Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

To make tourism recommender systems fair, algorithm designers should adopt the participatory, context-aware methods tourism management already uses, not just add fairness metrics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A comparative literature review shows tourism management and computer science define multistakeholder fairness differently, and argues algorithmic design should adopt qualitative, participatory methods from tourism research.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A transparent, useful cross-disciplinary review whose central contrast is weakened by an asymmetric sample; worth refereeing with a request to fix that asymmetry. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20496 v1 pith:KHGKL6V5 submitted 2025-08-28 cs.IR

Multistakeholder Fairness in Tourism: What can Algorithms learn from Tourism Management?

Peter Muellner , Anna Schreuer , Simone Kopeinik , Bernhard Wieser , Dominik Kowald This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords multistakeholder fairnesstourism recommender systemstourism managementparticipatory designalgorithmic fairnesssustainabilityliterature reviewstakeholder mapping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that computer science and tourism management are talking past each other about fairness in tourism. Reviewing 44 publications from both fields, the authors find that tourism management treats fairness as a holistic, context-dependent issue—settled by participatory collaboration among residents, businesses, governments, and the environment—whereas computer science treats fairness as a set of quantifiable metrics, like exposure bias or discrimination, that an algorithm can optimize. That gap matters because recommender systems steer tourist flows and can worsen overtourism, environmental damage, and unequal benefits. The authors' conclusion is a direction: algorithmic decision-support should adopt tourism management's stakeholder mapping and participatory design methods, using qualitative fairness goals as guiding principles that are then operationalized into measurable proxy metrics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two fields conceptualize multistakeholder fairness in tourism in systematically different ways. In the 24 tourism management papers reviewed, fairness is normative and holistic: it is something to be achieved through inclusive decision-making, stakeholder partnerships, community empowerment, and respect for ecological limits, with qualitative methods such as workshops and case studies. In the 20 computer science papers, fairness is descriptive and metric-driven: it appears as popularity bias, exposure bias, temporal bias, or group disparity, evaluated via measures like coverage, novelty, and generalized cross-entropy. The authors argue this is not merely

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two devices. First, a semi-systematic literature review: a Scopus query yielding 180 publications is filtered to 44, with 24 from tourism management and 20 from computer science, and the two sets are compared across their fairness definitions and methods. Second, the concept of operationalization—borrowed from the paper's reading of practitioners' accounts—by which an abstract fairness goal (e.g., addressing overtourism) is translated into a computable target (e.g., popularity bias mitigation). The paper's Table 2 makes the comparison concrete by aligning parallel fairness definitions from both fields, exposing where algorithmic proxies diverge from tourism managem

Load-bearing premise

The contrast between the two fields rests on the 44 papers chosen from 180 Scopus results after subjective post-filtering; if that sample is biased toward papers that fit the tourism-management-versus-computer-science split, the reported gap is an artifact of selection.

What would settle it

A bibliometric test: take a random, preregistered sample of 100 papers from each field (scoped by journal or venue rather than by a subjective relevance filter), code each paper's methods as qualitative/participatory or quantitative/metric with a validated scheme, and compare the distributions. If the methods distributions overlap substantially, the claimed dichotomy is false. Alternatively, a field experiment: build one tourism recommender using only metric-based fairness and a second using stakeholder co-design, and test whether the co-designed system's outputs lead to outcomes (e.g., the sp

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Algorithm designers should treat stakeholder mapping—identifying residents, small businesses, the environment, and governments—as a required step before choosing fairness metrics.
  • Qualitative fairness goals from tourism management can be operationalized: for example, 'alleviate overtourism' becomes a popularity-bias mitigation target in a point-of-interest recommender.
  • Participatory and inclusive design methods (stakeholder workshops, community-based planning) should be integrated into the recommender system development lifecycle, not treated as outside-the-model context.
  • Existing tourism ecolabels and certification schemes offer a ready-made translation of responsible-tourism criteria that recommendation algorithms can prioritize.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same descriptive-versus-normative gap plausibly exists in other application areas where algorithmic decision-support meets a domain with a qualitative research tradition, such as urban planning or public-service allocation; the paper's diagnosis is not obviously tourism-specific.
  • A direct test of the paper's remedy: co-design a recommender for one destination with local stakeholders, then compare its outputs and evaluation criteria against a metric-only baseline, to see whether participatory inputs actually change system behavior or merely relabel existing trade-offs.
  • The authors' own selection process—180 Scopus results filtered subjectively to 44—means the dichotomy they report could be sharpened or weakened by a repeat review with preregistered inclusion criteria and dual coding; until then, the size of the true gap between fields is not yet a measured quantity.
  • There is a latent risk in the paper's own proposal: operationalizing a qualitative goal into a proxy metric may again shrink fairness to what is measurable, especially if the proxy is chosen by researchers rather than by the stakeholders the process is meant to empower.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a semi-systematic literature review of 44 Scopus-indexed publications (24 tourism management, 20 computer science) on multistakeholder fairness in tourism. It compares how the two fields conceptualize fairness: tourism management is characterized as qualitative, participatory, and normative, addressing stakeholder needs, procedural justice, and local context; computer science—specifically algorithm-focused recommender systems research—is characterized as quantitative, metric-driven, and top-down, focusing on measurable discrimination and bias. The paper argues that algorithm-focused CS research should adopt tourism management's participatory and context-aware methods, and that qualitative fairness goals can be operationalized into proxy metrics (e.g., overtourism into popularity-bias mitigation). It identifies three benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration: holistic fairness understanding, stakeholder mapping, and participatory design. The conclusion is a call for stronger interdisciplinary collaboration to achieve multistakeholder fairness in algorithmic decision-support for tourism.

Significance. If the claimed dichotomy were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful bridge between two usually separate literatures and offer a structured vocabulary (Table 2) for discussing multistakeholder fairness in tourism recommender systems. It is a position/review piece rather than a methods contribution. The main strengths are the explicit documentation of a Scopus search, the publication of intermediate filtering sets on GitHub, and the concrete suggestion to use ecolabels as pre-existing translations of fairness goals. These features support reproducibility and practical next steps. However, the empirical support for the broad claim about 'computer science' is weakened by the sample composition, so the significance depends on the authors narrowing or extending their claims in revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2; Table 1] The review's central contrast—that computer science treats fairness as quantitative and lacks qualitative stakeholder understanding—is partly constructed by its own inclusion criteria. Section 2 states that after the Scopus query 180 papers were reduced to 80 and then to 44 by removing, among others, 'studies focusing on marketing strategies or research centered on group recommendation systems.' Table 1 then characterizes the 20 CS publications as 'algorithm-focused publications.' Sampling only algorithm-focused CS papers and then finding that CS fairness work is algorithm-focused is near-tautological. The Abstract's claim that 'computer science lacks sufficient understanding of the stakeholder needs' is not supported by this sample, because the review did not include CS work from HCI, CSCW, or FAccT venues that use participatory or value-sensitive methods. This matters because the paper
  2. [Section 2] The Scopus query is not reported in the text, and Figure 1 (as available in this manuscript) shows only the filtering pipeline, not the query string. The paper emphasizes reproducibility and references a GitHub repository, but for a semi-systematic review the exact query and a complete list of inclusion/exclusion criteria are essential. The post-filtering criteria are only partially described ('clearly off-topic,' 'e.g., studies focusing on marketing strategies or group recommendation systems'), leaving judgment calls unexplained. This weakens the representativeness of the 44-paper corpus and makes the TM-vs-CS comparison difficult to audit. Please provide the full query, an explicit exclusion list, and ideally a PRISMA-style flow diagram with counts per exclusion reason.
  3. [Section 5] The key mechanism by which TM insights are supposed to inform algorithms is 'operationalization,' but the paper offers only one illustrative example: overtourism → popularity bias mitigation. This example is not derived from the reviewed TM literature (which discusses redirection of tourists, capacity constraints, and community benefits in qualitative terms), and it is unclear how popularity-bias mitigation 'captures' the normative, context-sensitive goal of addressing overtourism rather than merely being a quantitative proxy. The paper acknowledges the gap ('qualitative fairness goals ... cannot be directly optimized') but does not provide criteria for selecting or validating proxy metrics. Since the stated contribution is to illustrate shortcomings of purely algorithmic research and to motivate interdisciplinary collaboration, a more worked-out operationalization—or at least a research
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] Typo: 'various stakeholder’s needs' should be 'stakeholders' needs.'
  2. [Section 2] The term 'semi-systematic' is not anchored to a methodological reference (e.g., Snyder 2019); please cite a review-methodology source and specify the review protocol.
  3. [Table 2] The mapping between TM examples and algorithmic examples is not always transparent (e.g., 'Higher quality of life' ↔ 'Recommendation coverage & diversity'). Consider adding a sentence in the text or a column in the table explaining how the mapping was derived.
  4. [Abstract] Typo: 'measureable' should be 'measurable.'
  5. [Section 2] The reduction from 180 to 80 is described as a single step, but the authors removed 'not available in English' and 'clearly off-topic' papers together. Reporting these counts separately would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the review's comparison is a scoped literature synthesis, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a semi-systematic literature review, not a formal derivation or predictive model. The central claim—that tourism management uses qualitative, participatory methods while algorithm-focused computer science uses quantitative metrics—is a synthesis of 44 explicitly listed and categorized publications. The paper transparently labels the computer science subset as "algorithm-focused publications" in Table 1 and repeatedly qualifies its conclusions as pertaining to "algorithm-focused research from computer science," so the observed quantification is a scoping property rather than a result forced by definition or by fitting. Self-citations by the authors (e.g., Kowald et al. 2024, Muellner et al. 2023, Semmelrock et al. 2025) appear as background examples or methodological support, but they are not load-bearing for the fairness comparison and are not invoked to forbid alternatives or to establish uniqueness. There are no equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to the review's inputs by construction. The potential selection-bias concern noted by the skeptic is a validity/correctness issue about representativeness, not a circularity of the kind this analysis targets.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's argument rests on the representativeness of its 44-paper corpus and on the assumption that qualitative tourism-management concepts can be encoded into algorithm metrics. No free parameters are fitted and no new entities are introduced.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Scopus-indexed English-language publications adequately represent the relevant literature in both tourism management and computer science.
    Section 2 searches only Scopus and excludes non-English papers, assuming the database and language filter provide sufficient coverage of both fields.
  • domain assumption The subjective post-filtering steps do not systematically bias the comparison.
    Section 2 describes reducing 180 to 80 to 44 papers based on relevance judgments, with no inter-rater reliability or explicit criteria for exclusions such as marketing studies and group recommendation systems.
  • ad hoc to paper Qualitative fairness goals from tourism management can be operationalized into measurable proxy metrics for algorithmic systems.
    Section 5 proposes translating goals like reducing overtourism into popularity-bias mitigation, assuming the translation preserves the intended fairness concept and is computationally tractable.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multistakeholder Fairness in Tourism: What can Algorithms learn from Tourism Management?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHGKL6V5

@misc{pith2026250820496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multistakeholder Fairness in Tourism: What can Algorithms learn from Tourism Management?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHGKL6V5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20496}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Algorithmic decision-support systems, i.e., recommender systems, are popular digital tools that help tourists decide which places and attractions to explore. However, algorithms often unintentionally direct tourist streams in a way that negatively affects the environment, local communities, or other stakeholders. This issue can be partly attributed to the computer science community's limited understanding of the complex relationships and trade-offs among stakeholders in the real world. In this work, we draw on the practical findings and methods from tourism management to inform research on multistakeholder fairness in algorithmic decision-support. Leveraging a semi-systematic literature review, we synthesize literature from tourism management as well as literature from computer science. Our findings suggest that tourism management actively tries to identify the specific needs of stakeholders and utilizes qualitative, inclusive and participatory methods to study fairness from a normative and holistic research perspective. In contrast, computer science lacks sufficient understanding of the stakeholder needs and primarily considers fairness through descriptive factors, such as measureable discrimination, while heavily relying on few mathematically formalized fairness criteria that fail to capture the multidimensional nature of fairness in tourism. With the results of this work, we aim to illustrate the shortcomings of purely algorithmic research and stress the potential and particular need for future interdisciplinary collaboration. We believe such a collaboration is a fundamental and necessary step to enhance algorithmic decision-support systems towards understanding and supporting true multistakeholder fairness in tourism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20496 by Anna Schreuer, Bernhard Wieser, Dominik Kowald, Peter Muellner, Simone Kopeinik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our methodology for identifying and filtering relevant publications. Overall, we select 44 publications for inclusion in this review article. 3 TOURISM MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE Collaborative Decision-Making across Stakeholders. In tourism management, effective multistakeholder governance is crucial for balancing the competing interests of various groups, such as local commu￾nities, businesses, and government… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address annote author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key language month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key language month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...

  5. [5]

    and Burke, R

    Abdollahpouri, H. and Burke, R. (2019). Multi-stakeholder recommendation and its connection to multi-sided fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.13158 abdollahpouri2019multi

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    and Infield, M

    Adams, W. and Infield, M. (2003). English Who is on the Gorilla 's payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan National Park . World Development 31, 177--190. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00149-3 adams_who_2003

    work page doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(02)00149-3 2003

  7. [7]

    and Yen, A

    Ariffin, A. and Yen, A. (2017). English Sustainable agrotourism curating by conferring community involvement in Tanah Rata , Cameron Highlands , Malaysia . Journal of Design and Built Environment 17, 38--52. Publisher: University of Malaya ariffin_sustainable_2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Arnsperger, C. (1994). Envy-freeness and distributive justice. Journal of Economic Surveys 8, 155--186 arnsperger1994envy

    work page 1994

  9. [9]

    C., Vogeler, G., and Kowald, D

    Atzenhofer-Baumgartner, F., Geiger, B. C., Vogeler, G., and Kowald, D. (2024). Value identification in multistakeholder recommender systems for humanities and historical research: The case of the digital archive monasterium. net. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17769 atzenhofer2024value

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Atzenhofer-Baumgartner, F., Vogeler, G., and Kowald, D. (2025). A multistakeholder approach to value-driven co-design of recommender system evaluation metrics in digital archives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03556 atzenhofer2025multistakeholder

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    and Wörndl, W

    Balakrishnan, G. and Wörndl, W. (2021). English Multistakeholder recommender systems in Tourism . In CEUR Workshop Proc . , eds. Neidhardt J. , Worndl M. , Kuflik T. , and Zanker M. (CEUR-WS), vol. 2974, 39--53 balakrishnan_multistakeholder_2021

    work page 2021

  12. [13]

    Banerjee, A., Banik, P., and Wörndl, W. (2023). English A review on individual and multistakeholder fairness in tourism recommender systems . Frontiers in Big Data 6. doi:10.3389/fdata.2023.1168692. Publisher: Frontiers Media S.A. banerjee_review_2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [14]

    N., and W \"o rndl, W

    Banerjee, A., Mahmudov, T., Adler, E., Aisyah, F. N., and W \"o rndl, W. (2025). Modeling sustainable city trips: integrating co 2 e emissions, popularity, and seasonality into tourism recommender systems. Information Technology & Tourism , 1--38 banerjee2025modeling

    work page 2025

  14. [15]

    Banerjee, A., Mahmudov, T., and Wörndl, W. (2024). English Green Destination Recommender : A Web Application to Encourage Responsible City Trip Recommendations . In UMAP - Adjun . Proc . ACM Conf . User Model ., Adapt . Personal . (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 486--490. doi:10.1145/3631700.3664909 banerjee_green_2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    Banerjee, A., Patro, G., Dietz, L., and Chakraborty, A. (2020). Analyzing ' Near Me ' Services : Potential for Exposure Bias in Location -based Retrieval . In Proc. - IEEE Int . Conf . Big Data , Big Data . 3642--3651 banerjee_analyzing_2020

    work page 2020

  16. [17]

    Banik, P., Banerjee, A., and Wörndl, W. (2023). English Understanding User Perspectives on Sustainability and Fairness in Tourism Recommender Systems . In UMAP - Adjun . Proc . ACM Conf . User Model ., Adapt . Pers . (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 241--248. doi:10.1145/3563359.3597442 banik_understanding_2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [18]

    K., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K

    Biswas, A., Patro, G. K., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K. P., and Chakraborty, A. (2021). Toward fair recommendation in two-sided platforms. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 16, 1--34 biswas2021toward

    work page 2021

  18. [19]

    Blanco-Cerradelo, L., Dieguez-Castrillon, M., Gueimonde-Canto, A., and Rodriguez-Lopez, N. (2022). English Sustainable thermal tourism destination competitiveness: A multistakeholder perspective . Journal of Tourism Analysis 29, 36--71. doi:10.53596/jta.v29i1.383. Publisher: Asociacion Espanola de Expertos Cientificos en Turismo blanco-cerradelo_sustainable_2022

    work page doi:10.53596/jta.v29i1.383 2022

  19. [20]

    Borr \`a s, J., Moreno, A., and Valls, A. (2014). Intelligent tourism recommender systems: A survey. Expert systems with applications 41, 7370--7389 borras2014intelligent

    work page 2014

  20. [21]

    Brune, J. (2022). Sustainable development through the tourism sector: to what extent can sustainable tourism contribute to social justice for the local communities? a case study of the grootbos private nature reserve in south africa. Research in Hospitality Management 12, 133--141 brune2022sustainable

    work page 2022

  21. [22]

    Burke, R., Adomavicius, G., Bogers, T., Di Noia, T., Kowald, D., Neidhardt, J., et al. (2024). Multistakeholder and multimethod evaluation. In Evaluation Perspectives of Recommender Systems: Driving Research and Education (Dagstuhl Seminar 24211) (Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum f \"u r Informatik), 123--145 burke2024multistakeholder

    work page 2024

  22. [23]

    Burke, R., Adomavicius, G., Bogers, T., Di Noia, T., Kowald, D., Neidhardt, J., et al. (2025). De-centering the (traditional) user: Multistakeholder evaluation of recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05170 burke2025centering

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Burke, R., Mattei, N., Grozin, V., Voida, A., and Sonboli, N. (2022). Multi-agent social choice for dynamic fairness-aware recommendation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. 234--244 burke2022multi

    work page 2022

  24. [25]

    Chan, J. (2023). English Sustainable Rural Tourism Practices From the Local Tourism Stakeholders ' Perspectives . Global Business and Finance Review 28, 136--149. doi:10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.3.136. Publisher: People and Global Business Association chan_sustainable_2023

    work page doi:10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.3.136 2023

  25. [26]

    Dangi, T. B. and Petrick, J. F. (2021). Augmenting the role of tourism governance in addressing destination justice, ethics, and equity for sustainable community-based tourism. Tourism and Hospitality 2, 15--42 dangi2021augmenting

    work page 2021

  26. [27]

    W., Zamani, H., Bellogin, A., and Di Noia, T

    Deldjoo, Y., Anelli, V. W., Zamani, H., Bellogin, A., and Di Noia, T. (2021). A flexible framework for evaluating user and item fairness in recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , 1--55 deldjoo2021flexible

    work page 2021

  27. [28]

    Deldjoo, Y., Jannach, D., Bellogin, A., Difonzo, A., and Zanzonelli, D. (2024). Fairness in recommender systems: research landscape and future directions. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 34, 59--108 deldjoo2024fairness

    work page 2024

  28. [29]

    Forster, A., Kopeinik, S., Helic, D., Thalmann, S., and Kowald, D. (2025). Exploring the effect of context-awareness and popularity calibration on popularity bias in poi recommendations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03503 forster2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Gunawardana, A., Shani, G., and Yogev, S. (2012). Evaluating recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook (Springer) gunawardana2012evaluating

    work page 2012

  30. [31]

    and Hampton, M

    Haddock-Fraser, J. and Hampton, M. (2012). English Multistakeholder values on the sustainability of dive tourism: Case studies of sipadan and Perhentian Islands , Malaysia . Tourism Analysis 17, 27--41. doi:10.3727/108354212X13330406124016 haddock-fraser_multistakeholder_2012

    work page doi:10.3727/108354212x13330406124016 2012

  31. [32]

    Hasayotin, K., Maisak, R., Setthajit, R., Ratchatakulpat, T., Naburana, W., and Supanut, A. (2024). English EMPOWERMENT OF SMES AND ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEMS : A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON DIVERSIFYING PATTAYA ' S ECONOMY . Revista de Gestao Social e Ambiental 18. doi:10.24857/rgsa.v18n7-070. Publisher: ANPAD - Associacao Nacional de Pos-Graduacao e Pesquisa e...

    work page doi:10.24857/rgsa.v18n7-070 2024

  32. [33]

    Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2018). English Sustainable tourism: Sustaining tourism or something more? Tourism Management Perspectives 25, 157--160. doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.017. Publisher: Elsevier B.V. higgins-desbiolles_sustainable_2018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.017 2018

  33. [34]

    and Radyanto, M

    Ikhtiagung, G. and Radyanto, M. (2020). English New Model for Development of Tourism Based on Sustainable Development . In IOP Conf . Ser . Earth Environ . Sci . (Institute of Physics Publishing), vol. 448. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/448/1/012072 ikhtiagung_new_2020

    work page doi:10.1088/1755-1315/448/1/012072 2020

  34. [35]

    B., Stein, S

    Jamal, T. B., Stein, S. M., and Harper, T. L. (2002). Beyond labels: Pragmatic planning in multistakeholder tourism-environmental conflicts. Journal of planning education and research 22, 164--177 jamal2002beyond

    work page 2002

  35. [36]

    K., and Mekoth, N

    Jog, D., Jena, S. K., and Mekoth, N. (2024). Stakeholder responsible behavior in tourism: Scale development and validation. Tourism Analysis 29, 47--67 jog2024stakeholder

    work page 2024

  36. [37]

    Khaili, A., Kofman, K., Cano, E., Mende, A., and Hadrian, A. (2024). Multi-funnel recommender system for cold item boosting. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS), vol. 3886, 11--22 khaili2024multi

    work page 2024

  37. [38]

    and Sharma, A

    Khatri, D. and Sharma, A. (2024). Tourism stakeholders’ perspective for the lacunas and challenges for tourism: A study on hadoti region, rajasthan. In International Handbook of Skill, Education, Learning, and Research Development in Tourism and Hospitality (Springer). 703--724 khatri2024tourism

    work page 2024

  38. [39]

    and Lacic, E

    Kowald, D. and Lacic, E. (2022). Popularity bias in collaborative filtering-based multimedia recommender systems. In International Workshop on Algorithmic Bias in Search and Recommendation (Springer), 1--11 kowald2022popularity

    work page 2022

  39. [40]

    Kowald, D., Schedl, M., and Lex, E. (2020). The unfairness of popularity bias in music recommendation: A reproducibility study. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 42nd European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2020, Lisbon, Portugal, April 14--17, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 42 (Springer), 35--42 kowald2020unfairness

    work page 2020

  40. [41]

    Kowald, D., Scher, S., Pammer-Schindler, V., M \"u llner, P., Waxnegger, K., Demelius, L., et al. (2024). Establishing and evaluating trustworthy ai: overview and research challenges. Frontiers in Big Data 7, 1467222 kowald2024establishing

    work page 2024

  41. [42]

    Lacic, E., Kowald, D., Parra, D., Kahr, M., and Trattner, C. (2014). Towards a scalable social recommender engine for online marketplaces: The case of apache solr. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web. 817--822 lacic2014towards

    work page 2014

  42. [43]

    P., and Lex, E

    Lacic, E., Kowald, D., Traub, M., Luzhnica, G., Simon, J. P., and Lex, E. (2015). Tackling cold-start users in recommender systems with indoor positioning systems. In 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (ACM) lacic2015tackling

    work page 2015

  43. [44]

    X., Jin, M., and Shi, W

    Li, K. X., Jin, M., and Shi, W. (2018). Tourism as an important impetus to promoting economic growth: A critical review. Tourism management perspectives 26, 135--142 li2018tourism

    work page 2018

  44. [45]

    and de Almeida, A

    Majdak, P. and de Almeida, A. (2022). English Pre- Emptively Managing Overtourism by Promoting Rural Tourism in Low - Density Areas : Lessons from Madeira . Sustainability (Switzerland) 14. doi:10.3390/su14020757. Publisher: MDPI majdak_pre-emptively_2022

    work page doi:10.3390/su14020757 2022

  45. [46]

    B., Rekabsaz, N., Parada-Cabaleiro, E., Brandl, S., Lesota, O., and Schedl, M

    Melchiorre, A. B., Rekabsaz, N., Parada-Cabaleiro, E., Brandl, S., Lesota, O., and Schedl, M. (2021). Investigating gender fairness of recommendation algorithms in the music domain. Information Processing & Management 58, 102666 melchiorre2021investigating

    work page 2021

  46. [47]

    Merinov, P. (2023). English Sustainability-oriented Recommender Systems . In UMAP - Proc . ACM Conf . User Model ., Adapt . Pers . (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 296--300. doi:10.1145/3565472.3595617 merinov_sustainability-oriented_2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    Merinov, P., Massimo, D., and Ricci, F. (2022). English Sustainability Driven Recommender Systems . In CEUR Workshop Proc . , eds. Pasi G. , Cremonesi P. , Orlando S. , Zanker M. , Zanker M. , Massimo D. , and Turati G. (CEUR-WS), vol. 3177 merinov_sustainability_2022

    work page 2022

  48. [49]

    and Ricci, F

    Merinov, P. and Ricci, F. (2024). Positive-sum impact of multistakeholder recommender systems for urban tourism promotion and user utility. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 939--944 merinov2024positive

    work page 2024

  49. [50]

    Mudzengi, B., Chapungu, L., and Chiutsi, S. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for ‘little brothers’ in the tourism sector matrix: the case of local communities around great zimbabwe national monument. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 7, 1--12 mudzengi2018challenges

    work page 2018

  50. [51]

    M \"u llner, P., Lex, E., Schedl, M., and Kowald, D. (2023). Reuseknn: Neighborhood reuse for differentially private knn-based recommendations. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 14, 1--29 mullner2023reuseknn

    work page 2023

  51. [52]

    Patro, G. K. (2023). Algorithmic fairness in multi-stakeholder platforms. Ethics in Artificial Intelligence: Bias, Fairness and Beyond , 85--98 patro2023algorithmic

    work page 2023

  52. [53]

    and Molina-Azorín, J

    Pereira-Moliner, J. and Molina-Azorín, J. (2024). English Conducting responsible research in hospitality management with greater societal impact . International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 36, 893--905. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-09-2022-1104. Publisher: Emerald Publishing pereira-moliner_conducting_2024

    work page doi:10.1108/ijchm-09-2022-1104 2024

  53. [54]

    and Fennell, D

    Plummer, R. and Fennell, D. (2009). English Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management . Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17, 149--168. doi:10.1080/09669580802359301 plummer_managing_2009

    work page doi:10.1080/09669580802359301 2009

  54. [55]

    (2022 a )

    Rahmani, H., Deldjoo, Y., and di Noia, T. (2022 a ). English The role of context fusion on accuracy, beyond-accuracy, and fairness of point-of-interest recommendation systems . Expert Systems with Applications 205. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117700. Publisher: Elsevier Ltd rahmani_role_2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [56]

    (2022 b )

    Rahmani, H., Deldjoo, Y., Tourani, A., and Naghiaei, M. (2022 b ). English The Unfairness of Active Users and Popularity Bias in Point -of- Interest Recommendation , vol. 1610 CCIS of 3rd International Workshop on Algorithmic Bias in Search and Recommendation , BIAS 2022, held as part of the 43rd European Conference on Information Retrieval , ECIR 2022 (S...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09316-6_6 2022

  56. [57]

    (2022 c )

    Rahmani, H., Naghiaei, M., Tourani, A., and Deldjoo, Y. (2022 c ). English Exploring the Impact of Temporal Bias in Point -of- Interest Recommendation . In RecSys - Proc . ACM Conf . Recomm . Syst . (Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 598--603. doi:10.1145/3523227.3551481 rahmani_exploring_2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [58]

    and Ruhanen, L

    Rastegar, R. and Ruhanen, L. (2022). The injustices of rapid tourism growth: From recognition to restoration. Annals of Tourism Research 97, 103504 rastegar2022injustices

    work page 2022

  58. [59]

    Ricci, F. (2022). Recommender systems in tourism. In Handbook of e-Tourism (Springer). 457--474 ricci2022recommender

    work page 2022

  59. [60]

    Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., Torres-Moraga, E., Sancho-Esper, F., and Belen, C.-D. A. (2025). Prosocial disposition shaping tourist citizenship behavior: Toward destination patronage intention. Tourism Management Perspectives 55, 101334 rodriguez2025prosocial

    work page 2025

  60. [61]

    Romeo, R., Manuelli, S., and Abear, S. (2024). The mountain partnership: a global alliance for accelerating action in mountains. In Safeguarding Mountain Social-Ecological Systems (Elsevier). 143--148 romeo2024mountain

    work page 2024

  61. [62]

    and Dash, M

    Samal, R. and Dash, M. (2025). From strengths to strategies: Mapping the sustainable path for ecotourism in chilika wetland through swot-qspm analysis. Journal for Nature Conservation 84, 126817 samal2025strengths

    work page 2025

  62. [63]

    and Bellog \' n, A

    S \'a nchez, P. and Bellog \' n, A. (2022). Point-of-interest recommender systems based on location-based social networks: a survey from an experimental perspective. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 1--37 sanchez2022point

    work page 2022

  63. [64]

    Sarhan, M., Pernecky, T., L \"u ck, M., and Orams, M. (2024). Tourism governance and multi-stakeholder partnerships in protected areas: A scoping review. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 42 sarhan2024tourism

    work page 2024

  64. [65]

    Semmelrock, H., Ross-Hellauer, T., Kopeinik, S., Theiler, D., Haberl, A., Thalmann, S., et al. (2025). Reproducibility in machine-learning-based research: Overview, barriers, and drivers. AI Magazine 46, e70002 semmelrock2025reproducibility

    work page 2025

  65. [66]

    Shen, Q., Tao, W., Zhang, J., Wen, H., Chen, Z., and Lu, Q. (2021). English SAR - Net : A Scenario - Aware Ranking Network for Personalized Fair Recommendation in Hundreds of Travel Scenarios . In Int Conf Inf Knowledge Manage (Association for Computing Machinery), 4094--4103. doi:10.1145/3459637.3481948 shen_sar-net_2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [67]

    Sigala, M. (2021). Sharing and platform economy in tourism: An ecosystem review of actors and future research agenda. In Handbook of e-Tourism (Springer). 1--23 sigala2021sharing

    work page 2021

  67. [68]

    Silveira, T., Zhang, M., Lin, X., Liu, Y., and Ma, S. (2019). How good your recommender system is? a survey on evaluations in recommendation. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 10, 813--831 silveira2019good

    work page 2019

  68. [69]

    Sitikarn, B., Kankaew, K., Sawangdee, Y., and Pathan, A. (2022). English Coffee value symbiosis toward a mountain geographical community-based tourism in thailand . Geojournal of Tourism and Geosites 42, 657--663. doi:10.30892/gtg.422spl03-874. Publisher: Editura Universitatii din Oradea sitikarn_coffee_2022

    work page doi:10.30892/gtg.422spl03-874 2022

  69. [70]

    J., Beattie, L., and Cramer, H

    Smith, J. J., Beattie, L., and Cramer, H. (2023). Scoping fairness objectives and identifying fairness metrics for recommender systems: The practitioners’ perspective. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2023. 3648--3659 smith2023scoping

    work page 2023

  70. [71]

    J., Madaio, M., Burke, R., and Fiesler, C

    Smith, J. J., Madaio, M., Burke, R., and Fiesler, C. (2025). Pragmatic fairness: Evaluating ml fairness within the constraints of industry. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 628--638 smith2025pragmatic

    work page 2025

  71. [72]

    Solano-Barliza, A., Valls, A., Acosta-Coll, M., Moreno, A., Escorcia-Gutierrez, J., De-La-Hoz-Franco, E., et al. (2024). Enhancing fair tourism opportunities in emerging destinations by means of multi-criteria recommender systems: The case of restaurants in riohacha, colombia. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17, 1--25 solano202...

    work page 2024

  72. [73]

    Sonboli, N., Burke, R., Ekstrand, M., and Mehrotra, R. (2022). The multisided complexity of fairness in recommender systems. AI magazine 43, 164--176 sonboli2022multisided

    work page 2022

  73. [74]

    Su, M. (2020). 20. tourism heritage protection and utilization in china. Handb. Tour. China , 280 su202020

    work page 2020

  74. [75]

    and Bellogín, A

    Sánchez, P. and Bellogín, A. (2021). English On the effects of aggregation strategies for different groups of users in venue recommendation . Information Processing and Management 58. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102609. Publisher: Elsevier Ltd sanchez_effects_2021

    arXiv 2021

  75. [76]

    A., Naghiaei, M., and Deldjoo, Y

    Tourani, A., Rahmani, H. A., Naghiaei, M., and Deldjoo, Y. (2024). Capri: Context-aware point-of-interest recommendation framework. Software Impacts 19, 100606 tourani2024capri

    work page 2024

  76. [77]

    Trang, N., Trang, N., Loc, H., and Park, E. (2023). English Mainstreaming ecotourism as an ecosystem-based adaptation in Vietnam : insights from three different value chain models . Environment, Development and Sustainability 25, 10465--10483. doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02481-6. Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media B.V. trang_mainstreaming_2023

    work page doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02481-6 2023

  77. [78]

    Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., and De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world (Oxford university press) van2018platform

    work page 2018

  78. [79]

    Wei, Y., Wang, X., Li, Q., Nie, L., Li, Y., Li, X., et al. (2021). Contrastive learning for cold-start recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on multimedia. 5382--5390 wei2021contrastive

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    Wijesekara, C., Tittagalla, C., Jayathilaka, A., Ilukpotha, U., Jayathilaka, R., and Jayasinghe, P. (2022). Tourism and economic growth: A global study on granger causality and wavelet coherence. Plos one 17, e0274386 wijesekara2022tourism

    work page 2022

  80. [81]

    Wu, Y., Cao, J., and Xu, G. (2020). English FAST : A fairness assured service recommendation strategy considering service capacity constraint , vol. 12571 LNCS of 18th International Conference on Service - Oriented Computing , ICSOC 2020 (Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65310-1_21 wu_fast_2020

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-65310-1_21 2020

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.