Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rsus20

Tourism, the SDGs and partnerships

Regina Scheyvens & Joseph M. Cheer

To cite this article: Regina Scheyvens & Joseph M. Cheer (2022) Tourism, the
SDGs and partnerships, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30:10, 2271-2281, DOI:
10.1080/09669582.2021.1982953

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1982953

Published online: 28 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5287

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 41 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
2022, VOL. 30, NO. 10, 2271–2281
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1982953

Tourism, the SDGs and partnerships

Regina Scheyvensa and Joseph M. Cheerb
a
Institute of Development Studies, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand; bCenter for Tourism
Research, Wakayama University, Wakayama, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In 2019, Massey University in New Zealand hosted the world’s first Received 13 August 2021
research conference on tourism and the Sustainable Developments Goal Accepted 14 September 2021
(SDGs). The aims of this conference were to bring together a wide
KEYWORDS
range of stakeholders to discuss (i) challenges to tourism contributing
SDG; Partnerships;
to the SDGs, and (ii) ways in which tourism can deliver on its potential pandemic; Sustainable
to be more inclusive, equitable and sustainable. The need for diverse tourism; multi-stakeholder
actors to work in partnership to achieve the SDGs emerged as a key
theme. This special issue presents several of the papers from that con-
ference, as well as contributions from a broader range of scholars. As is
evident in this collection, partnerships in tourism tend to be complex,
multi-faceted, subject to multiple legal frameworks and governance
arrangements, and are often cross-sectoral, transnational and cross-bor-
der. While these overlapping factors can make it challenging for tourism
actors to develop effective partnerships to deliver on the SDGs, the
articles herein suggest there is considerable promise where stakeholders
have shared values and commitments. Tourism scholars need to reflect
more on possibilities for constructive partnerships because, as the pan-
demic milieu has demonstrated, partnerships spanning governments,
industries and communities are a fundamental requirement to produc-
ing more sustainable tourism futures.

Introduction: Origins of this special issue

On a winter’s day in mid-June, 2018, I (Regina) sat with a group of my Master’s and PhD students
at Massey University, New Zealand for one of our regular ‘tourism group monthly catch-ups’ to
check on progress and share ideas about our research. Not for the first time, we reflected on how
much we were engaging with the SDGs across our separate pieces of work: Gabriel Laeis was
weaving SDG 2 into his PhD thesis on the food that resorts were serving to guests in Fiji (Laeis,
2019; Scheyvens & Laeis, 2019); Heidi van der Watt was considering the relevance of SDG 1
(Poverty alleviation), SDG 8 (Economic development and decent work for all), SDG 11 (Reduce
inequality) and SDG 14 (Life below water) to her examination of marine wildlife tourism in South
Africa; Emma Hughes was reflecting on how small-scale tourism enterprises in Fiji stacked up in
relation to the SDGs (Movono & Hughes, 2020); and I was considering the extent to which private
sector actors could be agents for sustainable development (Scheyvens et al., 2016).
Ratified at the United Nations in 2015 and set to guide global development through to 2030,
the SDGs urge governments, industry and communities alike to engage in direct efforts to work
in more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable ways. As one of the world’s larg-
est industries, there is widespread agreement that tourism should address sustainability issues

CONTACT Regina Scheyvens r.a.scheyvens@massey.ac.nz Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2272 R. SCHEYVENS AND J. CHEER

head on (Butler, 1991; Jones et al., 2017; Mowforth & Munt, 2015). The tourism group at Massey
University all believed that, just a few years after 193 countries signed up to commit to the
SDGs, the time was right to examine the most effective ways that the tourism industry could
respond to the challenge of contributing to a more equitable, inclusive and sustainable world.
What we wanted was a conference where we could bring people together to share nascent ideas
on linkages between tourism and the SDGs. But no such conference could be found. We realized
that we might just have to run such a conference ourselves. We had time constraints due to
Gabriel’s need to return to Germany to take up a new academic position, meaning that we had just
seven months to organize and deliver the world’s first research conference on the SDGs and tourism.
In addition to those already mentioned, we expanded the organising committee to include
Tracy Berno from Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand), Karla Boluk from University of
Waterloo (Canada), Joseph Cheer from Monash University (Australia), Apisalome Movono from
University of the South Pacific (Fiji), Christian Schott from Victoria University of Wellington (New
Zealand), and Hazel Tucker from University of Otago (New Zealand). All were in agreement that the
conference should attempt to link research and practice. Thus it needed to be meaningful for tour-
ism industry, government and civil society actors, as well as for academics, not least because a part-
nership approach was needed to achieving the SDGs rather than placing all of the responsibility on
a few actors. In fact, writing on tourism and sustainability almost two decades ago, Bramwell and
Lane (2003, p. 1) stressed the importance of “Collaborative arrangements for tourism planning”
which involved “the public, private or voluntary sectors, including pressure and interest groups”.
We also felt strongly that the conference should take a critical yet constructive approach to
analysing the SDGs. There is certainly a great deal of rhetoric on the virtues and promise of tour-
ism as a tool for sustainable development (Avdimiotis & Christou, 2004; Lane, 1994), and there
have been positive steps towards sustainability by many companies, governments and others
(Hunting & Tilbury, 2006; Kapera, 2018; OECD, 2006). However, it is also claimed that the tourism
industry has oversold its sustainable potential:
Tourism hides its unsustainability behind a mask that is all the more beguiling because it appears so
sustainable. We too easily imagine that tourism as the embodiment of sustainability, when in reality it may
represent unrealized hopes and desires for the world we want to live in, the environments we want to
inhabit, and economy we want to participate in (Hollenhorst et al., 2014: 306).

