Bibliometric analysis reveals tech-centric research concentration and sparse governance visibility in sustainable tourism scholarship, highlighting gaps in policy evaluation.
This study maps the knowledge structures, research concentration, collaboration patterns, and governance visibility of technology-related sustainable tourism research. The analysis draws on 1,044 Scopus-indexed publications issued between 2010 and 2023 and applies bibliometric performance analysis and science-mapping techniques using VOSviewer. Publication growth, country and author co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and the occurrence and connectivity of governance- and evaluation-related terms were examined. A retrospective source-type audit and a sensitivity analysis based on a conservative journal-only subset (n = 611) were also conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. The results reveal rapid publication growth after 2020 and a prominent sustainability-technology core centred on sustainable development, smart tourism, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, big data, and digital transformation. Publication output, citation visibility, and collaboration were concentrated within a limited group of countries and author communities. Governance- and evaluation-related terms were identifiable but remained less prominent and less connected than the dominant sustainability and technology concepts. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the principal patterns: the annual publication trends were nearly identical (r = 0.999), while nine of the ten leading countries and 18 of the 20 leading keywords were retained. The study contributes a diagnostic framework that combines knowledge structure, research concentration, and governance visibility to assess how technological sustainability claims are organised within tourism scholarship.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bahri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: