Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

SocietiesSocieties
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

14 February 2026

16 Pages

Overtourism in Bali and Lombok: A Governance and Community Perspective on Challenges and Strategies for Sustainable Development

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Tourism, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Tangerang 15811, Indonesia
2
Department of Hospitality Management, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Tangerang 15811, Indonesia
3
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Tarumanagara University, Jakarta 11440, Indonesia
4
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia
Societies2026, 16(2), 65;https://doi.org/10.3390/soc16020065
This article belongs to the Topic Rethinking Future Studies in Tourism and Hospitality: Critical Insights and Paradigm Shifts for a New Era
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The rapid expansion of tourism in Bali and Lombok has precipitated a state of overtourism, critically challenging their ecological and socio-cultural carrying capacities. This study, conducted between 2023 and 2024, employs a qualitative case study approach to investigate the manifestations of overtourism and the efficacy of prevailing mitigation strategies. Data were collected through 32 in-depth interviews, four focus group discussions, and extensive field observations across key destinations in both islands. The findings reveal that overtourism is not merely a function of high visitor numbers but a symptom of systemic governance failure. Key manifestations include acute environmental degradation, the commodification of cultural heritage, and significant economic leakage that marginalizes local communities. These issues are exacerbated by fragmented policy, weak regulatory enforcement, and the exclusion of local voices from tourism planning. The study concludes that technical solutions such as visitor quotas are insufficient without a fundamental governance paradigm shift. Effective mitigation requires an integrated approach centered on strict carrying capacity enforcement, genuine community empowerment through Community-Based Tourism (CBT), and the strategic use of digital tools for visitor dispersion. This research provides an empirically grounded framework that underscores the imperative of a fundamental governance paradigm shift, aligning tourism development in island destinations with the principles of sustainability and equity.

1. Introduction

The rapid development of tourism in Bali and Lombok has transformed these islands into internationally recognized destinations. In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, Bali alone recorded over 6.3 million international tourist arrivals, a sharp increase from just 2.3 million in 2009 [1]. Lombok, while receiving fewer visitors, has also seen accelerated growth due to increased investment in tourism infrastructure and aggressive promotional campaigns. This exponential growth, while beneficial economically, has raised significant concerns about overtourism—a condition in which tourist volumes exceed a destination’s ecological and socio-cultural carrying capacity [2,3]. In Bali, the pressures of overtourism are evident in chronic traffic congestion, the overexploitation of water resources, inadequate waste management, and the erosion of traditional cultural practices [4,5]. Similarly, Lombok faces environmental degradation in coastal and marine areas, particularly in the Gili Islands, and disruptions to traditional agrarian and fishing livelihoods [6,7]. These environmental and socio-cultural strains are compounded by governance challenges, including insufficient infrastructure, weak regulatory enforcement, and a policy orientation that often prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability [8,9].
Socially, overtourism inflates living costs, displaces residents through tourism-driven real estate conversion, and fosters resentment among host communities [10,11,12,13]. Economically, while tourism generates significant income, it often fails to distribute benefits equitably, marginalizing local stakeholders [14,15]. Environmentally, the strain is evident in rising pollution levels, habitat destruction, and coral reef damage, particularly in Lombok’s Gili Islands [16,17]. Despite the growing body of literature on overtourism, most studies tend to examine isolated dimensions, either environmental, socio-cultural, or economic [10,18]. The contribution of this study lies in its integrative analysis of overtourism’s multidimensional impacts in two distinct but interconnected Indonesian destinations: Bali and Lombok. This research fills the gap by offering holistic, context-specific solutions that synthesize social, environmental, and economic considerations.
While a growing body of literature addresses overtourism, many studies tend to focus on isolated dimensions—environmental, socio-cultural, or economic—often within a single destination. This fragmentation limits the development of holistic solutions. Furthermore, there is a critical gap in understanding the underlying governance mechanisms and political economy that perpetuate overtourism despite the recognition of its negative impacts. Existing research often catalogs symptoms and proposes generic strategic responses but lacks in-depth analysis of the interplay of policy, power, and institutional capacity that enables these dynamics to persist. This study addresses this gap by providing an integrative analysis of the multidimensional impacts of overtourism in two distinct yet interconnected Indonesian destinations. It moves beyond a descriptive account to critically examine the systemic governance failures that underpin the phenomenon.
This study addresses two critical research questions: (1) How do governance failures manifest and contribute to overtourism in Bali and Lombok? (2) How do these governance-driven forms of overtourism affect environmental, socio-cultural, and economic conditions within local communities? To address these questions, this study aims to: (a) analyze the underlying causes and dynamics of overtourism in both islands, and (b) formulate integrated strategies for sustainable tourism development based on stakeholder insights and international best practices.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Conceptualizing Overtourism and Its Theoretical Underpinnings

Overtourism has emerged as a critical concept signifying a fundamental imbalance in tourism development. It is widely understood as the antithesis of sustainable tourism, which [19] defines as tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities.” Refs. [20,21,22] characterize overtourism by a decline in the quality of life for residents and the visitor experience due to excessive tourist numbers, leading to a failure to achieve sustainable development goals.
Theoretical models provide valuable lenses for analysis. Refs. [23,24] Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model posits a destination’s evolution through stages of exploration, involvement, development, consolidation, stagnation, and then either decline or rejuvenation. Overtourism can be seen as a manifestation of the stagnation stage, where destinations experience environmental and social carrying capacity limits. However, contemporary critiques argue that the TALC model is often inadequate in explaining why destinations remain “stuck” in stagnation due to political-economic “lock-ins” and governance failures that prevent rejuvenation [25,26,27].
To address these complexities, frameworks like the DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, Response) offer a more holistic, systems-based approach. DPSIR facilitates a structured analysis by linking the root Drivers (e.g., aggressive destination marketing), to the Pressures they create (e.g., overcrowding, resource demand), the resulting State of the environment and society, the Impacts on human well-being, and the policy Responses required [28]. Similarly, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework emphasizes that sustainable development requires a balance between economic viability, social equity, and environmental protection [29,30,31]. Overtourism represents a critical failure to achieve this balance, often with economic objectives dominating at the expense of social and environmental pillars.
Globally, iconic destinations like Venice, Barcelona, and Amsterdam provide stark examples of resident protests and regulatory struggles stemming from unbalanced tourism growth [32,33,34]. A significant modern driver is the role of social media and online platforms, which can rapidly amplify a destination’s appeal, creating “hotspots” and channeling visitor flows in an unmanaged manner that overwhelms local infrastructure [35,36,37].
This research posits that governance is the critical mediating factor. It examines how governance structures influence a destination’s progression within the TALC, shape the Drivers and Responses in the DPSIR chain, and determine the balance (or imbalance) achieved among the TBL pillars [38,39,40]. The integration of TALC, DPSIR, and TBL provides a multidimensional analytical foundation in which governance functions as the mediating mechanism linking destination evolution, systemic pressures, and sustainability outcomes. Recent scholarship highlights that tourism trajectories are not linear but are shaped by power relations, institutional capacity, and elite interests [41,42]. A political-economy lens, therefore, explains why destinations remain in prolonged stagnation despite recognition of negative impacts, namely, because governance failures inhibit adaptive responses and reinforce economically extractive models of tourism development [43,44].

2.2. Strategies to Overcome Overtourism

To manage the complex challenge of overtourism, scholars and practitioners advocate for multidimensional strategies that integrate governance reform, technological innovation, and active community participation. These approaches move beyond simplistic visitor-count metrics to address the root causes and systemic imbalances driving the phenomenon.
A foundational perspective is provided by the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework, which emphasizes that sustainable tourism requires a balance between environmental protection, economic viability, and social equity [45,46]. Overtourism represents a critical failure to achieve this balance. Effective strategies, therefore, must work to realign these three pillars. For instance, ecotourism initiatives, such as those in Lombok’s Rinjani National Park, demonstrate how sustainable practices can be coupled with community-led planning to achieve TBL objectives [30,47].
Complementing this, the DPSIR framework (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, Response) offers a systems-based approach to structuring interventions. It clarifies that effective Responses must target the root Drivers (e.g., aggressive marketing, policy failures) and mitigate the resulting Pressures (e.g., overcrowding, resource demand) [48,49] A comprehensive review of the literature reveals several key strategic responses:
Regulatory and Supply-Side Interventions: These are fundamental to controlling development and visitor density. Tools include zoning restrictions, moratoriums on new construction in saturated areas, and visitor quotas or caps to prevent peak-load saturation [50,51,52] For example, Bali has explored regulations to curtail unchecked hotel development, particularly in ecologically sensitive zones [53,54].
Technological Solutions for Demand Management: Smart technologies are increasingly critical for managing tourist flows and mitigating pressures. The use of big data analytics, AI, and mobile applications can help in monitoring crowds in real-time and redirecting visitors to less congested areas—an approach successfully piloted in cities like Amsterdam and recommended for destinations like Bali and Lombok [55,56,57].
Community Empowerment and Benefit-Sharing: Community-Based Tourism (CBT) is a pivotal strategy for enhancing social equity. CBT models empower local stakeholders, ensure a more equitable distribution of economic benefits, and help safeguard cultural heritage from commodification. The success of CBT in the Rinjani area of Lombok showcases its potential to integrate cultural preservation, environmental stewardship, and local income generation [58,59].
Tourist Education and Behavior Change: Awareness campaigns targeting tourists are essential to foster responsible behavior. Studies advocate for initiatives that encourage low-impact travel, respect for local customs, and a reduction in resource consumption, thereby lessening the socio-environmental impacts of their stay [60,61].
Product and Spatial Diversification: Promoting alternative destinations, attractions, and travel types—such as cultural, agrotourism, and eco-tourism—helps disperse the economic benefits and spatial impacts of tourism, reducing the relentless pressure on iconic hotspots [62,63].
A political economy lens is essential to understand the governance of overtourism. It examines how power relations, economic interests, and institutional arrangements shape policy outcomes. Ultimately, as argued by [64,65]. Addressing overtourism requires the systemic integration of these strategies into a coherent governance framework. This integration depends on regulatory clarity, genuine local empowerment, and context-sensitive innovation. Literature consistently concludes that while a robust toolkit of strategies exists, their effectiveness is not guaranteed; it hinges on political will, multi-stakeholder coordination, and a long-term vision that prioritizes holistic sustainability over short-term, narrow economic growth.

2.3. Research Gap

While the existing literature effectively catalogues the symptoms of overtourism and proposes generic strategic responses, there is a scarcity of in-depth, qualitative research that critically examines the governance nexus—the interplay of policy, power, and institutional capacity—that allows overtourism to persist in specific Southeast Asian contexts. Furthermore, comparative case studies of adjacent destinations like Bali and Lombok, which are at different stages of tourism development yet face similar systemic challenges, are limited. This study seeks to fill this gap by providing a critical, empirically grounded analysis of overtourism as a governance problem, thereby contributing to more nuanced and effective solution pathways.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design and Case Study Context

This study adopted a qualitative research design with an exploratory multiple-case study approach, focusing on Bali and Lombok, Indonesia. A case study methodology is appropriate for investigating complex, real-world phenomena within their contextual boundaries, allowing for an in-depth understanding of the “how” and “why” of overtourism dynamics [66,67,68].
Bali was selected as a mature, mass-tourism destination exhibiting advanced symptoms of overtourism, particularly in southern areas like Kuta and the cultural hub of Ubud. Lombok was chosen as an emerging destination experiencing accelerated growth, with observable pressures in areas like Senggigi and the ecologically sensitive Gili Islands. This comparative design allows for the examination of overtourism across a spectrum of development intensity [69].

3.2. Data Collection

Data collection was conducted over 12 months (July 2023–June 2024) and triangulated through three primary methods:
In-depth, Semi-structured Interviews: A total of 32 interviews (45–90 min each) were conducted with purposively sampled key stakeholders to capture diverse perspectives on governance and impacts: local government officials (n = 8), tourism operators (n = 10), community leaders (n = 8), and tourists (n = 6). The sampling aimed for saturation within each stakeholder category relevant to the research questions. The interview and focus group discussion protocols were developed around the same core thematic domains derived from the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) and DPSIR frameworks, including perceived impacts, governance and institutional roles, policy effectiveness, and community agency. However, while the thematic structure was consistent across methods, the wording and sequencing of questions were adapted to suit the individual (interview) and collective (FGD) settings. Semi-structured interviews emphasized individual experiences, institutional perspectives, and personal interpretations of governance processes, whereas FGDs employed more open-ended and comparative prompts to stimulate interaction, consensus-building, and debate among participants regarding shared socio-cultural experiences, economic equity, and future tourism pathways. The interview and FGD protocols were aligned on thematic domains but not identical in wording or structure. Interviews focused on individual experiences and institutional roles, while FGDs employed adapted prompts to encourage collective reflection, interaction, and shared meaning-making. This methodological distinction has now been clarified in the manuscript and detailed in Appendix A.
Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, supported by snowball referrals, based on their institutional roles, community leadership positions, or direct involvement in tourism activities relevant to governance and overtourism.
Participant Observation: Over 120 h of structured observation were conducted at key tourism nodes (e.g., Kuta Beach, Ubud Market, Gili Trawangan). Observations focused on tourist-resident interactions, infrastructure usage, crowding, and environmental conditions, providing contextual depth to the interview and FGD data.
Secondary data, including regional tourism master plans, policy documents, and academic publications, were analyzed to provide historical and policy context.

3.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis followed [70] Six-phase framework for thematic analysis:
  • Familiarization: Repeated reading of transcripts and field notes.
  • Initial Coding: Generating codes inductively from the data using NVivo 12 software. For example, segments discussing “water shortages” were coded as ENV_WATER_STRESS, while those mentioning “foreign hotel profits” were coded as ECO_LEAKAGE, segments discussing ‘approvals for projects in protected zones’ were coded as GOV_ELITE_CAPTURE, ‘lack of coordination between agencies’ as GOV_FRAGMENTATION. These were later grouped into the broader theme ‘Systemic Governance Failures’.
  • Searching for Themes: Collating related codes into potential themes (e.g., “Governance Fragmentation,” “Cultural Commodification,” “Community Disempowerment”).
  • Reviewing Themes: Refining themes by checking them against the entire dataset to ensure coherence and distinctiveness.
  • Defining and Naming Themes: Developing a clear definition and name for each theme.
  • Producing the Report: Weaving the thematic analysis into a coherent narrative.
To ensure reliability, two researchers independently coded a subset of the data, achieving an inter-coder agreement of 88%. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached.

4. Results

4.1. Thematic Analysis and Context

4.1.1. Thematic Analysis Overview

The analysis identified three overarching themes. Table 1 summarizes the prevalence of each theme and its key sub-themes across the different stakeholder groups interviewed, highlighting areas of consensus and divergence.
Table 1. Frequency and Distribution of Key Themes Across Stakeholder Groups (n = 32 interviews).

4.1.2. Case Context: Escalating Pressures from Tourism Development

Data from interviews and observations confirm that Bali and Lombok, while economically reliant on tourism, are experiencing overtourism. Participants consistently reported that visitor numbers in key areas have surpassed local ecological, infrastructural, and social limits. In Bali, stakeholders described severe congestion, water scarcity, and overwhelmed waste systems in Kuta and Ubud. Similarly, in Lombok, rapid growth in Senggigi and the Gili Islands is creating parallel strains, with communities reporting environmental degradation and social disruption.
Historically, Bali’s tourism was shaped by top-down national development starting in the 1960s, focused on major projects like Ngurah Rai Airport and Nusa Dua. Lombok developed later as a “quieter alternative,” but participant accounts highlight a recent dramatic shift. Improved access and aggressive promotion—especially through the “10 New Balis” campaign—have, according to stakeholders, triggered unsustainable visitor growth, accelerating pressures that outpace the islands’ capacity to adapt.

4.2. Presentation of Key Themes

4.2.1. Theme 1: Systemic Governance Failures

This was the most frequently cited theme, particularly by government officials and community leaders. Data from interviews and FGDs revealed a consistent pattern of fragmented policy and weak enforcement. A provincial planner in Lombok stated, “We have zoning laws, but approvals for villas in protected areas are common. There is pressure, and different agencies do not coordinate.” Community leaders emphasized their exclusion from planning processes. One community leader in Ubud noted: “Decisions about our village are made in meetings we are not invited to.” Tourism operators acknowledged regulatory weaknesses but often framed them as bureaucratic hurdles rather than systemic failures.

4.2.2. Theme 2: Environmental Carrying Capacity Under Siege

Participants consistently reported the severe overstepping of ecological limits. In Bali, water scarcity was the most pressing issue. An interviewee from a local environmental NGO stated: “The tourism industry consumes over half of Bali’s groundwater. Our sacred Subak irrigation systems are drying up, threatening both our agriculture and our cultural heritage.” The problem is exacerbated by waste generation, with participants noting that tourists produce significantly more waste per capita than locals, overwhelming inadequate management systems.
In Lombok, the pressure was most acute in marine ecosystems. A dive operator in Gili Trawangan observed: “The corals are bleached, and plastic pollution is visible everywhere. The waste treatment infrastructure cannot handle the number of visitors.” Field observations confirmed significant marine plastic pollution, particularly around the Gili Islands.

4.2.3. Theme 3: The Commodification of Socio-Cultural Fabric

A strong theme emerging from the FGDs was the perceived loss of cultural authenticity and social displacement. In Bali, community members expressed deep concern over the performative and commercialized nature of their culture. A community leader in Ubud shared during an FGD: “Our traditions are being turned into mere attractions, losing their sacred meaning. Our dances are now shortened and performed only for tourist tips, not ceremonies.” In Lombok, participants from the Sasak community in Sade Village reported feeling displaced from their ancestral lands due to tourism-driven real estate conversion.
Economically, while tourism is a primary driver, the data revealed significant economic leakage and local marginalization. A small-scale vendor in Kuta lamented: “We see the tourists and the money they bring, but little of it reaches our community. The big hotels and foreign companies get the profit, while we face the higher prices.” This sentiment was widespread across both islands.

4.2.4. Theme 4: Economic Dependence and Inequitable Benefit Distribution

The data revealed that while tourism is a primary economic driver, it is characterized by significant economic leakage and the marginalization of local communities. A small-scale vendor in Kuta lamented: “We see the tourists and the money they bring, but little of it reaches our community. The big hotels and foreign companies get the profit, while we face the higher prices.” This sentiment was widespread across interviews and FGDs on both islands, with participants frequently describing how profits flow to large, often foreign-owned businesses rather than remaining within the local economy. This pattern creates a fragile and dependent economic structure, where local populations bear the social and environmental costs of tourism but receive a disproportionately small share of the financial benefits.

4.3. Causes of Overtourism in Bali and Lombok

The manifestations described above are not merely a function of high visitor numbers but are symptoms of deeply embedded governance failures. The drivers of overtourism are rooted in political economy and institutional deficiencies. Analysis of the data identified three interconnected root causes

4.3.1. Fragmented Policy and Weak Regulation

Participant accounts consistently described tourism planning as unintegrated and overly focused on economic outputs, lacking robust mechanisms for environmental and social accountability. A provincial planner in West Nusa Tenggara (Lombok) stated: “We are aware of the problem, but reform is blocked by lobbying and political trade-offs. Policies are made without consulting us [local experts and communities].” This leads to inconsistent enforcement, with several interviewees and FGD participants noting that construction in protected areas is often approved despite zoning laws.

4.3.2. Aggressive Promotion and Infrastructure Gaps

Stakeholders highlighted how state-driven branding campaigns—such as “Bali as Paradise” and the “10 New Balis” initiative—actively promote visitor growth beyond what local infrastructure can sustainably support. This promotional push is not matched by sufficient public investment, resulting in critical gaps in water supply, sanitation, waste management, and transport, especially in rural and emerging tourist zones.

4.3.3. Technological Influence

Participants, particularly community leaders and small-scale tourism operators, pointed to the role of social media and online accommodation platforms in intensifying tourism pressure. They reported that viral social media posts and platforms like Airbnb have rapidly channeled visitors into previously secluded and culturally sensitive areas, accelerating land conversion and unregulated development without adequate oversight.
The combination of these factors illustrates that overtourism in Bali and Lombok is fundamentally a governance problem, characterized by policy incoherence, regulatory gaps, and the systematic exclusion of local community voices from tourism planning and decision-making processes.

4.4. Strategies, Challenges, and Stakeholder Perspectives

In response to the second research question, stakeholders proposed a range of mitigation strategies. However, the feasibility of these strategies is heavily tempered by significant implementation challenges, as synthesized in Table 2 below. The discussion around these strategies reveals a critical gap between policy intention and execution, underscoring that their success is wholly contingent upon addressing the underlying governance deficits identified.
Table 2. Proposed Mitigation Strategies: Proponents, Rationale, and Perceived Challenges.
Diverse stakeholder voices further illuminated these perspectives. A senior official at the Bali Tourism Office noted: “The environmental fund collected from the tourism tax is now being used to clean up beaches and support coral restoration.” Conversely, a community leader from Ubud highlighted both the promise and limitations of CBT: “We’ve regained some cultural pride through community-run tourism programs, although it still needs government backing.” A local NGO leader in Lombok explained a structural barrier: “Even during the pandemic, people waited for tourism to return instead of exploring other options.”
The most significant barrier, however, remains the governance structure itself. A local NGO leader in Lombok explained the structural dependence that hinders diversification: “Even during the pandemic, people waited for tourism to return instead of exploring other options.” This sentiment is compounded by tourist apathy, as observed in Gili Trawangan, where few tourists participated in sustainability campaigns despite educational efforts.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theorizing Overtourism as a Governance Pathology

This study moves beyond describing the symptoms of overtourism to explain its persistence through a lens of governance failure. The findings challenge the deterministic linearity of Butler’s TALC model [71,72,73,74]. Bali and Lombok are not merely in “stagnation” but are trapped in a state of locked-in stagnation [59,75,76,77] where powerful political-economic interests prevent adaptive change, the pervasive concerns over elite capture and fragmented coordination, as revealed in our data, exemplify the ‘political lock-ins’ discussed in tourism governance literature [78,79,80,81].

5.2. The Interdependence and Collapse of the Triple Bottom Line

The evidence from Bali and Lombok provides a critical platform for theoretical reflection. This study thus contributes a governance-centered model to overtourism theory, explaining persistence through systemic institutional and power dynamics rather than just visitor numbers. Firstly, it challenges the linear progression of Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) [82,83,84]. The findings demonstrate that destinations can remain in a prolonged “stagnation” stage, characterized by severe negative externalities, without a clear movement towards “decline” or “rejuvenation.” This stasis is driven by powerful political-economic “lock-ins”—such as the influence of development lobbies and fragmented governance—that the original model does not adequately address [85,86,87,88].
Secondly, the research underscores the critical interdependency of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) dimensions [29,31,50]. It reveals that in contexts of weak governance, the pursuit of economic viability systematically dominates at the direct expense of social equity and environmental protection. The ideal of balance posited by the TBL framework is shown to be unattainable without robust, enforceable regulatory mechanisms and genuine community empowerment [89,90,91]. The DPSIR framework further clarifies this dynamic: policy responses (e.g., regulations, community empowerment) are too weak to counter the Pressures (e.g., overcrowding, resource demand), leading to a degraded State and negative Impacts, all driven by root drivers such as aggressive promotion and governance failures [48,87,88,92,93].

5.3. Integrating DPSIR: Weak Responses to Intensifying Pressures

The integrated DPSIR framework clarifies this dynamic [48,94]. The root Drivers identified (aggressive promotion, governance failures) create intense Pressures (overcrowding, resource demand). The empirical data show that the State of the environment and society is degraded, leading to negative Impacts on well-being. Critically, as our findings on policy fragmentation and weak enforcement demonstrate, the Responses are too weak to counter the Pressures or address the root Drivers. This analysis extends the DPSIR model by empirically illustrating how governance deficiencies directly cripple the response mechanism, allowing the destructive cycle to persist [87,95].

5.4. Aligning Strategies with Governance Realities

The strategies proposed by stakeholders (Table 2) align with the literature on regulatory intervention, technological aid, and community empowerment [96,97,98,99]. However, the implementation challenges cited—such as elite capture, lack of political will, and funding gaps—directly mirror the systemic governance failures identified as Theme 1. This confirms the central argument that technical solutions are insufficient without concurrent, fundamental governance reform [100,101,102]. The success of any mitigation strategy is contingent upon first addressing the pathologies of policy fragmentation, weak enforcement, and community exclusion.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study set out to investigate the manifestations of overtourism in Bali and Lombok and to identify the underlying causes and viable pathways forward. In response to the first research question, the findings demonstrate that overtourism manifests as a synergistic crisis involving environmental degradation, socio-cultural commodification, and economic inequality. In answering the second question, the study concludes that these manifestations are symptoms of a deeper malaise: a systemic failure in tourism governance characterized by fragmented planning, weak regulation, and the exclusion of local communities.
Therefore, the recommendations arising from this study are fundamentally aimed at restructuring the governance paradigm itself. First, institutional coordination and accountability must be strengthened by establishing a cross-sectoral destination management organization (DMO). This body should have a legally mandated structure that includes representatives from local communities, environmental agencies, and cultural bodies, thereby creating a formal mechanism to counteract policy fragmentation and ensure balanced decision-making.
Second, to combat the pervasive issue of elite capture, transparency mechanisms must be rigorously implemented. This involves digitizing and making publicly accessible the systems for tourism-related permit issuance, environmental impact assessments, and the allocation of tourism tax revenues. Regular, independent audits of these systems should be mandated to ensure accountability and rebuild public trust.
Third, community inclusion must transition from a voluntary principle to a legal requirement. This can be achieved by formalizing participatory planning processes, such as instituting community councils with substantive consultation rights or even veto power over developments that significantly impact local resources and cultural heritage. In parallel, targeted financial and technical support should be directed towards genuine Community-Based Tourism (CBT) initiatives to bolster local agency and economic equity.
Finally, there is an urgent need to build the monitoring and enforcement capacity of local regulatory agencies. This requires strategic investment in training, personnel, and operational resources to uphold zoning and environmental regulations effectively. Where feasible, this effort should be augmented by smart technology—such as remote sensing for land-use monitoring or digital platforms for reporting violations—to create a more responsive and evidence-based enforcement regime.
This study’s qualitative depth is a strength, but it suggests the need for complementary quantitative modeling of carrying capacities and economic leakage. Longitudinal studies tracking the impact of specific governance interventions, such as Bali’s recently implemented tourism tax, would be valuable. Furthermore, comparative analysis with other Southeast Asian destinations could yield transferable insights into effective governance models.
In conclusion, the future of tourism in Bali and Lombok hinges on the ability of stakeholders to collaboratively forge a new path—one that prioritizes ecological integrity, cultural vitality, and social equity over mere visitor number growth. The challenge of overtourism is ultimately a test of governance and a call for a more sustainable and just model of tourism development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P., J.J., M.H. and A.D.; Methodology, R.P., J.J., M.H. and F.J.; Validation, R.P. and F.J.; Formal analysis, J.J. and A.D.; Investigation, R.P.; Resources, R.P.; Writing—original draft, R.P., J.J., M.H., A.D. and F.J.; Funding Acquisition, R.P., J.J. and M.H.; Writing—review & editing, R.P., J.J., M.H., A.D. and F.J.; Supervision, J.J. and F.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support Center for Research & Community Development (CRCD), Universitas Pelita Harapan no: P002-RING-FPar/VII/2024.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Internal Review Board (IRB) Center for Research & Community Development (CRCD), Universitas Pelita Harapan (protocol code 098/IRB-UPH/XI/2024 and date of approval 18 November 2024).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the respondents who participated in this research and who were willing to be data sources.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Interview Protocol

Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
A. General Information
  • Stakeholder role (government official/tourism operator/community leader/tourist)
  • Length of involvement with tourism in Bali or Lombok
  • Location of experience
B. Governance and Policy
  • How would you describe the current governance structure of tourism in this destination?
  • What policies or regulations do you believe are most influential in shaping tourism development here?
  • Are local communities involved in tourism planning and decision-making? If yes, how? If not, why?
  • What challenges do you observe in policy coordination or regulatory enforcement?
C. Environmental Impacts
5.
In your experience, how has tourism growth affected the natural environment (e.g., water, waste, coastal or marine ecosystems)?
6.
Do you believe current regulations adequately protect environmental resources? Why or why not?
D. Socio-Cultural Impacts
7.
How has tourism affected local culture, traditions, and everyday life in this destination?
8.
Do you perceive any loss of cultural authenticity due to tourism activities? Please explain.
E. Economic Impacts and Equity
9.
How are the economic benefits of tourism distributed among local communities, businesses, and external investors?
10.
Do you think tourism has improved local livelihoods? Why or why not?
F. Overtourism and Carrying Capacity
11.
Do you believe this destination is experiencing overtourism? What indicators lead you to that conclusion?
12.
How does crowding or tourism pressure affect daily life, infrastructure, or public services?
G. Mitigation Strategies and Future Directions
13.
What strategies do you believe are most effective in managing overtourism?
14.
What role should government, communities, and the private sector play in addressing these challenges?
15.
In your view, what changes are most urgently needed to ensure sustainable tourism development in this destination?
16.
Is there anything else you would like to share regarding tourism governance or sustainability in Bali or Lombok?

References

  1. BPS NTB. Statistik Pariwisata Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Barat 2020; BPS NTB: Mataram, Indonesia, 2020.
  2. Krajickova, A. Visitors’ perception of overtourism impacts in a small destination. Anatolia 2022, 33, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Barbhuiya, M.R. Overtourism in Indian cities: A case study of Nainital. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2021, 7, 702–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Nevola, F. Hidden Florence revealed? Critical insights from the operation of an augmented reality app in a World Heritage City. J. Herit. Tour. 2022, 17, 371–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Mihalic, T. Trends in Sustainable Tourism Paradigm: Resilience and Adaptation. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Chamizo-Nieto, F.J. Touristification and Conflicts of Interest in Cruise Destinations: The Case of Main Cultural Tourism Cities on the Spanish Mediterranean Coast. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Kirilenko, A.P. Detecting Early Signs of Overtourism: Bringing Together Indicators of Tourism Development with Data Fusion. J. Travel Res. 2023, 62, 382–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Ignaccolo, C. Tourism Morphometrics in Venice: Constructing a Tourism Services Index (TSI) to unmask the spatial interplay between tourism and urban form. Cities 2023, 140, 104369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Sengel, Ü. COVID-19 and “new normal” tourism: Reconstructing tourism. J. Tour. Dev. 2021, 2021, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Juliana, J.; Sianipar, R.; Lemy, D.M.; Pramezwary, A.; Pramono, R.; Djakasaputra, A. Factors Influencing Visitor Satisfaction and Revisit Intention in Lombok Tourism: The Role of Holistic Experience, Experience Quality, and Vivid Memory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2023, 18, 2503–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Juliana, J.; Pramono, R.; Djakasaputra, A.; Bernarto, I. Observational learning and word of mouth against consumer online purchase decision during the pandemic COVID-19. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 751–758. [Google Scholar]
  12. Juliana, J.; Sihombing, S.O.; Pramono, R. Spiritual Capital Tourism Economy Creative Woman Entrepreneur. Int. J. Relig. 2024, 5, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Juliana, J.; Pramezwary, A.; Lemy, D.M.; Teguh, F.; Djakasaputra, A.; Sianipar, R. Antecedents Experiential Commitment and Consequences in Willingness to Post Photo and Behavioral Intention Toward the Destination. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 2022, 17, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Damnjanović, I. Overtourism and the Local Community Well-Being BT. In Mediterranean Protected Areas in the Era of Overtourism: Challenges and Solutions; Mandić, A., Petrić, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 93–115. ISBN 978-3-030-69193-6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Junaedi, I.W.R.; Utama, I.G.B.R. Agrotourism as the economics transformation of the tourism village in Bali (case study: Blimbingsari Village, Jembrana, Bali). J. Bus. Hosp. Tour. 2017, 2, 10–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Widjaja, H.R.; Rizkiyah, P.; Royanow, A.F.; Lemy, D.M.; Brian, R. The Economic Impact of Tourism Development in Mandalika Lombok Indonesia. J. Law Sustain. Dev. 2023, 11, e994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Wahyuningtyas, N.; Tanjung, A.; Idris, I.; Dewi, K. Disaster mitigation on cultural tourism in lombok, Indonesia. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2019, 27, 1227–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Juliana; Sihombing, S.O.; Antonio, F.; Sijabat, R.; Bernarto, I. The Role of Tourist Experience in Shaping Memorable Tourism Experiences and Behavioral Intentions. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2024, 19, 1319–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. UNWTO. Overtourism? Understanding and Managing Urban Tourism Growth Beyond Perceptions; World Tourism Organization: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Panasiuk, A. Policy of Sustainable Development of Urban Tourism. Polish J. Sport Tour. 2020, 27, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Parikh, A. Motives for reading and articulating user-generated restaurant reviews on Yelp.com. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2014, 5, 160–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Thiollay, J.-M. The Role of Traditional Agroforests in the Conservation of Rain Forest Bird Diversity in Sumatra. Conserv. Biol. 1995, 9, 335–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Linton, J.D. Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 1075–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Burt, S. Essential oils: Their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods—A review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Dong, S. Enhancing sustainability of grassland ecosystems through ecological restoration and grazing management in an era of climate change on Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 287, 106684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Tartaglia, M. Noonan syndrome: Clinical aspects and molecular pathogenesis. Mol. Syndromol. 2010, 1, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Clark, C. Overtourism: An analysis of its coverage in the media by using framing theory. Tour. Rev. Int. 2020, 24, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Smith, C. Current and future role of Haber-Bosch ammonia in a carbon-free energy landscape. Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Nogueira, E.; Gomes, S.; Lopes, J. Triple Bottom Line, Sustainability, and Economic Development: What Binds Them Together? A Bibliometric Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Goh, C.; Chong, H.; Jack, L.; Faris, A.F.M. Revisiting triple bottom line within the context of sustainable construction: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Nogueira, E.; Gomes, S.; Lopes, J. Unveiling triple bottom line’s influence on business performance. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Andersson, S.; Svensson, G.; Molina-Castillo, F.; Otero-Neira, C.; Lindgren, J.; Karlsson, N.; Laurell, H. Sustainable development—Direct and indirect effects between economic, social, and environmental dimensions in business practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1158–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Nogueira, E.; Gomes, S.; Lopes, J. The Key to Sustainable Economic Development: A Triple Bottom Line Approach. Resources 2022, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Gallardo-Vázquez, D. Defining the Path to Sustainability Based on Triple Bottom Line Dimensions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2025, 32, 4743–4768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Janjua, S.; Sarker, P.; Biswas, W. Development of triple bottom line indicators for life cycle sustainability assessment of residential bulidings. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Sapsanguanboon, W.; Faijaidee, W.; Potasin, L. Strategic integration of sustainability for competitive advantage: A framework for balancing the triple bottom line. Corp. Gov. Sustain. Rev. 2025, 9, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Tseng, M.; Chang, C.-H.; Lin, C.; Wu, K.-J.; Chen, Q.; Xia, L.; Xue, B. Future trends and guidance for the triple bottom line and sustainability: A data driven bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 33543–33567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Ramakrishna, S.; Hall, C.M.; Esfandiar, K.; Seyfi, S. A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J. Sustain. Tour. 2023, 31, 1497–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Yu, W.; Chavez, R.; Feng, M.; Wong, C.Y.; Fynes, B. Green human resource management and environmental cooperation: An ability-motivation-opportunity and contingency perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 219, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Guo, Y.; Wang, L.F.; Chen, Y. Green Entrepreneurial Orientation and Green Innovation: The Mediating Effect of Supply Chain Learning. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 215824401989879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Sharma, C. Good and bad effects of corruption and political uncertainty on tourism-growth linkage: World-wide evidence. Tour. Econ. 2023, 30, 1423–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Adedoyin, F.; Erum, N.; Bekun, F. How does institutional quality moderates the impact of tourism on economic growth? Startling evidence from high earners and tourism-dependent economies. Tour. Econ. 2021, 28, 1311–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Mancini, F.; Leyshon, B.; Manson, F.; Coghill, G.; Lusseau, D. Monitoring tourists’ specialisation and implementing adaptive governance is necessary to avoid failure of the wildlife tourism commons. Tour. Manag. 2020, 81, 104160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Ristiawan, R.; Huijbens, E.; Peters, K. Projecting Development through Tourism: Patrimonial Governance in Indonesian Geoparks. Land 2023, 12, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Feizabadi, J.; Gligor, D.; Alibakhshi Motlagh, S. The triple-As supply chain competitive advantage. Benchmarking 2019, 26, 2286–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Gligor, D.; Feizabadi, J.; Russo, I.; Maloni, M.J.; Goldsby, T.J. The triple-a supply chain and strategic resources: Developing competitive advantage. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2020, 50, 159–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up; Henriques, A., Richardson, J., Eds.; Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR, Earths Can Publications; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Mulyawati, L.S.; Adrianto, L.; Soewandi, K.; Susanto, H. Factors of Coastal Tourism Management with DPSIR Analysis (Case Study: Tanjung Lesung Special Economic Zone, Pandeglang Regency, Banten Province). Econ. Soc. Fish. Mar. J. 2020, 008, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Ruan, W. Evaluation and drive mechanism of tourism ecological security based on the DPSIR-DEA model. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Anser, M.K.; Yousaf, Z.; Nassani, A.A.; Vo, X.V.; Zaman, K. Evaluating ‘natural resource curse’ hypothesis under sustainable information technologies: A case study of Saudi Arabia. Resour. Policy 2020, 68, 101699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Bhatia, S.; Roy, M.; Dhal, S.; Thakur, R. Mitigating Over-tourism Strategies for Sustainable Destination Management and Visitor Dispersion. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2025, 11, 1005–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. De La Calle-Vaquero, M.; García-Hernández, M.; De Miguel, S.M. Urban Planning Regulations for Tourism in the Context of Overtourism. Applications in Historic Centres. Sustainability 2020, 13, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Lemy, D.M.; Pramezwary, A.; Juliana; Pramono, R.; Qurotadini, L.N. Explorative Study of Tourist Behavior in Seeking Information to Travel Planning. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021, 16, 1583–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Juliana, J.; Aditi, B.; Nagoya, R.; Wisnalmawati, W.; Nurcholifah, I. Tourist visiting interests: The role of social media marketing and perceived value. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2022, 6, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Rahmat, T.; Raza, S.; Zahid, H.; Abbas, J.; Mohd Sobri, F.; Sidiki, S. Nexus between integrating technology readiness 2.0 index and students’ e-library services adoption amid the COVID-19 challenges: Implications based on the theory of planned behavior. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2022, 11, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  56. Azis, N.; Amin, M.; Chan, S.; Aprilia, C. How smart tourism technologies affect tourist destination loyalty. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2020, 11, 603–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Bastidas-Manzano, A.B.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Casado-Aranda, L.A. The Past, Present, and Future of Smart Tourism Destinations: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 45, 529–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Hubner, I.B.; Juliana, J.; Lemy, D.M.; Pramezwary, A. Balancing Growth and Tradition: The Potential of Community-Based Wellness Tourism in Ubud, Bali. Tour. Hosp. 2025, 6, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Boháč, A. Overtourism Hotspots: Both a Threat and Opportunity for Rural Tourism. Eur. Countrys. 2022, 14, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Fusté-Forné, F.; Filimon, N. Using social media to preserve consumers’ awareness on food identity in times of crisis: The case of bakeries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Wan, Y. Investigating the Impact and Effectiveness of Digital Marketing on Brand Awareness, Sales and Customer Engagement. Adv. Econ. Manag. Polit. Sci. 2023, 51, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Kia, Z. Ecotourism in Indonesia: Local Community Involvement and The Affecting Factors. J. Gov. Public Policy 2021, 8, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Ramaano, A.I. Potential of ecotourism as a mechanism to buoy community livelihoods: The case of Musina Municipality, Limpopo, South Africa. J. Bus. Socio-Econ. Dev. 2021, 1, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Bird, M.; McGillion, M.; Chambers, E.M.; Dix, J.; Fajardo, C.J.; Gilmour, M.; Levesque, K.; Lim, A.; Mierdel, S.; Ouellette, C.; et al. A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: Development and application of an end-user engagement framework. Res. Involv. Engagem. 2021, 7, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Siakwah, P.; Musavengane, R.; Leonard, L. Tourism Governance and Attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2020, 17, 355–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Abbasian, S. Overtourism in Dubrovnik in the eyes of local tourism employees: A qualitative study. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2020, 6, 1775944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Sangchumnong, A.; Kozak, M. Impacts of tourism on cultural infiltration at a spiritual destination: A study of Ban Wangka, Thailand. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2021, 15, 477–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Linderová, I.; Scholz, P.; Almeida, N. Attitudes of Local Population Towards the Impacts of Tourism Development: Evidence From Czechia. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 684773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Goodwin, H. City destinations, overtourism and governance. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2021, 7, 916–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Hanafie, A.A.; Nurhaliza, H.D.; Ramadhan, M.A.T.; Prasetya, N.Z.N.; Putri, N.R.; Widaningsih, N.; Rahmafitria, F. Tourism beyond limits: A systematic review on the challenges and mitigation strategies of overtourism. ASEAN Nat. Disaster Mitig. Educ. J. 2025, 3, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Butler, R. Overtourism, education, and the tourism area life cycle model. In Overtourism and Tourism Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Gorji, A.S.; Hosseini, S.; Seyfi, S.; Almeida-García, F.; Macías, R.C.; Navarro, A.M. ‘Málaga for living, not surviving’: Resident perceptions of overtourism, social injustice and urban governance. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2025, 39, 101044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Singh, S. Time, tourism area ‘life-cycle,’ evolution and heritage. J. Herit. Tour. 2021, 16, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Enilov, M.; Wang, Y. Tourism and economic growth: Multi-country evidence from mixed-frequency Granger causality tests. Tour. Econ. 2022, 28, 1216–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Juliana, J.; Indra, F.; Sianipar, R.; Djakasaputra, A. Reimagining Heritage Tourism Through Co-Creation: Insights from Prenggan Tourism Village, Yogyakarta. Sustainability 2025, 17, 11112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Juliana, J.; Pramezwary, A.; Djakasaputra, A.; Muhlis, M.; Jie, F.; Juliana, J.; Pramezwary, A.; Djakasaputra, A.; Muhlis, M. The missing link in urban tourism: Connecting leisure, accessibility and resident participation for enhanced value. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2025, 11, 2556473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Shao, Y.; Sun, Y. Governing for Spatial Reconfiguration in Tourism-Oriented Peri-Urban Villages: New Developments from Three Cases in China. Buildings 2023, 13, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Sharpley, R. Sustainable tourism governance: Local or global? Tour. Recreat. Res. 2022, 48, 809–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. McKercher, B. Politics of tourism in public land use management: A reflexive treatise. Tour. Geogr. 2025, 27, 939–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Hidayatullah, U.I.; Yuwanto; Fitriyah. Politics of Community Empowerment in the Development of Ketapanrame Tourism Village, Mojokerto Regency. AJARCDE Asian J. Appl. Res. Community Dev. Empower. 2025, 9, 256–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Gale, T. Revisiting Rhyl and the TALC: A Study of Land Use, Value and Cover, and Tourism Policy in a Traditional Seaside Resort, 1990-2023. In The Tourism Area Life Cycle: Review, Relevance and Revision; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2024; pp. 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Tien, N.H.; Ngoc, N.M.; Anh, D.B.H. Sustainability of Coastal Tourism Development: Comparative Analysis of Vietnam’s Northern and Southern Provinces. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2020, 55, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Uysal, M.; Berbekova, A.; Kim, H. Designing for Quality of life. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 83, 102944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Darwis, H.; Duli, A.; Mulyadi, Y.; Mappasomba, Z.; Rasyidi, E. Tourism Development Amid Mining Dominance: A Political Ecology and Development Theory Analysis of Conservation and Resource Exploitation in Indonesia. Int. J. Curr. Sci. Res. Rev. 2025, 8, 4470–4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Rudiyansah, M.M.D.H.; Sucipto, S. Regulatory Fragmentation of Tourism within Regional Autonomy and Its Implications for the Challenges of Destination Management by Local Governments. J. Pariwisata Nusant. 2025, 4, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Mandić, A. Optimization of tourism development in destinations: An approach used to alleviate the impacts of overtourism in the Mediterranean region. In Handbook for Sustainable Tourism Practitioners; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  88. Swangjang, K.; Kornpiphat, P. Does ecotourism in a Mangrove area at Klong Kone, Thailand, conform to sustainable tourism? A case study using SWOT and DPSIR. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 15960–15985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  89. Reyes, E. Towards a Holistic Approach for Small Island Tourism Analysis: The case of Camiguin, Philippines. Global NEST International Conference on Environmental Science & Technology. 2022. Available online: www.academia.edu/113839979/Towards_a_Holistic_Approach_for_Small_Island_Tourism_Analysis_The_case_of_Camiguin_Philippines?uc-sb-sw=73836734 (accessed on 3 February 2026).
  90. Pivčević, S.; Petrič, L.; Mandić, A. Sustainability of Tourism Development in the Mediterranean—Interregional Similarities and Differences. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Liang, Y.; Liu, H.; Chiaka, J.C.; Jiang, C.; Wei, N.; Liang, Y. Spatiotemporal patterns and driving mechanism of tourism ecological security in Guangxi, China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1163498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Liu, D.; Yin, Z. Spatial-temporal pattern evolution and mechanism model of tourism ecological security in China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 139, 108933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Zhang, H.; Duan, Y.; Wang, H.; Han, Z.; Wang, H. An empirical analysis of tourism eco-efficiency in ecological protection priority areas based on the DPSIR-SBM model: A case study of the Yellow River Basin, China. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 70, 101720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  94. Zhang, F.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Resilience and recovery: A systematic review of tourism governance strategies in disaster-affected regions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2024, 103, 104350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  95. Velissariou, E.; Amoiradis, C.; Poulios, T. Evaluating Sustainable Urban Tourism in Corfu Island, Greece: An Indicator-Based Approach Using the DPSIR Framework Greece. J. Econ. Bus. 2025, 8, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  96. Hsieh, S.H.; Lee, C.T.; Tseng, T.H. Psychological empowerment and user satisfaction: Investigating the influences of online brand community participation. Inf. Manag. 2022, 59, 103570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  97. Sucipto, S. Empowerment Based on Social Solidarity in the Management System of Sharia Homestay by the Muslim Community in Dieng Kulon Village. Prosper. J. Soc. Empower. 2025, 5, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  98. Sulaiman, A.I.; Pangestuti, S.; Sugito, T.; Sabiq, A. Community Empowerment in Culinary Tourism Development As Sustainable Rural Development. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2022, 4, p1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  99. Turčinović, M.; Vujko, A.; Stanišić, N. Community-Led Sustainable Tourism in Rural Areas: Enhancing Wine Tourism Destination Competitiveness and Local Empowerment. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  100. Purnomo, S.; Rahayu, E.S.; Riani, A.L.; Suminah, S.; Udin, U. Empowerment model for sustainable tourism village in an emerging country. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Fernández, P.; Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza, V. What drives CSR communication effectiveness on social media? A process-based theoretical framework and research agenda. Int. J. Advert. 2022, 41, 385–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  102. Kaushal, V.; Yadav, R. Understanding customer experience of culinary tourism through food tours of Delhi. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2020, 7, 683–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Exploration of Maternal Health Access and Quality of Care Among African American and Latinx Women in the South
Previous
Acts of Good Neighborliness as Pathways to Social Cohesion in South African Communities
Next