Scoping review reveals scarce empirical data on resident and worker health in alpine destinations, highlighting major research gaps regarding the salutogenic effects of tourism intensity.
Background/Objectives: Alpine destinations combine high tourism intensity with location-bound natural health resources that position them as potentially salutogenic settings; however, the evidence connecting tourism, public health, and well-being in this context has never been systematically mapped. This scoping review charts the concepts, evidence, and knowledge gaps at this intersection, focusing on South Tyrol (Italy). Methods: This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR. Five databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched, supplemented by Publish or Perish searches of Google Scholar, Crossref, and OpenAlex. Records were screened against a Population–Concept–Context framework, with geographic restrictions applied at screening. Data were synthesized descriptively without aggregating effect estimates. Results: Of 4163 records identified, 3343 were screened, and 128 were assessed in full text; 33 sources were included (22 conceptual, 11 empirical), divided almost evenly between tourism and health science journals. Empirical evidence has concentrated on residents’ quality of life and subjective well-being, with findings differing by outcome, scale, and tourism intensity. None of the included studies measured mental health outcomes. Only four empirical studies originated from the Alpine region, each addressing a different level of the destination system, and none from South Tyrol; evidence on tourism workers and older populations was exclusively conceptual. Conclusions: The field rests mainly on conceptual work distributed across two largely separate studies. The evidence gap map identifies measured resident health outcomes, worker health, and population-specific groups as research priorities for tourism-intensive Alpine regions, for which South Tyrol offers a suitable setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wiedermann et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: