconnectedness of a focal node’s (one particular policy theme) immediate neighbours or ego-network over the study period. The results indicate a clear dominance of the following policy themes in policymaking: information and water conservation awareness (WCA) strategies (T28) (size = 60), employment of water efficient fittings, appliances, apparatuses and products (recommended/voluntary) (T8) (size = 53), NEWater (T13) (size = 53), performance measurement benchmarking/water key performance indicators of hotels (T21) (size = 53), corporate culture and management commitment (T3) (size = 52), water audits (T5) (size = 51), monitoring water use (T4) (size = 50), leakage detection and alleviation (T6) (size =50), water efficient irrigation systems/controllers (T11) (size = 50), on-site used water recycling (T14) (size = 50), rainwater harvesting/retention (T16) (size = 50), BCA Green Mark Scheme (T37) (size = 48), Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) (mandatory) (T35) (size = 47), Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) (T42) (size = 47), and Water Efficiency Requirements (mandatory) (T51) (size = 47). Each of the ego policy themes above connected to over 60% of the themes identified in the research. Only three major policy themes embraced less than 50% of the total themes, namely, pricing for nonhousehold potable water (T1) (size = 37), Code of Practice for Water Services (T55) (size = 31), and location of new hotel development (T22) (size = 15). The remaining 13 key policy themes connected 50–60% of the total.
Ego-network density indicates the extent to which the ties between individual policy themes within an ego’s network are connected to each other. In other words, it quantifies the proportion of possible connections that actually exist within an ego’s immediate social network. Some given focal policy themes might be embedded in very dense local structures, whereas some might not. Although density is rather sensitive to network size, it still provides certain reliable and valuable information [88]. To a large degree, the key policy themes have relatively high density (more than 50%), which reveals an enclosed and relatively stable policy system for WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry. Noticeably, information and water conservation awareness (WCA) strategies (T28), with the largest ego network size, tend to have more saturated policy settings within the policy context. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon that the cohesion of a network is challenged by an increased network size [93]. Consequently, there is a relatively large potential for fragmented policy themes with lower density to have further interactions and collaborations with one another.
Following this, the periodic ego-network sizes are displayed by determining the number of alters that an ego policy theme possesses over the five periodic ego-networks. Even though over half of the ego-network sizes of policy themes decrease from period 3 to period 4, the majority of key policy themes are observed to increase in their ego-network sizes for the most recent period (2013–2016). The BCA Green Mark Scheme (T37) and BCA Green Mark Award (T54), however, are the two exceptions, whose ego-network sizes had a slight reduction from period 4 to period 5. Over a dozen policy themes are absent in the first period (2001–2004) as their ego sizes remain at “0”, including corporate culture and management commitment (T3), monitoring water use (T4), water efficient irrigation systems/controllers (T11), condensate water (T15), water efficient design for cooling system (T19), performance measurement benchmarking/water key performance indicators of hotels (T21), location of new hotel development (T22), Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) (Mandatory) (T35), Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) (Voluntary) (T36), Water Efficient Building (WEB) Certification Scheme (T39), Water Efficiency Management Systems (WEMS) (T40), Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) (T42), Water Efficiency Management Plan (WEMP) (T50), and BCA Green Mark Award (T54). Much fewer of them, however, remain absent in the latter periods: only six of them in period 2, three of them in period 3 and none in period 4 and period 5. However, educational programmes/institutions (T26) are absent in period 2, and water tanks (T20) do not show up in period 3 and period 4, suggesting that either no relevant policy documents are found, or that no such policy theme was available in these periods. As nonhousehold water consumers account for approximately 50% of Singapore’s water usage [98], various new WDM initiatives have been introduced targeting specific water-intensive groups of nonhousehold users (e.g., hotel entities) [29,76]. Eventually, no key policy theme was found to be absent in the most recent period (2017–2020).
Other altered policy themes may have appeared in the periodic ego-networks. A simple examination of the periodic differences in ego-network size provides limited insights into the longitudinal policy theme variation of the ego-networks. Thus, the periodic ego-network tie changes are investigated by summarising the dynamics of policy themes over the five periods. The findings suggest that more significant changes in the ego-network connections of the policy themes occur during two periods, i.e., from 2005–2008 to 2009–2012 and from 2013–2016 to 2017–2020. This implies that these two transitions appear to be more active for the key policy themes to engage a wide variety of themes into their corresponding (ego) networks. Furthermore, the means of periodic ego-network tie changes and their standard deviations (shown in the last two columns of Table 4) also suggest the relative structural stability of the periodic ego-networks over the five periods. Relatively high average periodic ego-network tie changes refer to a relatively resilient ego-network structure in terms of some particular ego policy themes (e.g., performance measurement benchmarking/water key performance indicators of hotels (T21), information and water conservation awareness (WCA) strategies (T28), and corporate culture and management commitment (T3)) due to more periodic variation in alter policy themes involved with the focal policy themes, indicating their connections with numerous subdomains of the policy domain (see Figure 2). On the other hand, a less vibrant network structure in certain policy subdomains (e.g., location of new hotel development (T22)) is suggested by relatively low average ego-network tie changes. In recent years, attention has turned towards a relatively distinct policy area—control over the location of (new) hotel development as has been expressed as a growing concern in land- and resource-scarce destinations regarding chronic water stress and rapid development of the hotel industry [2,99,100].

4.7. Associations between Policy Stakeholders and Policy Themes

A correspondence analysis can be used in conjunction with SNA, distinctly in a two-mode network, to yield the structural patterns and associations of network nodes [46,101]. By combining the multiple network connections, a correspondence analysis manages to generate joint graphical displays of the 33 policy stakeholders and 76 policy themes (Figure 5), the dual position of which clearly represent the associations between the two variable categories of data. Four clusters are then distributed where the policy stakeholders overlay the policy themes on the graphic displays.
Based on their proximity, the policy preferences of the identified policy stakeholders over the past 20 years are noted. Those policy stakeholders with similar policy preferences share more structural similarities; therefore, they are situated in the identical cluster [32]. The first quadrant (top-left), mainly represented by public authorities of MSE, PUB, NEA, and SPRING, has a wide range of policy interests, such as the potable water pricing structure (e.g., pricing for nonhousehold potable water (T1)) and NEWater pricing structure (e.g., pricing for NEWater (T2)), compliance with requirements of water products/service provision (e.g., employment of water efficient fittings, appliances, apparatuses and products (mandatory) (T7) and Code of Practice for Construction of Rainwater Collection Systems (T68)), information provision strategies (e.g., information and Water Conservation Awareness (WCA) strategies (T28)), rebates for water saving issues (e.g., Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) (T42)), recognition of water saving (e.g., Water Efficient Building (WEB) Certification Scheme (T39) and Water Efficiency Management System (WEMS) (T40)), R&D (e.g., development of water products/technology/solutions (T47)), reclaimed water (e.g., NEWater (T13)), and demand management activities. Second, hotel entities, as the only central stakeholders, are found in the top-right quadrant, which focuses on demand management activities (e.g., corporate culture and management commitment (T3) and Performance Measurement Benchmarking/Water Key Performance Indicators of Hotels (T21)) and other alternate water sources (e.g., on-site used water recycling (T14)). The third group (bottom-right) is formed by demand management activities (e.g., monitoring water use (T4)), water saving devices/design (voluntary) (e.g., employment of water efficient fittings, appliances, apparatuses and products (recommended/voluntary) (T8) and water efficient irrigation systems/controllers (T11)), other alternate water sources (e.g., condensate water (T15) and rainwater harvesting/retention (T16)), and recognition of water saving (e.g., water efficient swimming pools (T18) and BCA Green Mark Scheme (T37)). Central stakeholders, particularly in relation to such policy themes, are hotel property developers/architects/builders and BCA. Finally, the bottom-left dimensional space merely contains some private businesses and third sector members, none of which appear to be central in the policy system. The interests of these peripheral policymakers lie in policy options such as leakage control (e.g., water audits (T5)), water saving devices/design (voluntary) (e.g., metering/private metres (T9) and water tanks (T20)), training for technicians (e.g., Refresher Course for Licenced Water Service Plumber (T62) and Course on Management of Water, Sanitary and Drainage Facilities (T72)).
To a certain degree, the distribution of major policy themes tends to be skewed regarding their affiliation with policy stakeholders. In addition, compared with policy themes lying within the spots of policy stakeholders, those that fall outside this area (e.g., Grants for Water Audit Projects (T64), Training on Green and Gracious Construction Practices for Builders (T25), NParks’ Pilot Incentive Scheme for Green Roofs (T59), Refresher Course for Licenced Water Service Plumber (T62), Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC) Green Certifications (T38), and Builder Certificate in Plumbing and Pipefitting (T61)) would be rather anecdotal or temporal in terms of their affiliations with relevant policy stakeholders over the study period.

5. Discussion

As a constraint and critical issue of sustainability, water has a major role in attaining the SDGs in Singapore and other tourist destinations [102,103]. Therefore, as a strategic natural resource, water deserves policy priority [104]. Due to the fragmented nature of sustainable tourism development, the policymaking of water management is derived from a complex system of policy stakeholders and policy themes, together with their interactions, on public policy document contributions [105,106]. The relevant documents are indicative of divergent policymakers and their innovative measures of intervention based on the local context [107]. Therefore, this research presents a network approach with a longitudinal analysis of the disciplinary state of the sustainable WDM policy framework and of progressive policy themes originating from policy documents (2001–2020).
In total, 33 policy stakeholders have been revealed by public authorities, private businesses, and the third sector. Furthermore, policy themes suggest problem issues around which policy networks construct one of the emerging domains within the sustainable tourism discourse [108]. A content analysis of the policy documents identified prioritised policy themes on the WDM of Singapore’s hotel industry. The most popular policy themes come from all five main policy categories, namely, water pricing strategies, management and regulatory solutions, engineering and technical solutions, education and involvement programmes, and alternate sources of water for nonpotable purposes. Almost all policy subcategories contribute at least one prioritised policy theme. This explicitly reflects the multidisciplinary character of the policy field. At the same time, policymakers need to understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of these WDM policies to choose policy instruments according to specific circumstances [109].
The study attempts to explore the possible connections between relevant policy themes and the disciplinary structure in the policy field over time [110]. The number of relevant policy documents and diversity of policy themes have been growing over the past two decades. This explains the sound information base required to ensure more adequate policy responses regarding “embedding the sustainability paradigm within a tourism context” [3]. Such inclusive policymaking practices with evolutionary dynamics are likely to facilitate the “value orientation” of differentiated but interrelated economic, environmental, and social interests, which constitute sustainable tourism development [85,111]. The emergence of new policy themes (from 24 in 2001–2004 to 70 in 2017–2020) and enhanced linkages (from 228 in 2001–2004 to 1690 in 2017–2020) is largely reflective of the interrelatedness of policy themes across policy streams. As a multidisciplinary domain, the scope of sustainable WDM in tourism has been expanded its scope with more innovative policy instruments. Historically, the innovative state and level of openness of policy themes have also revealed that “sustainability is always unfinished business, and the use of SNA may systematically … benefit collaboration and resource generation and support extension in [policy-making] processes” [112]. Based on the connections of policy themes, the relatively low density (<0.5) was consistent across all five periods. This tends to denote that a large potential remains for the policy themes to be linked to other policy areas. It would be logical to expect that policy stakeholders, especially critical stakeholders, who represent different policy areas come together by combining policy approaches from their respective disciplines [113,114].
The evidence for evolution on the structural (dis)similarities of policy theme networks throughout the study period enacts the change in focused themes in policy documents. Collectively, according to the structural similarities of the policy theme network, the clusters for the periods of 2009–2012, 2013–2016, and 2017–2020 are distinct from those of the initial two periods. Remarkably, the periodic policy theme networks and the ego networks have witnessed primarily enlarged network sizes and an increased number of emerging policy linkages since the period of 2009–2012. Distinct patterns of network structures can be generated by interacting size of the ego-network and normalised ego-betweenness, which impacts the relative significance between key policy themes and the alters. Prominent and important policy linkages have grown around a variety of policy themes, such as corporate culture and management commitment (T3), performance measurement benchmarking/water key performance indicators of hotels (T21), location of new hotel development (T22), Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) (T42), educational programmes/institutions (T26), Water Efficiency Management Systems (WEMS) (T40), Water Efficiency Fund (WEF) (T42), and Water Efficiency Management Plan (WEMP) (T50). The study also shows that dominant policy theme networks are centred around information and water conservation awareness (WCA) strategies (T28), employment of water efficient fittings, appliances, apparatuses, and products (recommended/voluntary) (T8), and NEWater (T13) in policy documents. Policy networks around most of the policy themes have had relatively high density, indicating a large degree of stability of the system for complex connections. Research has noted that sustainable tourism development-driven policymaking must stretch beyond the boundary of tourism itself to facilitate new perspectives and emerging policy instruments on sustainability issues [115].
A correspondence analysis of the policy network has noted structural (dis)similarities and policy preferences of stakeholders on policy options. Stakeholders tend to have policy preferences because of knowledge of policy instruments, available resources and contextual characteristics [112]. Specifically, PUB and MSE have a relatively wide range of interests in policy themes under different policy domains. Another cluster represented by the policy stakeholder group of hotel entities focuses on management and regulatory solutions in addition to alternate sources of water for nonpotable purposes. The third major group is formed by BCA and hotel property developers/architects/builders. Not surprisingly, this study notes that building and construction-related policy stakeholders share similar policy preferences in document composition. They have been concerned with policy themes under the four policy categories of management and regulatory solutions, engineering and technical instruments, education and involvement programmes, and alternate sources of water for nonpotable purposes [17,40,116]. Importantly, findings of correspondence analysis in conjunction with SNA help to reveal structures and relational consequences resulting from complicated interactions between multiple policy stakeholders and diverse policy themes. With the growth of sustainable tourism development as an interdisciplinary policy arena, we should no longer view (sustainable) tourism policy simply as the actions and decisions of government. Instead, players from the private and societal sectors have become increasingly active in policymaking [52,63]. Meanwhile, enhanced cross-sectoral information sharing and hybridised policy instruments for sustainable tourism can help narrow the ‘policy gap’ and bring increased policy innovation, which is vital for environmental protection as well as socioeconomic development at a tourist destination [117,118].

6. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research

A network analysis contributes to investigating the structure and dynamics of policy networks in public policy documents, which “are particularly useful for unveiling the history of a network formulation and transformation, as well as shifts in overall institutional logics, policy goals and strategies” [119]. The size and density of networks act as valuable indicators that remark the vibrancy and openness of a policymaking system of WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry. A longitudinal study reveals that the network’s relationship patterns have been evolving, and prominent policy stakeholders and policy themes are uncovered in the process of policy development. The correspondences among the identified policy stakeholders and policy themes indicate that sustainable water management in tourism is not only a response to natural resource scarcity, but also a matter of sound policy frameworks and governance [5]. By recognising the frictional nature of sustainable tourism development, the results also confirm a gradual evolution of sustainable tourism policymaking towards an interdisciplinary state, in which sustainability challenges are addressed in an integrated approach [3]. This study elucidates extensive interdependencies and complex interactions in a destination system, which facilitates future theoretical development in sustainable tourism policy studies. However, policymakers must acknowledge that some public authorities and private businesses are more likely to dominate sustainable tourism development and policy issues [120]. A policy network should not underestimate the power of third-sector members to recognise and take action upon shared economic, environmental, and social concerns [121].
Mobilising the network approach into a policy system looks beyond individual policy themes [122]. Methodologically, it provides an improved understanding of the collaborations between policy themes, how policy themes are positioned within a network and how their relations are structured into overall network patterns [87]. Despite the interesting and valuable insights of this research, some limitations are acknowledged at this point:
(1)
Certain relevant documents are likely to have been omitted due to the depth (content analysis of policy documents) and breadth (assessment of policy documents over a 20-year period) of this study;
(2)
The main source data of this study are limited to documents open to public access, which inevitably results in an incomplete picture in the discourse of sustainable tourism policymaking [123,124,125];
(3)
Only eight key terms are employed in the data-gathering process as relevant policy documents may not have been detected because of their use of other keywords;
(4)
The results of the current study could be sensitive if different and/or unequal time intervals of longitudinal network analysis are applied to the given policy documents.
Although SNA is a useful analytic technique for the examination of network structures and the structural evolution of policy networks, the single case design of Singapore may result in a generalisation bias [126]. Moreover, although quantitative analysis can uncover the linkages of policy stakeholders and policy themes, the causes and impacts of network dynamism have yet to be studied [86]. Specifically, little has been done thus far to understand what environmental and organisational antecedents would affect the establishment and shifting of network relationships and how the network relationships affect policy outcomes (e.g., behaviour and performance of Singapore’s hotel industry) [127]. Therefore, the following future research directions may be explored:
(1)
Mixed research methods are anticipated to favour more attributes of policy themes and transactional content of policy stakeholder interactions;
(2)
An exploration of the effectiveness of multidisciplinary policy themes (e.g., the pricing mechanism and nonpricing instruments) in the policy implementation stage;
(3)
Longitudinal policy studies on a range of water-scarce destinations around geographies chart a roadmap to improved practical and theoretical implications for resilient tourism policy systems [128].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.H. and B.L.; Methodology, X.H., T.Y. and B.L.; Formal analysis, X.H.; Investigation, X.H.; Writing—original draft, X.H.; Writing—review and editing, X.H., T.Y., B.L. and S.M.; Visualization, X.H. and T.Y.; Supervision, B.L. and S.M.; Project administration, X.H.; Funding acquisition, X.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support is provided by the Macau University of Science and Technology Faculty Research Grants (Project No.: FRG-22-042-FHTM). This study is also supported by the Department of Tourism and School of Geography, University of Otago for fieldwork pertinent to this research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors express our gratitude to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS and the PUB (Singapore) for valuable support. We also would like to thank the organisational participants and anonymous experts for insightful discussions on this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Profile of policy stakeholders.
Table A1. Profile of policy stakeholders.
SectorStakeholders/Stakeholder Groups
PublicBuilding and Construction Authority (BCA)
Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC)
Economic Development Board (EDB)
Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE)
National Environment Agency (NEA)
National Parks Board (NParks)
Public Utilities Board (PUB)
Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC)
Singapore Accreditation Council (SAC)
Singapore Tourism Board (STB)
Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING)
Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)
PrivateConsulting and advisory service providers
Corporate headquarter/Parent company of hotels (in Singapore)
Hotel building owners/equity investors
Hotel entities
Hotel property developers/architects/builders
Water service companies/Water solutions
Waterwise fixture suppliers/Plumbers
ThirdMedia/Press
Universities (in Singapore)
Institution of Engineers Singapore (IES)
Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA)
Singapore Environment Council (SEC)
Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC)
Singapore Hotel Association (SHA)
Polytechnics (in Singapore)
Singapore Water Association (SWA)
Waterways Watch Society (WWS)
Singapore Plumbing Society (SPS)
Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore (REDAS)
Singapore Sanitary Ware Importers and Exporters Association (SSWIEA)
Association of Consulting Engineers, Singapore (ACES)
Table A2. Policy streams, policy subcategories, and policy themes of WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry.
Table A2. Policy streams, policy subcategories, and policy themes of WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry.
Policy StreamsPolicy SubcategoriesPolicy Themes
1. Water pricing strategies1.1 Potable water pricing structureT1 Pricing for nonhousehold potable water
1.2 NEWater pricing structureT2 Pricing for NEWater
2. Management and regulatory solutions2.1 Demand management activitiesT3 Corporate culture and management commitment
T4 Monitoring water use
T21 Performance Measurement Benchmarking/Water Key Performance Indicators of Hotels
T50 Water Efficiency Management Plan (WEMP)
2.2 Compliance with requirements of water products/service providing T7 Employment of Water Efficient Fittings, Appliances, Apparatuses and Products (Mandatory)
T34 Registration of Water Products/Plumbing Services
T51 Water Efficiency Requirements (Mandatory)
T55 Code of Practice for Water Services
T56 Greywater Recycling System (Code of Practice)
T66 Penalisation for Regulatory Noncompliance
T68 Code of Practice for Construction of Rainwater Collection Systems
2.3 Control over location of new hotel developmentT22 Location of new hotel development
3. Engineering and technical instruments3.1 Leakage controlT5 Water audits
T6 Leakage detection and alleviation
3.2 Water saving devices/design (Voluntary)T8 Employment of Water Efficient Fittings, Appliances, Apparatuses and Products (Recommended/Voluntary)
T9 Metering/Private metres
T10 Landscape design
T11 Water efficient irrigation systems/controllers
T12 Time/Frequency of irrigation
T17 Water pressure system
T18 Water efficient swimming pools
T19 Water efficient design for cooling system
T20 Water tanks
T71 Voluntary Water Efficiency Standards (Recommended)
4. Education and involvement programmes4.1 Information provision strategiesT28 Information and water conservation awareness (WCA) strategies
T57 Friends of Water (FOW) Scheme
4.2 Training for techniciansT23 The Water Efficiency Manager Course
T24 Certification Course for Green Mark Managers (GMM)
T25 Training on Green and Gracious Construction Practices for Builders
T26 Educational programmes/institutions
T61 Builder Certificate in Plumbing and Pipefitting
T62 Refresher Course for Licenced Water Service Plumber
T63 Training programmes in leak detection
T67 Plumbers’ Workmanship Improvement Scheme (PWIS)
T72 Course on Management of Water, Sanitary and Drainage Facilities
T73 Course on Maintenance of Water Service Installations
T74 Green Mark Refresher Course
4.3 Rebates for water saving issues (subsidies/grants/funds)T27 Finance of water studies and water innovations
T42 Water Efficiency Fund (WEF)
T43 Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme
T44 Innovation for Environmental Sustainability Fund (IESF)
T45 Capability Development Grant (CDG)
T46 Bonus Gross Floor Area (GFA) Incentives for Rooftop Outdoor Refreshment Area (ORA)
T48 Grants for Feasibility Study
T49 Subsidy of Potable Water and NEWater
T59 NParks’ Pilot Incentive Scheme for Green Roofs
T64 Grants for Water Audit Project
T65 Grants for Community-wide Water Conservation Campaigns and Programmes
T76 Green Mark Bonus Gross Floor Area (GFA) Incentive Scheme
4.4 Recognition of water saving (awards/certification)T29 SEC-Kimberly-Clark Singapore Environmental Achievement Award (Services)
T30 Skyrise Greenery Awards
T31 Singapore Green Hotel Award
T32 President’s Award for the Environment
T33 SIA-Rigel Bathroom Design Awards
T35 Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) (Mandatory)
T36 Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) (Voluntary)
T37 BCA Green Mark Scheme
T38 Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC) Green Certifications
T39 Water Efficient Building (WEB) Certification Scheme
T40 Water Efficiency Management System (WEMS)
T41 Landscape Excellence Assessment Framework (LEAF) Certification Scheme
T52 Green and Gracious Builder Award (GGBA)
T53 Green and Gracious Builder Scheme
T54 BCA Green Mark Award
T58 Watermark Award
T60 TÜV Rheinland Eco-Hotel Certification
T70 SEC Eco-Hotel Certification
T75 Specification for dual flush low-capacity water closet (WC)
4.5 R&DT47 Development of water products/technology/solutions
5. Alternate sources of water for nonpotable purposes5.1 Reclaimed water T13 NEWater
5.2 Other alternate water sourcesT14 On-site used water recycling
T15 Condensate water
T16 Rainwater harvesting/retention
T69 Seawater/Saltwater

References

  1. Pérez-Rodríguez, J.V.; Rachinger, H.; Santana-Gallego, M. Does tourism promote economic growth? A fractionally integrated heterogeneous panel data analysis. Tour. Econ. 2022, 28, 1355–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Moyle, B.; Weaver, D.; Gössling, S.; McLennan, C.-L.; Hadinejad, A. Are water-centric themes in sustainable tourism research congruent with the UN Sustainable Development Goals? J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 1821–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ruhanen, L.; Weiler, B.; Moyle, B.D.; McLennan, C.L.J. Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 517–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ricart, S.; Villar-Navascués, R.; Reyes, M.; Rico-Amorós, A.M.; Hernández-Hernández, M.; Toth, E.; Bragalli, C.; Neri, M.; Amelung, B. Water–tourism nexus research in the Mediterranean in the past two decades: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2023, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gössling, S.; Peeters, P.; Hall, C.M.; Ceron, J.P.; Dubois, G.; Lehmann, L.V.; Scott, D. Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review. Tour. Manag. (1982) 2012, 33, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Legrand, W.; Chen, J.S.; Laeis, G.C.M. Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry: Principles of Sustainable Operations, 4th ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  7. Antonova, N.; Ruiz-Rosa, I.; Mendoza-Jimenez, J. Water Resource Management in Hotels Using a Sustainable Balanced Scorecard. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Becken, S. Water equity—Contrasting tourism water use with that of the local community. Water Resour. Ind. 2014, 7–8, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schönherr, S.; Peters, M.; Kuščer, K. Sustainable tourism policies: From crisis-related awareness to agendas towards measures. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2023, 27, 100762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rosato, P.F.; Caputo, A.; Valente, D.; Pizzi, S. 2030 Agenda and sustainable business models in tourism: A bibliometric analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 106978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mendoza, E.; Ferrero, G.; Slokar, Y.M.; Amores, X.; Azzellino, A.; Buttiglieri, G. Water management practices in Euro-Mediterranean hotels and resorts. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2023, 39, 485–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gössling, S.; Hall, C.M.; Scott, D. Tourism and Water; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Becken, S.; Rajan, R.; Moore, S.; Watt, M.; McLennan, C.L. White Paper on Tourism and Water; EarthCheck Research Institute: Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  15. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]; World Tourism Organization [UNWTO]. Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers; United Nations Environment Programme and World Tourism Organization Paris and Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  16. Karimidastenaei, Z.; Avellán, T.; Sadegh, M.; Kløve, B.; Haghighi, A.T. Unconventional water resources: Global opportunities and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 827, 154429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Public Utilities Board [PUB]. Best Practice Guide in Water Efficiency Buildings (Version 2); Public Utilities Board: Singapore, 2022.
  18. Sørensen, F.; Grindsted, T.S. Sustainability approaches and nature tourism development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 91, 103307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Adeyeye, K. Policy Water Efficiency in Buildings; Adeyeye, K., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Seah, H. Singapore’s Water Strategy: Diversified, Robust, and Sustainable. J. AWWA 2020, 112, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tortajada, C.; González-Gómez, F.; Biswas, A.K.; Buurman, J. Water demand management strategies for water-scarce cities: The case of Spain. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kampragou, E.; Lekkas, D.F.; Assimacopoulos, D. Water demand management: Implementation principles and indicative case studies. Water Environ. J. 2011, 25, 466–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ong, C.; Tortajada, C.; Arora, O. Urban Water Demand Management: A Guidebook for ASEAN; Springer: Singapore, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  24. Luan, I.O.B. Singapore Water Management Policies and Practices. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2010, 26, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gunawansa, A.; Bhullar, L.; Hoque, S.F. Chapter 1: Introduction. In Water Governance; Gunawansa, A., Bhullar, L., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited and Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.: Cheltenham and Northampton, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Tortajada, C.; Buurman, J. Water Policy in Singapore. Available online: https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/water-policy-in-singapore (accessed on 9 October 2023).
  27. Cole, S. Tourism and water: From stakeholders to rights holders, and what tourism businesses need to do. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tortajada, C. Water Management in Singapore. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2006, 22, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mclennan, C.L.J.; Becken, S.; Stinson, K. A water-use model for the tourism industry in the Asia-Pacific region: The impact of water-saving measures on water use. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 746–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xi, X.; Poh, K.L. Using System Dynamics for Sustainable Water Resources Management in Singapore. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 16, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Araral, E.; Wang, Y. Water demand management: Review of literature and comparison in South-East Asia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2013, 29, 434–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, X.; Ying, T.; Lovelock, B.; Mager, S. Sustainable water demand management in the hotel sector: A policy network analysis of Singapore. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1686–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources [MEWR]. The Singapore Green Plan 2012; Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources: Singapore, 2006.
  34. Han, H. Governance for green urbanisation: Lessons from Singapore’s green building certification scheme. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2018, 37, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Molina-Collado, A.; Santos-Vijande, M.L.; Gómez-Rico, M.; Madera, J.M. Sustainability in hospitality and tourism: A review of key research topics from 1994 to 2020. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 3029–3064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Crase, L.; Cooper, B. Water Pricing, Water Restrictions, and Tourism Water Demand. In Water Policy, Tourism, and Recreation: Lessons from Australia; Crase, L., O’Keefe, S., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sandang, Y.; Cole, S. Using a human rights approach to improve hotels’ water use and sustainability. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 2337–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hadjikakou, M.J. Chenoweth, and G. Miller, Estimating the direct and indirect water use of tourism in the eastern Mediterranean. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 548–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Deyà Tortella, B.; Tirado, D. Hotel water consumption at a seasonal mass tourist destination. The case of the island of Mallorca. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 2568–2579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tortajada, C.; Joshi, Y.K. Water Demand Management in Singapore: Involving the Public. Water Resour. Manag. 2013, 27, 2729–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Butler, D.; Memon, F.A. Water Demand Management; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fischer, M.; Ingold, K. Conceptual Reflections About Water, Governance, and Networks. In Networks in Water Governance; Fischer, M., Ingold, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 17–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hall, C.M. Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: From first- and second-order to third-order change? J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 649–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Robins, G. Doing Social Network Research: Network-Based Research Design for Social Scientists; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, S.; Keller, F.; Zheng, L. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Examples; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  46. Borgatti, S.P.; Everett, M.G.; Johnson, J.C. Analyzing Social Networks, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  47. Luzi, S.; Hamouda, M.A.; Sigrist, F.; Tauchnitz, E. Water policy networks in Egypt and Ethiopia. J. Environ. Dev. 2008, 17, 238–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nabiafjadi, S.; Sharifzadeh, M.; Ahmadvand, M. Social network analysis for identifying actors engaged in water governance: An endorheic basin case in the Middle East. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Stein, C.; Ernstson, H.; Barron, J. A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2011, 36, 1085–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kharanagh, S.G.; Banihabib, M.E.; Javadi, S. An MCDM-based social network analysis of water governance to determine actors’ power in water-food-energy nexus. J. Hydrol. 2020, 581, 124382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Warren, C.; Becken, S. Saving energy and water in tourist accommodation: A systematic literature review (1987–2015). Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 19, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Albrecht, J.N. Networking for sustainable tourism—Towards a research agenda. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 639–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ying, T.; Xiao, H. Knowledge linkage: A social network analysis of tourism dissertation subjects. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2012, 36, 450–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sun, Y.; Cao, C. The evolving relations between government agencies of innovation policymaking in emerging economies: A policy network approach and its application to the Chinese case. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 592–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yang, L.; Li, X.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. Scientific collaboration and thematic analysis of the tourism industry in the context of COVID-19: A bibliometric approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Antonova, N.; Ruiz-Rosa, I.; Mendoza-Jiménez, J. Water resources in the hotel industry: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 628–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cole, S.K.; Mullor, E.C.; Ma, Y.; Sandang, Y. “Tourism, water, and gender”—An international review of an unexplored nexus. Wiley Interdisci-Plinary Rev. Water 2020, 7, e1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Burgin, S.; Webb, T.; Rae, D. Stakeholder engagement in water policy: Lessons from peri-urban irrigation. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 650–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hadjikakou, M.; Miller, G.; Chenoweth, J.; Druckman, A.; Zoumides, C. A comprehensive framework for comparing water use intensity across different tourist types. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1445–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Eberhard, R.; Margerum, R.; Vella, K.; Mayere, S.; Taylor, B. The practice of water policy governance networks: An international comparative case study analysis. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 30, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Newig, J.; Günther, D.; Pahl-Wostl, C. Synapses in the network learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tyler, D.; Dinan, C. The role of interested groups in England’s emerging tourism policy network. Curr. Issues Tour. 2001, 4, 210–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Goebel, K.; Camargo-Borges, C.; Eelderink, M. Exploring participatory action research as a driver for sustainable tourism. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 22, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lee, H.; Tan, T.P. Singapore’s experience with reclaimed water: NEWater. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2016, 32, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bhullar, L. Climate Change Adaptation and Water Policy: Lessons from Singapore. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ng, P.J.H.; Teo, C. Singapore’s water challenges past to present. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 36, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. AQUASTAT Dissemination System. Available online: https://data.apps.fao.org/aquastat/?lang=en (accessed on 30 July 2021).
  68. Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MFA]. Towards a Sustainable and Resilient Singapore; Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Singapore, 2018.
  69. Khoo, T.C. Singapore Water: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In Water Management in 2020 and Beyond; Biswas, A.K., Tortajada, C., Izquierdo, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. World Bank Group. Population, Total—Singapore. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=SG (accessed on 3 May 2023).
  71. Singapore Tourism Board [STB]. Annual Report 2019–2020; Singapore Tourism Board: Singapore, 2020.
  72. Cole, S. A political ecology of water equity and tourism: A case study from Bali. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012, 39, 1221–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kasim, A.; Gursoy, D.; Okumus, F.; Wong, A. The importance of water management in hotels: A framework for sustainability through innovation. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 1090–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tortajada, C.; Koh, R.Y.T. Integrated Management in Singapore. In Handbook of Catchment Management, 2nd ed.; Robert, F., Alan, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 385–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lim, T.S. Water Conservation in Singapore. Available online: https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=c4077012-e0e1-438f-acfd-6d0d9f8da71c (accessed on 11 April 2022).
  76. Hoo, R. Managing water demand in Singapore through a systems perspective. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 36, 879–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Public Utilities Board [PUB]. Singapore Water Story. Available online: https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/singaporewaterstory (accessed on 17 May 2023).
  78. Wong, K.Y. Singapore’s Experience in Water Resource Management. In Water Issues in Southeast Asia: Present Trends and Future Direction; Lee, P.O., Ed.; ISEAS Publishing: Singapore, 2012; pp. 243–254. [Google Scholar]
  79. Chiplunkar, A.; Seetharam, K.; Tan, C.K. Good Practices in Urban Water Management: Decoding Good Practices for a Successful Future; Asian Development Bank and National University of Singapore: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  80. Casanueva, C.; Gallego, Á.; García-Sánchez, M.R. Social network analysis in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1190–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pforr, C. Tourism policy in the making: An Australian network study. Ann. Tour. Res. 2006, 33, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Knoke, D.; Diani, M.; Hollway, J.; Christopoulos, D. Multimodal Political Networks; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  83. Briedenhann, J.; Butts, S. Application of the delphi technique to rural tourism project evaluation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2006, 9, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tortajada, C.; Joshi, Y.; Biswas, A.K. The Singapore Water Story: Sustainable Development in an Urban City-State; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  85. Aguinis, H.; Kraus, S.; Poček, J.; Meyer, N.; Jensen, S.H. The why, how, and what of public policy implications of tourism and hospitality research. Tour. Manag. 2023, 97, 104720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment [MSE]. Our History. Available online: https://www.mse.gov.sg/about-us/our-history/ (accessed on 9 August 2023).
  87. Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  88. Prell, C. Social Network Analysis: History, Theory & Methodology; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  89. Baggio, R.; Scott, N.; Cooper, C. Improving tourism destination governance: A complexity science approach. Tour. Rev. 2010, 65, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Carrington, P.J.; Scott, J.; Wasserman, S. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  91. Liu, Y.; Mo, S.; Song, Y.; Wang, M. Longitudinal Analysis in Occupational Health Psychology: A Review and Tutorial of Three Longitudinal Modeling Techniques. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 65, 379–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Knoke, D.; Yang, S. Social Network Analysis, 3rd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  93. Scott, J. Social Network Analysis, 4th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  94. Biswas, A.K. Urban water security for developing countries. River 2022, 1, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Baggio, R.; Klobas, J.E. Quantitative Methods in Tourism: A Handbook; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  96. Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development [IMCSD] of Singapore. A Lively and Liveable Singapore: Strategies for Sustainable Growth; Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) of Singapore: Singapore, 2009.
  97. Prime Minister’s Office Singapore [PMO]. Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2009; Prime Minister’s Office Singapore: Singapore, 2009.
  98. Seah, H.; Lee, N. Technological enablers and confidence building in end-users for effective non-domestic water demand management. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 36, 992–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bda-Portugal, I.; Rocha, J.; Ferreira, C.C. Exploring the impacts of future tourism development on land use/cover changes. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 77, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gelbman, A. Seaside hotel location and environmental impact: Land use dilemmas. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2022, 20, 530–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage Learning Australia Limited: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  102. Ho, L.; Alonso, A.; Forio, M.A.E.; Vanclooster, M.; Goethals, P.L.M. Water research in support of the Sustainable Development Goal 6: A case study in Belgium. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Public Utilities Board [PUB]. Our Water, Our Future; Public Utilities Board: Singapore, 2016.
  104. DeMaagd, N.; Fuleky, P.; Burnett, K.; Wada, C. Tourism water use during the COVID-19 shutdown: A natural experiment in Hawai‘i. Ann. Tour. Res. 2022, 97, 103475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Building and Construction Authority [BCA]. Singapore: Leading the Way for Green Buildings in the Tropics; Building and Construction Authority: Singapore, 2013.
  106. Fischer, M.; Ingold, K.; Duygan, M.; Manny, L.; Pakizer, K. Actor networks in urban water governance. In Routledge Handbook of Urban Water Governance; Bolognesi, T., Pinto, F.S., Farrelly, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  107. Zolfani, S.H.; Sedaghat, M.; Maknoon, R.; Zavadskas, E.K. Sustainable tourism: A comprehensive literature review on frameworks and applications. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraž. 2015, 28, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kim, Y.H.; Barber, N.; Kim, D.K. Sustainability research in the hotel industry: Past, present, and future. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2019, 28, 576–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tekken, V.; Kropp, J.P. Sustainable water management—Perspectives for tourism development in north-eastern Morocco. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2015, 16, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Capano, G. Policy dynamics and change: The never-ending puzzle. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy; Araral, E., Fritzen, S., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Wu, X., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Vinzenz, F.; Priskin, J.; Wirth, W.; Ponnapureddy, S.; Ohnmacht, T. Marketing sustainable tourism: The role of value orientation, well-being and credibility. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1663–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, G.X. Policy network mapping of the universal health care reform in Taiwan: An application of social network analysis. J. Asian Public Policy 2013, 6, 313–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wu, J.S.; Barbrook-Johnson, P.; Font, X. Participatory complexity in tourism policy: Understanding sustainability programmes with participatory systems mapping. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 90, 103269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chen, D.C.; Maksimovic, C.; Voulvoulis, N. Institutional capacity and policy options for integrated urban water management: A Singapore case study. Water Policy 2011, 13, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Dredge, D.; Jenkins, J.M. Tourism Planning and Policy; John Wiley & Sons Australia: Milton, QLD, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  116. Singapore Tourism Board [STB]. Sustainability Guidelines for the Singapore MICE Industry; Singapore Tourism Board: Singapore, 2013.
  117. Edgell, D.L.; Swanson, J.R. Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, 3rd ed.; Routledge: Milton, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Tan, K.; Lee, T.J.; Tan, Y.S. Ensuring Water Sustainability: Water Demand Management. In Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey Towards Environmental and Water Sustainability; Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J., Tan, K., Eds.; ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute: Singapore, 2008; pp. 161–176. [Google Scholar]
  119. Bogason, P.; Zølner, M. Methods for network governance research: An introduction. In Methods in Democratic Network Governance; Bogason, P., Zølner, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2007; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hu, X.; Lovelock, B.; Ying, T.; Mager, S. Stakeholder Collaboration on Policymaking for Sustainable Water Management in Singapore’s Hotel Sector: A Network Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Global Sustainable Tourism Council [GSTC]. Singapore Hotel Sustainability Roadmap. Available online: https://www.gstcouncil.org/singapore-hotel-sustainability-roadmap/?lang=zh-hans (accessed on 23 May 2021).
  122. Kimbu, A.N.; Ngoasong, M.Z. Centralised decentralisation of tourism development: A network perspective. Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 40, 235–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Khanra, S.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Mäntymäki, M. Bibliometric analysis and literature review of ecotourism: Toward sustainable development. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Moyle, B.; Moyle, C.L.; Ruhanen, L.; Weaver, D.; Hadinejad, A. Are we really progressing sustainable tourism research? A bibliometric analysis. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Benckendorff, P. Themes and trends in Australian and New Zealand tourism research: A social network analysis of citations in two leading journals (1994–2007). J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2009, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  127. De Boer, C.; Bressers, H.T.A. 3. Contextual Interaction Theory for assessing water governance, policy and knowledge transfer. In Water Governance, Policy and Knowledge Transfer: International Studies on Contextual Water Management; De Boer, C., Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Özerol, G., Bressers, H.T.A., Bressers, J.T.A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  128. Wehn, U.; Collins, K.; Anema, K.; Basco-Carrera, L.; Lerebours, A. Stakeholder engagement in water governance as social learning: Lessons from practice. Water Int. 2018, 43, 34–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 15890 g001
Figure 1. Overview of the policy stakeholder network for WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry (2001–2020). Note: See Appendix A Table A1 for full names of the policy stakeholders.
Figure 1. Overview of the policy stakeholder network for WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry (2001–2020). Note: See Appendix A Table A1 for full names of the policy stakeholders.
Sustainability 15 15890 g001
Sustainability 15 15890 g002
Figure 2. Overview of the policy theme network for WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry (2001–2020). Note: See Appendix A Table A2 for full names of the policy themes.
Figure 2. Overview of the policy theme network for WDM in Singapore’s hotel industry (2001–2020). Note: See Appendix A Table A2 for full names of the policy themes.
Sustainability 15 15890 g002
Sustainability 15 15890 g003aSustainability 15 15890 g003bSustainability 15 15890 g003c
Figure 3. Four-year periodic policy theme networks. Note: See Appendix A Table A2 for full names of the policy themes.
Figure 3. Four-year periodic policy theme networks. Note: See Appendix A Table A2 for full names of the policy themes.
Sustainability 15 15890 g003aSustainability 15 15890 g003bSustainability 15 15890 g003c
Sustainability 15 15890 g004
Figure 4. Multidimensional scale of periodic policy theme networks.
Figure 4. Multidimensional scale of periodic policy theme networks.
Sustainability 15 15890 g004
Sustainability 15 15890 g005
Figure 5. Correspondence analysis of the association between policy stakeholders and policy themes. Note 1: See Appendix A Table A1 for full names of the policy stakeholders; Note 2: See Appendix A Table A2 for the policy themes.
Figure 5. Correspondence analysis of the association between policy stakeholders and policy themes. Note 1: See Appendix A Table A1 for full names of the policy stakeholders; Note 2: See Appendix A Table A2 for the policy themes.
Sustainability 15 15890 g005
Table 1. Forms of document cocontribution.
Table 1. Forms of document cocontribution.
Forms of Cocontribution2001–20042005–20082009–20122013–20162017–2020Total
Within the public sector6 (31.6%)2 (15.4%)7 (14.9%)5 (8.2%)19 (13%)39 (13.6%)
Within the private sector002 (4.3%)4 (6.6%)24 (16.4%)30 (10.5%)
Within the third sector0001 (1.6%)01 (0.3%)
Public-Private4 (20.1%)3 (23.1%)21 (44.7%)14 (30%)41 (28%)83 (29%)
Public-Third7 (36.8%)1 (7.7%)2 (4.3%)22 (36.1%)15 (10.3%)47 (16.4%)
Private-Third0004 (6.6%)12 (8.2%)16 (5.6%)
Public-Private-Third2 (10.5%)7 (53.8%)15 (31.9%)11 (18%)35 (24%)70 (24.5%)
Total19134761146286
Table 2. Measures of longitudinal policy theme networks.
Table 2. Measures of longitudinal policy theme networks.
Overall2001–20042005–20082009–20122013–20162017–2020
Network size762434505570
No. of ties2074228582115411281690
Density0.360.630.440.470.380.35
Average Degree27.2914.5015.7323.0820.5124.14
Degree of Centralisation (%)44.1917.1843.5937.3138.6543.90
Table 3. Structural correlations among periodic policy theme networks.
Table 3. Structural correlations among periodic policy theme networks.
Time Period
2001–20042005–20082009–20122013–20162017–2020
2001–20041----
2005–20080.4401---
2009–20120.2710.4931--
2013–20160.1820.4140.6421-
2017–20200.2090.4030.5940.576-
Table 4. Ego-network measures for the most popular policy themes in the whole network.
Table 4. Ego-network measures for the most popular policy themes in the whole network.
Key Policy ThemesEgo Network SizeDensity (%)Periodic Ego-Network SizePeriodic Ego-Network Tie Changes
Period 1Period 2Period 3Period 4Period 5Δ1Δ2Δ3Δ4MeanStandard Deviation
T286052.151924414154152742−58506335357.22
T85365.021425374046306568−16392312244.65
T135364.371331383846430512−88450326278.20
T215363.8600343852090038522365428.57
T35263.12003530460936−298656323570.56
T55166.121022332846258544−272698307426.88
T75168.781228403845380572−86406318282.44
T45068.16024363345416560−174482321335.21
T65069.39102732354232243054354290163.72
T115067.1801831334628847412546330238.24
T145067.5992034374724860416434325252.41
T165065.8071633364619860626420312253.57
T374863.12418283937276244378−24218171.47
T354773.17016403441240782−290474301452.51
T424770.49003121420708−306800300539.66
T514770.681028333040396312−102540286275.58
T94578.99628293442436222196404314122.98
T154482.03016352935240680−220336259371.02
T394481.5001030333974630162290289244.02
T194380.40018323039288522−80394281258.99
T204373.42132826036364114−5841042234671.64
T364380.51016372840240746−330546300469.02
T344173.54121722527122116−326576122368.26
T404179.1500044100121178297587.03
T504082.56000273800620480275322.65
T544070.00018243029288116302−112148193.17
T103878.81118242437288236−16510254215.96
T13785.141082423320428−28342185233.30
T473589.7565282123−10632−2662896380.44
T23490.20882323261439010140139178.20
T553172.90131713722114−100−9637072222.39
T262697.2360181213−30306−1983428209.57
T221592.38000111500110824856.59
Note 1: See Appendix A Table A2 for full names of the policy themes. Note 2: Δ1, Δ2, Δ3, Δ4 = Ego-network tie changes from one particular period to the following (2001–2004, 2005–2008, 2009–2012, 2013–2016, and 2017–2020).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hu, X.; Ying, T.; Lovelock, B.; Mager, S. Sustainable Water Policymaking for the Hotel Industry: A Longitudinal Network Analysis of Policy Documents. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215890

AMA Style

Hu X, Ying T, Lovelock B, Mager S. Sustainable Water Policymaking for the Hotel Industry: A Longitudinal Network Analysis of Policy Documents. Sustainability. 2023; 15(22):15890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215890

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hu, Xiao, Tianyu Ying, Brent Lovelock, and Sarah Mager. 2023. "Sustainable Water Policymaking for the Hotel Industry: A Longitudinal Network Analysis of Policy Documents" Sustainability 15, no. 22: 15890. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215890

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop