Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 Available online 5 December 20202211-9736/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Bibliometric analysis and literature review of ecotourism: Toward sustainable development Sayantan Khanra a,b, Amandeep Dhir c,d,e,*, Puneet Kaur e,f, Matti Mantymaki a a Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland b School of Business, Woxsen University, Hyderabad, India c Department of Management, School of Business & Law, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway d The Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, Stavanger, Norway e Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa f Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Bibliometric analysis Content analysis Ecotourism Nature-based tourism Network analysis Sustainable tourism A B S T R A C T In recent decades, rising consumer interest in visiting relatively less commercialized natural destinations has facilitated the growth of ecotourism. Yet the research on ecotourism is fragmented, presenting gaps in the current understanding of this topic. This study performs a bibliometric analysis to assimilate the present knowledge from a total of 878 articles published in six reputable outlets between 1990 and 2019. The study analyzed citation chains and coauthorship networks to acknowledge contributions from select authors, organizations, and coun- tries. Next, a cocitation analysis of the prior literature identified four major thematic areas: ecological preser- vation, residents’ interests, the carbon footprint, and tourists’ behaviors. Further, a dynamic cocitation analysis technique mapped the development of these thematic areas. Subsequently, a content analysis of the four thematic areas delivered significant insights about prior research in the domain and indicated future avenues of research. 1. Introduction Ecotourism is the practice of traveling to relatively less exploited natural destinations to appreciate the natural settings, acquire knowl- edge about wildlife, and enjoy local cultures in authentic settings while conserving the environments of the destinations (Lee & Jan, 2019). Ecotourism has been widely facilitated by the authorities of protected areas in many countries that promote the sustainable development of tourism (Buckley, Cater, Linsheng, & Chen, 2008). Therefore, support from the local community is integral for balanced ecotourism (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). When well planned, ecotourism may deliver sub- stantial economic benefits to local residents (Deery, Jago, & Fredline, 2012). For example, fishermen living in an ecotourism destination may explore related occupations, such as boatmen, scuba drivers, and sea- food stall owners, to boost their earnings (Plummer & Fennell, 2009). However, residents have often protested against poorly planned ecotourism businesses that have left negative impacts on the environ- ment and the livelihoods of those living at the destination (Kousis, 2000). A comprehensive model of ecotourism includes sustainable charac- teristics that are supportive of environmental enhancement, global in scope, and inclusive of both environmental and sociocultural di- mensions (Weaver, 2005). Conceptually, a fine line exists between ecotourism and sustainable tourism. Ecotourism is a concept driven by demand from tourists, while sustainable tourism incorporates measures to conserve the environment from the supply side, meaning by tourism service providers (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2007). However, the tourism in- dustry has blurred the line by popularizing the term “ecotourism” to label their offerings as explorations of environmentally sensitive areas (Collins, 1999). Therefore, ecotourism is often viewed as a part of the tourism industry’s efforts to foster sustainable tourism (Collins, 1999; Weaver, 2005). In general, ecotourists seek a deep understanding and transformational outcomes from visiting an attraction (Weaver, 2005), and hence, they are expected to be concerned about protecting the environment around the attraction (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2007). However, prior research has documented that many tourists resist the required changes in hospitality consumption behavior that can protect the envi- ronment (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014). For instance, a tourist concerned * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: sayantan.khanra@woxsen.edu.in (S. Khanra), amandeep.dhir@uia.no (A. Dhir), puneet.kaur@uib.no (P. Kaur), matti.mantymaki@utu.fi (M. Mantymaki). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100777 Received 30 April 2020; Received in revised form 30 October 2020; Accepted 23 November 2020 Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 2 about excessive holiday flying may continue to fly frequently (Cohen, Higham, & Cavaliere, 2011). In recent decades, the growth of research on ecotourism has neces- sitated a review of what is currently known about this subject. For instance, one group of researchers reviewed the prior literature to outline the uncertainties and research needs regarding ecotourists’ behavior toward climate change (Gossling, Scott, Hall, Ceron, & Dubois, 2012). Deery et al. (2012) summarized the social impacts of tourism. Additionally, another group of scholars reviewed the ecotourism liter- ature in the Chinese language to provide a global perspective on ecotourism, confirming that the term “shengtai luyou” conveys a similar meaning as ecotourism (Buckley et al., 2008). However, such attempts to review the literature on ecotourism are narrowly focused and frag- mented, presenting a lack of comprehensive understanding of this topic, which is particularly important in the present context because concepts such as ecotourism are endogenously multidisciplinary (Boley, Mar- uyama, & Woosnam, 2015). Furthermore, a paucity of research is available that documents the evolution and current status of the research on ecotourism. Therefore, the present study addresses these research gaps by answering three research questions (RQs): RQ1. Who are the key contributors in shaping the research on ecotourism? RQ2. What are the important thematic areas in ecotourism research? RQ3. What are the important future research scopes that may be recom- mended to the researchers studying this topic? These RQs are answered by selecting a sample of the literature on ecotourism that has been published in six journals of high repute and analyzing these articles following a rigorous bibliometric approach (Fahimnia, Sarkis, & Davarzani, 2015; Xu et al., 2018). A bibliometric analysis is well recognized for its ability to summarize the knowledge available on a research topic (Bhatt, Ghuman, & Dhir, 2020; Racherla & Hu, 2010). RQ1 is addressed following a standard protocol for biblio- metric studies developed by Khanra, Dhir, and Mantymaki (2020). Then, the findings from a cocitation analysis technique answer RQ2 by iden- tifying important thematic areas in ecotourism literature (Koseoglu, Mehraliyev, & Xiao, 2019; Shin & Perdue, 2019). These thematic areas include the ecological preservation of tourist destinations, the protec- tion of residents’ interests in tourist destinations, the carbon footprint from tourist mobility, and tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability. Consequently, the development of those thematic areas can be traced with the help of a dynamic cocitation analysis (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019; Xu et al., 2018). Next, future scopes to extend the knowledge of ecotourism are subjected to a discourse analysis, as required by RQ3. The current study organizes the ecotourism literature, which is fragmented and lacks well-defined boundaries, in the process of answering the RQs. 2. Methodology Prior studies have adopted bibliometric analysis to structure existing knowledge about research topics across management domains, such as addictive manufacturing (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019), sustainability (Bhatt et al., 2020), and tourism (Koseoglu et al., 2019). From a meth- odological standpoint, bibliographic coupling, citation and cocitation analysis, and coword and coauthorship analysis techniques have been commonly adopted in prior research that has been based on bibliometric analyses (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019; Xu et al., 2018). A collection of these techniques is included in a bibliometric protocol developed by Khanra, Dhir, Islam, and Mantymaki (2020) (Fig. 1). The current study conducted bibliographic coupling, a citation and coword analysis, and a coauthorship analysis using the VOSviewer Fig. 1. Protocol* for a bibliometric study. *This protocol is prepared by Khanra et al. (2020a). S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 3 software package. VOSviewer is reliable software that can analyze bib- liometric data and visualize the results using sophisticated options (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014). The fractional counting of bibliometric links on VOSviewer is followed in the current study to adjust for the bias from the number of coauthors in publications (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014). A prestige analysis, cocitation analysis, and dynamic cocitation analysis were conducted using Gephi because of its ability to adopt a specialized ranking algorithm and capability to perform sophisticated dynamic analyses (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020). 3. Literature selection The literature selection for this bibliometric study involves three stages: scanning, curating, and reporting the sample (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020). The academic community recognizes the Scopus database because of its ability to provide comprehensive coverage of available resources (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019; Xu et al., 2018). Therefore, the resources suitable for the current study were identified by conducting a search through the title, keyword, and ab- stract of publications listed on the Scopus database following prior research (Fahimnia et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2018). 3.1. Scanning phase A preliminary exploration of Scopus revealed that prior studies often used several terms, such as “nature-based tourism,” “wildlife tourism,” and “responsible tourism,” to represent concepts of “ecotourism.” However, the term “sustainable tourism” stood for the term “ecotourism” much more frequently than other terms. Following prior studies (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020; Ruparel, Dhir, Tan- don, Kaur, & Islam, 2020; Tandon, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020; Tandon, Kaur, Dhir, & Mantymaki, 2020), the search string “ecotourism OR sustainable tourism” was finalized. A search with this string resulted in 5981 published documents (on August 15, 2019) from books, jour- nals, and conference proceedings in business management and related subject areas. 3.2. Curating phase The results obtained from the previous phase were then refined in this phase (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020). Selecting articles published in journals of higher academic rigor improves the quality of insights obtained from bibliometric analyses (Xu et al., 2018). Thus, the search criteria for the current paper were refined to focus on the research published in journals of high repute in the domain of hospi- tality and tourism. A total of six journals in hospitality and tourism are rated three or above in the Academic Journal Guide prepared by the Association of Business Schools (ABS) (ABS, 2015). These journals are the Annals of Tourism Research (ATR) (ABS rating – 4), the Journal of Travel Research (JTR) (ABS 4), Tourism Management (TM) (ABS 4), the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM) (ABS 3), the International Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM) (ABS Fig. 2. Articles published# per year. # as on August 15, 2019. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 4 3), and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (JSM) (ABS 3). A total of 878 articles published in journals with three and above ratings in the journal guide constituted the sample for the current study. Bibliometric data corresponding to the sample were saved as both .ris and .csv files. 3.3. Analyzing phase The inclusion of an article published in 1990 indicates that ecotourism is a fairly mature research topic in management and related study areas. The trend in the number of publications on the topic, as revealed by Fig. 2, suggests that interest in ecotourism research is increasing in management and related study areas. The present study’s sample is composed of contributions from 1590 authors affiliated with 1295 organizations from 76 countries. All six journals, namely JSM (537 articles), TM (176 articles), ATR (83 articles), JTR (63 articles), IJHM (14 articles), and IJCHM (5 articles), published research on ecotourism. Table 1 presents the top 10 authors, organizations, and countries ac- cording to the number of publications. 4. Bibliometric analyses 4.1. Bibliographic coupling Two publications referring to a document are matched in biblio- graphic coupling because high instances of shared references indicate common intellectual capital of the coupled publications (Shin & Perdue, 2019). Table 2 shows the influential authors, organizations, and coun- tries contributing important articles to the sample for the current study. Stefan Gossling was found to be the most influential author in the ecotourism literature, followed by David Weaver and James Higham. Among the organizations, Linnaeus University, Kalmar (Sweden), the University of Otago (New Zealand), and the Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal (Norway), are found to be the most influential in the literature. Among the countries, Australia exhibits the highest influence on ecotourism literature, followed by the United States and the United Kingdom. However, the bibliographic coupling technique, which is grounded in backward citation chaining, attracts criticism for its in- efficiency in analyzing older publications (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014). 4.2. Citation analysis This technique seeks to measure the degree of recognition a pub- lished document has gained in academia by looking at the citation count of the document (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019; Xu et al., 2018). Table 3 acknowledges the top 10 authors, organizations, and countries contributing popular articles, as revealed by a citation analysis. David Weaver was found to be the most popular author in ecotourism litera- ture, followed by Sara Dolnicar and Laura Jane Lawton. The universities of Otago (New Zealand), Wollongong (Australia), and South Carolina (United States) are among the most popular institutes. Furthermore, studies from Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom are found to be very popular in ecotourism literature. However, this tech- nique only takes into consideration a publication’s popularity, not its importance in a research domain (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020). 4.3. Prestige analysis This technique identifies articles important in shaping a research Table 1 Top 10 contributors based on number of publications. Author Number of articles Organization Number of articles Country Number of articles Weaver, D. 26 Griffith University, Australia 59 Australia 224 Gossling, S. 17 University of Queensland, Australia 38 United States 198 Higham, J. 14 University of Waterloo, Canada 24 United Kingdom 157 Dolnicar, S. 12 James Cook University, Australia 24 Canada 78 Boley, B. 10 University of Otago, New Zealand 22 New Zealand 66 Peeters, P. 10 University of Surrey, United Kingdom 21 Sweden 49 Coghlan, A. 9 Southern Cross University, Australia 20 China 39 Hall, C. 9 Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden 18 Spain 32 Nyaupane, G. 9 Breda University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands 14 Netherlands 30 Weiler, B. 8 Lunds Universitet, Sweden 13 Norway 29 Table 2 Top 10 contributors from bibliographic coupling. Author Total link strength Organization Total link strength Country Total link strength Gossling, S. 1096.16 Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden 705.82 Australia 7512.88 Weaver, D. 1003.25 University of Otago, New Zealand 686.31 United States 6637.56 Higham, J. 996.54 Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal, Norway 653.18 United Kingdom 6395.17 Peeters, P. 768.37 University of Canterbury, New Zealand 