A Framework of Sustainability Performance Indicators for Terrestrial Tourism Development: An Architectural Perspective

Indonesia’s tourism sector has been undergoing a significant recovery and growth trajectory, establishing itself as a vital pillar of the national economy [1]. This upward trend is characterized by increasing domestic and international mobility [2]. Notably, the data from Statistics Indonesia (BPS) [3] as published in the 2022 tourist statistics, recorded a dramatic 364.31% increase in foreign tourist arrivals in October 2022. This resurgence presents strategic opportunities for business development, particularly within nature-based tourism sectors, and calls for enhanced involvement of both government and industry stakeholders [4].

One notable example of this rapid expansion is West Java Province. According to the West Java Office of Tourism and Culture [5], the number of designated natural tourist destinations has grown significantly across administrative regions. In 2014, seven regions lacked natural tourism sites; however, by 2020, all regions had established such destinations. The overall number rose from 386 in 2020 to 624 in 2021 an increase of over 60% and reached 661 in 2022. In certain regions, this growth was particularly dramatic, such as an increase from 20 to 313 locations within two years. These figures underscore the rapid and widespread development of terrestrial nature-based tourism in the region.

Despite its economic promise, this expansion raises critical concerns regarding environmental sustainability and socio-cultural integrity. As highlighted by Gao and Song [6] and Colin Hunter and Green Howard [7], terrestrial nature-based tourism directly impacts the ecosystems upon which it depends. Empirical studies have shown that tourism-related activities can accelerate resource overexploitation, habitat degradation, pollution, soil erosion, and even the erosion of local cultural identities [8-12]. Terrestrial landscapes such as forests, savannas, and wetlands are especially susceptible to these pressures [13].

While sustainability dominates global tourism discourse, policies and practices still emphasize environmental protection and economic growth [14-16], often sidelining architectural dimensions such as spatial layout, built-environment integration, and contextual design. This neglect persists despite growing evidence that spatial and physical attributes of tourism infrastructure significantly shape ecological and socio-cultural outcomes [17]. Ineffective spatial planning may exacerbate environmental degradation and limit equitable access [18, 19], whereas context-sensitive and culturally grounded design enhances ecological resilience and enriches visitor experiences [20, 21].

In Indonesia, several regulatory and institutional efforts have been undertaken to promote sustainable tourism. These include the adoption of international standards from the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) [22] and national regulations specifically the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism & Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021. While these initiatives provide foundational guidance, they tend to be generalized and do not fully address the unique characteristics of terrestrial nature-based tourism, nor do they systematically incorporate architectural dimensions into sustainability assessments.

Addressing this research gap, the present study aims to develop a comprehensive set of performance indicators that encapsulate sustainability in terrestrial nature-based tourism, with particular emphasis on the integration of architectural frameworks. The core research question that guides this inquiry is: How can context-sensitive and relevant performance indicators be developed to assess the sustainability of terrestrial nature-based tourism?

To address this question, the study formulate performance indicators by referring to several key sources, including GSTC, Regulation of the Minister of Tourism & Creative Economy Number 9 of 2021, and the Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI) as supporting parameters, as well as various relevant previous studies. This study is guided by predefined framework comprising four main categories: Planet (Environmental), Prosperity (Socio-Economic), People (Socio-Cultural), and Management of tourism (Management).

The formulation of performance indicators was conducted through an architectural perspective by incorporating supporting parameters derived from GBCI for Neighborhood and GBCI for Building. The combined criteria of these two schemes encompass four key dimensions: Socio-Economic, Socio-Cultural, Environmental, and Managerial aspects. Integrating GBCI for Neighborhood and GBCI for Building as supplementary parameters strengthens the sustainability assessment model for terrestrial nature-based tourism, as it captures both the scope of sustainable planning and development at the neighborhood scale and the performance, design, and operational aspects of buildings that collectively contribute to achieving sustainability.

This framework is intended to guide destination managers, planners & architects, policy makers, auditors, and researchers in advancing terrestrial nature-based tourism. Its expected impact includes fostering environmentally responsible design, reinforcing local cultural identity, and improving the long-term sustainability and resilience of terrestrial nature-based tourism development in Indonesia.

The performance indicators for sustainable terrestrial nature-based tourism were formulated based on a review of several key literature, including the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (GSTC-D), the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021, and nine relevant previous academic literature. The following nine relevant previous academic literature are considered to this research:

1. Baloch et al. [28]: “Impact of tourism development upon environmental sustainability: a suggested framework for sustainable ecotourism”.
2. Chang et al. [29]: “Sustainability”.
3. Aall [30]: “Sustainable tourism in practice: Promoting or preventing the quest for a sustainable development”.
4. Pratheep [31]: “Sustainable architecture and tourism management”.
5. AbuSada and Thawaba [32]: “Multi criteria analysis for locating sustainable suburban centers: A case study from Ramallah Governorate, Palestine”.
6. WTO [33]: “Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations”.
7. P3TB [34]: “Program Pembangunan Pariwisata Terintegrasi dan Berkelanjutan”.
8. Sharma and Krishna [35]: “Sustainable Tourism Architecture Bangladesh”.
9. Mazilu and Draguleasa [36]: “Sustainable Tourism Development - an applied model of the Bucegi Mountains”.

The formulation of these performance indicators is guided by four main categories that form the basis of sustainable tourism, as defined in national policy through the regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy Number 9 of 2021: Environmental (Planet), Management tourism (Management), Socio-Cultural (People), and Socio-Economic (Prosperity).

3.1 Identification of performance indicators through literature review using directed content analysis

In the Directed Content Anlysis stages, the analytical process began with the identification and systematic elaboration of sustainable nature-based tourism performance indicators derived from a wide range of literature and relevant policy documents. Each performance indicators was analyzed to interpret its meaning and contextual relevance in relation to sustainability principles. Rather than employing a fully exploratory approach, this analysis was guided by a predetermined categorization framework consisting of four main categories, as outlined in the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy Number 9 of 2021. These categories include environmental (Planet), socio-economic (Prosperity), socio-cultural (People), and management of tourism (Management). Through the Directed Content Analysis, all indicators were examined and classified into the categories that best represent their conceptual meaning. As a result of this process, a total of 281 performance indicators were identified, each representing key aspects of sustainability in the context of terrestrial nature-based tourism. These indicators were then mapped into four predetermined dimensions derived from Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy Number 9 of 2021: Planet (Environmental), Prosperity (Socio-Economic), People (Socio-Cultural), Management of Tourism (Management) based on thematic patterns, key terms, and semantic alignment. The categorized resulted in 98 Planet (Environmental) performance indicators, 57 Prosperity (Socio-Economic), 45 People (Socio-Cultural) Performance Indicators, and 81 Management of Tourism (Management).

3.2 75 performance indicators identified through summative content analysis

The Summative Content Analysis stage was conducted to identify recurring keywords, thematic patterns, and shared core meanings across the 281 performance indicators. This step served to refine the dataset into a more concise and conceptually coherent set of indicators representing the sustainability dimensions of terrestrial nature-based tourism. Through this manual semantic review, the initial 98 Environmental indicators were consolidated into 33 indicators, the 57 Socio-Economic indicators into 13 performance indicators, the 45 Socio-Cultural indicators into 16 performance indicators, and the 81 Management of Tourism indicators into 13 performance indicators.

As a result of the analysis, 75 performance were identified as having similar keywords, patterns, and meaning with the overall set. These include: 33 indicators for environmental category (Planet), 13 indicators for management of tourism (Management) category, 16 indicators for socio-cultural (People) category, and 13 indicators for socio-economic (Prosperity) category. A comprehensive summary of the 281 performance indicators into 75 performance indicators is provided in the appendix of this article. Subsequently, these 75 performance indicators were subjected to a literature-based mapping process to visualize the distribution of literature involved in the formulation of these 75 performance indicators. Table 2 presents the literature-based mapping.

Table 2. Literature based mapping

During the directed and summative content analysis stages, the 281 performance indicators were not assigned any coding. Coding was applied only after the final set of 75 performance indicators was established, consisting of 33 Planet (Environmental) performance indicators (L1-L33), 13 Management of Tourism (Management) performance indicators (M1-M13), 16 People (Socio-Cultural) performance indicators (B1-B16), and 13 Prosperity (Socio-Economic) performance indicators (S1-S13). Details regarding the categorization and performance indicator grouping can be found in Appendix 7.

Furthermore, the involvement of architects is evident in the integration of parameters established by the Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI). This integration reinforces the indicator framework by embedding sustainability standards that address both building-level and neighborhood-scale considerations. These parameters reflect professional architectural perspectives and contribute to aligning the framework with nationally recognized green certification systems, thereby enhancing its relevance and applicability built environment assessments.

Although GBCI for Building and GBCI for Neighborhood are designed with different inclusion criteria according to their respective scales, their application to terrestrial nature-based tourism areas remains relevant without requiring specific adaptations. This is because such destinations inherently consist of both buildings and broader site areas. Therefore, GBCI criteria at the building level can be applied to assess the sustainability of physical facilities, while neighborhood-level criteria support the evaluation of environmental and spatial aspects at the larger area scale. In this way, the two schemens complement each other within the context of terrestrial natural nature-based tourism.

3.2.1 Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Environment (Planet)

The results of the distribution analysis simplified the performance indicators by grouping those with similar content, resulting in 33 performance indicators for environmental category (Table 3) (QT = Quantity, see Appendix 1 for Greenship Parameter Codes).

Table 3. Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Environment (Planet)

As illustrated in Figure 2 and detailed in Table 3, the distribution of reference sources used in formulating performance indicators for the environmental (planet) category reveals a strong reliance on globally and nationally recognized standards. The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations (GSTC-D) emerges as the dominant reference, with 46% indicators derived from GSTSC-D. This highlights GSTC-D's global authority and relevance in defining sustainability principles for tourism, especially regarding environmental aspects.

The second most frequently cited reference is the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021, from which 21% of the indicators are derived. This regulation provides a national legal framework that aligns with global sustainability targets while contextualizing them to Indonesia’s tourism landscape.

Figure 2. Distribution of reference sources for environmental performance indicators

Additional contributions include Baloch et al. [28] with 11%, reflecting recent empirical research that complements institutional guidelines, and Pratheep [31] with 7%, which emphasizes water and environmental quality. Other sources such as Chang et al. [29], Aall [30], AbuSada and Thawaba [32], P3TB [34], Mazilu and Draguleasa [36], and UNWTO [39] contribute smaller proportions (each ≤ 5%), yet they offer specialized insights particularly regarding environmental [30] pollutants, measurement tools, and cross-sectoral integration.

Overall, this distribution demonstrates that the environmental indicators are primarily shaped by internationally endorsed sustainability frameworks (GSTC) and reinforced by national regulations, while academic sources serve to enhance the framework with empirical and technical depth. This balanced sourcing strengthens the credibility, relevance, and applicability of the developed indicators in real-world terrestrial tourism contexts.

Figure 3 presents a dual-layered frequency analysis comparing the number of references from literature sources and the frequency of expert discussions for each environmental performance indicator (L1–L33). This analysis provides a balanced view of how often each indicator is recognized both in normative frameworks and in practical discourse, offering insight into their theoretical foundation and perceived relevance in the field.

