Civic Reporting Indicators and Biocultural Conservation: Opportunities and Challenges for Sustainable Tourism

Abstract

Citizen science (CS) within sustainable tourism is an underutilized tool for biocultural conservation. The aims of this research integrate conceptual and applied approaches to situate post-positivist and interpretive paradigms within CS and sustainable tourism. The aims are fulfilled by the creation of the new Civic Reporting Indicators (CRIs), developed through analysis of the 174 Global Sustainable Tourism Council Destination (GSTC-D) criteria and indicators. It was determined that 114 indicators are perceivable audibly and/or visibly by untrained citizens. The rearticulation of GSTC-D criteria into the CRIs utilizes embodied perceptions and observations reportable by untrained visitors and residents. The CRIs are framed within ethical principles of research, CS, and sustainable tourism. The inclusion of interpretive paradigms within CS provides epistemological innovation that validates lived experiences and embodied knowledge, fostering agency and empowerment within sustainability narratives. The CRIs may harness end-user observations by utilizing information communication technologies (ICTs) to amass longitudinal and real-time data for smart, sustainable destination management and biocultural conservation. Engaging citizens through the CRIs has the potential to contribute valid observations that amass democratic, longitudinal, and cost-effective data. Designing accessible ICT platforms for destination management may enact civic agency and critical social reflection to democratize sustainability engagement.

1. Introduction

Citizens are visitors, residents, and end-users of areas of significant biocultural diversity, serving as real-time witnesses to sustainability initiatives within destinations. As such, citizens have the potential to provide real-time insights from their unique perspectives to report on sustainability-related goals for destinations. A foundational concept in sustainable tourism (ST) is engaging a range of stakeholders in the implementation and management of tourism planning and programs. To date, most understandings of citizens’ perspectives rely on visitor destination surveys. In recent years, researchers have utilized content analysis in assessing visitors’ perceptions of sustainability in destinations while traveling [1]. However, it is essential to engage citizens in reporting observations that contribute to research projects and indicators for ST management. Therefore, theoretical and applied opportunities to engage citizens with sustainability initiatives within tourism may be realized within citizen science and citizen reporting.

Researchers have identified visitors to natural areas as potential citizen science (CS) reporters [2,3]. However, research is nascent in CS and citizen reporting (CR) criteria specific to tourism. Although there are varying definitions of CS, Hyder et al. (2017) define it as “the use of volunteers with no formal training in science that collect, categorize, transcribe, or analyze scientific data” [4] (p. 51). Researchers have indicated that with appropriate techniques, CS can be “a credible tool for scientific research and monitoring” [5] (p. 686) and, therefore, valuable to consider as beneficial for tourism systems [6,7,8,9,10,11]. It has been determined that CS can provide outcomes “similar to results achieved by scientists” [4] (p. 53). Brosnan, Filep, and Rock (2015) situate CS as a way of supporting “a shift towards a more democratized way for scientific information to be collected and shared for a greater good” [12] (p. 97). Tourists have been witnessed as valuable citizen scientists and thus can serve as stakeholders in incorporating tourism within the conservation, restoration, and monitoring of sensitive ecosystems [13,14]. Thus, the authors propose that CR is an essential modality in engaging citizens in ST and can serve to increase citizen agency in sustainability discourse and initiatives.

Through information and communication technology (ICT) development, CR “allow(s) citizens to efficiently share knowledge that is relevant to governmental services via a web-based or mobile platform” [15] (p. 215). CR through ICTs has been analyzed in reporting non-emergency incidents in smart cities [16], heritage tourism destinations [17], and through a social psychological lens of motivation [15]. Building from ICT development, environmental research in monitoring marine conditions has utilized tourist sentiment through social media posts to enhance environmental monitoring data [18]. This study assumes destinations viable for engagement with CR have established ICT infrastructure utilized by citizens through smartphones, providing information in user languages.

The authors of this paper analyze applications of CS and CR to further civic agency within ST management by presenting ideations around perceivable civic reporting indicators (CRIs) based on the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria-Destination indicators (GSTC-D). The selection of the GSTC-D criteria for use in this study is not predicated upon nor assumes destinations will pursue engagement with the GSTC program. The authors recognize the GSTC is not the only criteria available, as substantial global critique exists around the creation, implementation, motivations, and impacts of the GSTC [19]. In pursuit of this study’s aims, the GTSC-D criteria are utilized in consideration of the extensive time, money, and global stakeholder input invested in the development of these specific sustainable tourism criteria.

The proposed and newly created CRIs are intended to contribute to the agency of citizens in sustainable destination monitoring, evaluation, and management. We examine how citizens (including overnight tourists, residents, and visitors) can serve as civic reporters regarding real-time sustainability conditions and management of biocultural areas of significance. A CR platform designed to operationalize sustainable tourism criteria using citizen engagement provides a potential for destination management to source regular, longitudinal data.

The application of CS to ST practices relies on a wide range of factors, including stakeholders, the ability of citizens to perceive indicators, and motivation to participate in the data reporting process. This paper utilizes specific existing GSTC-D indicators that have been determined as perceivable (audibly and/or visibly) by untrained citizens. Hollinshead and Suleman (2018) remind us of epistemological tensions and contradictions between hegemonic objective “understandings about what is known (and how it is found out) and subjective understanding that serve to capture the points of view held by participants in the inspected society” [i.e., destinations] [20] (p. 52). They contend that tourism “produces meaning (and thereby ‘knowledge in currency’) through its constant and cumulative use of language, discourse, and image” (p. 71) and thus offers “knowledge-making authority and truth-making agency” [20] (p. 75). We present conceptual and applied contributions resulting in the new CRIs as a vehicle for more inclusive sustainable destination management and data collection that can ultimately be utilized for sustainability research.

Our contribution builds upon the work of Fritz et al. (2019), who provides five dimensions of CS data to improve upon missing data collection processes for the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [21]. Additionally, we cross-analyze the content of the GSTC-D [22], Katapally’s SMART framework [23], and Schaffer and Tham’s framework [3] while considering various influential codes of related ethics. The intersection of CS, CR, and the development of the new CRIs may further biocultural conservation and destination management through citizen agency via engagement in sustainability monitoring and reporting. The proposed CRIs are a new tool to retrofit existing conventions (GSTC-D and SDGs) in two primary ways: (a) to improve civic agency via real-time sustainability reporting and (b) to amass consistent, longitudinal, global data regarding ST management.

The following outlines four aims of this manuscript regarding the intersections of ST, CS, and biocultural conservation. The first two are conceptual quandaries, while the last two are applied points of engagement. The design of the new CRIs serves:

• To substantiate the validity of subjective, qualitative knowledge to further epistemological transformations, innovations, and matters of knowing [20] by situating post-positivist and interpretive paradigms [24] within CS and ST
• To challenge the structural oppression of subjugated knowledge by creating infrastructure that facilitates egalitarian citizen engagement with ST for agency and empowerment
• To engage CS as a tool to integrate sustainability best practices into the public narrative
• To interpret the GSTC-D criteria into perceivable indicators that enable citizens to report sensory experiences as contextual ST data for destination management

The first two aims are conceptual in nature, extending epistemological transformations [20] that substantiate lived experiences as valid, embodied knowledge. The authors argue that it is necessary to employ post-positive, inclusive, interpretive lenses that validate lay perceptions to understand social phenomena inherent to the tourism system [24]. Previously, CS has largely adopted a positivist ontological approach that alienates cultural knowledge and embodied sensual information—vital to the intangible nature of tourism experiences within places. The second conceptual contribution serves to flatten the hierarchical barriers of intellectual engagement in sustainability. The final two aims target applied contexts to make sustainability accessible to untrained citizens.

It is not intended for all the GSTC-D criteria and CRI subsections to be used at one time, but rather contextual selections should be modified based on destination needs and management priorities. By translating the GSTC-D criteria into perceivable indicators, citizens can contribute to inclusive, democratized reporting that can generate free, real-time data collection for sustainable destination management. Therefore, this research provides a necessary conceptual foundation for the design of a future empirical study enacting the aims fulfilled here within.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Citizen Science and Tourism Literature

Within sustainable destination management, CS remains an infrequently utilized methodology. Tourism studies and social science disciplines may benefit from the integration of visitors and residents into CS projects by amassing global data that could be utilized to further sustainability initiatives [25,26]. CS that collects multiple stakeholder observations allows for building longitudinal datasets encapsulating real-time, on-the-ground viewpoints; supporting engagement and tailoring of sustainability best practices as opposed to formalized, intermittent third-party assessments seen within some certification mechanisms. The authors contend that by providing easily perceivable criteria, CS projects could empower untrained visitors and residents to directly contribute to biocultural conservation interventions.

Sauermann et al. (2020) note that current development in CS is unbalanced, with more disciplinary involvement from natural sciences and less amongst the social sciences [27]. There has been notable growth regarding global ST development, and yet research agendas display a dearth of engaging travelers and residents within CS projects. Academic tourism research often pulls from interdisciplinary natural and social sciences that could benefit from engaging visitors as citizen scientists. The growth of CS projects [28] is largely due to advancing access to technology as “tools for disseminating information about projects and gathering data from the public … [and] the increasing realization among professional scientists that the public represent a free source of labor, skills, computational power and even finance” [29] (p. 467). These developments are evidenced within tourism products such as ecotourism and voluntourism that sometimes fund conservation research and provide voluntary labor [30,31]. This capacity to support conservation and research agendas while transforming relationships between citizens and the destination demonstrates why future tourism research should continue to explore possibilities involving visitors’ contributions to science and conservation through reporting.

The authors conducted a thorough literature review assessing intersections between CS and tourism, uncovering a significant gap in CS application to tourism and destination management. In a review of 15 current top-ranked tourism journals according to Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR), it was found that the term “citizen science” appeared within 37 articles. However, only 10 of the 37 articles contained significant CS focus. This was previously supported by Font et al. (2019) in stating that “citizen data has not … been applied to sustainable tourism research” [32] (p. 8). It was determined that projects connecting CS and tourism are limited to marine areas [3,33,34,35], diving projects [36], surveying climate change impacts [37], and ecosystem/wildlife habitat changes [38]. Räikkönen et al. (2021) note the need for CS to expand science tourism within nature-based settings [39]. Power (2022) utilizes the term “enviro-leisure activism”, describing recreational beach cleaning contributing towards CS [40]. Ardoin et al.’s (2015) review of tourism literature between 1995 and 2013 investigates “empirical research on nature-based tourism’s ability to foster long-term stewardship behavior among travelers” [41] (p. 838) and describes CS as a creative method for measuring behavior in tourism experiences. Hardy et al. (2022) present a research note proposing a citizen social science agenda recognizing that “creative and qualitative participatory methodologies that amplify the voices of the unheard and collate nuanced insights into the lived experiences of residents and their interpretations of tourism remain scarce” [25] (p. 1). This research note outlines the need for citizens as co-researchers in bottom-up, community-originated citizen science. We contend that citizen engagement with sustainability reporting mechanisms could employ retrofitting of existing sustainability criteria and then customize nuanced questions that focus upon specific destination needs. This approach can be more resource and time efficient as the development of sustainability criteria is arduous, and thus the tailoring of existing criteria serves instances of resource constraints.

CS is cited across disciplines as effective in collecting diverse forms of longitudinal data, for example, in ecosystem changes [42]. However, others contend that CS can dilute effective data collection through lack of rigor and training, particularly as related to tourist-generated information. According to Dean et al. (2018) CS can demonstrate “three indicators of greater environmental engagement [including:] (i) willingness to share information, (ii) increased support for marine conservation and CS, and (iii) intentions to adopt a new behavior” [43] (p. 409). These indicators significantly overlap in ways that ST can influence pro-environmental behavior and thus illustrates potential commonalities between CS and ST initiatives.

There is growing attention to varied intersections between tourism, CS, and global sustainability initiatives. Yet, indicators specific to ST within CS frameworks are under-explored. CS is routinely connected to supporting the 2030 SDGs in various forms, such as CS groups and discussions on citizen involvement to fill missing SDG data gaps [44,45]. CS frameworks commonly neglect mention of tourism or refer to tourism only briefly or as future application [12]. Schaffer and Tam (2019) conducted a review of literature covering CS, environmental management, and marine tourism. They identified 18 CS frameworks for how CS could be adopted to engage tourist scientists within the marine environment [3]. Their own resulting framework, while including a detailed example of integrating tourism scholarship and CS, does not include ST indicators or specifically ties CS and tourism to global sustainability initiatives.

In reviewing literature, no CS frameworks were found that guide visitors to report observations inclusive of people or human behavior within destinations. Though sustainability initiatives are largely centered on human dimensions of natural resources, indicators specific to human behavior in CS (including ecotourism and voluntourism) are lacking [31]. Certain CS projects and frameworks do focus on biocultural aspects, such as reporting on linguistic diversity in signage [46], field environmental philosophy as an ethical approach to ecotourism [47], and frameworks for community-based biocultural indicators [48]. These projects and frameworks may span the human dimensions of CS, but none specifically include criteria addressing actions pertaining to ST indicators. With technological advancements and the continued use of CS platforms, additional research specifically targeted at CS and CR for conservation projects, including tourism, is required.

2.2. Conceptual Development of Citizen Reporting in Tourism

Three seminal components strategically formed the conceptual structure for the synthesis of CRIs (Figure 1). These components progress the field of CS and ST by encouraging participation of tourist scientists [3], systems science in community-based participatory research (CBPR) [23], and global sustainability initiatives within tourism criteria [22]. We propose that this conceptual engagement may assist in supporting citizen agencies within sustainability initiatives that may serve to further global biocultural conservation interventions in tourism.

Schaffer and Tham’s framework (2019) details the under-utilization of tourists as scientists and how they may engage in CS, drawing from marine contexts. Important features of tourists as citizen scientists include “the singularity and sporadic nature of tourist participation, training and engagement as well as the reliability of data collected by citizen scientists” [3] (p. 333). The framework has five themes: participation design, diversity, training and education, evaluation and dissemination, and partnership and collaboration. These themes form a structure for the strategic use of resources to train and educate tourists as one-time participating scientists, considering time and accuracy to deliver “clear, specific, engaging, and easy” instructions potentially embedded with destination or operator interpretation [3] (p. 337).

Katapally’s (2019) SMART framework includes the synthesis of systems science, CBPR, and CS as interconnected areas to standardize methods and improve data quality within CS. The SMART framework integrates CS, CBPR, and systems science to embrace the complexities of systemic relationships and big data. A key to the application of the SMART framework across multiple geographical scales is individuals with smartphones (i.e., ICTs) within various systems revealing causal relationships through big data that can inform policies through civic engagement [23]. Incorporating the SMART framework connects CR with ST indicators through long-established roots of environmental activism and community-based participation principles of research for civic engagement and agency. This delimitation of scale focuses on systems of interactions of individuals and communities within a defined location. Thus, this research envisions smartphones (ICTs) as the modality for citizens to report upon sustainability criteria through the CRIs.

The GSTC is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization established globally to convene businesses, governments, non-profits, academia, community, and individual stakeholders engaged in ST management [22]. The GSTC-D criteria were specifically designed for sustainable destination management. A destination is defined by the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) as “A physical space with or without administrative and/or analytical boundaries in which a visitor can spend an overnight. It is the cluster (co-location) of products and services, and of activities and experiences along the tourism value chain and a basic unit of analysis of tourism” [49] (p. 14). Criteria do not relate to a single body but rather to a named place that can be uniquely identified and managed.

The scope of the GSTC-D is baseline concepts for sustainable management, lending the criteria to be applied in a wide range of destinations. Many of the criteria may be applied through a destination management organization (DMO)—a central requirement for successful implementation of the GSTC-D and requires the involvement of varied stakeholder representatives, including both public and private sectors. In review of the GSTC-D criteria, a mix of qualitative, quantitative, subjective, and objective observations are required for assessment. Simultaneous with the GSTC-D’s broad application, the context of place requires personalization by stakeholders to translate the GSTC-D criteria within the destination’s scope. Within this process lies opportunity to consider how the criteria may be perceived or communicated to citizen reporters.

Uses of the criteria span broad applications for destinations and include, but are not limited to: (i) serving as the basis for certification for sustainability, (ii) serving as basic guidelines for destinations that wish to become more sustainable, (iii) helping consumers identify sound ST destinations, (iv) serving as a common denominator for information media to recognize destinations and inform the public regarding their sustainability, (v) helping certification and other voluntary destination level programs ensure that their standards meet a broadly accepted baseline, (vi) offering governmental, non-governmental, and private sector programs a starting point for developing ST requirements, (vii) serving as basic guidelines for education and training bodies, such as tourism schools and universities, and (viii) demonstrate leadership that inspires others to act [50]. The criteria indicate what should be done, not how to do it or whether the goal has been achieved. This role is fulfilled by communicating performance indicators within certification programs, biocultural context, associated educational materials, and access to tools for implementation, all of which are indispensable complements to the GSTC’s criteria.

2.3. The GSTC-Destination Criteria and Citizen Science Research

There are approximately 250 sustainable tourism certification mechanisms available globally that are used for marketing and management benchmarking [51]. The GSTC-D criteria were chosen for their ease of access, potential for destination customization, and support of the SDGs. Additionally, utilization of the GSTC’s criteria originates from the research team witnessing destination challenges for developing baseline materials. The GSTC-D criteria provide an opportunity to tailor and adapt place-based needs. The authors recognize and value critical perspectives of the GSTC [19], yet it is not the intention of this paper to critically unpack the myriad of impacts relating to GSTC criteria. However, this paper utilized the GSTC-D criteria as an accessible, hypothetical starting point to engage with global sustainability indicators. Many communities do not have human, economic, or time resources required to begin anew with the laborious creation of sustainable tourism mechanisms. It is recommended that destination stakeholders collectively customize the GSTC-D criteria based on contextual needs.

To date, there is robust academic engagement with tourism certification schemes, yet a surprising lack of critical research involving the GSTC specifically. It is unknown why there continues to be a gap between the academy and the industry as related to critically analyzing the GSTC. This dearth, in addition to the absence of tourism and CS, furthers the authors’ interest in investigating the potential use of citizens to report sustainability initiatives. Preliminary research has addressed the GTSC early adopter program, which tested the initial criteria in locations around the world and found that destinations had several uses of the tourism management criteria [52]. Early adopters reported the criteria served as a tool for identifying gaps in destination-level sustainability initiatives and supplied a standard for comparison of established and future programs. Criteria adoption also served as a catalyst for inspiring other sustainability programs within the destination, convening important stakeholders in support of a common vision for ST. These actions provided an avenue for global networking, recognition of sustainability engagement, and promoting destinations.

Bricker and Schultz (2011) conducted an analysis of ST certification programs in the US to explore challenges, successes, and implementation or alignment with the GSTC criteria [53]. They found measurements involving customer satisfaction and feedback benefited the tourism entity with certification criteria as two-way communication with suppliers or destinations. They indicated that visitors could provide valuable information relevant to recognizing and encouraging experiential components of sustainable operations. In addition, they found that education of visitors was an important component in garnering support for evolving operational aspects of sustainability. Yet this aspect of their research was limited, and recommended future research focus on the transferability of sustainable operations and destination examples.

Critics believe that certification or any method of evaluating sustainability should create a level of transparency and detail for the end consumer, visitors, and residents [54]. Giving onus to individuals outside of institutional interest groups (e.g., GSTC, EPA, ISO) generates agency in actualizing sustainability on the ground, outside of episodic, planned accreditation inspections and assessments. This can also shift power dynamics in management processes.

The new CRIs proposed within this research (see Table 1) encapsulate and digest the existing perceivable GSTC-D criteria indicators for untrained observers and thus served to open access to a more diverse range of ST stakeholders. This research considered that the ST criteria within the GSTC were developed originally in consultation with other existing multilateral conservation guidelines, including the UN 2030 SDGs and the (previous) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Targets (now deemed the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework [GBF]). The current GSTC criteria layer influential conventions focused on global sustainability and biodiversity conservation explicitly for the tourism sector. The authors propose that through civic engagement in reporting destination management realities, citizens can be a valuable source of timely, user-generated information and therefore become an engaged change agents to further sustainability and conservation.

2.4. Citizen Science and Tourism in ICT Platforms

Embedding CS within ST management requires understanding what elements to consider and why when choosing a CS platform. Technological developments have significantly facilitated global growth in society’s capacity to document observations, paralleling challenges to information management and privacy-related issues [55,56]. Platforms used for CS projects by trained and lay persons must offer transparency in membership and data governance as these factors involve ethical decisions [56]. The following concepts should be considered in the development and selection of CS platforms.

First, the membership openness should reflect who can join the project and why this is most appropriate. For example, projects seeking wide participation would have an open format; whereas a project that requires specific qualifications or criteria specialized to a location would require a more closed option. Second, project data openness should consider the private nature of subjects, the sensitivity of the research field, and permissions for collecting and sharing data. Project governance is partly determined by the default structures of a CS platform. Finally, project data-sharing options may be automatically built into the CS platform [56].

The nature of the project, resources available, and intended use of citizen data should influence the choice of a CS platform. The authors have identified three examples of ICT platforms that host tourism-related projects, including iNaturalist, CitSci, and Zooniverse. iNaturalist, a global network managed between California Academic of Sciences and the Natural Geographic Society, uploads observations of plants and animals to further biodiversity missions [57]. CitSci provides technical expertise for customizing projects and increases impacts through partnerships [58]. Zooniverse features an innovative element that allows global participation via language translation [59]. As Lynn et al. discuss, thoughtful consideration of a “project’s unique goals and needs … will be poised to have greater impact in the world … [and] ultimately will lead to the most ethical process and the greatest success and impact by harnessing the power of citizen scientists who want to participate in science and contribute to change” [56] (p. 13). CS platforms are complex structures with a range of governance and management choices that are critical for ethics, privacy, and impact.

2.5. The Sustainable Development Goals and Tourism Indicators

The United Nations SDGs, established as 17 goals addressing significant global challenges, are expressed as a series of targets monitored by 232 indicators. The GSTC indicators are heavily influenced by these guiding multilateral tenants. Many of the SDG indicators are works in progress [60] and are divided into three tiers, classifying indicators by methodology and status of data collection [21]. Tier 3 indicators “represent the greatest potential for future contributions of CS, both in terms of filling data gaps and in methodological developments [21] (p. 926). This tier demarcates the highest ratio of environmental indicators and offers unique opportunities for countries to demonstrate alternative indicators unique to country needs. CS has the potential to develop Tier 3 indicators to “make real contributions and mobilize the citizen-science community to become an active part of the SDG reporting process at the global level” [21] (p. 929). In response, we suggest ways in which civic engagement can utilize our newly developed CRIs to further destination management that directly supports biocultural conservation.

The GSTC has aligned with the SDGs and has shown to have potential to contribute towards achievement of the goals. GSTC indicators, while independent of SDGs, are intertwined through design to support tourism in achieving sustainability targets. There has been considerable analysis already of the role that tourism can play in achieving SDGs [61,62,63]. However, while tourism has the potential to contribute to SDGs, it should not be assumed. Critical consideration of the role of tourism in achieving the SDGs [64] is required to enhance and develop criteria within each of the three tiers [21] representative of diverse needs, perspectives, and lived experiences.

2.6. Challenges with Sustainability Indicators and Goal Attainment

While the GSTC continues to examine and improve its respective criteria and overarching effectiveness, there is still considerable discussion about appropriate indicators for attaining the 2030 SDGs. With the context that “indicators are the quantitative variables measured periodically that reflect the condition of socially important issues” [65] (p. 124), challenges lie in quantifying both subjective and objective observations by citizens in the tourism setting. The challenges associated with quantifying concepts related to sustainability and well-being should be considered, as well as the challenge of converting these concepts into relevant and appropriate indicators fitting an untrained citizen’s perspective.

Dwyer (2020) approaches this challenge by balancing a “Beyond GDP” approach to the integration of “internationally accepted concepts, classifications, and methods…in the compilation of statistical data to promote the consistency and efficiency of statistical systems across all destinations” [66] (p. 13) referencing the UNWTO’s initiative, Towards a Statistical Framework for Measuring the Sustainability of Tourism (MST). This initiative aims to develop an international statistical framework for measuring tourism’s role in sustainable development” [67] (para. 1) through economic and environmental information [68].

Fritz et al.’s research demonstrates the need for consistent protocols in measuring and collecting data along multiple tiers of indicators for SDG reporting [21]. We propose that our development of the new CRIs has potential to supplement data collection for some indicators and provide proxies for others. Citizen engagement can influence social concepts and narratives such as sustainability and well-being within human and non-human dimensions of protected areas. Social science lenses are necessary to identify appropriate indicators that may measure more subjective concepts such as human and wildlife well-being, justice, and equity [69,70].

2.7. Ethics for Citizen Reporting and Citizen Science

The application of CR and CS techniques to ST initiatives and research must consider ethics regarding citizen participation. Our work explores ethical guidelines as part of the foundational structure of the new CRIs. Analyzing an academic framework [3], sustainable destination management criteria [22], and interdisciplinary concepts of CS development [23], we highlight the importance of ethics shaping citizen science and reporting. The European Citizen Science Association explicitly highlights that CS projects can involve inductive, qualitative, research, including monitoring of environmental management and policy outcomes through observations [71]. Figure 1 shows various influential codes of ethics within ST, CS, and academia.

Academia is grounded in international requirements to achieve internal or third-party review approval (e.g., Internal Review Board) before engaging with human or animal participants. However, this code of ethics alone does not address citizen agency or empowerment. Currently, the Ethics Working Group of the not-for-profit Citizen Science Association (CSA) has identified 8 existing CS Code of Ethics approaches [72]. They identified five crucial themes of CS ethics categorized as community partnerships, biodiversity and environment, social justice, publication, human subjects, and data. CSA Ethics serves to share best practices for “involving the general public in the ethical design and review of research studies and facilities” [72]. While it is critical that the group continues to address ethical issues within CS, tourism scholars must incorporate ethically based research and philosophical engagements building upon the many tourism scholars who have brought forth issues involving sustainability within the tourism system and the academy.

From an organizational and industry perspective, the GSTC’s criteria were formulated in conjunction with the UNWTO (1999) Global Code of Ethics for Tourism (GCET) [73]. The GCET was referenced and embedded into the GSTC’s approach to the consideration and development of its criteria. Critiques of the effectiveness and motivations behind the GCET’s formulation include Fennell’s (2014) analysis stating that “the code’s overriding anthropocentric tone denies any chance for it to be a truly responsible creed” [74] (p. 983), leaving little room for benefits to the environment or animals by focusing solely on human rights and freedoms.

3. Results

The Development of the Civic Reporting Indicators

Table 1 displays the GSTC-D criteria (column 1) according to their four section titles (A–D), criteria subsections (A[a–c], B[a–b], C[a–b], D[a–c]), correlating subsection indicators (each ranging from a–h), and related SDGs (column 2). The subsection indicators (a–h) were analyzed individually and collectively by each researcher to determine their perceivability (i.e., visibly and/or audibly) by an untrained citizen. Each researcher attempted to identify if the indicators could be used by citizens to report observations without any technical understanding of sustainability criteria in general. Criteria deemed perceivable were listed next to the criteria in italics in the first column. If not perceivable, criteria were omitted (indicated as the number of total perceivable out of the existing total indicators (e.g., 3/5). Based on the perceivable indicators, the team then summarized and translated the information into the new CRI (column 3). Individual analyses were cross-checked by the full research team to confirm the determination that 114 of the 174 indicators were visibly and/or audibly perceivable for citizen reporting. It was imperative for the research team to conceptually develop the CRIs prior to planned future testing with stakeholders to provide empirical evidence of applicability.

The researchers then articulated example observations and citizen questions that embody the essence of the perceivable indicators [3]. It is recognized that these observations and questions are curated as guidance (column 4) for embedding in an ICT platform/smartphone [23]. We modeled the way in which an ICT platform could capture visitor observations as data through example, CRIs providing sample observations and questions based upon the perceivable indicators. These example questions are intended to be modified for contextual relevancy, including consideration of local ST certification mechanisms and biocultural identity. For example, in reading Table 1, Section A (column 1), Sustainable Management includes 11 criteria, 27 perceivable out of 51 existing indicators (27/51), and correlates with SDGs 16 and 17 (column 2). The observable criteria of the first column are presented as a CRI definition (column 3). Finally, they are exemplified with potential observations in a destination as well as a sample question that could be embedded in an ICT platform (column 4). The CRIs are intended to support other ST data through CS engagement, utilizing different perspectives specific to unique issues relevant to destination needs.

