Stakeholders’ Involvement in Sustainable Destination Management: A Systematic Literature Review of Existing Multi-Stakeholder Frameworks and Approaches

Abstract

This study aims to identify and critically compare multi-stakeholder frameworks and collaborative approaches for sustainable destination development. A comprehensive literature review was carried out, examining the most relevant frameworks published between 2014 and mid-2025. This study compares frameworks and collaborative approaches grounded in a real-life context, examining their operational mechanisms, foundational principles, and the adaptive perspectives tailored to specific destinations. The research questions were developed using the SPIDER tool, and the literature review was conducted using sources from various databases. Seventy-eight articles were included and typologically classified as applied, conceptual, and empirical. To deepen comparison, six focal cases were assessed in a five-criterion matrix. Three typical destination settings were presented and describe how frameworks are configured across contexts. The findings reflect a maturity scale, with empirical cases presenting a more comprehensive overview in relation to the criteria of the matrix. The discussion takes place through the identification of barriers and challenges of frameworks’ implementation and the introduction of two practical design levers, as an interpretive contribution, that are identified as mechanisms that go beyond the framework for upgrading the quality of implementation. The study contributes to the broader discussion on sustainable development and offers useful recommendations for future research in destination management.

1. Introduction

The practical application of sustainable tourism principles in various destinations is of central interest within the extensive literature on the topic (Zolfani et al., 2015). Achieving sustainability in tourism destinations continues to be a significant challenge in terms of governance (Roxas et al., 2020). According to the Tourism Agenda 2030 and Goal 17, the achievement of sustainable growth requires “public-private-community partnerships and engage multiple stakeholders—international, national, regional and local—to work together to achieve the SDGs and other common goals.” (UNWTO, 2019, p. 17). The engagement of stakeholders in the sustainable development of a destination is essential as it contributes to balancing the economic, social, and environmental impacts (Queiroz, 2009; Nguyen & Hoang, 2023).

Many scholars agree that successful implementation of the sustainability concept within the context of destination management involves the effective participation of various stakeholders, such as the local community, the government, various tourism businesses, etc. (Ryan, 2002; Byrd, 2007; Žibert et al., 2017). Others indicate that for effective stakeholder involvement in the sustainable development of a destination, there should be clearly structured frameworks through well-defined, multi-stakeholder involvement management approaches to incorporate evidence-based planning and evaluation. Accordingly, multi-stakeholder frameworks operate at an actionable level, presenting governance structures that determine who participate in what roles and through which process (Pham et al., 2023). Such collaborative schemes are usually presented as solutions for issues that arise from miscommunication and the absence of shared goals among the numerous parties typically involved in the tourism development of a destination. (Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002; Fyall & Garrod, 2005).

However, the concept of multi-stakeholder involvement management is complicated and the implementation of participatory governance within a destination is not without challenges as many destinations tend to exclude important stakeholders such as the local community (Ruhanen, 2009). The complexity of this process also lies in the fact that different stakeholders have different objectives and perspectives on sustainable management issues (Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002). In this context, successful sustainable tourism development requires compromises among stakeholders (Brokaj & Murati, 2014) and meaningful contribution (Katemliadis & Markatos, 2021). Likewise, results depend on the institutional capacity of the destination to organize and coordinate development processes through structures, rules, routines, tools, etc. An efficient institutional capacity upgrades the destination’s development framework, making participatory governance more feasible in practice (Vivier & Sanchez-Betancourt, 2023). Yet, in many destinations, this substantive participation in the decision-making process and the efficient coordination of stakeholders remains the exception rather than the rule, indicating an implementation gap that requires structured, in-depth analysis.

Addressing this gap, the present study conducts a comprehensive literature review with two aims: (i) to map and compare real-world multi-stakeholder frameworks and participatory approaches for sustainable destination management across different destination settings, clarifying their core features and applications; (ii) to synthesize how operational structures and guiding principles are adapted to contextual needs and challenges, as well as to distill the most common implementation barriers reported in the literature. Based on these two main goals, the research questions that occurred for this study are the following:

RQ1. How do the core features and applications of multi-stakeholder frameworks for sustainable destination management vary across different types of tourist destinations?

RQ2. According to the literature, how are the operational structures and guiding principles of collaborative, multi-stakeholder frameworks adapted to the specific needs and challenges of destination contexts?

RQ3. What are the most common challenges and barriers destinations face when implementing practical multi-stakeholder frameworks and collaborative approaches?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Involvement of Stakeholders

The stakeholders play a decisive role in the development of each tourist destination, which is why their active participation is a topic of intense interest in the literature. Stakeholder engagement ensures that stakeholders’ voices are heard and differs from meaningful participation, which implies co-decision in shaping policies and choices for a destination. The diversity and heterogeneity of tourism stakeholders make this process inherently complex (Waligo et al., 2013).

The extent and quality of stakeholder participation is determined by various factors, such as the attitudes and capabilities of stakeholders, the existence of strong and inclusive leadership, the availability and clarity of information, the broader environment of the destination, and lastly, the priorities set during implementation (Wondirad et al., 2020). Stakeholder involvement may have various forms, ranging from informal interactions to more structured, formalized forms of participation (Byrd, 2007). Therefore, identifying who participates, their decision rights, and their degree of influence is critical, as control over key levers is a prerequisite for effective governance (Pike & Page, 2014), and the exclusion of important actors increases the risk of conflict among stakeholder groups (J. Morrison, 2019).

Stakeholders’ contribution to sustainable destination management is essential, as they possess complementary resources, rights, and capacities that no single actor can mobilize alone. Effective use of these features typically requires the following: a regulatory authority (e.g., a public body) to provide mandate and rules; investment capital and operational capabilities (e.g., DMOs) to implement; and place-specific knowledge and social acceptance (e.g., the local community) to ensure legitimacy and fit. In this sense, primary stakeholders are those individuals or groups whose involvement is indispensable to the continued existence or viability of the destination system (Waligo et al., 2013; Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014).

Politics and local government are among the principal stakeholder groups in any destination. Political actors—elected officials and public administrations at local and higher levels—are expected to set and enforce rules, provide and coordinate infrastructure, and ensure accountability through transparent, indicator-based monitoring and evaluation processes (Dredge & Jenkins, 2016; Graci, 2013; Farsari et al., 2011). The effectiveness and outcomes of politics and local government involvement depend on destination-specific institutional contexts, especially the prevailing political system. In authoritarian regimes, authority is concentrated, transparency is limited, and collaboration with other stakeholders is constrained; in democratic regimes, authority and accountability are more dispersed, participation mechanisms are formalized, and structured collaboration is expected. These regime-level differences shape the degree of involvement, power, and cooperative capacity of political actors (Sarantakou & Karachalis, 2024).

Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) are among the most important stakeholders in a destination. They design and coordinate destination strategies and function as policy instruments that build capacity, target higher visitor spending, and attract business development (Hall & Veer, 2016; Dredge & Jenkins, 2016). Their role is pivotal because they translate strategy into implementation and measurable economic outcomes. DMOs also act as advocacy hubs and destination promoters, aligning governance with sustainable development priorities and supporting knowledge-based, networked coordination among actors (Gretzel et al., 2006; Bornhorst et al., 2010; Dredge & Jenkins, 2016; Sheehan et al., 2016).

The host community is key actors in sustainable destination management. As Sharma and Arora (2024) argue, they bear a substantial share of the responsibility for preserving local culture and sustaining the destination for future generations. Especially after the COVID-19 era, there is evidence of a shift in responsibilities toward this lower tier of destination governance (Higgins-Desbiolles & Bigby, 2022). In practice, local communities contribute localized knowledge, on-the-ground monitoring, and when meaningfully engaged, greater legitimacy and compliance (Reed, 2008; Graci, 2013). Yet, participation can become merely symbolic if voice is not paired with decision rights, resources, or capacity-building (A. M. Morrison, 2023). For example, in L. F. Silva et al.’s (2024) study of Alvão Natural Park (Portugal), many residents reported limited benefits from past tourism initiatives and voiced concerns about fair distribution in the future.

Ultimately, alignment and coordination among stakeholders is what transforms simple participation into collective, multi-stakeholder governance (Dredge & Jenkins, 2016).

2.2. Participatory Governance

Destination governance refers to the institutional arrangements and decision-making processes that shape a place’s development. Within a sustainability framework, governance should be treated as a pillar of sustainability in its own right (Niavis et al., 2019). Participatory approaches that involve multiple stakeholders refer to the cooperation of various groups and individuals who have an interest in or are affected by tourism development inside the destination (Bramwell & Lane, 2005). The collaboration may include stakeholders such as local residents, businesses, various government organizations, tourists visiting the area, etc. (Graci, 2013). Collaborative networks support economic vitality, ensure profitability, and strengthen the long-term resilience of destinations, thereby making a significant contribution to sustainable development (Volgger & Pechlaner, 2015). The collaboration of different stakeholder groups provides a holistic approach to destination management, as it integrates multiple perspectives, visions, and interests (Damian et al., 2021).

The effective governance of tourist destinations is essential for achieving sustainable tourism through the democratization of planning and policymaking processes, the empowerment of stakeholders, and the integration of shared, evidence-based knowledge. These elements are emphasized in the existing literature (e.g., Boaz et al., 2008; Waligo et al., 2013; Farsari et al., 2011) and summarize the essence of the characteristics of effective governance. All stakeholders should have not only the voice that is truly included, but also the power to influence the governance of the destination, tailored to their needs and objectives. This requires fair access, so that each stakeholder can not only be heard, but also effectively shape the destination’s course. This can be achieved by establishing communication channels and regular information sharing that allow genuine participation in tourism planning and management strategies. A characteristic weak practice is illustrated by Madura Island, where weak state-stakeholder ties, limited awareness of tourism policies, restrictive regulations, skill shortages, and low governmental readiness have left the community awaiting stronger government collaboration in tourism development (Arifin et al., 2025). Thus, institutional capacity can be the enabling foundation of participatory governance. It is not simply an administrative capacity, but rather a combined performance of a system of institutional arrangements that designs, coordinates, and implements integrated policies (Vivier & Sanchez-Betancourt, 2023). Institutional capacity consists of formal and informal rules, values, and skills and is promoted through vertical or horizontal coordination settings that ultimately lead to integrated policy plans (Domorenok et al., 2021). Therefore, institutional capacity creates channels of communication for stakeholders, offers decision-making rights, embeds accountability, and implements continuous learning, thereby generating a recurring cycle of improvement.

Crucially, participatory governance is not an automatic process. It demands deliberate, sustained interaction and structured facilitation among stakeholders, as highlighted by Vazquez-Brust et al. (2020). Collaborative approaches involving multiple stakeholders can take various forms, each contributing to the sustainable and more effective development of each destination. In many cases, stakeholders are involved in a collaborative management approach to implement initiatives that benefit the local community, while participating more effectively in shaping long-term strategic development plans (Graci, 2013). Such collaborations facilitate the sharing of knowledge, experiences, and resources, promoting greater cohesion and improving overall effectiveness (Plummer et al., 2018).

2.3. Multi-Stakeholder Frameworks

Various destinations have implemented multi-stakeholder frameworks for sustainable development, while various academics have addressed the issue (e.g., Waligo et al., 2013; Gonzalez-Urango & García-Melón, 2018; Tham, 2018; Feyers et al., 2020; Pham et al., 2023). It is worth emphasizing that few authors have developed a complete and comprehensive framework based entirely on the needs and characteristics of a destination, and even fewer have actually applied it to the destination in order to obtain more meaningful results through honest feedback and evaluation of the results. One of the most well-structured and widely cited multi-stakeholder management frameworks for sustainable tourism is the one by Waligo et al. (2013). This multi-stakeholder framework for Cornwall presents the steps toward sustainability in a clear, organized sequence while also reflecting general building blocks useful to other multi-stakeholder designs (Pham et al., 2023). Its main elements include stakeholder mapping, to identify who participates and in what role, combined with engagement mechanisms that enable co-decision. These are integrated through a shared system that enables knowledge sharing and establishes monitoring. This approach also incorporates coordination and conflict–resolution tools alongside incentive and alignment mechanisms to steer behavior. Finally, learning and adaptation are built in, ensuring that the framework evolves and remains responsive over time (Waligo et al., 2013).

Inspired by Waligo et al. (2013), Pham et al. (2023) enriched that framework into a more evidence-based operating system for collaborative destination governance in Sedona (Arizona) through five core enhancements. First, they operationalize stakeholder mapping with targeted engagement, clear roles, and formal structures. Second, they reconfigure the three stages of involvement into flows that can run in parallel within the involvement phase, adding step-by-step, executable actions rather than generic principles. Third, they institutionalize feedback mechanisms via defined cadence, public reporting, and tool-supported tracking so that learning loops systematically feed back into planning. Fourth, they broaden participation channels and foreground equity-sensitive inclusion of marginalized groups. Fifth, they embed an evidence-based assessment and evaluation stage using multiple data sources, indicators, and assessments. These upgrades updated and extended the original framework into a more workable system of practice for multi-stakeholder destination governance.

Overall, collaborative frameworks serve different purposes shaped by the contextual realities of each destination and by its stage of development. In some cases, stakeholders actively collaborate to promote an attraction or activity of special interest, as in the case of surf tourism in the Mentawai Islands (Towner, 2018). In other cases, they focus on the co-creation of products and experiences that reflect the cultural identity of the place through sustainable practices, such as eco-hiking along the Kokoda Trail (Reggers et al., 2016) and modern pilgrimage routes (Gasparini & Cortés Vázquez, 2024). Furthermore, collaborative approaches are used as a means of addressing challenges for crisis management and for supporting destinations that wish to adopt modern and sustainable models of governance, such as cases for the preservation of intangible cultural heritage in La Pobla, Spain (Paulino et al., 2023), protecting the natural environment in Da Nang, Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2024), and transitioning to smart destinations (Ivars-Baidal et al., 2024).

Thus, it appears that the implementation of each framework is not uniform and each of them is adapted to local conditions, organizational arrangements, and the philosophies of the stakeholders.

3. Materials and Methods

A comprehensive review methodology is conducted in order to analyze the structured overview of the current body of literature on the topic of this article (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). This systematic review methodology followed a defined protocol to search for and evaluate the existing literature in a rigorous and critical manner (Snyder, 2019). The review’s protocol was registered on the public repository INPLASY (ID: INPLASY202590037, registered: 11 September 2025) (Canellas et al., 2022) and is available in full on inplasy.com (https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2025.9.0037). Furthermore, a meta-analysis methodology was not pursued, as it requires methodological consistency across studies, including alignment in overall study design, sample characteristics, and statistical analysis techniques (Cook et al., 1997; Leonidou et al., 2020).

This study followed the methodology outlined by Pickering and Byrne (2013). The process involved the following: (i) defining the research questions, (ii) developing a structured review protocol, (iii) conducting a targeted search of relevant literature, (iv) applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, and (v) analyzing the findings.

3.1. Research Questions

The review was structured using the SPIDER tool (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type), as outlined in

Table 1. The SPIDER tool.

SPIDER Element	Explanation	Keywords Derived
S-Sample	The sample focuses on stakeholders involved in sustainable destination development, such as policymakers, tourism authorities, local communities, private sector, etc.	Stakeholder collaboration, multi-stakeholder frameworks, governance structures
PI-Phenomenon of Interest	The study investigates multi-stakeholder frameworks and collaborative approaches used in sustainable destination development, focusing on their characteristics, functionality, and implementation.	Multi-stakeholder frameworks, sustainable tourism, destination development, operational mechanisms, collaborative approaches
D-Design	The research uses a comparative analysis of existing frameworks.	Contextual application, framework adaptation
E-Evaluation	Evaluation involves identifying implementation challenges, effectiveness, and barriers in real-world contexts, aiming to determine the practical value and adaptability of the frameworks.	Implementation challenges, stakeholder barriers, framework effectiveness, policy obstacles
R-Research type	The study is mostly qualitative and focuses on conceptual and contextual understanding.	Case studies, qualitative analysis

and based on the framework proposed by Methley et al. (2014), to ensure the development of questions that are well-defined, relevant, feasible, and engaging (Tawfik et al., 2019).

The development of search keywords was guided by the research questions, ensuring alignment between the search strategy and the study’s objectives. All keywords occurred from the research questions as described on Table 1 and were organized into four primary conceptual categories aligned with the research questions: (1) multi-stakeholder frameworks, (2) sustainable tourism and destination development, (3) operational structures and contextual adaptations, and (4) implementation challenges and barriers.

3.2. Search Procedure

To comprehensively explore existing multi-stakeholder frameworks and collaborative approaches for sustainable destination development, a systematic literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Science Direct, Wiley, Taylor and Francis, and Emerald. The total population was 444 papers, and the final sample was 78. This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Figure 1 presents a concise summary of the article selection process undertaken for evaluation through the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2021).

Τhe same set of keywords was applied consistently across multiple academic databases (see Appendix A,

Table A1. Search strategy and databases.

Database	Common Search String	Date of Search	Applied Filters
Scopus	(“multi-stakeholder framework” OR “collaborative framework” OR “participatory governance”) AND (“sustainable tourism” OR “sustainable destination” OR “destination development”)	17 June 2025	Search within = article title, abstract, keywords; Range = 2014–2025; Subject area = Social Sciences and Business, Management and Accounting; Document Type = Article; Language = English
ScienceDirect		18 June 2025	Years = 2014–2025; Article type = Review articles, Research articles; Subject area = Social Sciences and Business, Management and Accounting
Wiley		18 June 2025	Publication type = journals; Publication date = 2014–2025
Taylor & Francis		18 June 2025	Article type = Article; Publication date = 2014–2025
Emerald		19 June 2025	Years = 2014–2025; Content type = article

). Each category encompassed synonyms and related terms to capture the range of the existing literature, and the keywords were combined using Boolean operators to construct comprehensive search strings. Using the same keywords across all databases ensures greater consistency and comparability throughout the search process. This approach allowed for the collection of literature that directly addresses the core issues of multi-stakeholder governance and sustainable destination development. The chosen terms were selected because of their wide and common use in academic discourse on the topic, increasing the likelihood of retrieving highly relevant publications. Furthermore, the application of a uniform set of keywords supports a search strategy that is transparent, systematic, and reproducible, while also keeping the process manageable across multiple databases.

The initial search produced 444 papers, which were organized using Zotero to facilitate efficient management and referencing. Ten articles were identified and removed as duplicates while the search results were further refined by applying automated filters for peer-reviewed journal articles, publication dates after 2014 to capture contemporary developments, English language, and subject areas relevant to tourism, hospitality, sustainability, and management fields. The exact applied filters for each database are shown in Appendix A (Table A1).

The first phase of screening excluded all records that were not peer-reviewed papers. Thus, 51 records were excluded, such as book chapters, conference proceedings, etc. In the second phase of the screening procedure, another 7 records were excluded, which were not accessible for reading via the authors’ institutional credentials. In the final phase of screening, titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened for relevance by both authors, with full texts reviewed when necessary to determine suitability for inclusion. Both authors extracted the data and conducted thematic coding independently. The results of the coding were compared, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. This process strengthened the reliability and credibility of the analysis. Although several articles (n = 197) were initially retrieved after searching the databases, many of them were excluded during the full-text review stage (n = 119). These articles may match the search keywords, but they are not directly related to the main topic of this study or any of its research questions. For example, the article by Nigg and Eichelberger (2021) examined the concept of accessible tourism through case studies of product development for people with disabilities. While this study is relevant to sustainability and stakeholder collaboration in a specific context, it does not address multi-stakeholder governance frameworks for sustainable tourism or destination development. Such articles, while addressing issues like accessible tourism or, in other cases, environmental conservation or general governance, were excluded as they did not address multi-stakeholder governance frameworks in relation to sustainable tourism and destination development. This exclusion process ensured the conceptual alignment of the sample with the research objectives that were initially set. The final sample of this paper was 78 studies.

3.3. Analysis of the Results

For the production and presentation of the findings, three stages were followed.

• Stage 1: Typological classification of the sample

The sample (n = 78) of articles collected was divided into three categories in order to provide a stable basis for reliable comparison and to avoid presenting frameworks as equally strong. Thus, the studies were categorized into conceptual models, applied case studies, and empirically evaluated frameworks. This typology reflects the level of maturity and depth of each approach, ranging from theoretical formulations and unevaluated applications to empirically tested cases with predetermined criteria. This process was based on the classification of implementation theory, which distinguishes theoretical approaches according to their overarching purpose: process models for describing and guiding a process, determined frameworks and theories for explaining what influences implementation, and finally evaluation frameworks for assessing implementation (Nilsen, 2015). The classification of implementation science indicates that there are overlaps between categories. In this study, for consistency reasons, when an article presented descriptive data and explicit evaluation, it was classified as empirical. When there was an application that did not include an explicit evaluation, it was classified as an applied case study. Finally, when the article did not contain primary data such as applications or measurements, the case was classified as conceptual. The visual depiction of the sample’s typological classification (Figure 2, Section 4) is presented as a bar chart generated in jamovi (v2.6.44).

• Stage 2: Selection of a subset for comparative study

To address the three research questions through a comparative and in-depth analysis, six articles were selected based on specific and predetermined criteria, so as to form a comparative matrix. The initial selection focused on peer-reviewed papers, whose titles, abstracts, and keywords contained clearer references to stakeholder participation/involvement, governance, and sustainability so that the frameworks would be clearly related to the research topic. Then, a balance was sought with a “2–2–2 Design” in the typology of articles, where two articles with conceptual models, two applied case studies, and two empirically evaluated frameworks were selected. Another selection criterion was the existence of a variety of destination types to ensure representativeness, as well as a variety of research approaches that have been used. Furthermore, all selected articles provide an adequate description of the roles of those involved and the procedures, so that the criteria of the matrix can be coded. The selection of the subset combines breadth (typology and comparative criteria) with depth (detailed presentation of heterogeneous cases).

• Stage 3: Coding and Matrix Formation

The coding applied to the six specific articles covered five dimensions: stakeholder mapping, stages of involvement, feedback mechanisms, inclusion of marginalized groups, and empirical validation. The responses in the matrix were recorded on a scale of “Yes/No/Partially,” with “Yes” indicating the adequately documented presence of each dimension, “No” indicating the absence of reference or insufficient data in the research, and finally “Partially” indicating an indirect or more general reference without full documentation. For a more efficient synthesis and better representation of the findings, each answer was assigned a numerical value where Yes = 1, Partially = 0.5, No = 0, and thus the maximum score was calculated with a maximum of 5, as shown in the visual representation of the matrix (see Figure 3, Section 4). Conceptual contributions are not designed to provide empirical testing, so lower totals for conceptual papers are expected and should not be read as judgments on theoretical value but as a reflection of evidence intensity. The explanation of each criterion and what each of the three possible answers includes are shown in the table in Appendix A,

Table A2. Coding rules.

Criteria	Content	Yes	Partial	No
Stakeholder mapping	Explicit identification of actors, including primary and secondary, with roles/relationships.	Systematic map covering primary and secondary actors plus roles/coordination structure and an identification method or scope rationale.	Only “major” actors listed and/or roles/relationships or method are unclear.	Generic mention of “stakeholders” with no specifics.
Stages of involvement	Sequenced participation (inform → consult → co-design/co-production) with clear transitions.	Named phases with who/when/tools and transition criteria or milestones.	Some phases/tools exist but sequencing/transition criteria are unclear.	Ad hoc engagement without a designed sequence.
Feedback mechanisms	Monitoring–evaluation loops used for learning/adaptation.	Named, periodic M&E cycles (e.g., quarterly/annual) and documented use of findings for adjustments.	One-off or informal feedback; sporadic assessments without routine use.	No documented feedback/M&E mechanism.
Inclusion of marginalized groups	Targeted participation and measured benefits for under-represented groups.	Targeted actions and disaggregated indicators (participation/benefit) tracked over time.	Inclusion is mentioned or attempted but without indicators/time-tracking.	No specific provision or measurement for marginalized groups.
Empirical validation	Explicit testing of the framework itself with systematic data.	Pre-specified criteria/indicators and an evaluation design (mixed/before–after/longitudinal) leading to conclusions about the framework’s effectiveness/refinement.	Data are collected, but do not explicitly evaluate the framework’s effectiveness.	No testing/measurement of the framework.

, while the audit trail of the evidence supporting each criterion for each article is shown in the table in Appendix A,

Table A3. Evidence audit trail for the comparative matrix.

Study	Stakeholder Mapping	Stages of Involvement	Feedback Mechanisms	Inclusion of Marginalized Groups	Empirical Validation	Total (0–5)
Wondirad et al. (2024) Eastern Africa	PARTIAL (0.5): discuss multi-level and participatory governance but without any mapping method	PARTIAL (0.5): basic principles for engagement are mentioned but without any staged sequence	PARTIAL (0.5): support adaptive governance but without any specific feedback loops	PARTIAL (0.5): Inclusion of indigenous knowledge but without any targeted indicators or tracking	NO (0): no empirical testing or assessment	2
Walker (2019) St. Lucia, Caribbean	PARTIAL (0.5): mentions festival actors but lacks systematic mapping with roles	PARTIAL (0.5): describes engagement around festival planning but without talking about any formal staged sequence with criteria	NO (0): no documented feedback mechanisms	PARTIAL (0.5): Community benefits mentioned but does not mention or use of indicators or measures for marginalized groups	NO (0): no framework testing	1.5
F. Silva and Roque (2024) Príncipe Island	PARTIAL (0.5): Key partners described and engaged but without any mapping method	YES (1): Four-phase approach described: conceptual model, resource inventory, expert evaluation, product development	PARTIAL (0.5): Expert review and inventory. No specific feedback circle or documented routine	PARTIAL (0.5): Community benefits mentioned and participation emphasized but without any indicators or formal tracking of marginalized groups	PARTIAL (0.5): Expert scoring and field inventory but without any formal test of the framework’s effectiveness	3
Feyers et al. (2020) Florida, USA	PARTIAL (0.5): Mentions stakeholders (DMOs, TDCs, park managers, tourism providers, etc.) and a broader secondary audience but without any systematic mapping	YES (1): MSIM in scene-setting, integration, implementation steps with specified activities	PARTIAL (0.5): feedback is event-based but without monitoring and evaluation routine	PARTIAL (0.5): community representatives included but without any specific indicators for marginalized groups	PARTIAL (0.5): without any explicit before-after test of the MSIM effectiveness	3
Dodds (2025) Tofino, Canada	YES (1): multi-actors set (residents, employees, NGOs, etc.) with description of roles across governance	YES (1): Description of longitudinal phases and shows stages governance shifts	PARTIAL (0.5): reports member-checking and iterative synthesis but without formal use of the routines followed	PARTIAL (0.5): Indigenous inclusion reported but there are not any broader vulnerable groups indicators	YES (1): evaluation of framework over 15 years with outcomes	4
Salman et al. (2023) Penang Hill, Malaysia	YES (1): roles and responsibilities are described for various stakeholders (agencies, operators, residents, Penang Hill Corporation-led stakeholders)	YES (1): Structured engagement activities integrated in management process	PARTIAL (0.5): engagement events described but without any specific monitoring and evaluation circle	PARTIAL (0.5): Whole community mentioned but without any marginalized groups indicators	YES (1): use of statistical tests for stakeholder-management relationships	4

. All criteria were weighted equally. The verification of each coding was performed by both authors in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of the transparency of the process. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until agreement was reached. The visual representation of the comparative matrix is presented as a heatmap (Figure 3, Section 4) generated in jamovi (v2.6.44) using the Rj Editor module.

Based on the six focal papers and the comparative matrix, destinations were grouped into three practical categories to summarize their core characteristics and the governance philosophy behind their management. The three resulting categories are descriptive aids used to organize the results and present the patterns directly.

4. Results

This study was based on a sample of 78 articles referring to multi-stakeholder approaches and frameworks in real destinations. The results are presented through a combination of systematic review, which demonstrates the breadth of the study, and a thorough comparative analysis, which shows its depth. The presentation of the results begins with the typological distribution of the sample (n = 78), followed by a comparative matrix (n = 6).

4.1. Typological Distribution of Sample

Through the study of the sample (n = 78), all articles based on destinations were categorized. The corpus is divided into conceptual (n = 14) with a percentage of 19.9%, applied (n = 56) with a percentage of 71.8%, and empirically evaluated (n = 8) with a percentage of 10.3%, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Typological distribution of the sample (n = 78).

Figure 2. Typological distribution of the sample (n = 78).

The 14 conceptual models concerned abstract schemes or theoretical frameworks for the development of destinations with the participation of stakeholders. The frameworks proposed in the papers are primarily theoretical, outlining how a process could be organized but remaining untested in practice. The proposed stages and principles included in some of them remain empirically unverified relying instead on theoretical logic. In contrast, the 56 applied case studies had practical application in one or more destinations but did not show any systematic evaluation. Furthermore, the 8 empirically evaluated frameworks were the most comprehensive approaches in real destinations, as they were not simply applied but their effectiveness was also measured through a clear methodology and systematic evaluation. An overview of the articles by category is shown in

Table 2. The typology of the sample.

Category	Definition	n	% of n = 78
Conceptual models	Theoretical or/and conceptual schemes without primary application or testing	14	17.9%
Applied case studies	Implementations in a specific destination with descriptive or/and explanatory documentation	56	71.8%
Empirically evaluated frameworks	Explicit testing or/and evaluation of a framework using systematic data	8	10.3%
TOTAL		78	100%

.

4.2. The Subset (n = 6)

Six studies (two conceptual, two applied, two empirical) were selected for the construction of the matrix, based on specific specifications and predetermined criteria (see Appendix A, Table A2). An overview of the articles is presented in

Table 3. Study contexts and methods of the six in-depth cases.

A.	Title	Destination	Category	Focus	Methodology
F. Silva and Roque (2024)	Building the Framework for Sustainable Tourism in Príncipe Island	Príncipe Island	Applied case study	Sustainable and responsible tourism development in Príncipe for a more community-centered tourism development approach	Interviews, expert consultations, inventory and evaluation of tourist resources, four-phase plan
Feyers et al. (2020)	Bridging Worlds: Utilizing a Multi-Stakeholder Framework to Create Extension–Tourism Partnerships	Florida, USA	Applied case study	Building extension–tourism collaborations for responsible/eco- tourism	Nominal group meetings, questionnaires, interviews, triangulation
Dodds (2025)	Balancing Tourism Development and Sustainability: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach in Tofino over 15 Years	Tofino, Canada	Empirically evaluated framework	15-year assessment of multi-stakeholder governance	Interviews, content analysis, questionnaires, triangulation
Salman et al. (2023)	Stakeholder management for sustainable ecotourism destinations: a case of Penang Hill Malaysia	Penang Hill, Malaysia	Empirically evaluated framework	Stakeholder management for sustainable ecotourism	Interviews, document analysis, questionnaires triangulation
Wondirad et al. (2024)	Tourism governance in the new normal: lessons for Eastern Africa	Eastern Africa	Conceptual model	Governance in the “new normal” for tourism	Conceptual synthesis
Walker (2019)	Sustainable tourism and the role of festivals in the Caribbean—case of the St. Lucia Jazz (& Arts) Festival	St. Lucia Caribbean	Conceptual model	Festivals’ role in sustainable tourism	Conceptual synthesis

.

The study by F. Silva and Roque (2024) was selected as an island example that aims at a more community-centered tourism development approach for the sustainable and responsible tourism development of the destination. Employing an applied logic, the study uses multi-stakeholder planning to trace the development of engagement stages in destinations characterized by weak institutional environments, unclear roles, and ad hoc practices. Feyers et al.’s (2020) study serves as the second applied case study. This is a case study that designs a framework that helps extension agents to effectively connect public bodies with the market by supporting ecotourism and sustainable tourism development in the destination. This study shows how partnerships can be organized in more mature institutional environments with more stable cooperation routines and more codified roles for stakeholders.

The next selection is the article by Dodds (2025), which presents a longitudinal empirical application and, over a 15-year period, provides a strong picture of the evolutionary progression of governance and priorities for the destination. The second empirical case by Salman et al. (2023) follows the same line of evaluation, using the example of a protected destination to assess the management scheme of the parties involved. According to two empirical articles, there are standardized procedures that support the involvement of stakeholders and provide a documented picture of the decision-making process.

Finally, the study by Wondirad et al. (2024) was included in the sub-sample as a conceptual reference that maps the principles of governance for Eastern Africa without, however, any explicit empirical testing in the region. Walker’s (2019) study was selected as the second conceptual case because it provides a portrait of destination development through the lens of special interest. It links a destination that focuses on events and culture with the development of sustainability through the involvement of stakeholders. This case also highlights the narrative of sustainability, but without any evaluation.

4.3. The Comparative Matrix

The comparative matrix compares the six selected papers in relation to five criteria, and the values per study are shown in

Table 4. Comparative matrix across five criteria.

Study	Category	Stakeholder Mapping	Stages of Involvement	Feedback Mechanisms	Inclusion of Marginalized Groups	Empirical Validation
Wondirad et al. (2024) Eastern Africa	Conceptual model	Partial	Partial	Partial	Partial	No
Walker (2019) St. Lucia, Caribbean	Conceptual model	Partial	Partial	No	Partial	No
F. Silva and Roque (2024) Príncipe Island	Applied case study	Partial	Yes	Partial	Partial	Partial
Feyers et al. (2020) Florida, USA	Applied case study	Partial	Yes	Partial	Partial	Partial
Dodds (2025) Tofino, Canada	Empirically evaluated framework	Yes	Yes	Partial	Partial	Yes
Salman et al. (2023) Penang Hill, Malaysia	Empirically evaluated framework	Yes	Yes	Partial	Partial	Yes

below. The five criteria relate to the concepts of stakeholder mapping, stages of involvement, feedback mechanisms, inclusion of marginalized groups, and empirical validation, while the coding includes the options Yes/Partial/No. The results of the coverage of each criterion for each article are also included in the table below.

Overall, the six studies present the stages of participation as the most powerful criterion, while feedback mechanisms are usually covered only partially and the inclusion of marginalized groups is limited (partial). These patterns set the framework for the heatmap, which illustrates the profile of strengths and gaps per criterion and study. Thus, the visual representation of the matrix in Figure 3 shows a clearer picture of the comparison. The Yes/Partial/No options are quantified and correspond to 1/0.5/0 for a total score of 0–5 (see Appendix B,

Table A4. Numeric scoring scheme of the comparative matrix.

Study	Category	Stakeholder Mapping	Stages of Involvement	Feedback Mechanisms	Inclusion of Marginalized Groups	Empirical Validation	Total (0–5)
Wondirad et al. (2024) Eastern Africa	Conceptual model	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0	2
Walker (2019) St. Lucia, Caribbean	Conceptual model	0.5	0.5	0	0.5	0	1.5
F. Silva and Roque (2024) Príncipe Island	Applied case study	0.5	1	0.5	0.5	0.5	3
Feyers et al. (2020) Florida, USA	Applied case study	0.5	1	0.5	0.5	0.5	3
Dodds (2025) Tofino, Canada	Empirically evaluated framework	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	4
Salman et al. (2023) Penang Hill, Malaysia	Empirically evaluated framework	1	1	0.5	0.5	1	4

), so that the matrix can be represented numerically and with color coding.

Figure 3. Heatmap of comparative matrix across five criteria (* Empirical validation dimension is not applicable by design for the two conceptual models proposed by Walker (2019) and Wondirad et al. (2024)).

Figure 3. Heatmap of comparative matrix across five criteria (* Empirical validation dimension is not applicable by design for the two conceptual models proposed by Walker (2019) and Wondirad et al. (2024)).

As shown in the heatmap, the empirical cases presented by Dodds (2025) and Salman et al. (2023) achieved the highest score, both receiving a 4. The higher score is mainly due to the “Yes” response to the criteria concerning stakeholder mapping, stages of involvement and empirical validation. Next, the two applied case studies in the sub-sample had lower overall scores, with F. Silva and Roque (2024) and Feyers et al. (2020) scoring 3. They consistently achieve “Yes” in the stages of involvement but partially cover stakeholder mapping, feedback mechanisms, inclusion of marginalized groups, and empirical validation. The last typology is that of conceptual models, which seem to receive the lowest score of all six studies examined. The work of Wondirad et al. (2024) scored 2 and that of Walker (2019) scored 1.5, reflecting the principles of each study without documented testing. As anticipated, conceptual studies score lower primarily due to the empirical validation dimension. This is consistent with their purpose, which is to create theories rather than empirical verification, while at the same time emphasizing that the heatmap measures maturity based on the practical suitability for implementation, rather than theoretical contribution.

4.4. Destination Profile Categorization

The adaptation of multistakeholder frameworks is not a common practice for all destinations. Adaptation mainly concerns the connection of participation tools with the institutional and social profile of each place.

Based on the analysis of the 6 selected cases, the key characteristics, operational mechanisms, and guiding principles of these frameworks can be grouped into three typical destination settings. In particular, the typical destination settings that emerged are as follows:

• Mature institutional support: Destinations with mature institutional support from an organization or coordinator of the process, where the framework is adapted through standardized stages and engagement routines for stakeholders, as presented in studies on Penang Hill (Salman et al., 2023) and Florida (Feyers et al., 2020).
• Long-term partnerships: Destinations that have long-term relationships and partnerships, enabling empirical evaluation and repeated learning, as with the case of Tofino (Dodds, 2025).
• Emerging governance: Destinations that share characteristics of small island developing states with limited administrative resources, such as Príncipe Island (F. Silva & Roque, 2024), tend to approach framework adaptation from a pragmatically achievable base. In these contexts, progress typically begins with doable first steps and the early involvement of key stakeholders, prioritizing feasibility and incremental consolidation over comprehensive, data-heavy reform.

Each of the above profiles is accompanied by recurring adaptation patterns, such as standardized stages, repetitive learning, or efforts to take achievable first steps.

5. Discussion

The reviewed studies focus on multi-stakeholder frameworks and approaches applied in real destinations and are organized into three main thematic sections, each addressing the research questions initially posed.

5.1. Differences in the Key Features and Applications of Collaborative Approaches or Frameworks

The typological distribution of the sample (n = 78) shows a pattern of strong practical application, indicating that most studies illustrate how multi-stakeholder approaches were applied in real-world settings rather than being applied within rigid frameworks in the context of strictly predetermined criteria. These empirically evaluated frameworks are limited mainly due to the demanding steps they follow for more explicit validation procedures. These frameworks require years of research and observation of their application, with repeated measurements, which makes the stakeholders managing each destination reluctant to commit to such standards. This is also confirmed by Boaz et al. (2008), who indicate that collecting different data can be a process that requires time, dedication, and effort.

The typological distribution of the sample is also consistent with the classifications of implementation science, as the approaches range from conceptual to evaluative with increasing evidence requirements (Nilsen, 2015).

Furthermore, given the destination-focused search strategy targeting real-world multi-stakeholder initiatives, the dominance of applied case studies with a percentage of 71.8% is quite expected. Papers presenting conceptual models are fewer in number. This is mainly because many non-destination generic frameworks were excluded for falling outside the study’s scope as they did not address real-life destinations. Consequently, purely theoretical models for specific destinations are limited.

From the comparison of the sub-sample of the six selected studies, it appears that the weakest points in the frameworks are the feedback mechanisms and empirical validation, key features of the eight empirical cases in the sample (n = 78) and also a point in the comparative matrix that ultimately differentiates them from the rest and distinguishes them as cases with the highest score. Analysis of the matrix in Figure 3 shows a distinct maturity scale among the destination frameworks. The applied case studies are at an intermediate stage in the matrix, as they operationalize participation (stages of involvement = yes), but they do not achieve full mapping of the actors involved, feedback mechanisms, and empirical validation. Conceptual studies remain largely on the partial/no scale, which is to be expected for theoretical contributions.

This classification of participatory approaches to destination management emphasizes that not all frameworks are equally robust. The collaborations and frameworks identified serve different purposes shaped by the contextual realities of each destination. Their application and use vary depending on the destination’s stage of development and its specific strategic objectives. Each framework has a different application; for example, destinations with more established structures and governance capabilities (e.g., Tofino, Penang Hill) are more likely to have systematic mapping, while small destinations prefer functionality over measurement (e.g., St. Lucia, Principe Island). The categorization through this typology reflects the willingness of stakeholders to participate, but not through schemes with formal feedback, measurable inclusion, and empirical validation, which confirms the maturity gaps between destinations and frameworks.

Regardless of the type of destination, mapping and identifying stages of involvement are standard practice for most multi-stakeholder approaches. In contrast, feedback mechanisms, the effective inclusion of marginalized groups, and especially empirical validation remain key gaps in maturity—even in cases of strong participation. The typological distribution (n = 78) and the comparative matrix of the six selected studies converge on this pattern. Pham et al. (2023) also provide a similar view, emphasizing that very few studies reflect the ways in which data such as empirical research, indicators, big data, etc., are utilized and used, elements that are essentially related to the essence of empirical evaluation examined in this study. They also note that there is no study that explicitly incorporates evidence-based documentation as a distinct part of a framework.

5.2. Adaptation of Core Elements, Operational Mechanisms, and Foundational Principles of Frameworks and Collaborative Approaches on the Destinations’ Actual Conditions

The three destination settings (mature institutional support, long-term partnerships, emerging governance) that emerged refer to types of environments, describing the basic characteristics of the destination to which each framework is applied. These characteristics describe relationships between the actors involved, the institutional capacity of the destination, the level of maturity, etc., spotlighting the operational mechanisms and foundation principles of the frameworks. This classification of destinations into typical settings highlights the patterns followed by each destination, while also aligning with the archetypes of destination governance of D’Angella et al. (2010) (Regulatory, entrepreneurial, leading firm και fragmented).

Typical destination settings signal each destination’s potential and core characteristics and help reveal adaptation patterns. Beyond these settings, however, and interpreting the patterns of the results, there are design levers that can be activated to enhance the implementation quality irrespective of the setting. One such lever that arose is intermediation capacity, which ensure the presence of a convening coordinator who structures roles and routines (e.g., the extension–tourism coordination in Florida by Feyers et al., 2020). A second lever that emerged is institutionalized learning, which is related to the iterative evaluation and systematic use of findings through indicators and review cycles (e.g., the longitudinal assessment in Tofino by Dodds, 2025).

The two design levers proposed here, intermediation capacity and institutionalized learning, are consistent with D’Angella et al.’s (2010) framework, which operationalizes destination governance through the dimensions of actors, contributions, compensations, and governance mechanisms. By that logic, strong coordinating bodies (intermediation) and clear monitoring routines (institutionalized learning) help explain why some destinations achieve superior outcomes. Smit et al. (2024) reinforce this view as their three co-design strategies, along with examples of decision-making units and living-lab coordination, embody the same levers by formalizing convening roles and establishing iterative evaluation and use-of-findings cycles.

Classifying the studies into typical destination settings and proposing design levers clarifies why some cases achieve higher matrix scores and offers a pathway to improvement. The typical destination settings indicate feasible configurations of a destination’s operational structure, whereas the two design levers serve as actionable guiding principles that can be activated and tailored to local needs and core characteristics, enabling progress toward higher practice-oriented implementation maturity.

5.3. Challenges and Barriers

The challenges and obstacles to implementing multi-stakeholder frameworks and approaches can be distilled into three key areas:

Lack of standardized evaluation: The first challenge is the evaluation gap. Only 8 of 78 studies in the sample (10.3%) are empirical, indicating limited use of predefined indicators, measurement plans, and explicit evaluation strategies across the literature. This pattern is also reflected in the comparative matrix: the two empirically evaluated cases—Dodds (2025) and Salman et al. (2023)—are the only ones coded Yes on the empirical evaluation criterion, whereas the applied and conceptual studies are not. A similar picture emerges in Rasoolimanesh et al. (2020), who identify substantial gaps in indicator development related to destination governance—an essential component of any integrated monitoring and evaluation process. Taken together, the evidence suggests that greater evaluation intensity correlates with higher maturity in the practical application of frameworks.

Limited feedback mechanisms: The second challenge concerns weak feedback systems across the subsample. In all six cases, feedback was coded as Partial or No: although workshops, meetings, and consultations are mentioned, there is no clear description of formal feedback loops with defined roles, scheduled cycles, or indicator-based documentation. As a result, participation occurs, but it does not translate into institutionalized learning—information is not fed back systematically into design and decision-making. Findings remain underutilized, and contexts are not effectively assessed. This issue has been noted for years in the literature, which highlights insufficient analysis of learning, knowledge use, and data utilization for shaping substantive tourism policy (Ruhanen, 2013). Today, such information practices and knowledge use are especially critical given the growing accountability of policymakers in advancing sustainability (Font et al., 2021)

Non-measurable inclusion of marginalized groups: The third challenge concerns inclusion that is asserted but not evidenced. Across the studies reviewed, references to stakeholders such as “locals” or “tourists” are common, yet there is little specification of whether these categories explicitly include women, youth, older adults, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, or other marginalized groups. This lack of granularity mirrors broader debates: Abdullah et al. (2022) note the absence of clear definitions of who is “marginalized” and how inclusion should be measured, creating information gaps that readily translate into exclusion. The comparative matrix reflects this pattern, with the inclusion of marginalized groups criterion coded mainly as Partial. A related concern is highlighted by Messiou (2011), who distinguishes between the lived experience of exclusion and its recognition by institutions; when the latter is weak or absent, exclusion may persist unseen.

To address these three key areas of barriers and challenges, destinations should institutionalize and standardize measurement and learning processes. This can be achieved through specific indicators, clear evaluation plans, organized feedback loops, and systematic tracking of marginalized groups’ inclusion. Tourism observatories can make a decisive contribution to addressing these challenges. By systematically collecting and processing information, they support evidence-informed decision-making and the development of more comprehensive frameworks. Indicators, big data, and the analysis of new data sources improve coverage of the operating environment (Sarantakou & Karachalis, 2024, p. 257), thereby making empirical evaluation feasible and allowing applied case studies to evolve into empirical ones. In parallel, monitoring-and-evaluation loops can institutionalize feedback mechanisms, while the measurable inclusion of marginalized groups becomes attainable, helping ensure that the contributions and perspectives of all stakeholders are genuinely represented.

6. Conclusions

This research, covering studies between 2014 and mid-2025, confirms that collaborative frameworks are not static templates but dynamic, evolving processes. It focuses on capturing the logic of collaborative approaches and frameworks for sustainable destination development through real-world examples and structured comparison. Through the typological identification of 78 studies (56 applied, 14 conceptual, 8 empirical) and a comparative matrix assessing six purposively selected cases against five criteria, the analysis captures both the content of multistakeholder frameworks and how these approaches are adapted and implemented across various types of destinations. This procedure highlights three conclusions:

• Mapping and staging now appear as near-standard practice, whereas feedback, inclusion, and validation remain the main maturity gaps: The predominance of applied case studies in the corpus helps explain recurring weaknesses in frameworks’ treatment of feedback mechanisms, measurable inclusion of marginalized groups, and empirical validation. Using the maturity matrix, the study further proposes a categorization that reflects each framework’s level of maturity. Empirical cases tend to present a more complete configuration across the five criteria and therefore achieve higher overall scores than applied case studies and conceptual models.
• Institution-rich settings tend to standardize existing practices, while capacity-thin settings progress through doable first steps and incremental consolidation toward sustainability: The comparative matrix supports grouping the cases into three typical destination settings (mature institutional support, long-term partnerships, emerging governance), providing a clearer picture of how frameworks operate given destination-specific characteristics. This study, through the three context profiles in combination with the two design levers, offers a practical tool, with which destinations can move from good intentions to a first actionable step toward sustainability via multi-stakeholder approaches and iteratively adapt their practices to advance to higher levels of maturity.
• The two design levers (intermediation capacity and institutionalized learning) function as enhancement mechanisms, regardless of the initial governance framework: The most successful examples of frameworks are well-organized, fully structured, and tailored to destination conditions. They combine predefined stages with flexibility, enabling learning-by-doing and adaptation over time. Two complementary design levers (intermediation capacity and institutionalized learning) function as upgrading mechanisms that destinations can activate irrespective of context.

In total, the research highlights how these frameworks work under real-life conditions, their key operational characteristics, and the barriers they experience. Beyond the comparative evaluation, the study emphasizes the practical value of the theory, highlighting the ways in which stakeholder collaboration models can be applied to different types of destinations. The findings of the paper offer a comprehensive view of how collaborative approaches can be applied, and what lessons can be drawn for the effective management of different destinations.

6.1. Contribution of the Study

This study contributes to the existing literature by providing three key points. First, it demonstrates that the core features and applications of multi-stakeholder frameworks for sustainable destination management vary across destination types. A practical typology of destination environments and a comparative matrix assessing five criteria across six focal cases establish a reference point for potential differences identified at the practical level. Second, it clarifies how operational structures and guiding principles are adapted to local conditions. Τhe three typical destination settings depict how frameworks are configured and adjusted, while two transferable design levers serve as guiding principles to upgrade practice-oriented implementation maturity. Third, it identifies recurrent barriers and challenges in multi-stakeholder approaches and outlines a practical path to close the implementation gaps through criterion-based corrective measures.

For destination managers, the study’s findings reflect some practical steps they can take to develop more effective multistakeholder frameworks and approaches. In less developed environments, a more effective strategy is to start with simple and achievable solutions of smaller scope, gradually scaling up the effort through design cycles of testing and revision. The process of institutionalizing learning is facilitated when there are predefined indicators and when feedback is incorporated into the decision-making process of destination managers. The existence of an intermediary, e.g., a DMO, a university, etc., can lead to easier problem solving.

Based on these key findings, guidelines can be provided for practitioners and researchers. Practitioners have at their disposal a simple roadmap to follow, starting with a simple mapping of the key stakeholders involved in the destination. They can then proceed by appointing a coordinator with a clear role, while it is important to define indicators so that they know what is being measured each time. The final stage is to implement the plan, starting with something small and achievable. Feedback is an important part of the process as it will help them revise their plan based on what they have learned from the evaluation process. These simple steps can be recorded in a progress file that will be kept so that the evolution of the plan can be monitored over time.

For researchers, the priority is to test the cooperative relationships between stakeholders within a more rigorous framework. Studies could therefore be conducted comparing the “before” and “after” of the implementation of multistakeholder projects in destinations, in order to show the progress and impact of each project. It is also important to develop an indicator that measures whether so-called marginalized groups participate in the scheme. The indicator could, for example, include how many types of groups participate and how much influence they have based on how many of their proposals were included in the design. Finally, researchers could expand the research by including non-English-language sources to include examples from researchers who publish in their own language.

6.2. Limitations of the Study and Future Research

These findings should be interpreted with certain limitations in mind. First, the research was based only on English language sources and selected databases, which may introduce language and database bias and underrepresent non-English, local, or gray literature. Furthermore, due to the heterogeneity of study designs in this review, a formal risk-of-bias tool was not applied. Study quality was evaluated based on clear aims, methodological appropriateness, transparent data collection and analysis, and the overall robustness of the evidence. Therefore, the absence of strict and standardized comparison methodology may have led to a subjective evaluation of the findings by the authors of the study. Finally, the conclusions of this study cannot be generalized to all types of destinations, and the recommendations made are offered as a useful starting point rather than definitive tactics.

Future research should focus primarily on empirically testing collaborative frameworks and approaches with an emphasis on contemporary mechanisms such as bottom-up approaches based on more marginalized stakeholder groups, such as the local community. There is considerable interest in the local population in the literature on stakeholder-based destination management, but approaches that focus on residents are limited. The collaborative participation of stakeholders and the promotion of less prominent stakeholders in real destinations and under real operating conditions will allow for further evaluation of effectiveness, adaptability, and participatory management. Such practical application will contribute to a better understanding of how the factors of a destination’s specific environment influence the success of its governance.

The research agenda could also be enriched with research on how to effectively address the challenges and obstacles faced by collaborative frameworks and approaches. The difficulties faced by each collaborative governance mechanism need to be made less pressing, while it is worth exploring how these frameworks can overcome difficulties, evolve, and become more resilient over time. It would therefore be valuable and interesting for the future agenda to conduct research focusing on the involvement of tourism observatories so that destinations implementing multistakeholder approaches can systematize the collection of useful data and develop more standardized indicators related to the criteria used for the comparative matrix of this study.