521.86 New Zealand 3359.04 Ruhanen, L. 723.81 University of Oulu, Finland 426.61 Canada 2976.98 Hall, C. 691.66 University of Johannesburg, South Africa 393.91 Sweden 2162.03 Dolnicar, S. 682.16 James Cook University, Australia 312.65 Norway 1992.83 Boley, B. 678.14 Breda University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands 304.23 China 1683.24 Weiler, B. 657.01 Griffith University, Australia 301.12 Spain 1392.19 Lawton, L. 646.08 University of Surrey, United Kingdom 297.46 Netherlands 1107.41 S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 5 domain using an augmented version of the PageRank algorithm (Fahimnia et al., 2015). This algorithm prioritizes publications that are cocited with well-regarded publications (Xu et al., 2018). Given publi- cation ρi (positive integer i 2 [1, η], where η is the number of publica- tions within a cluster) cited publication ρ0, and ρi is cited λ(ρi) times, PageRank of ρ0, <…ρo† ˆ …1 ε†η ‡ ε  <…ρ1† λ…ρ1† ‡ <…ρ2† λ…ρ2† ‡…‡ <…ρη† λ…ρη†  where ε (ε 2 [0,1]) represents a damping factor (Brin & Page, 1998). Table 3 acknowledges the top 10 prestigious articles among the 878 articles under review. Scott, Peeters, and Gossling (2010), Dolnicar and Leisch (2007), and Deery et al. (2012) authored the three most presti- gious articles. 4.4. Coword analysis The keywords used by the authors and journal indexers of the articles under review provide a snapshot of literature on a research topic (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020). The authors of the articles in the current study’s sample provided 2333 keywords, whereas the pub- lishers indexed the articles with 1439 keywords. VOSviewer connects the keywords that co-occurred in articles, and the density of a keyword represents the frequency of occurrences for the keyword. Table 5 reports the identified keywords that co-occur frequently. Sustainable tourism and ecotourism are the most frequently used keywords by authors and indexers, respectively. A study of keywords in Table 5 reveals that au- thors focus on the relationship between ecological thinking and tourism in ecotourism. However, the indexers view the research topic from a broader perspective, taking into account tourist behavior, the tourism market, tourist economics, and government approaches, along with the requirement to manage the crucial relationships. Fig. 3 presents the density diagram of the author keywords, while Fig. 4 presents the density diagram of the index keywords. Both network diagrams cover the following concepts: (a) nature protection (author keywords: protected areas, nature-based tourism, and community participation; index keywords: protected area, nature conservation, and biodiversity), (b) climate conservation (author keywords: climate change, tourism impacts, and tourism policy; index keywords: climate change, emission control, and environmental policy), and (c) economic development (author keywords: sustainable development, stakeholders, and World Heritage Site; index keywords: tourism economics, heritage tourism, and indigenous population). Additionally, the index keywords also encompass the behavioral aspects of tourists (index keywords: tourist behavior, perception, and recreational activities). 5. Network analyses 5.1. Coauthorship analysis The tendency within a network of coauthors to refer to certain publications may influence the literature on a research topic (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019; Racherla & Hu, 2010). Articles with at least 10 cita- tions in the Scopus database were selected for this analysis to emphasize the more important collaborations. Thus, only 33 authors appear in the coauthorship network, as presented in Fig. 5. The network is divided into four groups. Dianne Drege (four links), Betty Weiler (four links), and Kate Rodger (two links) are prominent among the 10 authors in the first group. The authors in the second group of eight authors include Stefan Gossling, Colin Michael Hall, and Paul Peeters, who are respec- tively linked with eight, six, and five authors. The third group of seven authors is led by Lisa Ruhaneen with four links, followed by Michelle Whitford and Sara Dolnicar with three links each. Bernard Lane (six links), Susanne Becken (3), and David Weaver (2) are prominent among the seven authors in the fourth group. From the network, a total of 59 organizations contributed articles to the sample of the current study, as highlighted in Fig. 6. From these connections, four groups emerge with 18, 16, 13, and 12 organizations, respectively. The present study also identified collaborative networks among 45 countries that contributed at least 10 articles to the sample from the coauthorship analysis (see Fig. 7). 5.2. Cocitation analysis When two publications cite a pair of publications, then the pair of publications is considered as cocited (Shin & Perdue, 2019; Xu et al., 2018). The relatedness of the topics among cocited publications form a cluster of literature networks (Koseoglu et al., 2019; Shin & Perdue, 2019). The semantic similarities are measured by the density of intra- cluster links compared with intercluster links, here following a modu- larity index of the Louvain algorithm for a weighted network (Caviggioli & Ughetto, 2019). The modularity index (Λ) is formulated as follows: Λ ˆ 1σ X ij  Ψij–ωi:ωjσ  ϕ …αi; αj†;where ωi ˆ X j Ψij;ωj ˆ X i Ψij; and σ ˆ 2 X ij Ψij: Here, Ψij represents the weight of the edge connecting the ith article and jth article, αi represents the cluster that the ith article is assigned, and ϕ (αi, αj) represents a binary function which equals one when both the ith article and the jth article are in the same cluster and is zero otherwise (Fahimnia et al., 2015). The Gephi modularity tool visualized 3481 edges connecting 878 articles from our sample using the Louvain algorithm. Using the Louvain algorithm for modularity detection, four major clusters were identified, capturing 78.70% of articles in our sample (ˆ 691 articles) and 86.06% Table 3 Top 10 contributors from citation analysis. Author Total link strength Organization Total link strength Country Total link strength Weaver, D. 661 University of Otago, New Zealand 151 Australia 1498 Dolnicar, S. 430 University of Wllongong, Australia 101 United States 1233 Lawton, L. 319 University of South Carolina, United States 99 United Kingdom 1054 Boley, B. 226 University of Canterbury, New Zealand 93 Canada 684 Peeters, P. 183 University of Oulu, Finland 86 New Zealand 653 Gossling, S. 164 University of Waterloo, Canada 83 Sweden 381 Higham, J. 161 University of Surrey, United Kingdom 79 Netherlands 358 Nyaupane, G. 156 Griffith University, Australia 78 Norway 307 Ballantyne, R. 148 Monash University, Australia 76 Taiwan 294 Packer, J. 148 University of Idaho, Moscow, Russia 75 China 293 S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 6 of the cocitation network (ˆ 2996 edges). These clusters are chrono- logically arranged (Table 6), and the prestigious articles in each cluster are ranked according to their PageRank score (Table 7). Publications belonging to a cluster are connected by a thematic area (Koseoglu et al., 2019; Shin & Perdue, 2019). Thematic areas for four major clusters (see Table 6) were identified by analyzing the prestigious articles reported in Table 7. 5.3. Dynamic cocitation analysis The findings from this technique deliver an understanding about the development of the thematic areas that are identified from the cocitation analysis (Xu et al., 2018). Fig. 8 presents the evolution of four major clusters that evolved following different paths. The annual accumulation of articles in each cluster is reported in Table 8. Here, Cluster 1 emerged in 1990 and tended toward saturation post 2004, whereas Cluster 2 underwent major growth from 2005 to 2012. This signifies that the research focus shifted from the ecological preservation of tourist desti- nations to the protection of residents’ interests in those destinations between 2005 and 2012. However, both of these thematic areas may be considered sufficiently mature currently because no article has been added to these two clusters since 2016. Cluster 3, the largest among the four clusters, represents the magnitude of concerns regarding the carbon footprint from tourist mobility. Cluster 3 experienced strong growth between 2005 and 2016 and has been approaching maturity since 2017. Cluster 4, the latest among the four clusters, captures the interest of contemporary research in studying tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability. 6. Thematic areas 6.1. Cluster 1: Ecological preservation of tourist destinations Ecotourism aims to maintain a balance in the tradeoffs between the extensive commercialization of a tourist destination and the conserva- tion of natural resources or the ecological status of the destination (Collins, 1999). An important aspect of such tradeoffs pertains to maintaining parity between the different destinations that promote ecotourism opportunities to alleviate the pressure created on the local ecosystems from hosting greater multitudes of tourists. One way to achieve this balance would be for destination countries to advertise comprehensive tourism opportunities to a global audience because travel agencies focus on and promote only a few popular destinations (Akama, 1996). Alternative activities related to ecotourism, such as sport fishing, camel riding, visiting rural areas, attending cultural events, and observing archaeological sites (Akama, 1996), may also be advertised to promote visits to less commercialized destinations. The concept of ecotourism may be argued as having similar connotations for local cultures across Eastern and Western nations. For instance, Buckley et al. (2008) discussed the Chinese concept of “shengtai luyou,” which Fig. 3. Density diagram of author keywords*. * Minimum occurrences ˆ 10. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 7 fuses health and well-being with ecotourism. The success of ecotourism from social and environmental parameters solicits willingness and actions from industries, states, and supra-state bodies (Kousis, 2000). Subsequently, researchers have focused on developing an understanding of the creation and maintenance of collaborative networks between multiple stakeholders. For instance, Plummer and Fennell (2009) articulated the concept of adaptive comanagement to manage protected areas used for ecotourism. Simi- larly, Li (2004) proposed indicators for ecotourism that can capture relationships among the environmental pressures caused by tourism, the environmental state of destinations, and a business’ response to the changes it causes. Eagles (2002) argued that if managed competently, park tourism may offer high economic benefits against low environ- mental impacts. Furthermore, another important aspect of this cluster has focused on developing tourists’ understanding of the perceived benefits of nature-based tourism, which is also a significant precursor to protecting nature and the local ecosystem (Palacio, 1997). This may be attributed to the occurrence of a relatively higher variance in tourists’ environmental concerns from the behavior they exhibit during the trip rather than their demographic characteristics (Uysal, Jurowski, Noe, & McDonald, 1994). Tourists’ memories of their wildlife tourism experi- ences and the processes through which such experiences are created can lead to long-term changes in their behaviors toward the conservation of ecosystems (Ballantyne, Packer, & Sutherland, 2011). 6.2. Cluster 2: Protecting residents’ interests in tourist destinations Three components of ecotourism related to the support for and im- pacts of tourism are planning, community participation, and sustain- ability (Choi & Murray, 2010). This suggests that ecotourism ventures may be sustainably successful only if local communities are integrated into such ventures, allowing them to retain some measure of control over the places in which they reside (Scheyvens, 1999). For instance, Draper, Woosnam, and Norman (2009) found that traveling may pro- vide individuals with a different perspective about tourism development within their community. Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012) identified that the occupational, environmental, and gender identities of residents influ- ence their attitudes toward and behavioral support for tourism. There- fore, ecotourism proponents advocate for the adoption of a sustainable livelihoods approach for local residents in destination cities (Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). Furthermore, it is important for governments to under- stand the social impact that tourism may have on local communities (Deery et al., 2012; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012). Suitable actions from governments may result in the preemptive prevention of negative ac- tions or backlashes from community members toward ecotourism (Deery et al., 2012). According to Woosnam (2011), positive attitudes from residents to- ward tourists influence ecotourism development, subsequently benefiting the community itself. Thus, it is important to ensure that the introduction of tourism to a community coexists with the regular Fig. 4. Density diagram of index keywords*. * Minimum occurrences ˆ 10. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 8 activities of the residents (Tao & Wall, 2009) and promotes equitably shared benefits emerging from ecotourism activities (Scheyvens, 1999). For instance, agritourism may educate tourists about agriculture (noneconomic benefits) and enhance the earnings of farmer families (economic benefits) (Tew & Barbieri, 2012). Yet, Fleischer and Tchet- chik (2005) found that knowledge of farm activities is often of no in- terest to tourists. Therefore, tourism managers need valid tools and indicators that can track the progress of resident engagement efforts in conjunction with the management of tourist expectations (Boley et al., 2015). 6.3. Cluster 3: Carbon footprint from tourist mobility This theme captures serious concerns about greenhouse gas emis- sions from tourist mobility, resultant climate change, the insufficiency of current regulations, and the need to encourage tourists’ participation in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Gossling et al. (2012) argued for the tourism industry’s need to critically identify avenues to reduce their carbon footprint because climate change can negatively affect the attractiveness of ecotourism destinations and, eventually, their allied businesses. However, tourism businesses may be unlikely to adopt and may even resist environmentally friendly measures that do not offer financial gains in the short term (Bramwell & Lane, 2013). In fact, efforts made by the tourism industry to reduce such emissions were insufficient for meeting the policy objectives set by international communities to fight climate change (Scott et al., 2010). This may be attributed to their expectations toward earning a return on their investments in developing the required infrastructure (Bramwell & Lane, 2013). As much as 90% of greenhouse gas emissions in the tourism industry can be attributed to the aviation sector (Higham & Cohen, 2011). Yet this sector is posited as providing inaccurate information to travelers, who subsequently exhibit denial for contributing to climate change (Gossling & Peeters, 2007). Cohen, Higham, and Reis (2013) reported that tourists are less concerned about environmental sustainability during their holidays when compared with their regular daily lives. Furthermore, frequent fliers who are well aware of global warming may refuse to change their travel behavior (McKercher, Prideaux, Cheung, & Law, 2010). Contrarily, Higham and Cohen (2011) found that tourists involved in domestic travel may gradually overcome the psychological denial of human-induced climate change and demonstrate a willingness to reduce domestic flight travel. Here, voluntary change in tourists’ behaviors is unlikely without strong government regulations (Cohen et al., 2013; McKercher et al., 2010). Researchers have also proposed different measures to address this issue, such as reducing air travel (Cohen et al., 2011) and imposing a global tax on air travel (Becken, 2007). Reductions in air travel may lead to the avoidance of long-term consequences for climate change by sacrificing short-term personal benefits (Cohen et al., 2011). Becken (2007) proposed an air travel tax at the global level to counter the sector’s adverse impact on the climate as a measure of compromise between restricting commercial air travel and reducing airlines’ carbon footprint. Yet such high taxes in conjunction with rising fuel prices may severely affect low-cost carriers, consequently causing a breakdown in the hospitality industry (Yeoman et al., 2007). 6.4. Cluster 4: Tourist attitudes and behavior toward sustainability For tourism to become part of a more sustainable consumer lifestyle, tourists would need to incorporate and accept changes in their innate behavioral patterns. Yet Miller, Rathouse, Scarles, Holmes, and Tribe (2010) posited that tourists are often unwilling to accept and perform changes in behavior because of insufficient awareness of the impact tourism leaves on the environment relative to behaviors exhibited dur- ing their daily lives. Furthermore, this may also be attributed to in- dividuals’ perceived differences in their moral obligations and attitudes toward proenvironmentalism while experiencing different situations Fig. 5. Network of authors from coauthorship analysis*. * minimum publications ˆ 3; minimum citations ˆ 10. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 9 (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2007). For instance, individuals actively engaging in proenvironmental behavior in their regular lives often contribute to negative environmental consequences, albeit unintentionally, during vacation (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014). Prior research has applied many theories to explain tourists’ pro- environmental behaviors. For instance, tourist intentions to visit “green hotels” have been studied through frameworks using the augmented application of theories, such as the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory (Choi, Jang, & Kandampully, 2015) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Chen & Tung, 2014). Han (2015) provided a detailed analysis of the development of proenvironmental intentions among travelers’ green lodging through an integrated framework based on the VBN theory and the TPB. Similarly, Kiatkawsin and Han (2017) merged the VBN theory and expectancy theory to study the intention of young travelers to behave proenvironmentally. Lee (2011) argued that a tourist’s commitment to an ecological conversation would be correlated to attachment to the destination, involvement in recreational activities, and responsible behavior toward the environment. However, such commitment and proenvironmental behavior may not always be different among individuals who actively participate in ecofriendly ac- tivities and those who do not (Han, & Hsu, L.-T. (Jane), & Sheu, C., 2010). Therefore, effective communication aimed at influencing tour- ists’ behaviors may be the key to reducing negative environmental consequences for ecotourism destinations (Brown, Ham, & Hughes, 2010). Indeed, Brown et al. (2010) reported that well-designed cam- paigns encouraged one national park’s visitors to reduce littering at the tourist destination. 7. Research gaps and recommendations From analyzing the contents of major thematic areas and their development, three sets of research gaps have emerged. These scopes for future research are also recommended as a way to address the respective research gaps, as subsequently discussed. 7.1. Methodologies for advancing themes The literature focusing on a certain research topic often starts with conceptual and qualitative articles and advances with quantitative studies (Fahimnia et al., 2015). The articles in Cluster 1 are mainly based on case studies (Kousis, 2000; Li, 2004), conceptual studies (Buckley et al., 2008; Plummer & Fennell, 2009), and descriptive studies (Akama, Fig. 6. Network of organizations from coauthorship analysis. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 10 1996; Eagles, 2002). Half of the reviewed articles in Cluster 3 followed qualitative approaches, such as interview-based studies (Cohen et al., 2013; Higham & Cohen, 2011), a focused group discussion (Becken, 2007), and a scenario analysis (Yeoman et al., 2007). The other half in Cluster 3 deploy a conceptual approach (Bramwell & Lane, 2013), a cluster analysis (McKercher et al., 2010), descriptive analyses (Gossling & Peeters, 2007; Scott et al., 2010), and a literature review (Gossling et al., 2012) to meet their study objectives. Therefore, in the future, more quantitative studies based on the themes of Cluster 1 and Cluster 3 are required. We recommend that future researchers should develop new measures and empirically test issues in the ecological preservation of ecotourist destinations and in the carbon footprint reduction from tourist mobility. Six out of the 10 prestigious articles in Cluster 2 (Boley et al., 2015; Choi & Murray, 2010; Draper et al., 2009; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012; Tew & Barbieri, 2012; Woosnam, 2011) and seven in Cluster 4 (Chen & Tung, 2014; Choi et al., 2015; Dolnicar & Leisch, 2007; Han, 2015; Han, & Hsu, L.-T. (Jane), & Sheu, C., 2010; Kiatkawsin & Han, 2017; Lee, 2011) followed an empirical methodology. The studies in Cluster 2 and Cluster 4 mostly followed empirical approaches. Therefore, scholars may aim to aggregate the current knowledge by performing a meta-analysis of the prior literature on ecotourism destinations and tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability. 7.2. New themes in ecotourism research Ecotourism is an interdisciplinary domain of knowledge inherently connected with hospitality management, geography, and international business. Furthermore, the present study identified four major themes in ecotourism research connected to different fields of study. The first theme suggests that the ecological preservation of tourist destinations is focused on environment conservation (Cluster 1). The second theme of protecting residents’ interests in tourist destinations is related to eco- nomics and public policy (Cluster 2). The third theme infers that the carbon footprint from tourist mobility is linked to sustainable logistics (Cluster 3). The fourth theme captures tourist attitudes and behavior toward sustainability and connects them to consumer behaviors (Cluster 4). Exploring the connections between ecotourism and several disci- plines, such as healthcare, financial services, and advanced technolo- gies, are scarce. For instance, research is lacking on the requirement of medical assistance for ecotourists in need, the role of ecotourism in psychological well-being, and opportunities for medical tourism in ecotourism destinations. Furthermore, topics such as financing options for ecotourists, their purchasing behavior during trips, and travel in- surance coverage for ecotourism are not well studied. These topics take on greater importance now because the COVID-19 pandemic adds serious uncertainties in the purchase behavior of consumers in various contexts, including retail (Laato, Islam, Farooq, & Dhir, 2020), the stock market (Talwar, Talwar, Kaur, Tripathy, & Dhir, 2020), and hospitality Fig. 7. Network of countries from coauthorship analysis. * minimum publications ˆ 10; minimum citations ˆ 100. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 11 services (Khanra, Dhir, Joseph, & Kaur, 2020). 7.3. New directions in ecotourism research The articles listed in Table 4 are the 10 most prestigious among the articles on ecotourism that have been published in six important outlets. Two thematic areas that include three articles each from the 10 presti- gious articles are the ecological preservation of the tourist destination (Collins, 1999; Li, 2004; Plummer & Fennell, 2009) and the carbon footprint from tourist mobility (Cohen et al., 2011; Gossling et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2010). The rest of the four prestigious articles are equally divided into thematic areas discussing protecting residents’ interests in the tourist destination (Deery et al., 2012; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012) and tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2007; Miller et al., 2010). However, no article published after 2012 gained enough traction to be included in Table 4. Future researchers may borrow the concepts from management do- mains to offer a thorough understanding of issues in ecotourism. For instance, the “dynamic capabilities” required to sustain the attractive- ness of a nature-based destination in the wake of climate change may provide important insights for the responsible authorities in ecotourism management. Furthermore, the exploration of strategies to attract po- tential customers from the “bottom of the pyramid” to destinations facing a reduction in visitors, especially in the off-seasons, may benefit hospitality managers. Prestigious studies may emerge from the adoption of these concepts to provide new directions in ecotourism research. Fig. 8. Evolution of clusters from dynamic cocitation analysis. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 12 Besides this, the benefits and challenges for advanced technology ap- plications, such as big data analytics (Khanra, Dhir, Islam, & Mantymaki, 2020; Khanra, Dhir, Joseph, & Kaur, 2020), blockchain (Tandon et al., 2020a), and cognitive computing (Behera, Bala, & Dhir, 2019), by authorities managing ecotourism may be studied. 8. Discussion The prior research on ecotourism is scattered across journals, and research demonstrating the present structure of the literature is insuf- ficient. To this end, the current study has made the following contri- butions to the ecotourism literature: 8.1. Recognizing key contributors RQ1 of the present study aimed to identify the key contributors to ecotourism research. This question is addressed following different bibliometrics. The presence of six authors, namely David Weaver, Stefan Gossling, James Higham, Sara Dolnicar, Paul Peeters, and Bynum Boley, as shown in Tables 1–3, suggests that they are among the key authors on the research topic. Tables 1–3 suggest that the University of Otago, Griffith University, and the University of Surrey are the organizations leading the research in this area. The contributions of eight countries, namely, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, China, and the Netherlands, are acknowledged in Tables 1–3. Furthermore, the coauthorship analysis of the authors (Fig. 5), organizations (Fig. 6), and countries (Fig. 7) identified a collaborative network that is strongly associated with this research topic. Collaboration patterns suggest that the research on this topic is dispersed in several core groups within a large network of contributors. 8.2. Identifying prestigious articles The articles listed in Table 4 are the most prestigious among the articles on ecotourism that have been published in six important outlets. These articles were published between 1999 and 2012. Two thematic areas are the ecological preservation of the tourist destination (Collins, 1999; Li, 2004; Plummer & Fennell, 2009) and the carbon footprint from tourist mobility (Cohen et al., 2011; Gossling et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2010). The rest of the four prestigious articles are equally divided into Table 4 Top 10 articles from prestige analysis. Article PageRank Score Local citation count* Global citation count# Scott et al. (2010) 0.005291 23 313 Dolnicar and Leisch (2007) 0.005143 14 125 Deery et al. (2012) 0.005130 38 497 Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012) 0.004520 24 413 Plummer and Fennell (2009) 0.003929 13 203 Miller et al. (2010) 0.003656 22 339 Li (2004) 0.003619 15 148 Cohen et al. (2011) 0.003588 17 146 Collins (1999) 0.003417 21 233 Gossling et al. (2012) 0.003283 28 385 # Source: Google Scholar (August 31, 2019). * Source: Scopus (August 15, 2019). Table 5 Top 10 keywords from coword analysis. Author keyword Total link strength Index keyword Total link strength Sustainable tourism 183 Ecotourism 862 Ecotourism 123 Tourism management 291 Climate change 41 Sustainability 210 Nature-based tourism 39 Sustainable development 131 Protected areas 38 Tourist behavior 118 Tourism 34 Tourism market 101 Sustainable development 29 Protected area 85 Wildlife tourism 25 Tourist economics 61 Community participation 17 Nature conservation 57 Responsible tourism 15 Government approach 55 Table 6 Literature classification from cocitation analysis. Cluster* Publication period Number of articles Thematic area Cluster 1 (Color code: Blue) 1990–2011 110 Ecological preservation of tourist destination Cluster 2 (Color code: Green) 1999–2015 189 Protecting residents’ interests in tourist destination Cluster 3 (Color code: Pink) 2000–2017 315 Carbon footprint from tourist mobility Cluster 4 (Color code: Black) 2005–2018 77 Tourists’ attitude and behavior toward sustainability * The clusters are numbered based on their size, not the sequence of their emergence. Table 7 Top 10 prestigious articles in each cluster. Articles in cluster 1 PageRank score Articles in cluster 2 PageRank score Plummer and Fennell (2009) 0.005388 Deery et al. (2012) 0.004835 Li (2004) 0.005134 Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012) 0.004582 Akama (1996) 0.004721 Scheyvens (1999) 0.004376 Buckley et al. (2008) 0.004426 Draper et al. (2009) 0.003927 Kousis (2000) 0.004341 Choi and Murray (2010) 0.003842 Collins (1999) 0.004180 Woosnam (2011) 0.003783 Palacio (1997) 0.003996 Tao and Wall (2009) 0.003275 Eagles (2002) 0.003715 Tew and Barbieri (2012) 0.003194 Ballantyne et al. (2011) 0.003548 Fleischer and Tchetchik (2005) 0.003077 Uysal, Jurowski, Noe & McDonald, (1994) 0.003326 Boley et al. (2015) 0.002997 Articles in cluster 3 PageRank score Articles in cluster 4 PageRank score Scott et al. (2010) 0.005291 Dolnicar and Leisch (2007) 0.005801 Gossling and Peeters (2007) 0.005143 Miller et al. (2010) 0.005589 McKercher et al. (2010) 0.005134 Juvan and Dolnicar (2014) 0.005537 Higham and Cohen (2011) 0.004519 Brown et al. (2010) 0.005398 Becken (2007) 0.004392 Han, Hsu & Sheu (2010) 0.005146 Cohen et al. (2011) 0.003928 Chen and Tung (2014) 0.005016 Gossling et al. (2012) 0.003619 Han (2015) 0.004879 Cohen et al. (2013) 0.003501 Choi et al. (2015) 0.004607 Bramwell and Lane (2013) 0.003476 Kiatkawsin and Han (2017) 0.004586 Yeoman et al. (2007) 0.003421 Lee (2011) 0.004531 S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 13 thematic areas discussing the protection of residents’ interests in the tourist destination (Deery et al., 2012; Nunkoo & Gursoy, 2012) and tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability (Dolnicar & Leisch, 2007; Miller et al., 2010). However, no article published after 2012 earned enough prestige to be featured in Table 4. 8.3. Identifying important thematic areas RQ2 enquired about the important thematic areas in ecotourism literature. This question is answered by clustering the literature in a cocitation analysis (see Table 6). The identified thematic areas find strong relevance in the recent literature. For instance, Ruhanen’s (2019) take on the prominence of ecological thinking in ecotourism experiences connects to the first important thematic area regarding the ecological preservation of tourist destinations. The second important thematic area on protecting residents’ interests in tourist destinations relates to the conflict between tourists’ and residents’ interests (Lee, 2019), the problems residents face from overtourism (Seraphin, Ivanov, Dosquet, & Bourliataux-Lajoinie, 2019), and the need for sustainable community development (Aquino, Lück, & Schanzel, 2018). The third important thematic area (the carbon footprint from tourist mobility) is under investigation in both Eastern (Lee & Jan, 2019) and Western (Rico et al., 2019) parts of the world. Also, recent research (Holmes, Dodds, & Frochot, 2019; Passafaro, 2019) has paid extensive attention to tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability, which is the fourth important thematic area. 8.4. Evolution of important thematic areas From the dynamic cocitation technique analysis, discussions on the ecological preservation of tourist destinations and the protection of residents’ interests at those destinations achieved saturation. The tech- nique also reveals that the thematic area on reducing the carbon foot- print from tourist mobility had sustained interest from academia. Studying tourists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainability emerged as a recent thematic area, which is still in a growth phase. In- depth analyses of the contents of the four critical thematic areas may prove to be timely additions to the literature on ecotourism. 8.5. Future research scopes RQ3 aimed to recommend future research scopes to researchers studying ecotourism. The first set of agendas is dedicated to advancing the existing themes in ecotourism research. The second set of agendas may aid in the emergence of new themes in ecotourism research. The third set of agendas intends to provide new directions in ecotourism research. In addition to three sets of agendas, the present study intends to shed light on the need to establish bridges across disciplines con- nected with ecotourism. For instance, the research domain of ecology may be connected with the research domain of ecotourism in the sub- domain of citizen science, where citizens (particularly ecotourists) are engaged in the collection of data pertaining to natural ecosystems (Hay Mele, Russo, & D’Alelio, 2019). Citizen science may also establish a bridge between the thematic areas relating to ecological preservation and tourists’ behaviors. Furthermore, Hay Mele et al. (2019) advocated a roadmap to combine marine ecology and economy through integrated coastal management, which connects to the thematic area of protecting residents’ interests in tourist destinations. The current study may guide future researchers in the domain of hospitality and tourism in the development of state-of-the-art conceptual foundations and advanced research on ecotourism. 9. Conclusion The current study presents a comprehensive review of research on ecotourism. This conclusion is drawn from the findings from a set of techniques that constitute a protocol for bibliometric studies. A signifi- cant outcome of the present study was the identification of four critical thematic areas relating to the ecological preservation of tourist desti- nations, the protection of residents’ interests in tourist destinations, the carbon footprint from tourist mobility, and tourists’ attitudes and behavior toward sustainability, respectively. Consequently, the research gaps that emerged from the thematic areas have been identified, and future research scopes have been recommended to address those gaps. It may be recognized that the findings reported in the present study faced the inherent limitations of the analyzed sample; the sample consisted of articles published in quality journals that are ranked three and above in the ABS list (ABS, 2015). Future studies may address this inherent lim- itation by including documents from a larger database. For example, emerging and specialist journals such as the Journal of Ecotourism and Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, where there are present up-to- date discussions on ecotourism. Hence, the inclusion of articles from such journals may enrich the current study’s findings with insights specific to the advancements in ecotourism research. Nevertheless, the present study may guide future researchers to advance research on ecotourism. Contribution statement SK and AD conceived the idea of the study. SK collected bibliometric data and performed requi suitableanalyses. AD, PK and MM verified all the process followed for data collection and analysis. SK wrote the first draft of the study and AD, PK and MM critically reviewed and edited the manuscript. CRediT authorship contribution statement Sayantan Khanra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Amandeep Dhir: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & Table 8 Evolution of clusters from dynamic cocitation analysis. Year Number of articles published Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 1990 1 0 0 0 1991 3 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1993 5 0 0 0 1994 10 0 0 0 1995 7 0 0 0 1995 10 0 0 0 1996 9 0 0 0 1997 11 0 0 0 1998 15 0 0 0 1999 8 2 0 0 2000 7 1 3 0 2001 10 3 1 0 2002 2 9 6 0 2003 5 5 4 0 2004 2 7 6 0 2005 1 16 11 7 2006 2 20 21 1 2007 1 16 30 6 2008 0 18 26 6 2009 0 27 30 5 2010 1 22 31 17 2011 0 16 35 7 2012 0 9 33 8 2013 0 5 36 6 2014 0 8 36 3 2015 0 5 19 5 2016 0 0 7 0 2017 0 0 1 5 2018 0 0 0 1 2019* 0 0 0 0 S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 14 editing. Puneet Kaur: Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Matti Mantymaki: Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Declaration of Competing Interest None. Acknowledgements None. References ABS. (2015). Academic journal guide 2015. The Association of Business Schools. Retrieved from https://gsom.spbu.ru/files/abs-list-2015.pdf. Akama, J. S. (1996). Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya. Tourism Management, 17(8), 567–574. Aquino, R. S., Lück, M., & Schanzel, H. A. (2018). A conceptual framework of tourism social entrepreneurship for sustainable community development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 23–32. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Sutherland, L. A. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management, 32(4), 770–779. Becken, S. (2007). Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the global climate and potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 351–368. Behera, R. K., Bala, P. K., & Dhir, A. (2019). The emerging role of cognitive computing in healthcare: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 129, 154–166. Bhatt, Y., Ghuman, K., & Dhir, A. (2020). Sustainable manufacturing. Bibliometrics and content analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 120988. Boley, B. B., Maruyama, N., & Woosnam, K. M. (2015). Measuring empowerment in an eastern context: Findings from Japan. Tourism Management, 50, 112–122. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2013). Towards innovation in sustainable tourism research? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 1–7. Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 107–117. Brown, T. J., Ham, S. H., & Hughes, M. (2010). Picking up litter: An application of theory-based communication to influence tourist behaviour in protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(7), 879–900. Buckley, R., Cater, C., Linsheng, Z., & Chen, T. (2008). Shengtai luyou: Cross-cultural comparison in ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 945–968. Caviggioli, F., & Ughetto, E. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of the research dealing with the impact of additive manufacturing on industry, business and society. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 254–268. Chen, M.-F., & Tung, P.-J. (2014). Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 221–230. Choi, H., Jang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2015). Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions about green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 87–95. Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594. Cohen, S. A., Higham, J. E. S., & Cavaliere, C. T. (2011). Binge flying. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1070–1089. Cohen, S. A., Higham, J. E. S., & Reis, A. C. (2013). Sociological barriers to developing sustainable discretionary air travel behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(7), 982–998. Collins, A. (1999). Tourism development and natural capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1), 98–109. Deery, M., Jago, L., & Fredline, L. (2012). Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda. Tourism Management, 33(1), 64–73. Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2007). An investigation of tourists’ patterns of obligation to protect the environment. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 381–391. Draper, J., Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2009). Tourism use history: Exploring a new framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 64–77. Eagles, P. F. J. (2002). Trends in park tourism: Economics, finance and management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(2), 132–153. Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101–114. Fleischer, A., & Tchetchik, A. (2005). Does rural tourism benefit from agriculture? Tourism Management, 26(4), 493–501. Gossling, S., & Peeters, P. (2007). “It does not harm the environment!” an analysis of industry discourses on tourism, air travel and the environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 402–417. Gossling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C. M., Ceron, J.-P., & Dubois, G. (2012). Consumer behaviour and demand response of tourists to climate change. Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (1), 36–58. Han, H. (2015). Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism Management, 47, 164–177. Han, H., & Hsu, L.-T. (Jane), & Sheu, C.. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management, 31(3), 325–334. Hay Mele, B., Russo, L., & D’Alelio, D. (2019). Combining marine ecology and economy to roadmap the integrated coastal management: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(16), 4393. Higham, J. E. S., & Cohen, S. A. (2011). Canary in the coalmine: Norwegian attitudes towards climate change and extreme long-haul air travel to Aotearoa/New Zealand. Tourism Management, 32(1), 98–105. Holmes, M. R., Dodds, R., & Frochot, I. (2019). At home or abroad, does our behavior change? Examining How everyday behavior influences sustainable travel behavior and tourist clusters. Journal of Travel Research. Article in press. Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 76–95. Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Islam, A. N., & Mantymaki, M. (2020). Big data analytics in healthcare: A systematic literature review. Enterprise Information Systems, 14(7), 878–912. Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Joseph, R. P., & Kaur, P. (2020). Factors influencing the adoption postponement of mobile payment services in the hospitality sector during COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. Article in press. Khanra, S., Dhir, A., & Mantymaki, M. (2020). Big data analytics and enterprises: A bibliometric synthesis of the literature. Enterprise Information Systems, 1–32. Kiatkawsin, K., & Han, H. (2017). Young travelers’ intention to behave pro- environmentally: Merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tourism Management, 59, 76–88. Koseoglu, M. A., Mehraliyev, F., & Xiao, H. (2019). Intellectual connections in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102760. Kousis, M. (2000). Tourism and the environment: A social movements perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 468–489. Laato, S., Islam, A. N., Farooq, A., & Dhir, A. (2020). Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: The stimulus-organism-response approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102224. Lee, J. H. (2019). Conflict mapping toward ecotourism facility foundation using spatial Q methodology. Tourism Management, 72, 69–77. Lee, T. H. (2011). How recreation involvement, place attachment and conservation commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(7), 895–915. Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2019). Can community-based tourism contribute to sustainable development? Evidence from residents’ perceptions of the sustainability. Tourism Management, 70, 368–380. Li, W. (2004). Environmental management indicators for ecotourism in China’s nature reserves: A case study in Tianmushan nature reserve. Tourism Management, 25(5), 559–564. McKercher, B., Prideaux, B., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2010). Achieving voluntary reductions in the carbon footprint of tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 297–317. Miller, G., Rathouse, K., Scarles, C., Holmes, K., & Tribe, J. (2010). Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 627–645. Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243–268. Palacio, V. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benefit segmentation: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 234–243. Passafaro, P. (2019). Attitudes and tourists’ sustainable behavior: An overview of the literature and discussion of some theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of Travel Research. Article in press. Plummer, R., & Fennell, D. A. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 149–168. Racherla, P., & Hu, C. (2010). A social network perspective of tourism research collaborations. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 1012–1034. Rico, A., Martínez-Blanco, J., Montlleo, M., Rodríguez, G., Tavares, N., Arias, A., & Oliver-Sola, J. (2019). Carbon footprint of tourism in Barcelona. Tourism Management, 70, 491–504. Ruhanen, L. (2019). The prominence of eco in ecotourism experiences: An analysis of post-purchase online reviews. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 110–116. Ruparel, N., Dhir, A., Tandon, A., Kaur, P., & Islam, J. U. (2020). The influence of online professional social media in human resource management: A systematic literature review. Technology in Society, 63, 101335. Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245–249. Scott, D., Peeters, P., & Gossling, S. (2010). Can tourism deliver its “aspirational” greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 393–408. Seraphin, H., Ivanov, S., Dosquet, F., & Bourliataux-Lajoinie, S. (2019). Archetypes of locals in destinations victim of overtourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management. Article in press. Shin, H., & Perdue, R. R. (2019). Self-service technology research: A bibliometric co- citation visualization analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 101–112. Talwar, M., Talwar, S., Kaur, P., Tripathy, N., & Dhir, A. (2020). Has financial attitude impacted the trading activity of retail investors during the COVID-19 pandemic? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 102341. S. Khanra et al. Tourism Management Perspectives 37 (2021) 100777 15 Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Islam, N., & Mantymaki, M. (2020). Blockchain in healthcare: A systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda. Computers in Industry, 122, 103290. Tandon, A., Kaur, P., Dhir, A., & Mantymaki, M. (2020). Sleepless due to social media? Investigating problematic sleep due to social media and social media sleep hygiene. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106487. Tao, T. C. H., & Wall, G. (2009). Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism Management, 30(1), 90–98. Tew, C., & Barbieri, C. (2012). The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tourism Management, 33(1), 215–224. Uysal, M., Jurowski, C., Noe, F. P., & McDonald, C. D. (1994). Environmental attitude by trip and visitor characteristics. Tourism Management, 15(4), 284–294. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285–320). Cham: Springer. Weaver, D. B. (2005). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 439–455. Woosnam, K. M. (2011). Using emotional solidarity to explain residents’ attitudes about tourism and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 315–327. Xu, X., Chen, X., Jia, F., Brown, S., Gong, Y., & Xu, Y. (2018). Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 204, 160–173. Yeoman, I., Lennon, J., Blake, A., Galt, M., Greenwood, C., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Oil depletion: What does this mean for Scottish tourism? Tourism Management, 28(5), 1354–1365. Sayantan Khanra (PhD) is currently an Assistant Professor at Woxsen School of Business, India. He is also affiliated with Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland. His research appear in the Enterprise Information systems, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Transforming Gov- ernment: People, Process and Policy, amo among other leading academic journals. He is specialized in narrative, systematic and bibliometric reviews. Amandeep Dhir (DSc, PhD) is a Professor of Research Methods at University of Agder, Norway. He is also a visiting professor at Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Univer- sity of Stavanger, Norway. His research appears in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, International Journal of Contem- porary Hospitality Management, International Journal of Hos- pitality Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Information Management, Computers in Human Behavior, Computers in Industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, Food quality and preferences, Appetite, Information Technology & People, Australasian Marketing Journal, Enterprise Information Systems among others. Puneet Kaur (DSc) is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway. Her research appears in Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Information Management, Computers in Human Behavior, Information Technology & People among others. Matti Mantymaki (DSc) holds a PhD in Information systems and currently he is an Associate Professor at Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland. His work has pub- lished in Information Systems Journal, Computers in Human Behavior, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Information Management, Electronic Markets, among others. S. Khanra et al.