Table 1. Translating the GSTC-D Criteria for the New Perceivable Civic Reporting Indicators (CRIs).

Destination Management Criteria (GSTC-D) [Perceivable/Existing Indicators]	SDG	Civic Reporting Indicators (CRI)	Example CRI
SECTION A: Sustainable Management
A(a) Management structure and framework GSTC Observable Indicators: A(a)1: Destination management responsibility: a, c, e [3/5] A(a)2: Destination management strategy and action plan: a, b [2/5] A(a)3: Monitoring and reporting: c [1/4]	16 17	Visitor perceives evidence of partnerships for sustainable management	Observations: A DMO promoting other sustainability organization’s logos demonstrating nature and cultural conservation is present live/online including a tourism destination strategy and/or sustainability monitoring and reporting Citizen Questions: Have you seen our destination logo and/or partner’s logos? Did you see/hear about the sustainability plan? Did you see evidence of sustainability reporting/monitoring on our website or during your visit?
A(b) Stakeholder engagement GSTC Observable Indicators: A(b)4: Enterprise engagement and sustainability standards: d, e [2/5] A(b)5: Resident engagement and feedback: c, d [2/5] A(b)6: Visitor engagement and feedback: a, b, c, d 4/4] A(b)7: Promotion and information: a, b [2/3]	11 12 17	Visitors see a certified tourism business’s logo in destination, marketing materials or in visitor survey; Perceived promotional context is respectful; Visitor and resident surveys are accessible	Observations: A tourism certification logo is displayed. Marketing material is respectful and accurate; feedback was elicited Citizen Questions: Did you see this certification logo during your visit [include log]? Was our marketing and/or tour information accurate and respectful? Did Staff discuss sustainability certification and/or local nature/culture? Did staff/website ask for your feedback?
A(c) Managing pressure and change GSTC Observable Indicators: A(c)8: Managing visitor volumes and activities: a, b, c, d [4/5] A(c)9: Planning regulations and development control: d, e, f [3/6] A(c)10: Climate change adaptation: c, d, e [3/5] A(c)11: Risk and crisis management: c [1/4]	9 11 12 13 16	Visitors perceive management of tourist volume, development, climate adaptation and risk/crisis; Stakeholder feedback is actively requested.	Observations: Reservation systems in place; Google Popular Times or other smart platforms display peak times; environmental interpretation regarding visitor impacts; evidence of transport/traffic monitoring; offer of alternative transport; Efforts/marketing for seasonal extension; safety information or rules of conduct provided for crisis (e.g., wildfires, pandemics, flooding) Citizen Questions: Did you use a reservation system? Have you seen this destination promoted year-round? Did you see arrival guidance? Did it feel crowded today? Was there information about environmental impacts, climate change or sustainability? Did you see others following or disregarding environmental or safety regulations? Was alternative/public transport available?
SECTION B: Socio-Economic Sustainability
B(a) Delivering local economic benefits GSTC Observable Indicators: B(a)1: Measuring the economic contribution of tourism: b, c [2/3] B(a)2: Decent work and career opportunities: b [1/4] B(a)3: Supporting local entrepreneurs and fair trade: d, e [2/5]	1 2 4 5 8 9 10 12	Visitors perceive economic impacts of tourism and/or featuring local businesses, people, and products	Observations: Staff appear pleased with working conditions; Local products and services are available and provided by locals; Evidence of local opportunities for education or training Citizen Questions: Have you seen our education or employment programs promoting a future with tourism? Did you see signage encouraging staff safety? Did you interact with local employees? Did you see/hear about local heritage, language, or history? What local food, souvenirs or products did you purchase?
B(b) Social well-being and impacts GSTC Observable Indicators B(b)4: Support for community: a, b, c [3/3] B(b)5: Preventing exploitation and discrimination: a, b, d [3/4] B(b)6: Property and user rights: a, b [2/4] B(b)7: Safety and security: a, b, c [3/3] B(b)8: Access for all: a, b, c, d, e, f [6/6]	3 4 10 11 16	Visitors perceive ways to support local community and sustainability initiatives that respect the rights, accessibility and safety of locals and visitors	Observations: Options for visitors to support local economy; Accessible security and health services; Information is accessible and multilingual Citizen Questions: Did you see/hear about ways to contribute to sustainability actions? Did you see fair treatment of employees? Did you see or use our safety or health services? Were you able to access each site of interest and necessary information? Did you see all visitors able to access the sites of (destination) during your visit?
SECTION C: Cultural Sustainability
C(a) Protecting cultural heritage GSTC Observable Indicators C(a)1: Protection of cultural assets: a, b, c [3/3] C(a)2: Cultural artefacts: b, c [2/3] C(a)3: Intangible heritage: a, b, c, d [4/4] C(a)4: Traditional access: a, c [2/3] C(a)5: Intellectual property: b, c [2/3]	11 12 16	Visitors perceive efforts to respectfully promote and protect local cultural heritage through lawful access to sites, artefacts, and knowledge; Visitor feedback is requested; Tourism products include local/Indigenous involvement	Observation: Destination management to protect local cultural sites; Visible/audible information about cultural sites/artefacts and interpretation of their meaning; Community collaboration in conservation; Evidence of Indigenous and/or local involvement in tourism experiences Citizen Questions: Did you see actions taken to protect cultural heritage? Did you see/hear historical information about (site) and its meaning? Did you interact with local/Indigenous representatives of the cultural experience? Did you experience local traditions, arts, music, language, or food/drink?
C(b) Visiting cultural sites GSTC Observable Indicators C(b)6: Visitor management at cultural sites: a, b, c, d, e [5/5] C(b)7: Site Interpretation: a, b, c, d, e [5/5]	4 11 12	Visitors perceive access to information independently, before and during the visit, and through trained guides; Information includes behavior at cultural sites and local heritage meaning; Multiple languages are accessible; Sensitivity of site is explained	Observation: Rules of visitor conduct communicated; Guides indicate cultural training; Visible/audible interpretation generated by local community available pre-arrival and during visit; Visible/audible information communicates significance to destination’s communities in multiple languages Citizen Questions: Did you or other visitors follow behavior guidelines? Did guides identify their cultural training during your tour? Did you see/hear about the cultural meaning behind (site)? Was visible/audible explanation of the significance of (site) provided before your arrival? Were you able to access the destination’s information in your preferred language?
SECTION D: Environmental Sustainability
D(a) Conservation of natural heritage GSTC Observable Indicators D(a)1: Protection of sensitive environments: a, b, c, e, f [6/6] D(a)2: Visitor management at natural sites: a, b, c, d, e, f [6/6] D(a)3: Wildlife interaction: c, e, f [2/6] D(a)4: Species exploitation and animal welfare: f, g [2/7]	14 15	Visitor perceives conservation efforts of natural heritage through information on environmental, economic, and cultural impacts from tourism; Visitor is informed of appropriate wildlife interaction, behavior, and animal welfare	Observation: Lists of natural heritage sites and conservation status available; Guides discuss conservation status/programs; Conservation actions are evidenced; Visitors are instructed how not to disturb wildlife (viewing distance, not feeding, noise etc.); Information provided about economic impacts of tourism to conservation efforts; Information provided related to non-native/invasive species; Visible/audible explanation(s) of ethical treatment of wildlife, souvenirs, and captive animals Citizen Questions: Did you see a list of our natural heritage sites? Did you see actions to conserve the natural environment? Did you receive information about financing conservation efforts? Were you given details about invasive species? Did a guide speak about their training to protect the natural environment? Were you provided details about how to behave to protect wildlife? Were you given information about purchasing ethical souvenirs? Did you see animal-based souvenirs? Were animals in captivity free of bondage, given adequate habitat, and not used for entertainment?
D(b) Resource management GSTC Observable Indicators D(b)5: Energy conservation: a, c, d [3/4] D(b)6: Water stewardship: e [1/5] D(b)7: Water quality: c, d, e [3/5]	3 6 7	Visitor perceives energy and water conservation through renewable technology use; Visitor information/guidelines include safety and risk	Observations: Visible/audible efforts to conserve energy; visibly monitoring water conservation/risk/quality; suggestions for visitors to reduce water and energy use Citizen Questions: Did you see/hear about efforts to conserve energy or the use of renewable energy? Did you see guidelines to help reduce water use? Were you provided information if water was safe to drink or use for bathing?
D(c) Management of waste and emissions GSTC Observable Indicators D(b)8: Wastewater: [0/4] D(b)9: Solid waste: a, b, c, d, e, g, h [7/8] D(b)10: GHG emissions and climate change mitigation: a, b, c, d, e [5/5] D(b)11: Low-impact transportation: b, c, d, f [4/6] D(b)12: Light and noise pollution: a, b, c [3/3]	3 9 11 12 13 14 15	Visitor perceives opportunities to reduce solid waste, water use and energy intensive transport; Sustainable transport, reduction in emissions, and offsetting actions are evidenced; Light and noise pollution are actively reduced	Observations: Visible/audible explanation of food waste management and plastic reduction; Four recycling stream options provided; Information displayed about reducing climate change emissions; Options for alternative transportation; Citizens provided ways to reduce light and noise pollution Citizen Questions: Did you see/hear about ways to reduce your plastic use and/or food waste? Were you provided 4 recycling options? Did you see/hear explanations about ways to reduce your climate change emissions? Were you provided options for public, shared, or non-motorized transportation? Did you see actions to turn off lights and/or noise reduction?
Total indicators: 174 Total perceivable indicators: 114

Table 1. Translating the GSTC-D Criteria for the New Perceivable Civic Reporting Indicators (CRIs).

Destination Management Criteria (GSTC-D) [Perceivable/Existing Indicators]	SDG	Civic Reporting Indicators (CRI)	Example CRI
SECTION A: Sustainable Management
A(a) Management structure and framework GSTC Observable Indicators: A(a)1: Destination management responsibility: a, c, e [3/5] A(a)2: Destination management strategy and action plan: a, b [2/5] A(a)3: Monitoring and reporting: c [1/4]	16 17	Visitor perceives evidence of partnerships for sustainable management	Observations: A DMO promoting other sustainability organization’s logos demonstrating nature and cultural conservation is present live/online including a tourism destination strategy and/or sustainability monitoring and reporting Citizen Questions: Have you seen our destination logo and/or partner’s logos? Did you see/hear about the sustainability plan? Did you see evidence of sustainability reporting/monitoring on our website or during your visit?
A(b) Stakeholder engagement GSTC Observable Indicators: A(b)4: Enterprise engagement and sustainability standards: d, e [2/5] A(b)5: Resident engagement and feedback: c, d [2/5] A(b)6: Visitor engagement and feedback: a, b, c, d 4/4] A(b)7: Promotion and information: a, b [2/3]	11 12 17	Visitors see a certified tourism business’s logo in destination, marketing materials or in visitor survey; Perceived promotional context is respectful; Visitor and resident surveys are accessible	Observations: A tourism certification logo is displayed. Marketing material is respectful and accurate; feedback was elicited Citizen Questions: Did you see this certification logo during your visit [include log]? Was our marketing and/or tour information accurate and respectful? Did Staff discuss sustainability certification and/or local nature/culture? Did staff/website ask for your feedback?
A(c) Managing pressure and change GSTC Observable Indicators: A(c)8: Managing visitor volumes and activities: a, b, c, d [4/5] A(c)9: Planning regulations and development control: d, e, f [3/6] A(c)10: Climate change adaptation: c, d, e [3/5] A(c)11: Risk and crisis management: c [1/4]	9 11 12 13 16	Visitors perceive management of tourist volume, development, climate adaptation and risk/crisis; Stakeholder feedback is actively requested.	Observations: Reservation systems in place; Google Popular Times or other smart platforms display peak times; environmental interpretation regarding visitor impacts; evidence of transport/traffic monitoring; offer of alternative transport; Efforts/marketing for seasonal extension; safety information or rules of conduct provided for crisis (e.g., wildfires, pandemics, flooding) Citizen Questions: Did you use a reservation system? Have you seen this destination promoted year-round? Did you see arrival guidance? Did it feel crowded today? Was there information about environmental impacts, climate change or sustainability? Did you see others following or disregarding environmental or safety regulations? Was alternative/public transport available?
SECTION B: Socio-Economic Sustainability
B(a) Delivering local economic benefits GSTC Observable Indicators: B(a)1: Measuring the economic contribution of tourism: b, c [2/3] B(a)2: Decent work and career opportunities: b [1/4] B(a)3: Supporting local entrepreneurs and fair trade: d, e [2/5]	1 2 4 5 8 9 10 12	Visitors perceive economic impacts of tourism and/or featuring local businesses, people, and products	Observations: Staff appear pleased with working conditions; Local products and services are available and provided by locals; Evidence of local opportunities for education or training Citizen Questions: Have you seen our education or employment programs promoting a future with tourism? Did you see signage encouraging staff safety? Did you interact with local employees? Did you see/hear about local heritage, language, or history? What local food, souvenirs or products did you purchase?
B(b) Social well-being and impacts GSTC Observable Indicators B(b)4: Support for community: a, b, c [3/3] B(b)5: Preventing exploitation and discrimination: a, b, d [3/4] B(b)6: Property and user rights: a, b [2/4] B(b)7: Safety and security: a, b, c [3/3] B(b)8: Access for all: a, b, c, d, e, f [6/6]	3 4 10 11 16	Visitors perceive ways to support local community and sustainability initiatives that respect the rights, accessibility and safety of locals and visitors	Observations: Options for visitors to support local economy; Accessible security and health services; Information is accessible and multilingual Citizen Questions: Did you see/hear about ways to contribute to sustainability actions? Did you see fair treatment of employees? Did you see or use our safety or health services? Were you able to access each site of interest and necessary information? Did you see all visitors able to access the sites of (destination) during your visit?
SECTION C: Cultural Sustainability
C(a) Protecting cultural heritage GSTC Observable Indicators C(a)1: Protection of cultural assets: a, b, c [3/3] C(a)2: Cultural artefacts: b, c [2/3] C(a)3: Intangible heritage: a, b, c, d [4/4] C(a)4: Traditional access: a, c [2/3] C(a)5: Intellectual property: b, c [2/3]	11 12 16	Visitors perceive efforts to respectfully promote and protect local cultural heritage through lawful access to sites, artefacts, and knowledge; Visitor feedback is requested; Tourism products include local/Indigenous involvement	Observation: Destination management to protect local cultural sites; Visible/audible information about cultural sites/artefacts and interpretation of their meaning; Community collaboration in conservation; Evidence of Indigenous and/or local involvement in tourism experiences Citizen Questions: Did you see actions taken to protect cultural heritage? Did you see/hear historical information about (site) and its meaning? Did you interact with local/Indigenous representatives of the cultural experience? Did you experience local traditions, arts, music, language, or food/drink?
C(b) Visiting cultural sites GSTC Observable Indicators C(b)6: Visitor management at cultural sites: a, b, c, d, e [5/5] C(b)7: Site Interpretation: a, b, c, d, e [5/5]	4 11 12	Visitors perceive access to information independently, before and during the visit, and through trained guides; Information includes behavior at cultural sites and local heritage meaning; Multiple languages are accessible; Sensitivity of site is explained	Observation: Rules of visitor conduct communicated; Guides indicate cultural training; Visible/audible interpretation generated by local community available pre-arrival and during visit; Visible/audible information communicates significance to destination’s communities in multiple languages Citizen Questions: Did you or other visitors follow behavior guidelines? Did guides identify their cultural training during your tour? Did you see/hear about the cultural meaning behind (site)? Was visible/audible explanation of the significance of (site) provided before your arrival? Were you able to access the destination’s information in your preferred language?
