Developing a Framework for Measuring Circularity in Sustainable Tourism: A GSTC-Aligned Approach

Abstract

This research proposes a novel framework for assessing circularity in sustainable tourism by aligning Circular Economy principles with the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. Despite the growing importance of sustainability, the absence of a standardized measurement framework hinders progress within sustainable tourism operations. The study synthesizes existing circularity assessments to conceptualize a multi-dimensional approach tailored to the tourism sector. The resulting four-level framework integrates GSTC standards for Industry, MICE, Destinations and Attractions. By bridging environmental, social, economic, and technological dimensions, the framework utilizes the “5R” principle (reduce, recycle, repair, rethink, and reuse). Methodologically, the study employs a systematic literature review and content analysis to model key indicators, including Life Cycle Assessments, investments in circularity, circular business models, community engagement, skills development, local sourcing, supply chain transparency, water and energy efficiency, waste management, technologies and digitalization. The proposed framework provides a comprehensive tool for stakeholders to quantify circularity, fostering transparency and long-term resilience in sustainable tourism development.

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the world’s fastest-growing industries, as in 2024 the sector accounted for 10% of the global economy and supported 357 million jobs worldwide; moreover, global investment in the tourism sector amounted to $1 trillion in 2024, up 9.9% year-on-year [1]. Because the tourism sector is experiencing significant growth and has a positive development outlook, it is important to highlight the increasing relevance of the impact of sustainable practices within the industry.

Beyond policy alignment, sustainable tourism represents a Kaizen-like process of continuous improvement. It requires the combined contribution of all stakeholders—from the individual traveler to global political leadership—to ensure long-term viability [2]. This emphasis on incremental, long-term improvement naturally aligns sustainable tourism with the principles of a circular economy. The criteria set forth by the Global Sustainable Tourism Council promote the minimization of waste and the maximization of resource efficiency [3,4,5]. By viewing the GSTC pillars not just as checklists, but as regenerative cycles, the tourism industry can bridge the gap between doing less harm and fostering active restoration.

By focusing on these interconnected aspects, sustainable tourism is transitioning from a linear “take-make-dispose” model to a circular paradigm. This involves keeping resources in use for as long as possible, extracting maximum value, and regenerating products and materials at the end of their service life [6,7]. Consequently, circular economy assessment has garnered a growing interest and attention from scholars, researchers, industry professionals, practitioners, policymakers [8,9,10,11], local communities, and tourists alike as a means to maximize resource efficiency [12,13,14].

However, a critical disconnect remains. While researchers acknowledge the environmental and economic benefits of circularity, no unified framework exists for measuring CE performance within the tourism sector [13,14]. Current studies evidence a lack of consensus on effective evaluation strategies, often failing to bridge the gap between sustainability goals and practical, operational metrics. This leads to a significant scientific problem: the absence of a standardized assessment framework that aligns circular principles with established industry certifications [14,15,16,17,18,19].

To address this gap, the present study proposes a framework for measuring circularity that is specifically aligned with the GSTC Criteria. By utilizing GSTC’s globally recognized pillars—environmental, social, cultural, and management—this research establishes a robust foundation for integrating circularity into the existing sustainability infrastructure.

While current literature has successfully conceptualized the theoretical benefits of circularity and established strong sustainability benchmarks through the GSTC, there is a critical void in translating these into the unified measurement system.

The scientific problem is the lack of comprehensive and standardized framework for the assessment of circularity in sustainable tourism development, particularly one with established sustainable tourism certification standards such as the GSTC Criteria. The relevance of the research problem is justified by the evolution of the concept of sustainable tourism development, driven by increasing tourist awareness of environmental and social impacts, and the urgent need for responsible travel practices to mitigate the industry’s significant carbon emissions and environmental damage while fostering positive community and ecological outcomes [11,20]. Central to this evolution is the industry’s alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, specifically through Target 8.9, which mandates the implementation of policies that promote local culture and job creation, and Target 12.b, which emphasizes the development of tools to monitor these sustainable impacts. Furthermore, Target 14.7 highlights the necessity of increasing the economic benefits for Small Island Developing States and least developed nations, effectively positioning tourism as a vehicle for global equity [2,21].

The purpose is to synthesize and critically evaluate the existing landscape of circularity assessment frameworks in sustainable tourism, with a specific focus on developing a framework directly aligned with the GSTC Criteria.

Objectives:

• Conceptualize circularity within the tourism sector by adapting theoretical principles from broader service industries.
• Analyze how tourism stakeholders prioritize different dimensions of circularity across the industry’s value chain.
• Critically evaluate current methodologies and certification schemes to identify specific gaps in how they measure sustainability and circularity in tourism.
• Develop an original assessment framework that integrates circular metrics into the GSTC Criteria.
• Delineate the barriers to implementation and the role of digital technologies in facilitating a circular transition.

Research methods: systematic and comprehensive literature review, content analysis, framework modeling based on synthesis and integration of the secondary data analysis.

Presentation of literature selection strategies and criteria: to ensure reproducibility and transparency, the study adopts a multi-stage research design combining a systematic narrative literature review and conceptual framework analysis. Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 113 core sources were identified. This selection utilized such academic databases as Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, alongside strategic policy reports from UNEP, UNWTO, and the European Commission.

The search strategy employed Boolean operators: (“Circular Economy” OR “Circular Tourism”) AND (“Digitalization” OR “IoT” OR “Blockchain” OR “AI”) AND (“Sustainability” OR “Global Sustainable Tourism Council”). The inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed works published between 2010–2025 to capture the recent digitalization transition, while incorporating foundational theories to account for the conceptual evolution of circularity through the early 21st century.

Analytical procedures transitioned from narrative synthesis to conceptual mapping across three thematic lenses: operational (mapping “R-principle” against GSTC Environmental/Management pillars), socio-cultural (aligning circular community practices with GSTC Social/Cultural criteria), and technological (investigating IoT and Blockchain’s role in automating transparency). To ensure a transparent audit trail, the 113 core sources were finalized through a two-pass eligibility protocol, progressing from a title/abstract screen to a full-text appraisal, where borderline cases were resolved by prioritizing empirical validation of GSTC pillars over purely conceptual models. During data extraction, pre-defined priority rules were applied to resolve conflicting findings, specifically weighting GSTC-standardized circularity indicators.

This integrative approach defined specific causal pathways, bridging the gap between theoretical circularity and standardized industry metrics. The framework was developed through a three-step qualitative content analysis (categorical coding, gap analysis and synthesis-integration modeling) where the literature was coded into five functional dimensions: Management, Socio-economic, Cultural, Environmental, and Technological. By overlaying circular performance indicators onto the GSTC Criteria and critically evaluating existing schemes (e.g., EarthCheck, Travelife) and methodologies (e.g., Life Cycle Assessment), the resulting model ensures reproducibility for industry practitioners seeking to align circularity with established global sustainability standards.

Section 2 establishes the theoretical foundations of the circular economy in tourism, focusing on stakeholder perspectives and operational dimensions. Section 3 provides a critical evaluation of current measurement tools and certifications. It identifies a gap between scientific methodologies and global standards, necessitating a more integrated approach. Section 4 presents the primary research contribution: a multi-tiered framework that maps circular principles directly onto the GSTC Criteria. This system evaluates impacts across five areas: management, socio-economic, cultural, environmental, and technological. Section 5 addresses the implementation landscape, analyzing systemic barriers and the role of digital technologies—such as AI and Blockchain—in automating circularity reporting.

This research operationalizes circularity through a 5R hierarchy. While the technical loops such as reduce, reuse, repair, and recycle address material flows, the comprehensive principle of rethink represents the strategic redesign of business models and guest experiences. By introducing the rethink principle as the governing framework, the study ensures that circularity is treated as a systemic transformation rather than a series of isolated waste-management tasks.

2. Conceptualizing Circularity in Tourism

This section investigates the foundational principles and practical applications of circular economy concepts within the tourism industry. The analysis begins by establishing a theoretical foundation for circularity in service-oriented sectors, highlighting the systemic shift from linear “take-make-dispose” models towards regenerative systems. Building on this foundation, the discussion identifies the key dimensions of circularity relevant to tourism operations, offering a conceptual roadmap for integrating these principles into diverse industry facets. Finally, the section examines the multifaceted perspectives of stakeholders, underscoring the collaboration’s synergy required to drive a successful circular transition in sustainable tourism.

2.1. Theoretical Foundations of Circular Economy in Service Industries

The transition to a circular economy in service industries is a complex and multi-dimensional process that balances environmental integrity with economic and social equity. Originally conceptualized as a basic closed-loop system [22], the perception of CE has matured into a sophisticated paradigm aimed at eliminating waste at source and regenerating natural capital [23,24]. As noted by Kirchherr et al. [7], this involves replacing the traditional “end-of-life” concept with a systemic orientation toward continuous resource regeneration and value retention. This evolution is mirrored in policy shifts; for instance, the European Union’s 2020 New Circular Economy Action Plan represents a move from abstract theory toward a practical mandate for industrial application [9].

The scientific discourse surrounding CE is characterized by a significant divergence in emphasis. While the EU’s framework leans toward industrial symbiosis and product longevity within production-consumption loops [25], the UNEP adopts a more comprehensive view, integrating social equity and ecosystem services as core components of the system [20,26]. Despite these variations in definitions, a consensus is emerging: circularity is fundamentally anchored in the waste minimization, resource longevity and the promotion of sustainable consumption patterns. These objectives necessitate a departure from linear models, requiring specific operational frameworks to translate high-level sustainability goals into actionable industry practices.

Synthesizing these varied perspectives is essential for developing effective CE policies that transcend theoretical models. The adaptation of CE principles within service-oriented sectors, such as tourism, is a complex, evolutionary process rather than a technical adjustment. It requires a fundamental shift: moving beyond basic waste management toward the maximization of natural and human capital throughout the entire service lifecycle. This transition requires a conceptual reorientation—shifting the focus from traditional material flows to integrated resource utilization, innovative service design, and deep-rooted stakeholder collaboration. By establishing this theoretical baseline, the following section deconstructs the specific functional dimensions required to operationalize circularity within the tourism value chain.

2.2. Key Dimensions of Circularity Relevant to Tourism Operations

To address the previously identified metric gap, it is first necessary to deconstruct the specific operational mechanisms that drive circularity within the tourism industry. While the theoretical foundations establish the “why” of systemic change, the operationalization of these concepts requires a specific functional taxonomy. Consequently, building on the hierarchy established in Section 1, this study utilizes the 5R principles—reduce, reuse, repair, recycle and rethink—as the functional taxonomy through which circular economy performance is evaluated [12,14,27,28]. These principles make a significant and measurable contribution to the Management, Socioeconomic, Cultural, and Environmental pillars of sustainable tourism development, driving resource efficiency, community benefits, and ecological preservation.

The reduce principle focuses on the pre-consumption phase by minimizing the input of energy, water, and materials. In tourism, this transcends simple conservation; it involves rethinking service design, such as optimizing transport routes to reduce fuel consumption or eliminating single-use items—to prevent waste before it enters the guest experience [29,30]. In contrast, the reuse and repair principles focus on extending the functional lifespan of existing assets. In tourism, reuse centers on the durability of consumables (e.g., linens, glass containers, and modular furniture) [29,31], while repair, often the most neglected dimension, targets the industry’s physical infrastructure and equipment to reduce the carbon and economic costs of new procurement [32,33,34].

As the next principle, recycling ensures that unavoidable waste is converted into secondary raw materials. In the tourism context, this facilitates industrial symbiosis, where destination waste is transformed into inputs for local agriculture or manufacturing, effectively closing the destination-wide material loop [35,36,37].

Beyond the listed technical loops, the rethink principle serves as the comprehensive strategic driver for the entire framework. While the traditional Rs, reuse, reduce, repair and recycle, principles manage resource efficiency, the rethink principle necessitates a fundamental paradigm shift from product-centric to service-centric business models, such as “Product-as-a-Service” or sharing economy platforms [20,38,39]. This involves redesigning the tourism value chain to prioritize regenerative experiences over extractive consumption, ensuring that every operational decision is evaluated through a circular lens (from supply chain procurement to guest engagement) [40,41,42]. By placing rethink at the core of the strategy, stakeholders can move beyond incremental waste reduction toward systemic innovation that maximizes local social contribution while minimizing environmental impact [43,44].

The selection of these five dimensions is justified by their hierarchical ability to retain value. While the 5Rs provide the technical “how” of circular action, they must be anchored to globally recognized benchmarks to ensure comparability. Within the framework presented in Figure 1, these circular dimensions are applicable directly to the GSTC Criteria. This integration ensures that circular actions—such as reducing water waste or repairing local infrastructure—directly satisfy the GSTC’s pillars of sustainable management and environmental integrity [4,5,45].

The usage of GSTC standards includes certifying the sustainability of tourism and travel, policy making within the tourism industry, and education on sustainability [5]. These standards create the basis for a unique international language to be used to understand sustainable tourism. Due to the specification of the tourism activities and sustainable management, the GSTC standards are separated into four sets, as in Figure 1 [5]:

This alignment is particularly critical given the GSTC’s comprehensive multi-sectoral scope, which spans the Industry, Destination, MICE and, as of late 2024, the Attraction standards [5]. By integrating circular principles across these diverse standards, the tourism sector addresses sustainability at every scale—from the specific waste management mandates of an individual hotel (GSTC Criteria A2.3) to the macro-level environmental footprint of an entire destination [4,5,45].

The synthesis of the 5R dimensions with GSTC standards establishes a robust technical framework for measurement, effectively bridging the gap between circular theory and standardized industry metrics. However, the successful execution of these strategies is not merely a matter of logistics; it is a systemic organizational challenge. Because tourism is a highly fragmented industry relying on a vast network of service providers and consumers, these circular dimensions remain purely theoretical unless supported by a unified vision among all participants.

Consequently, the transition from technical metrics to practical implementation necessitates an analysis of the human factor. Section 2.3, therefore, explores the diverse stakeholder perspectives that influence the adoption of these practices, identifying how collaboration between the public sector, private enterprises and tourists acts as the primary catalyst for a circular transition.

2.3. Stakeholder Perspectives on Circularity in Tourism

While the integration of the 5R principles into GSTC standards provides a technical architecture for circularity, the actualization of this framework depends on the strategic alignment of diverse actors. The evolution toward circular tourism is propelled by the integration of SDGs, rapid technological advancement, and the rising importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria among stakeholders [2,11,46,47]. For successful implementation and assessment, it is critical to analyze the diverse perceptions and contributions of four primary stakeholder groups: tourists, businesses, local communities and policymakers [12,14,48].

Firstly, modern tourists are increasingly aware of their environmental and social footprints [14,20,49,50]. Their contribution to circularity is primarily manifested through conscious consumption such as opting for resource-efficient accommodations and supporting local circular economies [1,24,51]. This consumer-driven demand provides the necessary market incentive for enterprises to adopt the 5R principle. However, a significant attitude-behavior gap remains; despite high awareness, tourists often prioritize convenience and cost over sustainability, particularly when clear and accessible information regarding circular choices is lacking [52,53].

Secondly, enterprises increasingly view circularity as a strategic tool for operational efficiency and brand differentiation [12,14,54,55]. By optimizing energy use (reduce) and prioritizing infrastructure longevity (repair), businesses can significantly reduce expenditure while appealing to a growing segment of ethical consumers. Emerging technologies such as real-time data analytics and blockchain further enhance supply chain transparency, acting as the bridge between technical R-strategies and stakeholder trust [56,57]. Nevertheless, the transition is hindered by high initial investment costs, the complexity of reconfiguring supply chains, and organizational resistance to departing from traditional linear models [58,59,60].

Thirdly, local communities are the primary hosts of tourism activity, and their perspective is rooted in long-term well-being and heritage preservation. They foster circularity by shortening supply chains through agritourism and supporting community-led waste management [61,62,63,64]. While synergies occur when tourism development aligns with community aspirations, conflicts emerge if circular initiatives are perceived as top-down burdens that threaten traditional livelihoods or lead to resource depletion [65,66].

Fourthly, policymakers at the local and national levels are responsible for creating the institutional framework for circularity. Through supportive regulations, tax incentives, and investments in circular infrastructure, they position tourism as a vehicle for national economic resilience [35,67,68]. The primary challenge for governance remains the reconciliation of the imperatives of economic growth with stringent environmental protection, particularly in regions heavily dependent on mass tourism volumes [69,70,71].

The analysis of stakeholder perspectives reveals a critical disconnect: while each group acknowledges the theoretical value of circularity, their incentives are often misaligned. Businesses seek ROI, tourists seek convenience and policymakers seek GDP growth. These competing priorities create a bottleneck that prevents the technical 5R dimensions, defined in Section 2.2, from reaching full scale.

This misalignment suggests that circularity cannot be achieved through isolated actions. Instead, it requires a shared measurement language—such as the GSTC-aligned framework proposed in the study—to provide transparency necessary to harmonize these conflicting incentives. By providing a standardized way to measure the impact of reduce, reuse, repair, recycle and rethink strategies, the industry can move from fragmented efforts toward a collaborative, regenerative ecosystem.

The extant literature has conceptualized circularity by bridging its theoretical foundations with the practical 5R dimensions and the varied perspectives of key stakeholders. This synthesis demonstrates that the transition to a circular tourism economy is an integrated challenge—one that is as much about human governance and behavioral change as it is about resource efficiency. By aligning these human-centric perspectives with the technical 5R-GSTC architecture, the re research establishes a comprehensive understanding of the “what” and the “who” of circular tourism. Consequently, the following section evaluates the current landscape of assessment methodologies to identify the technical gaps and systemic gaps this research aims to fill.

3. Existing Approaches to Measuring Sustainability and Circularity in Tourism

While the preceding section established the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of circular tourism, this section evaluates the existing landscape of assessment methodologies to identify the technical gaps this research aims to fill. The analysis transitions from the foundational scientific methodologies used to quantify resource impacts to an evaluation of how these metrics are operationalized within the tourism industry certification schemes.

3.1. Methodologies for Assessing Resource Flows and Waste Management in Tourism

Several quantitative tools are employed to measure resource consumption and waste generation in tourism, offering varying degrees of applicability to circularity assessments. Key methodologies include Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), and Carbon/Water Footprint Assessments, as synthesized in

Table 1. Key Metrics and Evaluation Scopes of Resource Flow Assessment Tools. 

Methodology	Measures:
LCA	Inputs (energy, materials) and outputs (emissions, waste) at each stage [72].
MFA	Flows and stocks of materials within a defined system over time [73].
Carbon Footprint Assessment	The total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event, or product; emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) [33,74].
Water Footprint Assessment	The total volume of freshwater used to produce the goods and services consumed by an individual or community or produced by a business [75,76].

:

While these methodologies provide robust environmental data, their utility in the CE context depends on their ability to track material longevity and system-wide resource loops.

Life Cycle Assessment evaluates the impacts of tourism services—such as accommodation and food—from the raw material extraction stage to final disposal. Its value in circularity lies in identifying environmental hotspots, allowing managers to evaluate the net benefits of implementing circular principles such as reuse or recycling over traditional linear disposal [55,77,78].

Material Flow Analysis is a systematic approach that tracks input, outputs and accumulation of materials; it quantifies flows and stocks of materials, identifying resource efficiency and waste generation patterns [73]. The method is highly suitable for assessing circularity in tourism because it is essential for detecting resource leakage and identifying viable opportunities for industrial symbiosis within a destination [79,80].

Carbon and Water Footprint Assessments quantify the intensity of resource use. Carbon Footprinting (expressed in CO2e) justifies 5R transitions by highlighting the energy-saving potential of repair and reuse over new procurement [81,82,83]. Similarly, water footprinting distinguishes between blue (surface and groundwater), green (rainwater stored in soil), and grey water (polluted water) [76], providing the data necessary to develop closed-loop reclamation systems in water-stressed regions [76,84].

Despite their scientific accuracy, these tools often operate in isolation from social and economic variables. From a critical perspective, LCA and MFA typically assume a centralized industrial context, making them difficult to apply to the fragmented, service-heavy nature of tourism destinations. Furthermore, the extensive data requirements create a significant barrier for SMEs, leading to a persistent data gap between theoretical circularity and daily operational practice.

3.2. Current Sustainability Indicators and Certification Schemes in Tourism

The tourism sector utilizes various certification programs—such as GSTC, Green Globe, EarthCheck, and Travelife—to guide businesses toward responsible practices. While these schemes are essential for benchmarking, their focus remains largely on resource efficiency (input reduction) rather than systemic circularity or loop closing [3,4,5,18,85,86].

Among these, the GSTC Criteria serve as the international baseline, organizing sustainability into four pillars: Management, Socio-economic, Cultural, and Environmental impacts. Reputable schemes such as Green Globe and EarthCheck align with these criteria to ensure credibility through scientific benchmarking and adherence to internationally recognized best practices [4,5].

Specialized programs address specific destination types or ethical priorities. The Blue Flag Program focuses on coastal stewardship and water quality in marine environments [87], while Fair Trade Tourism emphasizes equitable benefit distribution and ethical supply chains [32,88]. Biosphere Tourism provides a broader framework by aligning destination management with the UN SDGs and the Paris Agreement [89]. In addition, most current certifications rely on qualitative checklists and efficiency metrics; for example, programs such as Travelife and EarthCheck have strong components for waste reduction and recycling [85,86,90].

However, the current landscape of certification reveals a significant gap between general sustainability and explicit circularity. While existing programs provide entry points for monitoring impact, they often fail to track the actual closing of resource loops. Because these schemes are designed for broad market adoption, they prioritize a linear improvement over a circular transformation. In accordance with the priority rules established in the methodology, existing certifications are treated as foundational benchmarks rather than comprehensive circularity assessments, as they lack the dynamic indicators to track the actual closing of resource loops. Accordingly, for a destination to be truly circular, certification must evolve beyond binary checklists toward dynamic indicators that measure the long-term retention of material and social value.

3.3. Gaps in Current Measurement Frameworks for Comprehensive Circularity Assessment

Despite the availability of quantitative tools and certification checklists, several fundamental limitations hinder a comprehensive circularity assessment in tourism. These gaps represent the transition from traditional sustainability to a restorative circular economy.

Existing sustainability metrics largely focus on efficiency and resource reduction rather than regeneration. While current indicators track waste volume, they fail to capture the nuances of circular business models (i.e., Product-as-a-Service or industrial symbiosis), making it difficult to benchmark true circular performance across destinations [7,12,22,38,41,91]. Current frameworks remain heavily skewed toward environmental data such as water, energy, and waste. A truly circular tourism economy must integrate social equity, including fair labor in the repair sector and economic value retention, ensuring that circular initiatives translate into local job creation and community resilience rather than just operational cost savings [53,92,93,94,95].

Another limitation is the data-accessibility barrier, which creates a rigor against reality divide. High-precision methods, such as MFA, are often too complex and data-intensive for the SMEs that constitute most of the tourism sector. This results in fragmented, inconsistent data that fails to quantify the long-term, multi-dimensional benefits of circularity [10,92,96].

The identification of these gaps highlights a critical need for a standardized, multi-dimensional framework that bridges the divide between environmental metrics and socio-economic value. To move beyond the current reduction-based sustainability, the tourism industry requires an assessment approach that simplifies data collection for SMEs while maintaining the scientific rigor needed to prove destination resilience. The following section addresses the challenge by proposing a 4-Level Circularity Framework, designed to integrate circular principles into the foundational management of tourism operations.

4. Developing a GSTC-Aligned Framework for Measuring Circularity in Sustainable Tourism

To address the metric gaps and data-accessibility barriers identified in Section 3.3, this section presents the primary research contribution: a GSTC-aligned framework designed to operationalize circularity within the tourism sector (Figure 2). Synthesized from the 113 core sources and filtered through the priority rules established in Section 1, the model utilizes systems thinking to provide a structured, hierarchical pathway that moves from global regulatory standards to specific operational indicators [92,97].

This concentric design creates a logical bridge between theory and practice: the core layer ensures regulatory compliance, while the outer layers translate those mandates into multi-dimensional strategies and measurable actions. Unlike fragmented assessment tools, this integrated structure ensures that circularity is built into the management core of the tourism industry, rather than treated as a separate objective.

4.1. Level 1—The Foundational Layer: GSTC Standards as the Regulatory Core

Level 1 establishes the Global Sustainable Tourism Council Criteria as the regulatory core. By embedding these standards at the foundation, the model ensures that circular interventions are aligned with a globally recognized baseline [4,5].

This layer treats industry segments as an interdependent ecosystem.

The GSTC Industry Criteria provide the micro-level waste data necessary for the GSTC Destination Criteria to manage macro-level resource loops. This synergy is essential for industrial symbiosis, where hotel waste becomes a destination-wide resource. The inclusion of MICE and Attractions standards expands the framework’s reach beyond mere accommodation. By integrating these, the model addresses high-intensity, short-duration resource flows and the preservation of natural capital in attractions [5]. This ensures that circularity is applied to the entire guest journey, rather than just the stay.

Consequently, Level 1 repurposes this knowledge as the essential infrastructure required to measure and verify circular performance on a global scale.

4.2. Level 2—The Strategic Layer: Multi-Dimensional Circularity

The Level 2 circle represents a critical shift in the framework’s logic, moving from regulatory standards to strategic orientation. The primary research contribution in Level 2 is the synthesis of four distinct dimensions—Environmental, Social, Economic, and Technological—into a unified circularity lens. While existing literature often isolates these variables, this framework argues that circularity is a systemic property that fails if any one dimension is neglected.

A core innovation of this layer is the integration of social and economic circularity, which shifts the evaluative focus from simple waste reduction to the generation of community resilience. Unlike traditional sustainability models that view technology as a secondary support tool, Level 2 identifies the Technological Dimension as a fundamental requirement for circular transition. The innovation here lies in the recognition that blockchain, IoT, and data analytics serve as the essential digital thread required to verify the reuse and repair principles at higher levels. This layer effectively solves the transparency gap identified among stakeholders in Section 2.3 [91,97,98].

4.3. Level 3—The Operational Layer: Contextualizing Circular Economy Principles

Level 3 translates the strategic dimensions into an action plan. It is the cross-functional mapping of the 5R principles—reduce, reuse, repair, recycle, and rethink—across the four GSTC pillars.

The most significant contribution of Level 3 is the positioning of rethink as the overarching operational requirement. Unlike the other principles which focus on material management, rethink demands a paradigm shift in business models. It involves redesigning supply chains to prioritize regeneration over extraction, moving toward low-impact experiences that maximize local social contribution while minimizing environmental draw [20,28,29,38,40,41,42,43,44].

By contextualizing these five principles within the GSTC standards, the framework ensures that circularity becomes an intrinsic part of the service design rather than an added-on cost. Rethink drives the strategy, while reduce, reuse, repair and recycle provide the measurable outputs for the indicators in Level 4.

4.4. Level 4—The Assessment Layer: Quantifying Performance via Indicators

The outermost circle of the framework comprises the specific, measurable indicators that allow for the quantitative and qualitative assessment of circularity as presented in

Table 2. Measurable Indicators: the Assessment Layer.

Indicator	Measures:
Pillar 1: Environmental Impact & Resource Flow
Life Cycle Assessment	Quantifies the environmental burden at every stage of the service life cycle.
Water & Energy Efficiency	Measures the reduction in consumption per guest night or service provided [95].
Waste Management	Tracks the volume of waste diverted from landfills through recycling and composting [37,63,99].
Pillar 2: Strategic Innovation & Digitalization
Circular Business Models	Tracks the adoption of sharing-economy platform of “Product-as-a-Service” models [38,39].
Investment in Circularity	Measures the financial resources allocated to CE [100].
Technologies & Digitalization	Monitors the use of IoT, AI or smart sensors to optimize resource [38,50,101,102,103,104].
Pillar 3: Socio-Economic Values and Equity
Community Engagement	Evaluates the quality of local involvement in decision-making and benefit-sharing.
Skill Development	Measures the training provided to equipe employees and locals for circular tasks.
Local Sourcing	Tracks the proportion of goods/services procured from the local economy [14].
Pillar 4: Supply Chain Integrity & Management
Supply Chain Transparency	Assesses the extent to which the origin and impact of products are known and communicated.

. These indicators are directly linked to the GSTC standards, the dimensions of circularity, and the circular economy principles, providing a comprehensive measurement tool.

By linking each indicator to a specific GSTC standard and circular principle, the framework creates a closed-loop feedback system. These ten metrics are grouped into four Verification Pillars that translate the 5R principles into audited outcomes. The indicators of environmental impact and resource flow pillar (LCA, Water & Energy Efficiency, Waste Management) provide hard data to verify the reduce and recycle principles and the Environmental Dimension of Level 2. The metrics of Pillar 2 (Circular Business Models, Investment in Circularity, Technologies & Digitalization) verify the rethink principle. They prove that the business is using Technology (Level 2) to move away from linear models. Furthermore, the indicators of Pillar 3 (Community Engagement, Skill Development, Local Sourcing) validate the Social and Economic Dimensions. They prove that circularity is creating local resilience rather than just operational savings. Finally, Pillar 4, focused on Value Chain Integrity (Supply Chain Transparency), ensures that the reuse and repair principles (Level 3) are backed by verifiable data, thereby ensuring the integrity of the material loop.

Through consistent evaluation and measurement of these indicators, tourism stakeholders can track their progress toward circularity, identify areas for improvement, and demonstrate their commitment to sustainable and responsible tourism development [105]. This multi-layered framework provides a strong and actionable approach for integrating circular economy principles into the core of sustainable tourism practices, ensuring alignment with global standards.

While the proposed 4-Level Framework provides the structural logic and indicators necessary for measurement, its successful integration into the tourism ecosystem depends on navigating a complex landscape of operational realities. As the framework demands high levels of digital transparency and stakeholder alignment, the following section evaluates the systemic barriers and technological opportunities that determine how this framework can be transitioned from a theoretical model to a functional industry standard.

5. Discussion

While the 4-Level framework provides the structural logic for measurement, its successful integration depends on navigating the operational realities of the tourism ecosystem. This discussion evaluates the systemic barriers and the digital catalysts that determine how the proposed model can transition from a theoretical construct to a functional industry standard. This focus distinguishes the framework from static tools such as LCA or MFA, positioning it as a dynamic decision-support engine [10,92].

5.1. Barriers to Adopting Circularity Measurement in Tourism Businesses and Destinations

A comparative evaluation of the proposed framework with the methods discussed in Section 3 reveals a distinct shift in scope. While popular certifications such as EarthCheck and Travelife effectively track hotel resource efficiency, they often lack indicators for systemic regeneration. The innovation of this framework lies is in its role as a proactive bridge between global standards and ground-level reality, reconfiguring tourism management across four specific innovation fronts.

The technological dimension is treated not as an optional tool, but as a prerequisite for real-time resource tracking and supply chain integrity. By moving from static checklists to dynamic 5R principles, the framework evaluates the longevity and utility of the entire asset. When overlaying circularity onto the GSTC pillars, the framework transforms repair and reuse from mere maintenance chores into strategic assets that preserve cultural capital and strengthen a destination’s unique identity. From a socio-economic perspective, the focus shifts from LCA-based outputs toward local value retention. This dimension treats circularity as a tool for local equity, prioritizing local sourcing and skills development to ensure community resilience alongside environmental health.

5.2. Practical Implementation and Data Requirements

The fundamental purpose of the framework is to act as a territorial decision-support engine that aligns the “what” of global sustainability (GSTC) with the “how” of circular economy (5Rs). Practical implementation lies in translating these conceptual definitions and indicator typologies into an operational measurement framework applied consistently at destination scales. This transition necessitates a shift from micro-accounting to a macro-economic territorial metabolism, where data aggregation is structured across three interconnected systemic layers. First, the inflow and procurement layer (Socio-economic Dimension) utilizes regional trade statistics and supply chain audits to track the dependency on external resources versus local circularity loops, ensuring economic value remains within the community. This is integrated with the circulation and infrastructure layer (Management Dimension), which monitors utility throughputs and maintenance logs to facilitate industrial symbiosis. Finally, the outflow and value retention layer (Environmental Dimension) analyses regional waste volumes and secondary material market rates to quantify a destination’s ability to retain material value rather than losing it to external waste streams.

Circular tourism measurement requires clear system boundaries and functional units tailored to tourism services to enable reliable comparability across different seasons and destinations. Implementation follows a pilot data-collection protocol integrating utility and procurement records, supported by a dashboard for longitudinal benchmarking.

Ultimately, measurement is linked to action by identifying the most material “leakages” in the visitor economy to prioritize interventions (e.g., reuse/refill systems, supplier take-back schemes, repair-oriented asset management, and circular food practices). By linking these data archetypes to the five functional dimensions, the framework provides the evidence base required for regional resilience without necessitating that each business masters complex life-cycle metrics. This systemic integration ensures that every data point, from utility consumption to waste diversion, serves the overarching goal of destination-wide circularity.

5.3. Barriers and the Digital Catalyst

The transition from linear to circular measurement is currently impeded by a combination of internal operational constraints and external structural gaps. Moving the framework from theory to practice requires addressing the specific friction points that prevent stakeholders from adopting the GSTC-aligned model.

The most fundamental barrier is the lack of conceptual clarity among stakeholders. Many SMEs perceive circularity as a niche environmental concern rather than a strategic management imperative, resulting in fragmented reporting [52,67,106,107]. ROI uncertainty further compounds these barriers. For businesses with thin margins, the upfront costs of loop-closing infrastructure, such as advanced waste systems or renewable energy grids, are difficult to justify using traditional, short-term accounting [100,108,109]. Furthermore, the absence of harmonized policy prevents local pilots from scaling into destination-wide systems [110,111].

While these barriers are significant, the technological dimension of the framework serves as the primary catalyst for overcoming them. Digitalization shifts circularity from a retrospective manual audit to a proactive, live management process. IoT sensors provide the granular data necessary for real-time adjustments to energy and waste streams [101,112], while Artificial Intelligence serves as the analytical engine. By processing vast datasets, AI can predict demand patterns and identify material leakages invisible to manual audits [14,57,103,104]. However, technology alone is not universal; overcoming these barriers requires regional circularity hubs, partnership between government, industry, and research institutions in order to pool resources and lower transition costs [112,113].

5.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The current framework is a universal foundational model; however, it does not yet account for the granular nuances of niche tourism segments where resource flows may differ. Furthermore, the framework avoids assigning static indicator weights, as these must be calibrated to varying regional development levels. Future research should explore whether increased resource efficiency in circular tourism manifests in increased consumption and balances sustainability gains. Moreover, there is a need to further incorporate the social loop to demonstrate how circular practices impact local labor markets and community wealth retention, ensuring the framework balances socio-economic equity with environmental health.

6. Conclusions

As the tourism industry continues its trajectory of global growth, the transition from linear to circular development has become a necessary strategic imperative. This research utilized a methodology of comprehensive literature synthesis, content analysis, and systemic modeling to address the absence of a standardized assessment tool for the circular economy in sustainable tourism development.

The study successfully conceptualized circularity by moving beyond traditional waste management, defining it as a regenerative process that encompasses resource efficiency, local value retention, and capital restoration. This research demonstrates that circularity is inseparable from multi-stakeholder engagement by integrating the perspectives of tourists, local communities, and policymakers into a unified sustainability logic.

Furthermore, the research evaluated existing methodologies, noting that while tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Material Flow Analysis (MFA) provide scientific accuracy, their application in tourism is fragmented. This study identified a significant metric of discontent, where existing sustainability indicators fail to capture systemic circularity principles, such as industrial symbiosis or Product-as-a-Service models.

The primary contribution of this research is the GSTC-aligned Framework for Measuring Circularity in Sustainable Tourism Development. By positioning the four core GSTC standards (Industry, Destination, MICE, and Attractions) as the regulatory foundation, the framework ensures global comparability. The model’s concentric design provides a logical bridge between: (1) balancing environmental, social, economic, and technological dimensions; (2) contextualizing the 5R principles (Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle, Rethink) within the specific constraints of the tourism guest journey; and (3) utilizing ten specific, measurable indicators to transform abstract goals into verifiable performance data.

The research concludes that the primary barriers to adoption—namely, financial constraints and data fragmentation—can be mitigated through the strategic deployment of Digital Technologies. The integration of AI, Blockchain, and IoT is not merely a technical upgrade but a fundamental requirement for the transparency and real-time monitoring necessary for circularity reporting.

The proposed framework provides an actionable, multi-layered roadmap for stakeholders across the tourism value chain. By integrating established sustainability benchmarks with restorative circular principles, this research empowers the industry to move beyond aspirational goals toward measurable, regenerative practices. This approach secures both environmental stewardship and long-term socio-economic resilience, ensuring that tourism acts as a catalyst for a more sustainable global economy.