Based on Figure 3 and detailed in Table 3 regarding the number of environmental performance indicators discusses, L30 which focuses on minimizing the negative impacts of tourism on the environment is the most frequently mentioned (twelve times). This highlights the importance of conservation efforts and the management of tourism impacts as prerequisite criteria for achieving sustainable tourism. In Figure 3, which outlines the number of environmental performance indicators cited in reference sources, L12 (energy consumption reduction, efficiency, and renewable energy) and L30 (tourism environmental impact management system) appear most frequently across various references. This indicates a shared focus on energy-related issues and the mitigation of tourism’s environmental impacts, reflecting the significance of sustainability in the tourism sector.

Figure 3. Quantity of environmental indicators based on references and discussion

3.2.2 Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Socio-economic (Prosperity)

The results of the distribution analysis simplify the socio-economic performance indicators into 13 performance indicators, focusing on improving the quality of life and community welfare, as Table 4 (QT = Quantity, see Appendix 1 for Greenship Parameter Codes).

As illustrated in Figure 4 and detailed in Table 4, the distribution of reference sources used in formulating socio-economic performance indicators. The analysis reveals that the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria for Destinations [23] provides the largest contribution, with 28% indicators derived from GSTSC-D. This affirms the GSTC’s position as a globally recognized framework that comprehensively addresses principles of equity, inclusiveness, and community empowerment within tourism development.

Table 4. Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Socio-economic (Prosperity)

Figure 4. Distribution of reference sources for socio-economic performance indicators

The Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021 serves as the second most prominent reference, contributing 25% of the socio-economic performance indicators. This demonstrates the significant role of national-level policy in contextualizing international standards and ensuring that sustainability practices are applicable and enforceable within the Indonesian tourism sector.

In addition to these dominant references, several academic and empirical studies also inform the development of the indicators. Sources such as Baloch et al. [28], Chang et al. [29], Aall [30], Abusada and Thawaba [32], Sharma and Krishna [35], and Mazilu and Draguleasa [36] each provide supporting insights, with contribution shares ranging between 3%, 6%, 7%, and 10%. These references help to enrich the indicator framework by introducing case-specific perspectives, critical reflections on implementation, and localized socio-economic concerns.

Figure 5 presents a comparative analysis of the socio-economic performance indicators, based on both the number of references from literature and the frequency of discussion among literature. The findings clearly indicate that Indicator S2, which emphasizes the formulation of inclusive policies to provide employment opportunities, access to training, occupational safety, and fair wages, is the most dominant indicator in both dimensions. It appears in five different reference sources and was also mentioned ten times in sources discussions.

This dual prominence highlights the centrality of labor-related issues in sustainable tourism discourse. The frequent reference to S2 suggests that employment quality, worker protection, and economic inclusivity are viewed as fundamental pillars for realizing community well-being through tourism. These themes are in line with the broader objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDGs 8 on decent work and economic growth.

Figure 5. Quantity of socio-economic indicator based on references and discussion

The economic empowerment of local communities in tourism destinations can be assessed through quantitative indicators that reflect the extent to which MSMEs are integrated into the tourism value chain. These include the proportion of local procurement (percentage of goods and services sourced from local suppliers), the economic value of MSME participation (annual income generated, share of local suppliers involved, and growth in MSME revenue), and the magnitude of domestic value-added indicating how much tourism-related income remains within the community. Inclusivity can be observed through the percentage of tourism businesses and workforce owned or employed by women and youth, while supplier capacity building is reflected in the number of training programs delivered, the participation rate of local MSMEs, and measurable improvements in business skills and performance after training. Collectively, these indicators offer a concise overview of how tourism supports local economic independence and ensures that benefits are distributed fairly among community members.

3.2.3 Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Socio-cultural (People)

The results of the distribution analysis simplify the performance indicators of the social and cultural aspects into 16 performance indicators, as Table 5 (QT = Quantity, see Appendix 1 for Greenship Parameter Codes).

As illustrated in Figure 6 and detailed in Table 5, the distribution of reference sources used to formulate performance indicators within the social and cultural category. The analysis reveals that the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC) [23] is the most dominant reference, contributing in 12 indicators, which account for 37% of the total. This demonstrates GSTC-D’s strong emphasis on the preservation of cultural heritage, social inclusion, and respect for local identity as key components of sustainable tourism development.

Table 5. Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Socio-cultural (People)

Figure 6. Social & cultural performance indicator reference source distribution diagram

The second largest contribution comes from the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021, which includes in 7 indicators, or 22% of the total. This finding reflects the Indonesian government’s commitment to integrating cultural and social values into national tourism policies, ensuring that development efforts are aligned with the protection of local traditions and heritage.

In addition, several relevant previous academic studies and international sustainable tourism standards through GSTC guidelines, also contribute meaningfully to the indicator framework. Notably, Baloch et al. [28] and Sharma and Krishma [35] provides 13%, these contributions highlight the relevance of empirical and conceptual studies in enriching the cultural dimension of sustainability. Other references, such as Aall [30], AbuSada and Thawaba [32], P3TB [34], and UNWTO [39] through smaller in proportion (each less than 6%), add critical historical and institutional context to the development of culturally responsive tourism indicators.

The prominence of GSTC and Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021 further affirms that cultural sustainability through heritage conservation, community engagement, and respect for social norms is increasingly recognized as a core pillar of sustainable tourism, not merely a complementary consideration.

In summary, the data in Figure 6 demonstrates a strong alignment between reference-based and discussion-based priorities, suggesting that socio-economic sustainability especially through labor inclusion and local empowerment constitutes a widely agreed-upon foundation for responsible tourism development.

Figure 7. Quantity of social and cultural indicators based on references and discussion

Based on Figure 7, which presents the distribution of socio-cultural performance indicators based on discussion content and reference sources reveals that three indicators stand out as the most frequently addressed: B3 (conservation of cultural assets), B16 (cultural interpretation standards), and B10 (management of visitors to cultural sites). Each of these indicators is cited more than three and four times, reflecting a strong and consistent emphasis within the reviewed sources. The prominence of B3 underscores the critical role of preserving and rehabilitating cultural heritage as a foundation for sustainable tourism, ensuring that tangible and intangible cultural assets are safeguarded for future generations. Similarly, B16 highlights the necessity of establishing clear standards for cultural interpretation, which not only enhance visitors’ understanding and appreciation of heritage but also foster respect for local traditions and identity. Meanwhile, the repeated mention of B10 illustrates the essential function of effective visitor management strategies in preventing overcrowding, minimizing physical degradation of sites, and maintaining the authenticity of cultural experiences. Collectively, these findings point to a shared recognition that cultural asset preservation, interpretive quality, and visitor regulation are indispensable prerequisites for achieving a balance between tourism development and cultural sustainability.

3.2.4 Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Management (Management)

The results of the distribution analysis simplify the performance indicators of the management aspect into 13 performance indicators. As illustrated in Figure 8 and detailed in Table 6 (QT = Quantity, see Appendix 1 for Greenship Parameter Codes), the distribution of reference sources that inform the development of performance indicators in the management category of sustainable tourism. The data show that the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria GSTC (2019) is the most prominent reference, contributing 38% of the total. This strong representation underscores the centrality of governance and management mechanisms in global sustainability standards, where systematic planning, monitoring, and continuous improvement are considered foundational to effective destination management.

The second-largest contributor is the Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021, which provides 25% of the total. This highlights the Indonesian government's emphasis on institutionalizing sustainable tourism practices through structured policy instruments, particularly in areas such as risk management, stakeholder coordination, compliance mechanisms, and transparency in tourism operations.

Table 6. Sustainable tourism performance indicators: Management

Figure 8. Distribution diagram of reference sources for performance indicators of management aspects

In addition to these two leading references, several academic sources also contribute to the indicator framework, though to a lesser extent. Sharma and Krishna [35] account for 9% of the indicators, offering insights on strategic destination governance and community-oriented planning. Aall [30] and UNWTO [39] each contribute 6% and 13%, drawing attention to long-standing international principles regarding destination-level sustainability planning and institutional resilience. Finally, Chang [29] added a further 9%, enriching the framework with perspectives on data-driven management and smart tourism systems.

The prominence of GSTC and national regulation in this category reflects a consensus that sustainability goals cannot be achieved without robust and well-coordinated management structures. The diversity of supporting literature reinforces this view by bringing theoretical depth, empirical findings, and contextual relevance to the design of management-related indicators. Overall, the distribution shown in Figure 8 emphasizes that good governance and integrated destination management are not just technical requirements but strategic enablers of sustainability in the tourism sector.

Figure 9 and Table 6 provide a comparative analysis of the quantity of management performance indicators derived from both stakeholder discussions and reference sources. Among these, Indicator M4 (Community engagement), which emphasizes public participation in sustainable destination planning and management, emerges as the most frequently discussed, with 12 occurrences. This indicator highlights the importance of inclusive governance by ensuring that local communities are actively involved in planning processes, decision-making, and the formulation of tourism policies. The strong representation of M4 also aligns with global and national guidelines, appearing in six different reference sources, including GSTC [23], Regulation of the Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy No. 9 of 2021 [24], Chang [29], Aall [30], Sharma and Krishna [35], and GBCI for Neighborhood [37]. This convergence indicates that public engagement is widely recognized as a normative principle in sustainable tourism management.

Overall, the pattern revealed in Figure 9 suggests that effective tourism management requires not only regulatory frameworks and operational guidelines but also dynamic feedback systems and inclusive institutional arrangements. The consistent emphasis on community engagement (M4) and evaluation systems (M8) reflects a growing recognition that sustainable tourism governance must be both participatory and evidence-based to achieve long-term resilience and impact.

Figure 9. Quantity of management indicators based on references and discussion

This study presents a foundational contribution to the development of sustainability performance indicators specific to terrestrial nature-based tourism, addressing a critical gap within the existing GSTC framework, which has yet to explicitly accommodate this tourism typology. Through a structured methodology integrating international standard, national regulations, and previous relevant studies, the study formulates 75 performance indicators systematically grouped into four main categories: Planet (Environmental), Prosperity (Socio-Economic), People (Socio-Cultural), and Management of tourism (Management).

The framework’s strength lies in its contextual relevance and applicability, particularly demonstrated by its strong alignment with the Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI) parameters especially in environmental and managerial aspects. This alignment enhances the practical feasibility of applying the indicators within destination-level sustainability assessments. Rather than merely adapting generic criteria, the proposed indicators offer a tailored evaluative tool that supports certification, monitoring, and planning in nature tourism contexts grounded in terrestrial ecosystems.

Importantly, the framework enables a shift toward data-informed governance, offering a structured reference for the formulation of national technical guidelines and sustainability certification schemes. It not only supports compliance with international standards but also strengthens local destination resilience through performance-based measurement. The incorporation of these indicators into planning and policy mechanism could reinforce Indonesia’s leadership in advancing sustainability in terrestrial nature-based tourism.

The proposed indicator set may be provisionally adopted by destinations and auditors while the formal validation process still underway. In practice, the model evaluation can be implemented through an operational audit checklist in which performance indicators translated into assessment questions, supported by verifiable evidence such as design documents, digital files, photographs, and other records, accompanied by rating categories (compliant, needs improvement, & not compliant) and additional notes. A pilot test will be carried out to evaluate the model’s clarity and field applicability, and insights from this trial will inform iterative refinements to ensure the indicators remain empirically reliable and operationally relevant.

Future research should prioritize empirical validation of the indicators through field-based applications, evaluating their operational clarity, scalability, and stakeholder acceptance. Longitudinal studies tracking destination performance over time would further inform indicator refinement and enhance adaptive management. In sum, the study provides a robust platform for advancing sustainability governance in terrestrial tourism and opens pathways for context-sensitive tourism policy, implementation, and innovation.