We thus chose to run a conference on Tourism and the SDGs which offered the opportunity
for a wide range of scholars and tourism stakeholders to discuss and debate both (i) challenges
to tourism contributing to the SDGs, and (ii) ways in which tourism can deliver on its potential
to be more inclusive, equitable and sustainable, in line with the values embedded in the global
Sustainable Development Goals (Scheyvens, 2018).
So it came to pass that the Institute of Development Studies at Massey University hosted the
1st Research Conference on Tourism and the SDGs (#Tourism4SDGs19) from 24-25 January 2019
at Massey’s Albany campus in Auckland, New Zealand (https://tourism-sdg.nz/) It was held in per-
son with 72 presenters and 140 attendees present. The keynote addresses, plenary panels and
two-thirds of the presentations were also livestreamed to a much wider virtual audience across
the Asia Pacific region and beyond.
Accordingly, the aim of this editorial is to offer a reflexive account of the genesis of this spe-
cial issue on tourism, partnerships and the SDGs in relation to the above conference, to explain
why partnerships are critical to achievement of the SDGs, and to provide an overview of the
articles in this special issue.

Partnership as a Central theme

Attendees at the conference were diverse, from countries as far flung as Fiji, Canada, the United
Kingdom, Vanuatu, India, Australia, Samoa, the Philippines, Spain, and Timor Leste. In addition to
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 2273

tourism researchers and scholars, there were government officials (e.g. from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment), tourism indus-
try representatives (from M
aori tourism providers through to AJ Hackett bungy jumping), and
others from civil society (such as ECPAT, which works to prevent the sexual exploitation of chil-
dren). This diversity was important, given that, as Goal 17 urges, more multi-stakeholder partner-
ships are needed if tourism is to seriously and more effectively tackle the social, economic and
environmental challenges embodied in the SDGs.
There were three plenary panels over the two days, one on Indigenous development, one on
the need for the tourism industry to take action regarding sustainable development, and lastly,
the focus of this special issue, a panel on partnerships for achieving the SDGs through tourism.
We chose the latter focus for this collection because it was clear that, with numerous sustainabil-
ity challenges facing tourism, it will take an ‘all hands on deck’ approach to plan and implement
more sustainable tourism practices across the industry. These challenges range from overtourism
(Capocchi et al., 2019; Dodds & Butler, 2019; Milano et al., 2019), to pollution by cruise ships
(Johnson, 2002; Lau & Sun, 2020; Simonsen et al., 2019), unjust treatment of workers (Le &
Nguyen, 2019; Ross, 2006), unethical voluntourism (Ashdown et al., 2021; McLennan, 2014), and
delivering a more sustainable tourism industry post-pandemic (Adams et al., 2021; Higgins-
Desbiolles, 2020; Ioannides & Gyimo thy, 2020; Lew et al., 2020; Sin et al., 2021). When many of
these issues were discussed at the conference, the term ‘partnership’ was not always used, but it
was often implicit in what was discussed.
The plenary panel on partnerships at the conference raised a number of important issues.
This included Chris Roberts from Tourism Industry Aotearoa who spoke about how tourism oper-
ators have created a Tourism Sustainability Commitment, which aligns with the SDGs. This
includes a commitment to managing resources in partnership with M
aori. Meanwhile, Loren
Rutherford from VSA (Volunteer Service Abroad) stressed the value of partnerships developed
through volunteering, which can enable people from the Pacific and New Zealand to share their
skills and experience. Academic, Jenny Cave, shared her experience around the politics of part-
nerships between academics and the community, and how they could work towards common
solutions. Meanwhile Chris Cocker, head of South Pacific Tourism Organisation, spoke compel-
lingly about the need for cultural collaboration and how Pacific assets could be enhanced
through partnerships. Overall, clear messages were delivered about the importance of multi-
stakeholder partnerships in tourism and how shared responses to the SDGs will help to create
long-lasting solutions.
Reflecting on the overarching themes that had emerged over the two days of this conference,
it was clear to us – both from the presentations themeslves but also from the dialogue taking
place amongst researchers, industry representatives, Indigenous people, NGOs and government
officials – that partnerships are essential if widespread action to deliver on the SDGs in the tour-
ism sector is to be achieved.

The challenge of establishing good tourism partnerships

When discussing the efficacy of partnerships in wider development work, Sullivan and Warner
(2017, p. 12) lamented that “The overwhelming sense was of a concept that had been whole-
heartedly embraced but where little consideration had been given to what that concept could
mean in practice, or how it could be taken up to scale.” The same is true of the tourism sector.
Partnerships matter in tourism, but they can be difficult to negotiate. Different actors bring
their own agendas to the table, and strengths as well as weaknesses, when considering pros-
pects for sustainable development. For the 17 goals to be achieved it is insufficient to just have
NGOs acting as watchdogs and reporting on ethical and sustainability breaches by the industry,
but neither is it acceptable that the industry is simply allowed to self-regulate, something it has
2274 R. SCHEYVENS AND J. CHEER

lobbied for over a long period of time. Given the enormity of the sustainability issues the globe
is facing, soft codes, pledges and the like that rely on voluntary support are not sufficient (Font
et al., 2012). Governments need to play their part, but not by simply providing a generous
budget for tourism marketing efforts, and nor by regulating to the extent that compliance costs
put numerous small businesses out of action. For example, Rogerson (2008) found that ‘Red
Tape’ (regulatory/compliance costs) was a major constraint to the development of small and
medium tourism enterprises in South Africa.
Partnerships by their very nature, in theory at least, suggest shared goals, beneficial outcomes
for all parties, joint governance, cooperative institutional arrangements, and inter and cross sec-
toral engagement. Additionally, Warner & Sullivan (2017, p. 24) stress that, partnerships should
include: “ … voluntary engagement, mutually agreed objectives, distinct accountabilities and
reciprocal obligations, and ‘added value’ to what each partner could achieve alone” (Warner,
2017, p. 24). There are some important points here around joint governance and distinct
accountabilities which suggest that partnerships should seek to circumvent top down processes
and instead give agency and voice to grassroots stakeholders and those furthest away from the
vectors of power.
This final point is important. Despite appearing to be a congenial term, ‘partnerships’ are not
devoid of power relations. Nguyen et al. (2019) thus argue that tourism stakeholder interactions
are more likely to align with SDG 17 when less powerful voices are elevated in the interests of
working towards sustainability (Nguyen et al., 2019). For example, we can consider how
Grootbos Lodge, located in a private nature reserve in South Africa, works in partnership with
communities by listening to their concerns then also bringing in other actors to support initia-
tives. For example, the Grootbos Foundation partnered with the Department of Education in
order to establish well-equipped, free-of-charge, early childhood development centres (Dube &
Nhamo, 2021). Research done in the Bahamas confirms that successful partnerships working
towards the SDGs take a bottom up approach (Francis & Nair, 2020). However, it is not just up
to communities to take the initiative, as partnerships truly working towards the SDGs will also
need to be supported by governments, the private sector and others (Deladem et al., 2021;
Kimbu & Tichaawa, 2018; Polukhina et al., 2021). For example, Tham et al. (2020) observe that
Indigenous tourism operations can definitely benefit from partnerships with government actors
and academic institutions.

Types of partnerships
The question then arises as to what types of partnerships can work most effectively in the tour-
ism space. As Graci (2013, p. 27) notes, tourism partnerships are not always formally constituted:
“Collaboration through partnerships is described as a loosely coupled system of organizations and
individuals that belong to various public and private sectors, who come together in order to
reach certain goals, unattainable by the partners individually” (emphasis added). While this might
work for some forms of partnership, to truly meet shared goals and hold each partner account-
able, more formalised structures are needed.
The range of partnerships evident in the tourism sector reflects those in broader society
(Bramwell & Lane, 2003). This includes the ubiquitous public-private-partnerships, community-
based partnerships (as seen in community based tourism and pro-poor tourism), bilateral part-
nerships (as seen in international development projects funded by one country and delivered in
another), and mulilateral partnerships (as seen in the work of the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), Asia Development Bank (ADB) and USAID, among others).
Two types of partnerships appear dominant, and are profiled below: (1) multistakeholder part-
nerships and (2) public private partnerships, more commonly referred to as PPPs.
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 2275

Multistakeholders partnerships
Given the tourism industry’s global breadth and its multi-sectoral, cross-border and often multi-
lateral nature, multistakeholder partnerships have tended to dominate the discourse on partner-
ships in the pursuit of the 2030 Agenda goals. Beisheim and Simon (2018, p. 497) describe
multistakeholder partnerships as “institutionalized interactions between public and private actors,
which aim at the provision of collective goods”. The complex and multifaceted nature of multi-
stakeholder partnerships “requires the adoption of an integrated approach, which implies reduc-
ing the barriers created by institutional silos and strengthening sectoral and subnational
coordination across implementing entities” (Haywood et al., 2019, p. 567). Accordingly, this intro-
duces the need for metagovernance arrangements that are considered vital to the establishment
of more effective multistakeholder partnerships. In tourism this often encompasses the efficacy
of tourism policy and planning regimes at local and nation state levels, but also regionally and
globally as evidence by the predominance of institutions like the United Nations World Tourism
Organisation (UNWTO), World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) and Pacific Asia Travel
Association (PATA), among a bevy of others.
In international tourism, transnational multistakeholder partnerships are increasingly utilized
not only to implement global sustainable development goals such as the SDGs, but they also
feature prominently in adjacent issues areas such as climate change, biodiversity conservation,
and responses to natural disasters (Pattberg & Widerberg, 2016, p. 49). However, as Pattberg and
Widerberg argue, the “problem-structure and social and political contexts will determine whether
partnerships are the best means of implementation”. Herein lies the practical constraint of trans-
national multistakeholder partnerships in tourism, especially where destinations may be compet-
ing for the same pool of tourists, or where their domestic contexts give short shrift to
cooperation and collaboration in favour of self interest. This is especially evident, for example, in
cases where tourism intersects with human trafficking and orphanage tourism. Here, the cross-
border nature of this activity makes them subject to multiple jurisdictions and their attendant
legislative frameworks, where crimes or breaches are subject to varying levels of action (Cheer et
al., 2019). Moreover, one of the corollaries of orphanage tourism is international volunteer tour-
ism where global travel supply chains and national and local governments are involved - unless
a multistakeholder approach is employed, curtailing human rights infringements through this
type of tourism becomes nigh impossible.

Public-private partnerships (PPP)

Another commonly employed partnership approach, particularly evident in large scale infrastruc-
ture initiatives, is the PPP. Oftentimes, such an arrangement is necessary where capital and or
expertise outside the public sphere is used to defray the weight of responsibility from govern-
ments, and have this shared. Correspondingly, private sector partners base the viability of such
partnerships around the economic returns that are projected and this can sometimes be cause
for consternation when the costs of footing the bill falls to the public, or the benefits of any
such scheme fail to trickle down or be mutually beneficial to parties involved. This accords with
Graci’s (2013, p. 39) assertions that “Collaboration and participation are needed in order to
address the overall concept of the public good as well as environmental and social concerns in
the context of development rather than solely market interests”.
When it comes to PPPs in tourism, Zapata and Hall (2012, p. 64) highlight the tendency for
such arrangements to be complex and prone to irrational behaviour, particularly where
“organisations do not always perform consistently with the rational actor model of decision-
making”. This suggests that the quality of relationship among partners in a PPP, and their com-
mitment to shared goals, govern the effectiveness of such arrangements. Very often, PPPs come
undone when political pressure impinges on the continuity of such partnerships when adverse
2276 R. SCHEYVENS AND J. CHEER

outcomes become more apparent. For example, in examining the role that PPPs can play in cli-
mate change adaptation, Wong et al. (2012, p. 136) assert that “PPP is a relationship based on a
shared aspiration between the public sector and one or more partners from the private and/or
voluntary sectors to deliver a publicly agreed outcome and/or public service”. The problem of
who pays in a PPP arrangement is also contentious but more so, is the question as to who is
ultimately responsible for the delivery of planned outcomes and that things might not go
according to plan. Evidently, one of the biggest constraints to effective PPPs is the extent to
which parties to the arrangement fulfil their obligations.

Partnerships in tourism: highlights of this special issue

All participants of the 2019 conference on Tourism and the SDGs were invited to submit a paper
related to tourism and partnerships for the SDGs to be considered for this special issue. In add-
ition, a general special issue call was issued via the journal. The final eleven papers contained
herein thus represent both presentations from the conference and some from a wider range of
scholars. The collection of papers that has emerged demonstrates the breadth of diversity that
characterises partnerships in global tourism. Readers will find empirical works that draw from
tourism contexts in Fiji, Bali, Japan, Kenya, India, Spain, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the
Netherlands. Moreover, authors demonstrate the variations in the way partnerships in tourism
are evident, particularly the ways by which they are formed and the success factors that make
for productive collaborations.
Adie et al. (2020) challenge the short time frames often enacted around partnerships, noting
that a longitudinal approach is needed. As an archetype of multi stakeholder partnership success,
they appraise Humayun’s Tomb World Heritage Site and Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti in Delhi, high-
lighting that much of the success around what is ostensibly a public private partnership was
built on over a decade of close engagement. Moreover, the alignment of values in the partner-
ship process mean that an Islamic ethical framework was employed undergirded by “the inclu-
sion of the input of multiple stakeholders and a justice-based approach to development” (Adie
et al., 2020). Adie et al. thus propose that partnerships are formulated based on a flow model
that acknowledges that “the total milieu of partnership formation in which the haphazard impact
and coalescence of numerous factors, participants, and interactions result in the dynamic ebb
and flow of issues within a partnership network, and the eventual decisions and outcomes,
which feedback to the partnership system” (2020, p. 6).
The concept of collaborative design is a cogent segue in discourses that link tourism to the
SDGs, although, as Liburd et al. (2020) are at pains to emphasise, collaboration as distinct from
cooperation and other forms of coordination are vital. As they argue, “Co-design takes its depart-
ure point in designing with rather than developing for” and that “co-design can transform tour-
ism practices and enable stewardship alliances for sustainable development” (Liburd et al., 2020,
p. 2). In employing four vignettes in Denmark and Norway to accentuate the engagement with
co-design principles, Liburd et al. (2020, p. 12) highlight emergent themes that underpin “how
tourism researchers can work with complexity, stakeholder values and dynamic inter-
relationships”. Emergent themes include identification with the task, designing and imagining
and co-designing alternatives – all of which are predicated on “an attitude of mind of not merely
being possible, but at all times a continuous, other-regarding process of becoming, which enhan-
ces tour- ism’s distinctive capabilities and human engagement with others and whereby tourism
unfolds its being while contributing to better world-making – the SDGs” (Liburd, p. 16).
A world away in the Pacific islands, the notion of partnerships is entwined with Indigenous
cultures where community-centered philosophies are ingrained in ways of life. Accordingly, the
focus on community-level, private sector-civil society partnerships in the region’s leading tourism
destination, Fiji, is exemplified. Solesolevaki, is a Fijian cultural construct that can be directly
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 2277

translated as “partnerships.” Evidently, it is argued that “The importance of the role of culture
and the place of Indigenous values within business practices and community partnerships lacks
visibility” (Movono & Hughes, 2020, p.11). The inference drawn in this case is that rather than
local culture adapting to tourism, the sector must acknowledge and respect in situ social and cul-
tural frameworks that are driven from the ground up (SDG 10). Taking a critical view of growth
is considered vital if partnership models are to address the underlying point that “Rapid eco-
nomic growth can in fact hinder the establishment of effective partnerships” (Movono & Hughes,
2020, p. 12).
Also through the lens of an Indigenous context, Hoque et al. (2020) examine the role that
non-government organisations (NGOs) play in attempting to direct tourism toward poverty allevi-
ation goals (SDG 1) in Bangladesh. Hoque et al. (2020, p. 4) emphasise that “NGOs have gained
recognition as important actors in developing countries where the poor have limited access to
markets”. Within the NGO-tourism-indigenous milieu, tensions are reported with clashing per-
spectives on all sides. Thus despite a vital link between Indigenous groups and NGOs that inter-
vene on their behalf, “NGO-facilitated tourism involvement has failed to bring any change to the
community’s identity status nor to their land disputes” (Hoque et al., 2020, p. 14).
Pervasive power relationships in Bali are examined by Dolezal and Novelli (2020, p. 2) who
contend that the quintessential island paradise “is trapped in complex tensions between the glo-
bal, the ethnically diverse Indonesian nation-state, and the local – i.e. kebalian (Balineseness),
which many believe needs preservation, particularly through local ownership”. When it comes to
the scholarly critique of tourism and its development credentials, Bali is the poster child for how
mass tourism has underlined rapid and sustained growth, yet its impact on the social and eco-
logical inheritances of the island’s people remains mired in doubt. In making the case for com-
munity based tourism, Dolezal and Novelli (2020, p. 15) maintain that tourism “can create
opportunities for the articulation of villagers’ agency, self-organisation and autonomy, restoring a
balance to an island where mass tourism has caused an imbalance between the human, natural,
and spiritual worlds”. However, the influence of exogenous parties in the expansion of tourism is
a binding constraint that keeps power corralled to a small elite, and amidst the cultural complex-
ity on the island, capitalist dynamics overcome commitment to a culture of collaboration and
community empowerment (SDG 8 and SDG 10).
The accent on the community is furthered by Qu et al. (2020), but specifically the spotlight is
on the role that entrepreneurs from outside play in the development of community-centered
cultural tourism initiatives. The context here is communities at the rural periphery in Japan, for
whom the revitalisation agenda is central to their struggles in the present (SDG 8). The critical
success factors underpinning partnerships in this case are highlighted by the “endogenous net-
works formed and leveraged to construct locally meaningful and sustainable responses to new
conditions” (Qu et al., 2020, p. 16). Moreover, the point is made that community responses by
local stakeholders should not be seen as inferior to ‘official’ viewpoints otherwise “ … the legitim-
acy of the entire endeavor is threatened” (Qu et al., 2020, p. 16).
The issue of landscape governance in a Kenyan context is appraised by Mugo et al. (2020)
who submit that the layered nature of power regarding state relations with tourism communities
has an overriding influence on the efficacy over landscape governance (SDG 10). Evidently, this
case demonstrates that “in most cases partnerships are only able to effectively fulfil their govern-
ance roles with support of the government” (Mugo et al., 2020, p. 13). The inevitability of ten-
sions among stakeholders suggests that power struggles and power vacuums may seriously
affect the capacity of partnerships to strengthen and secure the SDG agenda (Mugo et al., 2020,
p. 14).
Cross-border governance at the intersection between Spain, France and Andorra exemplifies
multi stakeholder partnerships where national interests inevitably govern the approach that each
party brings to the association. Ferrer-Roca et al. (2020, p. 14) outline that there are five key
dimensions that characterise cross-border relations including: (i) scale and peripherality, (ii)
2278 R. SCHEYVENS AND J. CHEER

uneven development, (iii) complementariness, (iv) institutional differences/similarities and (v)

methodological nationalism. The ability to sustain progressive partnerships in cross-border con-
texts are considered contingent upon partners being able to “activate institutional similarities as
well as being well acquainted with the barriers posed by institutional dissimilarities” (Ferrer-Roca
et al., 2020, p. 14). In essence, the ability for cross-border community partnerships rests on being
able to be assured of cooperation among the various national administration author-
ities involved.
When it comes to the effective functioning for multi stakeholder partnerships, governance of
the oceans and the life below water (SDG 14), ocean literacy is considered vital and “presents an
opportunity to involve societies in the achievement of collective social, political, and environ-
mental goals” (Garcia & Cater, 2020, p. 3). However, as Garcia and Cater (20209, p.3) outline, col-
laborative ocean governance through the vehicle of marine tourism is “particularly challenging in
the fluid environment in which marine tourism takes place, particularly as the sector is domi-
nated by a wide range of partners and SMEs”. The scuba diving industry is seen as an archetype
through which the ocean literacy endeavour can be strengthened with Garcia and Cater arguing
that diving can facilitate a transition from passive to active observant diver, with a special focus
towards the insight-seekers over the species-seekers (2020, p. 13). Garcia and Cater contend that
the roles undertaken in multi stakeholder partnerships exemplify a complex hierarchy where
“Government is the main guarantor and facilitator; Science acts as the decoder of the sea; NGOs
work as socially vigilant translators of the knowledge; and diving centres (with the support of
international certifiers and their professional association) are the receptacle of that ocean literacy
and the facilitators of the emotional [re]connection to the sea”.
A relatively high proportion of tourists’ spending in many locations is on food, and in recent
times, attention has turned to the sustainability of food practices. In addressing the issue of
global food wastage (which links to SDG 2), de Visser-Amundson (2020), raises the prospect of
cross-sector multi stakeholder partnerships (MSP) as a mechanism for tackling global societal
challenges. According to de Visser-Amundson (2020, p. 13), while cross-sector partnerships are
not legally binding, their strengths lie in the way it “values each partner for its unique know-
ledge and capabilities (regardless of size and scope of operation) enables the MSP to create
synergies and win-win situations”. Central to the Food Waste Challenge (FWC) in the
Netherlands is the drive towards behaviour interventions or ‘nudges’ where “rather than apply-
ing force and penalties, nudging is a softer approach to persuade consumers to behave and
make more pro-social choices” (de Visser-Amundson, 2020, p. 4). The key to strengthening
future iterations of the MSP is in ensuring pre-commitment from partners, as a means of build-
ing trust.
The extent to which social justice and tourism intersects has increasingly been brought under
intense scrutiny and with that, many and varied partnership models have emerged to try and
address the marginalization of tourism centered communities (Cheer et al., 2019). The case of
Indigenous tourism in Canada is appraised by Huneault and Otomo (2020), particularly, the
extent to which child welfare is regarded as a matter of priority. Huneault and Otomo (2020, p.
14) make the point that “Having identified the impacts of colonialism and the current overrepre-
sentation of Indigenous children within the Canadian child welfare system, Indigenous tourism
management and development could be a novel way to build resources, strategies and new
ideas for addressing some of the longstanding systemic problems”. Given the multiplicity of
agencies and community groups involved in this endeavour, the imperative for multi stakeholder
partnerships is pressing, yet they are notoriously difficult to establish and manage. It is argued
that unless there is “public acknowledgement from the tourism sector in their public facing
documents on how they are incorporating child welfare protocols and safety practices”
(Huneault & Otomo, 2020, p. 14), the success of partnerships that the sector can potentially drive
remains limited (SDG 1 and SDG 4).
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 2279

Concluding thoughts
The articles in this volume speak to specific SDGs on poverty alleviation (SDG1), food (SDG 2),
economic development (SDG 8), reducing inequalities (SDG 10), responsible production and con-
sumption (SDG 12), oceans (SDG 14), and peace and justice (SDG 16), among others. However,
SDG 17 may well be the glue that links all of the Agenda 30 goals, because for institutions, com-
munities and organisations, pursuing the SDGs in collaboration with stakeholders is essential.
As is evident in this collection, partnerships in tourism tend to be complex, multi-faceted, sub-
ject to multiple legal frameworks and governance arrangements, and are often cross-sectoral,
transnational and cross-border. They are also often influenced by the historical, cultural, political
and economic backdrop of the time and unique to the place in question. While these overlap-
ping factors can make it challenging for tourism actors to develop effective partnerships to
deliver on the SDGs, the articles in this special issue suggest there is considerable promise where
stakeholders have shared values or commitments. To provide the balance needed to ensure vari-
ous actors work in ways which support others in the sector to work towards achieving sustain-
ability goals, time should be devoted to developing stronger relationships between and among
the various parties in order to build “a degree of trust and confidence between the partners”
(Warner, 2017, p. 32). Furthermore, to overcome the uneven power relations indicated in a num-
ber of the papers herein, resources will sometimes need to be dedicated to “strengthening of
the institutional and human capacity for partners to negotiate ‘on a level playing field’” (Warner,
2017, p. 32).
Across all of the cases in this collection it is clear that the best chance destinations and their
communities stand of successfully meeting Agenda 30 goals, is through collaborative partner-
ships among the spectrum of stakeholders with an interest in tourism. Lastly, while this special
issue has laid down a number of markers that signal important implications for sustainable tour-
ism research, the capacity to examine how partnerships in the post-pandemic era can be
employed for optimal tourism outcomes for stakeholders remains pressing. As the pandemic
milieu has demonstrated, for tourism recovery to take place across the globe, multi stakeholder
partnerships spanning governments, industries and communities is a fundamental requirement
to ‘right the ship’ and enable the tourism system to reconcile system failures.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Regina Scheyvens http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4227-4910

References
Adams, K. M., Choe, J., Mostafanezhad, M., & Phi, G. T. (2021). (Post-) pandemic tourism resiliency: Southeast Asian
lives and livelihoods in limbo. Tourism Geographies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2021.1916584
Adie, B. A., Amore, A., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Just because it seems impossible, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least
try: The need for longitudinal perspectives on tourism partnerships and the SDGs. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1860071
Ashdown, B. K., Dixe, A., & Talmage, C. A. (2021). The potentially damaging effects of developmental aid and volun-
tourism on cultural capital and well-being. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 4(1), 113–131. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s42413-020-00079-2
Avdimiotis, S., & Christou, E. (2004). GIS applications in tourism planning: A tool for sustainable development involv-
ing local communities. Journal of Environmental Protection & Ecology, 5(2), 457–468. http://195.251.240.227/
jspui/handle/123456789/4609
2280 R. SCHEYVENS AND J. CHEER

Beisheim, M., & Simon, N. (2018). Multistakeholder partnerships for the SDGs: actors’ views on UN metagovernance.
Global Governance, 24(4), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02404003
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (Eds.). (2003). Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability (Vol.
2). Channel View Publications.
Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation, 18(3),
201–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900022104
Capocchi, A., Vallone, C., Pierotti, M., & Amaduzzi, A. (2019). Overtourism: A literature review to assess implications
and future perspectives. Sustainability, 11(12), 3303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123303
Cheer, J. M., Mathews, L., van Doore, K. E., & Flanagan, K. (Eds.). (2019). Modern day slavery and orphanage tourism.
CABI.
de Visser-Amundson, A. (2020). A multi-stakeholder partnership to fight food waste in the hospitality industry: a
contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 12 and 17. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1849232
Deladem, T. G., Xiao, Z., Siueia, T. T., Doku, S., & Tettey, I. (2021). Developing sustainable tourism through public-pri-
vate partnership to alleviate poverty in Ghana. Tourist Studies, 21(2), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F1468797620955250 https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797620955250
Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (2019). The phenomena of overtourism: A review. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5(4),
519–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-06-2019-0090
Dolezal, C., & Novelli, M. (2020). Power in community-based tourism: empowerment and partnership in Bali. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1838527
Dube, K., & Nhamo, G. (2021). Sustainable development goals localisation in the tourism sector: Lessons from
Grootbos private nature reserve. South Africa. GeoJournal, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10182-8
Ferrer-Roca, N., Guia, J., & Blasco, D. (2020). Partnerships and the SDGs in a cross-border destination: the case of
the Cerdanya Valley. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1847126
Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., & H€ausler, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: the disclosure-
performance gap. Tourism Management, 33 (6), 1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.012
Francis, R. M., & Nair, V. (2020). Tourism and the sustainable development goals in the Abaco cays: pre-hurricane
Dorian in the Bahamas. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 12(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/
WHATT-02-2020-0007
Garcia, O., & Cater, C. (2020). Life below water; challenges for tourism partnerships in achieving ocean literacy.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1850747
Graci, S. (2013). Collaboration and partnership development for sustainable tourism. Tourism Geographies, 15(1),
25–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.675513
Haywood, L. K., Funke, N., Audouin, M., Musvoto, C., & Nahman, A. (2019). The sustainable development goals in
South Africa: Investigating the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships. Development Southern Africa, 36(5),
555–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1461611
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2020). Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after Covid-19. Tourism
Geographies, 22(3), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1757748
Hollenhorst, S. J., Houge-Mackenzie, S., & Ostergren, D. M. (2014). The trouble with tourism. Tourism Recreation
Research, 39(3), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2014.11087003
Hoque, M. A., Lovelock, B., & Carr, A. (2020). Alleviating Indigenous poverty through tourism: the role of NGOs.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1860070
Huneault, G., & Otomo, M. (2020). From unlikely to likely partnerships for change-child welfare and Indigenous tour-
ism in Canada. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1817047
Hunting, S. A., & Tilbury, D. (2006). Shifting towards sustainability: Six insights into successful organisational change
for sustainability. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for the Australian
Government Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Ioannides, D., & Gyimo thy, S. (2020). The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable global
tourism path. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763445
Johnson, D. (2002). Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check. Marine Policy, 26(4), 261–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00008-8
Jones, P., Hillier, D., & Comfort, D. (2017). The sustainable development goals and the tourism and hospitality indus-
try. Athens Journal of Tourism, 4(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajt.4.1.1
Kapera, I. (2018). Sustainable tourism development efforts by local governments in Poland. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 40, 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.001
Kimbu, A. N., & Tichaawa, T. M. (2018). Sustainable development goals and socio-economic development through
tourism in Central Africa: myth or reality? GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 23(3), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.
30892/gtg.23314-328
Laeis, G. (2019). What’s on the Menu? How the cuisine of large-scale, upmarket tourist resorts shapes agricultural devel-
opment in Fiji [PhD thesis in Development Studies]. Massey University. https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/
15434
 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 2281

Lane, B. (1994). Sustainable rural tourism strategies: A tool for development and conservation. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 2(1–2), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669589409510687
Lau, Y. Y., & Sun, X. (2020). An investigation into the responsibility of cruise tourism in China. In Maritime transport
and regional sustainability (pp. 239–249). Elsevier.
Le, H., & Nguyen, G. (2019). Reflection on education equity in Vietnam: Teachers’ and students’ voices in an English
tourism programme. Transitions: Journal of Transient Migration, 3(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1386/tjtm_
00004_1
Lew, A. A., Cheer, J. M., Haywood, M., Brouder, P., & Salazar, N. B. (2020). Visions of travel and tourism after the glo-
bal COVID-19 transformation of 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1770326
Liburd, J., Duedahl, E., & Heape, C. (2020). Co-designing tourism for sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1839473
McLennan, S. (2014). Medical voluntourism in Honduras: ‘Helping’ the poor? Progress in Development Studies, 14(2),
163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1464993413517789 https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993413517789
Milano, C., Novelli, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2019). Overtourism and tourismphobia: A journey through four decades of
tourism development. Planning and Local Concerns. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1599604
Movono, A., & Hughes, E. (2020). Tourism partnerships: Localizing the SDG agenda in Fiji. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1811291
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (2015). Tourism and sustainability: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the third
world. Routledge.
Mugo, T., Visseren-Hamakers, I., & van der Duim, R. (2020). Landscape governance through partnerships: lessons
from Amboseli, Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1834563
Nguyen, T. Q. T., Young, T., Johnson, P., & Wearing, S. (2019). Conceptualising networks in sustainable tourism
development. Tourism Management Perspectives, 32, 100575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100575
OECD. (2006). Good practices in the National Sustainable Development Strategies of OECD countries. OECD.
Pattberg, P., & Widerberg, O. (2016). Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development:
Conditions for success. Ambio, 45(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0684-2
Polukhina, A., Sheresheva, M., Efremova, M., Suranova, O., Agalakova, O., & Antonov-Ovseenko, A. (2021). The con-
cept of sustainable rural tourism development in the face of COVID-19 crisis: Evidence from Russia. Journal of
Risk and Financial Management, 14(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14010038
Qu, M., McCormick, A. D., & Funck, C. (2020). Community resourcefulness and partnerships in rural tourism. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1849233
Rogerson, C. M. (2008). Developing small tourism businesses in Southern Africa. Botswana Notes and Records, 39,
23–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41236630
Ross, G. F. (2006). Tourism industry employee workstress—A present and future crisis. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 19(2–3), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v19n02_11
Scheyvens, R. (2018). Linking tourism to the sustainable development goals: a geographical perspective. Tourism
Geographies, 20(2), 341–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1434818
Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016). The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond
‘business-as-usual. Sustainable Development, 24(6), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1623
Scheyvens, R., & Laeis, G. (2019). Linkages between tourist resorts, local food production and the sustainable devel-
opment goals. Tourism Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2019.1674369
Simonsen, M., Go €ssling, S., & Walnum, H. J. (2019). Cruise ship emissions in Norwegian waters: A geographical ana-
lysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.014
Sin, H. L., Mostafanezhad, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2021). Tourism geographies in the ‘Asian Century. Tourism
Geographies, 23(4), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1826571
Sullivan, R., & Warner, M. (2017). Introduction. In M. Warner, & R. Sullivan (Eds.), Putting partnerships to work:
Strategic alliances for development between government, the private sector and civil society (pp. 1–12). Routledge.
Tham, A., Ruhanen, L., & Raciti, M. (2020). Tourism with and by Indigenous and ethnic communities in the Asia
Pacific region: a bricolage of people, places and partnerships. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(3), 243–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2020.1751647
Warner, M. (2017). Building blocks for partnerships. In M. Warner, & R. Sullivan (Eds.), Putting partnerships to work:
Strategic alliances for development between government, the private sector and civil society (pp. 24–33). Routledge.
Wong, E. P., de Lacy, T., & Jiang, M. (2012). Climate change adaptation in tourism in the South Pacific—Potential
contribution of public–private partnerships. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tmp.2012.08.001
Zapata, M. J., & Hall, C. M. (2012). Public–private collaboration in the tourism sector: balancing legitimacy and
effectiveness in local tourism partnerships. The Spanish case. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and
Events, 4(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2011.634069