SECTION D: Environmental Sustainability
D(a) Conservation of natural heritage GSTC Observable Indicators D(a)1: Protection of sensitive environments: a, b, c, e, f [6/6] D(a)2: Visitor management at natural sites: a, b, c, d, e, f [6/6] D(a)3: Wildlife interaction: c, e, f [2/6] D(a)4: Species exploitation and animal welfare: f, g [2/7]	14 15	Visitor perceives conservation efforts of natural heritage through information on environmental, economic, and cultural impacts from tourism; Visitor is informed of appropriate wildlife interaction, behavior, and animal welfare	Observation: Lists of natural heritage sites and conservation status available; Guides discuss conservation status/programs; Conservation actions are evidenced; Visitors are instructed how not to disturb wildlife (viewing distance, not feeding, noise etc.); Information provided about economic impacts of tourism to conservation efforts; Information provided related to non-native/invasive species; Visible/audible explanation(s) of ethical treatment of wildlife, souvenirs, and captive animals Citizen Questions: Did you see a list of our natural heritage sites? Did you see actions to conserve the natural environment? Did you receive information about financing conservation efforts? Were you given details about invasive species? Did a guide speak about their training to protect the natural environment? Were you provided details about how to behave to protect wildlife? Were you given information about purchasing ethical souvenirs? Did you see animal-based souvenirs? Were animals in captivity free of bondage, given adequate habitat, and not used for entertainment?
D(b) Resource management GSTC Observable Indicators D(b)5: Energy conservation: a, c, d [3/4] D(b)6: Water stewardship: e [1/5] D(b)7: Water quality: c, d, e [3/5]	3 6 7	Visitor perceives energy and water conservation through renewable technology use; Visitor information/guidelines include safety and risk	Observations: Visible/audible efforts to conserve energy; visibly monitoring water conservation/risk/quality; suggestions for visitors to reduce water and energy use Citizen Questions: Did you see/hear about efforts to conserve energy or the use of renewable energy? Did you see guidelines to help reduce water use? Were you provided information if water was safe to drink or use for bathing?
D(c) Management of waste and emissions GSTC Observable Indicators D(b)8: Wastewater: [0/4] D(b)9: Solid waste: a, b, c, d, e, g, h [7/8] D(b)10: GHG emissions and climate change mitigation: a, b, c, d, e [5/5] D(b)11: Low-impact transportation: b, c, d, f [4/6] D(b)12: Light and noise pollution: a, b, c [3/3]	3 9 11 12 13 14 15	Visitor perceives opportunities to reduce solid waste, water use and energy intensive transport; Sustainable transport, reduction in emissions, and offsetting actions are evidenced; Light and noise pollution are actively reduced	Observations: Visible/audible explanation of food waste management and plastic reduction; Four recycling stream options provided; Information displayed about reducing climate change emissions; Options for alternative transportation; Citizens provided ways to reduce light and noise pollution Citizen Questions: Did you see/hear about ways to reduce your plastic use and/or food waste? Were you provided 4 recycling options? Did you see/hear explanations about ways to reduce your climate change emissions? Were you provided options for public, shared, or non-motorized transportation? Did you see actions to turn off lights and/or noise reduction?
Total indicators: 174 Total perceivable indicators: 114

4. Discussion of Key Findings

This section summarizes the fulfillment of the research aims and discusses the key findings and contributions made through the development of the CRIs. The first two aims challenge assumptions of knowledge sources and the application of CS within ST [20]. We have established that although, historically, CS has been rooted within positivist, objective approaches, this research engages citizens in sustainability discourse and action, validating qualitative, subjective data [71]. To this point, qualitative surveying has been expanding within environmental monitoring [75]. Within the expanding field of biocultural conservation, there is a need for social science qualitative inquiry [69] that engages and empowers citizens within sustainability planning [76]. Particularly within ST, the dominant use of objective criteria to measure biocultural dimensions risks to further objectifying culture through positivism [77].

The fulfillment of the final two aims of this research positions the CRIs to enact agency and democratize sustainability engagement. The research proposes example questions of perceivable CRIs designed to engage citizens in sustainability observations as contextual destination management data. The researchers created the CRIs through the translation of the GSTC-D criteria to provide agency, simultaneously empowering through an ICT platform and user-friendly design. This democratizes sustainability by allowing egalitarian involvement and transparency. The aims of this research are fulfilled by substantiating interpretative paradigms in both the epistemological and applied realms, which are largely absent within CS that involves conservation and ST. We have demonstrated a dearth of democratic involvement within sustainable tourism reporting and, therefore, opportunities for citizen engagement to support biocultural conservation through ICT platforms. By identifying gaps in tourism research where CS is absent (outside of marine environments), the CRIs offer an applied opportunity to engage citizens in reporting to further biocultural conservation in a myriad of environments. Therefore, citizen engagement through reporting scientific data for sustainable tourism may be an effective tool within destination management.

Citizen engagement with sustainable tourism criteria is needed within democratic destination management. We demonstrate the potential of citizens to contribute to reporting on the status of ST in real-time through the utilization of the new CRIs. While the GSTC-D criteria indicators have been developed as accreditation mechanisms for tourism destinations, this research team identified that 114 out of the 174 existing indicators are audibly and/or visibly perceivable. Therefore, these indicators are observable and reportable by untrained citizens.

5. Implications

This work demonstrates that the new CRIs make sustainability narratives and engagement more accessible to untrained citizens. CS supporting biocultural conservation requires qualitative observations, which we assert are valid and valuable data—reflecting the intangible elements of the tourism system. The CRIs bring to fruition the possibility of capturing and utilizing sensory experiences for the sustainable management of tourism spaces. This proposed platform is envisioned to be tailored to different locations, needs, and sustainability criteria to reflect various tourism certification mechanisms and/or tourism geographies.

This research identifies theoretical, practical, and ethical bases for the inclusion of CRIs in sustainable destination management. Practical implications of this research include opportunities to accrue longitudinal, real-time data through cost-effective and democratized methods. Expanding citizen engagement through ICTs mobilizes engagement with sustainability goals and targets via established technological infrastructure. Furthermore, this research extends CS and CR beyond the current focus of marine tourism into a diversity of biocultural contexts. Current research is sparse in the adaptation of qualitative inquiry into sustainability criteria and reporting. Thus, this work establishes the value and theoretical implications of qualitative, interpretive paradigms to further sustainability and tourism research.

From a larger scale perspective, the implementation of CRIs could prime citizens to consider their human presence in relation to social-ecological systems as related to tourism [70]. Perhaps by operationalizing CR on perceived impacts of sustainability in a destination, the CRIs can assist in furthering new ideations of ethical citizen engagement and socialized forms of travel. Through the application of CRIs on user-accessible ICT platforms, real-time documentation can be garnered to gauge destination challenges and successes. The overarching implication of this research centers on empowering citizens through opportunities to engage with tourism criteria and destination management that fosters critical social reflections about sustainability.

6. Limitations and Future Research

A core contribution of this paper demonstrates the value of qualitative interpretation paradigms to report ST criteria through citizen perceptions through ICTs. Sustainability interventions involve multifaceted human and social dimensions, and “the use of either quantitative or qualitative approaches by themselves is inadequate to address this complexity” [78] (p. 203). The use of the CRIs through qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approaches must be considered in balancing opportunities and limitations based on contextual community needs. For the future application of the CRIs, the increased utilization and exploration of qualitative approaches to CS and CR within ST must be considered in tandem with potential limitations. Qualitative approaches may present practical limitations in time, research design, human resources, and consistency in interpretation and reporting. The research team plans to test the implementation of the CRIs in partnership with destination management organizations to refine the approach for replication and testing in other biocultural contexts. Additionally, we invite researchers to explore designing mixed methods approaches to further determine the perceivable nature of the GSTC-D criteria. Such approaches may include sentiment surveys assessing the perceivability of sustainability indicators proposed within the CRIs. To address limitations, future research may provide insight into the validity, reliability, and replicability of the CRIs for citizen use.

This paper presents the adoption of CR in sustainable destination management through the creation of the new CRIs. We have established that there is a substantial body of perceivable indicators within the GSTC-D criteria (114/174) that citizens may report on to further sustainability research. To comprehensively utilize this approach, a range of future research will be required, including the testing of the new CRIs through Delphi group consultation. It is anticipated that the CRIs may be tailored and refined to reflect destination-specific reporting questions. In addition, field testing with citizens in destinations using the CRIs to evaluate their observations of sustainability practices is required. This would enact our conceptual call for epistemological innovations that validate lived experiences and embodied knowledge, including qualitative inquiry for biocultural criteria. Investigating the adoption of ICTs is required to ensure feasibility, convenience, and accuracy. Therefore, the research team plans future empirical investigations of CRI feasibility within a place-based context. To further our conceptual contributions, we encourage future research that centers on empowering citizens through opportunities to engage with sustainable destination management.

7. Conclusions

To achieve sustainable destination management, we must empower citizens (residents and visitors alike) through the provision of a diversity of tools to engage with sustainability narratives and interventions. The authors assert that citizens have the potential to provide important information that is useful for monitoring and measuring the sustainability performance of destinations. By systematically reviewing each of the GSTC-D criteria indicators for their ability to be audibly and/or visibly perceived by an untrained citizen, the CRIs balance translation of complex criteria into visitor-facing questions inviting sensory accounts. Engaging citizens through the CRIs has the potential to contribute valid observations that amass democratic and cost-effective data.

Sustainable tourism monitoring through citizen engagement must be ascertainable via subjective and objective indicators. This results in validating and utilizing cultural, identity, and place-based knowledge for biocultural conservation [79]. The rearticulation of GSTC-D criteria into the CRIs facilitates the embodiment of sensual perceptions and provides an epistemological infrastructure to utilize inclusive interpretive paradigms of subjective experiences as data. For CS to serve biocultural conservation, it must transcend the objectification of life by validating situated knowledge and subjective interpretations of ST in the context of place.

The historical focus on the supply side of sustainability in tourism is evident in current ST criteria, created for businesses and the select few responsible for destination governance. The framing of ST as a supply-side issue is considered a weakness in current analyses [80]. Citizens have unique perspectives to assess the intersection of consumer experience and biocultural impacts. For instance, citizens as visitors are well-positioned to identify the impacts of travel on reef biodiversity [81], wildlife [82], large marine species [83], and the impacts of overcrowding on cultural heritage areas [84]. Long-term measurement and quality of sustainability data is an ongoing challenge. Lack of resources, the need for more subjective indicators [85], regularity in reporting data, and coordinating consistent protocols for data collection [21] are areas of concern. Though cross-disciplinary literature continues to analyze indicators for global sustainability (e.g., the SDGs, GSTC, and GBF), the applications are often inaccessible to untrained citizens, and therefore the newly created CRIs may be a critical democratizing tool.

Citizens are often the first to witness successful initiatives and where infractions, threats, and unsustainable activities are occurring. Some of these activities may be easily perceivable, while others may not be readily identified through the untrained perspective. There are few examples of destinations systematically collecting information on their sustainability with available longitudinal data. Harnessing civic engagement in reporting sustainability and conservation issues can serve to further global agreements such as the SDGs, GSTC, and GBF. It is important to remember that the term sustainable tourism refers to a portfolio of tangible and intangible activities, each contributing to sustainability outcomes within destination communities. Through harnessing and actioning civic observations globally and in real-time, we can collectively further the success of sustainability and conservation initiatives.

This research demonstrates that citizen science and reporting are mutually beneficial and together may facilitate citizen engagement with sustainability indicators. The CRIs proposed to serve as perceivable indicators that can be actioned by citizens to report on conservation realities. Citizens, as untrained individuals, have been historically marginalized from the creation and implementation of conservation decision-making [69], and thus the CRIs are designed to create agency. CRIs are one step towards engaging the public in actions involving conservation interventions by filling gaps in reporting on longitudinal, place-specific [86] biocultural impacts from diverse perspectives. The redistribution of power within the tourism industry is required to build ethical and truly sustainable destination management, particularly in highly sensitive areas. CRIs may serve to combat greenwashing of an industry that is currently situated within the neoliberal late capitalistic exploitation of natural and social capital [87]. Codes of ethics alone can do little to combat business as usual without transparency through the civic agency, engagement, and empowerment of Critical Tourism Citizens [76]. It is the hope of the authors that through future research and application, the CRIs may lead to further engagement in the reconceptualization of citizens’ critical perceptions of sustainability.