Peter Müllner
Anna Schreuer2
Simone Kopeinik
Dominik Kowald- 1Know Center Research GmbH, Graz, Austria
- 2Institute of Human-Centred Computing, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
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 toward understanding and supporting true multistakeholder fairness in tourism.
1 Introduction
Tourism contributes significantly to economic growth (Wijesekara et al., 2022; Li et al., 2018). Depending on the specific region, the economic benefit for the local community can be substantial. Yet, not only between, but also within a given region, the distribution of benefits among different groups of society may vary. Who stands to profit, and who may not gain anything, or may even face negative implications that come along with tourist activities? Revealing the ways in which the benefits of tourism are distributed throughout society is a complex task (Dangi and Petrick, 2021). It is especially important to consider those who are not directly engaged in business transactions of the tourist industry (Banerjee, 2023). Local residents may be affected by rising house prices, the effects of tourist activities on the environment may be substantial, and everyday life in general may be impacted in undesirable ways (Van Dijck et al., 2018). Especially for destinations in the Global South, researchers have highlighted that local communities do not appropriately benefit from tourism and have explored how sustainable tourism can remedy such injustices (Brune, 2022; Rastegar and Ruhanen, 2022).
The problems mentioned above increase with the concentration of large numbers of tourists in popular destinations. Overtourism has been recognized to be a key challenge in the industry and technical solutions that help redistribute tourists more evenly are highly sought after (Banerjee, 2023). In order to tackle these challenges, fairness has become a central conceptual reference point and a main requirement for trustworthy AI (Kowald et al., 2024). Fairness draws attention to possible inequalities among users of a service or product. Such inequalities may bear on individuals, but they may also play out between entire groups of society. Certain attributes such as gender, age, and ethnicity are considered highly sensitive and no discrimination should be made based on these attributes. More recent studies (Abdollahpouri and Burke, 2019; Burke et al., 2022; Sonboli et al., 2022) have expanded the scope of the fairness discussion to a multistakeholder perspective in order to account for the diversity of needs and interests between the various social actors and groups. It is especially challenging to implement heterogeneous fairness dimensions, and it is even more challenging if such fairness dimensions are not easily quantifiable or difficult to weigh against each other.
1.1 Decision-support for multistakeholder fairness in tourism
Today, tourists increasingly rely on algorithmic decision-support, i.e., recommender systems, to discover points-of-interest, e.g., destinations, accommodations, or attractions, that match their preferences (Borràs et al., 2014; Ricci, 2022; Sánchez and Belloǵın, 2022). However, the influence of such algorithms extends beyond individual tourists as they can redirect tourism flows and impact local communities, businesses, and the environment (Balakrishnan and Wörndl, 2021). While these systems are designed to optimize end-user satisfaction, they struggle to ensure multistakeholder fairness due to a lack of understanding of the complex trade-offs between various stakeholders (Sonboli et al., 2022; Atzenhofer-Baumgartner et al., 2024, 2025; Burke et al., 2024, 2025). Failing to consider stakeholder needs contributes to issues such as overtourism, environmental pollution, unaffordable housing for residents, or unfair distribution of the economic benefit across stakeholders (Banerjee et al., 2025). A key limitation is the way fairness is incorporated into algorithmic decision-support systems: The computer science community primarily frames fairness through quantifiable criteria, often focusing on algorithmic approaches (Deldjoo et al., 2024) that mitigate discrimination or bias, e.g., popularity bias (Kowald et al., 2020; Müllner et al., 2023; Kowald and Lacic, 2022), which favors popular destinations over others (Rahmani et al., 2022b; Forster et al., 2025). This results in algorithmic decision-support systems that fail to implement the complex fairness criteria that are required for the numerous stakeholders in tourism. In contrast, the tourism management community tends to consider fairness as a complex, multidimensional issue that involves diverse stakeholders with competing interests. The lack of interdisciplinary collaboration results in algorithmic decision-support systems that struggle to adequately incorporate multistakeholder fairness, as they fail to account for the complex relationships between tourists, local residents, governments, and businesses. Additionally, this lack of interdisciplinary collaboration hinders a concrete operationalization of fairness goals into metrics and algorithms (Smith et al., 2023), which can be integrated into decision support and recommendation frameworks (e.g., Lacic et al., 2014; Tourani et al., 2024).
1.2 Research questions and findings
To better connect the algorithm-focused computer science research with the findings from tourism management, we review literature from two domains and investigate how they compare. Specifically, we address RQ1: How do tourism management and computer science differ in their fairness definitions?and RQ2: How can algorithm design benefit from the research body on tourism management? Through a semi-systematic literature review, we analyze existing research, highlighting differences and similarities in their fairness definitions. Our findings suggest that the tourism management community qualitatively studies multistakeholder fairness, incorporating diverse stakeholders with competing interests. In contrast, the computer science community focuses on quantitative fairness criteria that can be included in algorithmic decision-support systems, but covers only a narrow perspective on fairness. Overall, we hope that the publication at hand underscores that collaboration among the two research communities is crucially needed for developing algorithmic decision-support systems that can successfully balance the needs of numerous stakeholders in the ever-growing tourism industry.
1.3 Structure of this paper
Our work is structured as follows: Section 2 details the review methodology used to identify and filter relevant literature. Section 3 synthesizes findings from the tourism management perspective, whereas Section 4 presents the algorithmic perspective from computer science. Finally, Section 5 discusses the key differences and intersections between the two domains, and identifies open research directions.
2 Review methodology
For this review article, we performed a Scopus1 search to identify publications related to multistakeholder fairness in tourism from both the tourism management and the computer science domain. Through a preliminary manual search, we compiled a set of suitable search terms to design a query that covers the relevant concepts from both research domains. The final search query includes search terms related to fairness and decision-support in tourism, as well as recommender systems and fairness among multiple stakeholders (see Figure 1). This search query delivered 180 publications on which we performed several post-filtering steps: First, we removed any publications not available in English and those clearly off-topic. This reduced the number of publications from 180 to 80.
Figure 1. Our methodology for identifying and filtering relevant publications. Overall, we select 44 publications for inclusion in this review article.
Next, we investigated this 80 publications in more detail to ensure their relevance to our specific research focus. In this stage, we excluded publications that, although related to the topic itself, did not align with the scope of this study, e.g., studies focusing on marketing strategies or research centered on group recommendation systems.
After applying these post-filtering steps, a final set of 44 publications remained (see Table 1), which constitutes the literature reviewed and discussed in this article. In addition, to ensure reproducibility (Semmelrock et al., 2025) of our research, we publish the set of publications after each individual filtering step in our GitHub repository.2
Table 1. The 44 reviewed publications sorted by publication year.
3 Tourism management perspective
3.1 Collaborative decision-making across stakeholders
In tourism management, effective multistakeholder governance is crucial for balancing the competing interests of various groups, such as local communities, businesses, and government entities. (Ikhtiagung and Radyanto 2020) highlight the importance of stakeholder collaboration in ecologically sensitive areas, emphasizing the need for local businesses and communities to actively participate in tourism planning to improve quality of life and community satisfaction. In this respect, (Jamal et al. 2002) investigate collaborative planning processes in protected areas, such as national parks, where stakeholders must be willing to compromise to align their diverse objectives. A similar approach is outlined by (Plummer and Fennell 2009), who emphasize the benefits of adaptive co-management in tourism, arguing that such frameworks allow stakeholders to contribute meaningfully to decision-making, even when decision-makers cannot fully comprehend all trade-offs due to bounded rationality. Moreover, (Sarhan et al. 2024) explore how sustainable tourism can be achieved through well-constructed multistakeholder partnerships, noting that such partnerships should be evaluated through a framework that includes ecological, economic, social, and cultural impacts. (Haddock-Fraser and Hampton 2012) study dive tourism in Malaysia and highlight how different stakeholders along the value chain perceive the impacts of tourism, with some focusing on economic gains while neglecting environmental sustainability. Related research also highlights the importance of responsible research, advocating for multistakeholder involvement to address societal issues beyond academic goals (Pereira-Moliner and Molina-Azorín, 2024).
3.2 Community empowerment and local benefits
Empowering local communities is essential for ensuring that tourism provides tangible benefits to the people who live in tourist areas: (Mudzengi et al. 2018) argue that although tourism can offer benefits such as employment and infrastructure improvements, local communities often struggle to capitalize on these opportunities due to limited entrepreneurial skills, lack of capital, and inadequate awareness. In contrast, (Samal and Dash 2025) show how ecotourism in India has enhanced local livelihoods, with a focus on multistakeholder participation and the development of infrastructure and capacity-building programs. Furthermore, research explores how small and medium-sized enterprises can diversify local economies and reduce reliance on tourism through digital innovation and government support (Hasayotin et al., 2024). The work by (Sitikarn et al. 2022) also sheds light on the value of community-based tourism, using the example of coffee production in Thailand, where local involvement and innovation have led to the creation of diverse tourism offerings that benefit the community both economically and socially. (Chan 2023) discuss how sustainable practices in rural tourism are driven by local community collaboration, government support, and a focus on environmental and social development. Similarly, Yudistira et al. (2023) use user studies and predictive modeling to estimate regional development, suggesting that local involvement and long-term benefits should be prioritized. Research also emphasizes the role of community engagement in tourism development, noting that mapping community assets can help identify resources that support sustainable social, economic, and environmental development (Yeager et al., 2024). (Romeo et al. 2024) present an initiative, which emphasizes the critical role of mountain regions for sustainable tourism development and supports value chain development to ensure that benefits flow equitably to all regional stakeholders. (Sigala 2021) reviews literature on sharing and platform economy in tourism, emphasizing the roles of key stakeholders: platforms, providers, users, and the environment. Digital sharing platforms like Airbnb and Uber are rich financial opportunities for locals, but can lead to complex socioeconomic, or ethical issues, e.g., gentrification. Finally, (Adams and Infield 2003) explore the challenges associated with revenue distribution in tourism, highlighting the competing interests of local, national, and international stakeholders, and pointing out the difficulties in ensuring that local communities receive fair compensation for their participation in tourism.
3.3 Sustainable and ecotourism development
Sustainable tourism development seeks to balance the needs of tourists with the preservation of the environment as outlined by (Higgins-Desbiolles 2018). The authors argue that the tourism industry's current growth-oriented mindset is incompatible with true sustainability, suggesting that tourism must respect ecological and social limits. The research by (Trang et al. 2023) explores how ecotourism can be promoted effectively in Vietnam, emphasizing the role of so-called Destination Management Organizations in managing local challenges and improving tourist satisfaction. Moreover, (Majdak and de Almeida 2022) propose distributing tourism across rural areas to reduce overtourism in popular destinations, arguing that this strategy brings economic benefits to less-visited areas and leads to a fairer distribution of tourists. Research also shows that when tourists believe that all stakeholders are treated in a fair way, they are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors, such as positive word-of-mouth, which can further support sustainable tourism practices (Rodriguez-Sanchez et al., 2025). In the domain of thermal tourism, (Blanco-Cerradelo et al. 2022) identify several factors that impact the sustainability of tourism across economic, environmental, and social dimensions, underscoring the need for a holistic approach to tourism management. (Su 2020) highlight that there is a trade-off between protecting cultural sites and exploiting touristic value. Plus, stakeholders, such as heritage conservation groups, tourist agencies, or local business and residents, differ in their objectives and values, which makes it hard to find a common ground in decision-making processes. Finally, (Khatri and Sharma 2024) use questionnaires to investigate barriers and challenges of tourism stakeholders, such as hoteliers or tour operators. The key challenges include the protection of the environment and cultural assets, and the incorporation of uniform socio-cultural, and techno-environmental constraints across all stakeholders.
4 Computer science perspective
4.1 Bias and multistakeholder fairness in recommender systems
(Biswas et al. 2021) emphasize that most recommender systems are optimized for user satisfaction, which can result in unfair exposure for items, such as points-of-interest (POIs). Conversely, systems optimized for item exposure may lead to unfair user experiences. To address this two-sided fairness problem, they propose an algorithm that guarantees a minimum exposure level for items while distributing the loss in recommendation quality evenly across users, which ensures envy-freeness (Arnsperger, 1994; Burke et al., 2022). Similarly, (Wu et al. 2020) tackle fairness under capacity constraints, proposing a reranking strategy that modifies recommendation lists over multiple rounds. This ensures fairness while accounting for the limited capacity of venues like restaurants. (Rahmani et al. 2022b) show that POI recommender systems often suffer from popularity bias, favoring active users and popular destinations. While many models perform well in accuracy, they fail to provide balanced fairness across users and items. A related bias is temporal: (Rahmani et al. 2022c) demonstrate that users seeking leisure-time recommendations receive preferential treatment over those searching during work hours, despite equal interaction histories. Moreover, research identifies position bias in POI recommender systems, where nearby but lower-quality venues are ranked higher than more distant yet highly rated establishments, negatively impacting the exposure of deserving businesses (Banerjee et al., 2020). Additionally, (Merinov and Ricci 2024) simulate tourists' limited knowledge of tourist sites and demonstrate that personalization can be balanced with sustainability to some degree. They show that a standard recommender system can promote less-visited locations while maintaining user satisfaction. In the context of personalized, scenario-specific travel recommendations, related research introduces SAR-Net (Shen et al., 2021). This model uses attention mechanisms and scenario-specific transformations to improve fairness and accuracy, while its fairness coefficient corrects exposure bias across different user scenarios. (Rahmani et al. 2022a) also tackle fairness and overtourism with a recommender system optimized for item and user fairness. They employ metrics such as Coverage (Silveira et al., 2019), Novelty (Gunawardana et al., 2012), Generalized Cross-Entropy (Deldjoo et al., 2021), and Mean Absolute Deviation (Melchiorre et al., 2021) to evaluate fairness and identify popularity and bias. (Balakrishnan and Wörndl 2021) examine how tourism recommender systems can incorporate the needs of tourists, locals, and service providers. They discuss inter- and intra-stakeholder dynamics and show, through user studies, that users are sensitive to other stakeholders' needs. External influences such as legislation or seasonal effects are also considered. (Banerjee et al. 2023) argue for balancing the sometimes competing interests of different stakeholders, highlighting the importance of fairness not only for users and providers but also for the broader society and environment. (Patro 2023) examine fairness in recommendation systems on online platforms that include multiple stakeholders. Mainly, they find that most fairness research has focused on settings with two stakeholders, and that improving individual fairness for one stakeholder group often reduces utility for another stakeholder group. This highlights the need for further exploration of multistakeholder fairness involving three or more groups, where the trade-offs become more complex and less well understood.
4.2 Sustainability-oriented recommendations
Several studies aim to align tourism recommendations with sustainability goals. (Banerjee et al. 2025) propose a recommender system that incorporates CO2 emissions, destination popularity, and seasonality into travel recommendations. Their user study confirms that users are willing to trade utility for sustainability. (Merinov et al. 2022) design itineraries that avoid overcrowded POIs while preserving user satisfaction by estimating both utility and environmental impact. Similarly, recent research presents a recommender system that promotes societal fairness by recommending environmentally friendly and seasonally balanced destinations (Banerjee et al., 2024). (Banik et al. 2023) explore user perceptions of sustainability in Venice and find that offering one sustainable alternative per unsustainable choice increases user satisfaction, especially when accompanied by explanations. Furthermore, (Banerjee 2023) provide a roadmap for incorporating societal fairness into tourism recommender systems by balancing stakeholder concerns, including those of local residents and the environment. Related research also explores how to reduce popularity bias and crowding through time-sensitive, stakeholder-aware recommendation techniques (Merinov, 2023). A broad overview is offered by (Banerjee et al. 2023), who review fairness in tourism recommender systems from the perspectives of users, providers, items, and society, identifying a gap in fairness research pertaining to issues such as society and sustainability.
4.3 Addressing data sparsity for emerging destinations
Data sparsity is especially prevalent for novel, emerging tourist destinations and therefore, recommender systems often fail to recommend such destinations. To resolve this issue, (Solano-Barliza et al. 2024) develop a rule-based system that uses hierarchical criteria like distance and cuisine to recommend restaurants, especially in emerging tourist regions where data is limited. Similarly, (Sánchez and Bellogín 2021) suggest merging datasets from different cities and distinguishing between tourists and locals to improve POI recommendations. However, their findings indicate that tourists often benefit more from such systems than locals, which can be perceived as unfair. (Khaili et al. 2024) propose a multi-funnel architecture to address the cold-start issue (Wei et al., 2021; Lacic et al., 2015) for newly listed items in travel platforms. By separating and then merging cold-item rankings with regular items, their system improves platform diversity and long-term partner retention with minimal immediate performance losses.
5 Findings and outlook
Overall, we find that fairness is conceptualized differently across the two research domains, i.e., tourism management and computer science (see Table 2 for an overview). Tourism management tries to actively resolve conflicting interests between stakeholders by acknowledging that fairness is a complex and multidimensional issue that spans social, economic, and environmental dimensions. It examines the competing interests and power asymmetries between different stakeholder groups and how these play out in specific local contexts. In contrast, computer science's concept of fairness is strongly biased by whether it can be integrated into algorithms via quantitative metrics. Such metrics quantify fairness through comparing the outcomes for different stakeholder groups, which is often a stark oversimplification of the complex interaction patterns and trade-offs between stakeholders. Tourism management emphasizes fairness definitions such as improved regional development, inclusive decision-making, environmental health, and support for local businesses. In contrast, the algorithmic perspective promotes recommendation diversity to support regional equity, uses aggregated fairness to represent multiple stakeholder interests, balances fairness with environmental impact (e.g., CO2 emissions), ensures group fairness among tourist types, and improves exposure for less popular or new businesses. Moreover, tourism management typically adopts participatory approaches, actively engaging local communities and affected groups, implementing a bottom-up approach, to define what fairness means in specific contexts. In doing so, this body of work not only addresses distributive fairness (fair outcome), but also strives to promote procedural fairness (fair decision making process). Conversely, computer science tends to follow a top-down approach, applying generalized fairness models, often developed in isolation from real-world stakeholders (e.g., local communities, small businesses, or the environment). This failure to properly understand context may result in unintended consequences such as unequal economic benefit distribution, high environmental costs of tourism, or a lack of sustainable and inclusive regional development. Furthermore, while algorithmic recommender systems have the potential to influence tourist behavior in positive ways, few are designed with sustainability goals in mind, such as promoting low-emission travel, alleviating overcrowding in tourist hotspots, or elevating lesser-known destinations. A key finding of our work is that the practical insights from tourism management have large potential to enhance algorithmic design by offering a broader, more context-aware understanding of fairness that accounts for various stakeholder's needs (Smith et al., 2025). Specifically, we have identified three benefits of strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration between research in tourism management and algorithm-focused research in computer science:
Table 2. Summary of overarching fairness definitions and examples of how fairness is conceptualized in both, tourism management and algorithm-focused computer science literature.
Providing a holistic understanding of fairness. Recommender systems often reduce fairness to dimensions for which quantifiable metrics are available (e.g., bias mitigation or non-discrimination). This overlooks the numerous remaining dimensions of fairness. Tourism management emphasizes fairness as a multidimensional and context-dependent concept, considering the needs of diverse stakeholders, providing a more holistic understanding of fairness than computer science. This management perspective can guide algorithm designers to redefine or expand fairness definitions beyond pure technical and quantifiable metrics.
Stakeholder mapping to inform algorithmic fairness. Recommender systems tend to focus narrowly on users and providers, often neglecting less visible stakeholders like local communities or the environment. Therefore, they struggle to integrate environmental and societal goals (e.g., reducing overtourism, supporting local businesses) into the recommendation and evaluation process. The tourism management literature offers detailed information on how to perform stakeholder mapping to investigate and manage the different impacts on various stakeholders. This can inform the design of recommender systems that better reflect the complex trade-offs in the real world.
Guiding participatory and inclusive design. The design of recommendation algorithms often excludes those affected by its outcomes from the development process, leading to fairness mismatches. Plus, they lack transparency and often fail to explain fairness trade-offs in ways that are understandable to users and stakeholders. Tourism management research mainly relies on inclusive, participatory methods (e.g., stakeholder workshops, community-based planning) that can be integrated into the recommender design lifecycle, ensuring that fairness definitions are co-created and context-sensitive.
A key challenge is that qualitative fairness goals from tourism management, such as addressing overtourism, cannot be directly optimized as computational metrics for decision support and recommender systems. Instead, their role is to act as guiding principles that inform the selection and design of measurable proxy metrics. This process, known as operationalization (Smith et al., 2023), translates an abstract fairness concept into a concrete indicator that can be implemented. For example, the qualitative goal of addressing overtourism (see Section 3) can be operationalized through popularity bias mitigation techniques (see Section 4). Thus, through this translation, the abstract fairness principles of tourism management are transformed into computable targets and metrics, enabling the system to be aligned with broader goals of sustainability and equity that go beyond predictive accuracy and bias mitigation. Another way to translate fairness goals into metrics is to build on established tourism ecolabels and further certification schemes for responsible tourism (cf. Jog et al., 2024). Recommendation algorithms can thus be designed to prioritize certified businesses or destinations, thus building on pre-existing translations of qualitative goals concerning fair tourism into explicit, verifiable criteria.
6 Conclusion
In this work, we performed a semi-systematic review of multistakeholder fairness in tourism based on 44 publications from the tourism management and computer science domains. This reveals a substantial gap between how research in tourism management and algorithm-focused research from computer science, conceptualize multistakeholder fairness in tourism. While tourism management emphasizes a context-aware, stakeholder-sensitive, and holistic understanding of fairness, computer science tends to reduce fairness to quantifiable metrics. This often overlooks the complex interactions between diverse stakeholders, including local communities, small businesses, and the environment. Insights from tourism management can enrich algorithmic fairness by contributing valuable insights into complex interaction dynamics and with this, broadening the computer science's perspective on fairness. This allows recommender systems to evolve from purely technical tools to instruments that genuinely support fair and sustainable tourism. Overall, we believe that stronger collaboration between both communities is essential to establish responsible and fair algorithmic decision-support for tourism.
Author contributions
PM: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation. AS: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. SK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. BW: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Conceptualization. DK: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The work received funding from the TU Graz Open Access Publishing Fund, from the FFG COMET program, and from Zukunftsfond Steiermark (PN: 1610).
Conflict of interest
PM, SK, and DK were employed by Know Center Research GmbH.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
Abdollahpouri, H., and Burke, R. (2019). Multi-stakeholder recommendation and its connection to multi-sided fairness. arXiv [preprint]. arXiv:1907.13158. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.13158
Adams, W., and Infield, M. (2003). Who is on the Gorilla's payroll? Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan National Park. World Dev. 31, 177–190. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00149-3
Ariffin, A., and Yen, A. (2017). Sustainable agrotourism curating by conferring community involvement in Tanah Rata, Cameron Highlands, Malaysia. J. Des. Built Environ. 17, 38–52. doi: 10.22452/jdbe.sp2017no1.4
Arnsperger, C. (1994). Envy-freeness and distributive justice. J. Econ. Surv. 8, 155–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.1994.tb00098.x
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. arXiv [preprint]. arXiv:2409.17769. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.17769
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. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.03556
Balakrishnan, G., and Wörndl, W. (2021). “Multistakeholder recommender systems in Tourism,” in CEUR Workshop Proc., Vol. 2974, eds. J. Neidhardt, M. Worndl, T. Kuflik, and M. Zanker (Aachen: CEUR-WS), 39–53.
Banerjee, A. (2023). “Fairness and sustainability in multistakeholder tourism recommender systems,” in UMAP - Proc. ACM Conf. User Model., Adapt. Pers. (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 274–279. doi: 10.1145/3565472.3595607
Banerjee, A., Banik, P., and Wörndl, W. (2023). A review on individual and multistakeholder fairness in tourism recommender systems. Front. Big Data 6:1168692. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2023.1168692
Banerjee, A., Mahmudov, T., Adler, E., Aisyah, F. N., and Wörndl, W. (2025). Modeling sustainable city trips: integrating CO2 e emissions, popularity, and seasonality into tourism recommender systems. Inf. Technol. Tourism 27, 189–226. doi: 10.1007/s40558-024-00303-1
Banerjee, A., Mahmudov, T., and Wörndl, W. (2024). “Green destination recommender: a web application to encourage responsible city trip recommendations,” in UMAP - Adjun. Proc. ACM Conf. User Model., Adapt. Personal. (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 486–490. doi: 10.1145/3631700.3664909
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 (Atlanta, GA: IEEE), 3642–3651. doi: 10.1109/BigData50022.2020.9378476
Banik, P., Banerjee, A., and Wörndl, W. (2023). “Understanding user perspectives on sustainability and fairness in tourism recommender systems,” in UMAP - Adjun. Proc. ACM Conf. User Model., Adapt. Pers. (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 241–248. doi: 10.1145/3563359.3597442
Biswas, A., Patro, G. K., Ganguly, N., Gummadi, K. P., and Chakraborty, A. (2021). Toward fair recommendation in two-sided platforms. ACM Trans. Web 16, 1–34. doi: 10.1145/3503624
Blanco-Cerradelo, L., Dieguez-Castrillon, M., Gueimonde-Canto, A., and Rodriguez-Lopez, N. (2022). Sustainable thermal tourism destination competitiveness: a multistakeholder perspective. J. Tour. Anal. 29, 36–71. doi: 10.53596/jta.v29i1.383
Borràs, J., Moreno, A., and Valls, A. (2014). Intelligent tourism recommender systems: a survey. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 7370–7389. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.06.007
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. Res. Hosp. Manag. 12, 133–141. doi: 10.1080/22243534.2022.2133070
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) (Wadern: Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik), 123–145.
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. doi: 10.48550/arXiv:2501.05170
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 (New York, NY: ACM), 234–244. doi: 10.1145/3511047.3538032
Chan, J. (2023). Sustainable rural tourism practices from the local tourism stakeholders' perspectives. Glob. Bus. Finance Rev. 28, 136–149. doi: 10.17549/gbfr.2023.28.3.136
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. Tour. Hosp. 2, 15–42. doi: 10.3390/tourhosp2010002
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 Model. User-Adap. Inter. 31, 457–511. doi: 10.1007/s11257-020-09285-1
Deldjoo, Y., Jannach, D., Bellogin, A., Difonzo, A., and Zanzonelli, D. (2024). Fairness in recommender systems: research landscape and future directions. User Model. User-adapt. Interact. 34, 59–108. doi: 10.1007/s11257-023-09364-z
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. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.03503
Gunawardana, A., Shani, G., and Yogev, S. (2012). “Evaluating recommender systems,” in Recommender Systems Handbook, eds. F. Ricci, L. Rokach, and B. Shapira (Cham: Springer), 547–601. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_15
Haddock-Fraser, J., and Hampton, M. (2012). Multistakeholder values on the sustainability of dive tourism: case studies of sipadan and Perhentian Islands, Malaysia. Tour. Anal. 17, 27–41. doi: 10.3727/108354212X13330406124016
Hasayotin, K., Maisak, R., Setthajit, R., Ratchatakulpat, T., Naburana, W., Supanut, A., et al. (2024). Empowerment of smes and entrepreneurial ecosystems: a qualitative study on diversifying pattaya's economy. Rev. Gestao Soc. Ambient. 18:e05608. doi: 10.24857/rgsa.v18n7-070
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2018). Sustainable tourism: sustaining tourism or something more? Tour. Manag. Perspect. 25, 157–160. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.017
Ikhtiagung, G., and Radyanto, M. (2020). “New model for development of tourism based on sustainable development,” in IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., Vol. 448 (Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing). doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/448/1/012072
Jamal, T. B., Stein, S. M., and Harper, T. L. (2002). Beyond labels: pragmatic planning in multistakeholder tourism-environmental conflicts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 22, 164–177. doi: 10.1177/0739456X02238445
Jog, D., Jena, S. K., and Mekoth, N. (2024). Stakeholder responsible behavior in tourism: scale development and validation. Tour. Anal. 29, 47–67. doi: 10.3727/108354223X16975034583605
Khaili, A., Kofman, K., Cano, E., Mende, A., and Hadrian, A. (2024). “Multi-funnel recommender system for cold item boosting,” in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 3886 (Bari: CEUR-WS), 11–22.
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 (Cham: Springer), 703–724. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-4318-6_47
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 (Cham: Springer), 1–11. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-09316-6_1
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 (Cham: Springer), 35–42. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45442-5_5
Kowald, D., Scher, S., Pammer-Schindler, V., Müllner, P., Waxnegger, K., Demelius, L., et al. (2024). Establishing and evaluating trustworthy AI: overview and research challenges. Front. Big Data 7:1467222. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2024.1467222
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 (New York, NY: ACM), 817–822. doi: 10.1145/2567948.2579245
Lacic, E., Kowald, D., Traub, M., Luzhnica, G., Simon, J. P., Lex, E., et al. (2015). “Tackling cold-start users in recommender systems with indoor positioning systems,” in 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (New York, NY: ACM).
Li, K. X., Jin, M., and Shi, W. (2018). Tourism as an important impetus to promoting economic growth: a critical review. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 26, 135–142. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.10.002
Majdak, P., and de Almeida, A. (2022). Pre-emptively managing overtourism by promoting rural tourism in low-density areas: lessons from Madeira. Sustainability 14:757. doi: 10.3390/su14020757
Melchiorre, A. B., Rekabsaz, N., Parada-Cabaleiro, E., Brandl, S., Lesota, O., Schedl, M., et al. (2021). Investigating gender fairness of recommendation algorithms in the music domain. Inf. Process. Manag. 58:102666. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102666
Merinov, P. (2023). “Sustainability-oriented recommender systems,” in UMAP - Proc. ACM Conf. User Model., Adapt. Pers. (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 296–300. doi: 10.1145/3565472.3595617
Merinov, P., Massimo, D., and Ricci, F. (2022). “Sustainability driven recommender systems,” in “CEUR Workshop Proc., Vol. 3177,” in G. Pasi, P. Cremonesi, S. Orlando, M. Zanker, M. Zanker, D. Massimo, and G. Turati (Milan: CEUR-WS).
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 (New York, NY: ACM), 939–944. doi: 10.1145/3640457.3688173
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. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 7, 1–12.
Müllner, P., Lex, E., Schedl, M., and Kowald, D. (2023). Reuseknn: neighborhood reuse for differentially private knn-based recommendations. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 14, 1–29. doi: 10.1145/3608481
Patro, G. K. (2023). “Algorithmic fairness in multi-stakeholder platforms,” in Ethics in Artificial Intelligence: Bias, Fairness and Beyond, eds. A. Mukherjee, J. Kulshrestha, A. Chakraborty, and S. Kumar (Singapore: Springer), 85–98. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-7184-8_5
Pereira-Moliner, J., and Molina-Azorín, J. (2024). Conducting responsible research in hospitality management with greater societal impact. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 36, 893–905. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2022-1104
Plummer, R., and Fennell, D. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: prospects for adaptive co-management. J. Sustain. Tour. 17, 149–168. doi: 10.1080/09669580802359301
Rahmani, H., Deldjoo, Y., and di Noia, T. (2022a). The role of context fusion on accuracy, beyond-accuracy, and fairness of point-of-interest recommendation systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 205:117700. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117700
Rahmani, H., Deldjoo, Y., Tourani, A., and Naghiaei, M. (2022b). “The unfairness of active users and popularity bias in point-of-interest recommendation,” in 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, Volume 1610 (Cham: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH).
Rahmani, H., Naghiaei, M., Tourani, A., and Deldjoo, Y. (2022c). “Exploring the impact of temporal bias in point-of-interest recommendation,” in RecSys - Proc. ACM Conf. Recomm. Syst. (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc), 598–603. doi: 10.1145/3523227.3551481
Rastegar, R., and Ruhanen, L. (2022). The injustices of rapid tourism growth: From recognition to restoration. Ann. Tour. Res. 97:103504. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2022.103504
Ricci, F. (2022). “Recommender systems in tourism,” in Handbook of e-Tourism (Cham: Springer), 457–474. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-48652-5_26
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. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 55:101334. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101334
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 (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 143–148. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822095-5.00021-8
Samal, R., and Dash, M. (2025). From strengths to strategies: mapping the sustainable path for ecotourism in Chilika wetland through swot-qspm analysis. J. Nat. Conserv. 84:126817. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126817
Sánchez, P., and Bellogín, A. (2021). On the effects of aggregation strategies for different groups of users in venue recommendation. Inf. Process. Manag. 58:102609. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102609
Sánchez, P., and Bellogín, A. (2022). Point-of-interest recommender systems based on location-based social networks: a survey from an experimental perspective. ACM Comput. Surv. 54(11s), 1–37. doi: 10.1145/3510409
Sarhan, M., Pernecky, T., Lück, M., and Orams, M. (2024). Tourism governance and multi-stakeholder partnerships in protected areas: a scoping review. J. Park Recreation Adm. 42. doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2024-11851
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 Mag. 46:e70002. doi: 10.1002/aaai.70002
Shen, Q., Tao, W., Zhang, J., Wen, H., Chen, Z., Lu, Q., et al. (2021). “SAR-Net: a scenario-aware ranking network for personalized fair recommendation in hundreds of travel scenarios,” in Int Conf Inf Knowledge Manage (New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery), 4094–4103. doi: 10.1145/3459637.3481948
Sigala, M. (2021). “Sharing and platform economy in tourism: an ecosystem review of actors and future research agenda,” in Handbook of e-Tourism (Cham: Springer), 1–23. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-05324-6_89-1
Silveira, T., Zhang, M., Lin, X., Liu, Y., and Ma, S. (2019). How good your recommender system is? A survey on evaluations in recommendation. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 10, 813–831. doi: 10.1007/s13042-017-0762-9
Sitikarn, B., Kankaew, K., Sawangdee, Y., and Pathan, A. (2022). Coffee value symbiosis toward a mountain geographical community-based tourism in thailand. GeoJournal Tour. Geosites 42, 657–663. doi: 10.30892/gtg.422spl03-874
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 (New York, NY: ACM), 3648–3659. doi: 10.1145/3543507.3583204
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 (New York, NY: ACM), 628–638. doi: 10.1145/3715275.3732040
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. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 17, 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s44196-024-00700-8
Sonboli, N., Burke, R., Ekstrand, M., and Mehrotra, R. (2022). The multisided complexity of fairness in recommender systems. AI Mag. 43, 164–176. doi: 10.1002/aaai.12054
Su, M. (2020). “Chapter 20. Tourism heritage protection and utilization in China,” in Handbook on Tourism and China, eds. S. Huang, and G. Chen (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing), 280. doi: 10.4337/9781788117531.00026
Tourani, A., Rahmani, H. A., Naghiaei, M., and Deldjoo, Y. (2024). Capri: context-aware point-of-interest recommendation framework. Softw. Impacts 19:100606. doi: 10.1016/j.simpa.2023.100606
Trang, N., Trang, N., Loc, H., and Park, E. (2023). Mainstreaming ecotourism as an ecosystem-based adaptation in Vietnam: insights from three different value chain models. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 25, 10465–10483. doi: 10.1007/s10668-022-02481-6
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., and De Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford: Oxford university press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
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 (New York, NY: ACM), 5382–5390. doi: 10.1145/3474085.3475665
Wijesekara, C., Tittagalla, C., Jayathilaka, A., Ilukpotha, U., Jayathilaka, R., Jayasinghe, P., et al. (2022). Tourism and economic growth: a global study on granger causality and wavelet coherence. PLoS ONE 17:e0274386. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274386
Wu, Y., Cao, J., and Xu, G. (2020). “FAST: a fairness assured service recommendation strategy considering service capacity constraint,” in LNCS of 18th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, ICSOC 2020, Volume 12571 (Cham: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-65310-1_21
Yeager, E., Bee, B., Hou, A., Cash, T., Dew, K., Dickerson, D., et al. (2024). A process for asset mapping to develop a blue economy corridor. J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem. 28, 125–143.
Yudistira, M. I., and Selo, Fauziati, S. (2023). “Towards sustainable village development: optimizing the preparation of village medium-term development plans using ahp and linear regression,” in 2023 International Conference on Computer, Control, Informatics and its Applications (IC3INA) (Bandung: IEEE), 194–199. doi: 10.1109/IC3INA60834.2023.10285792
Keywords: tourism, recommender systems, decision-support, interdisciplinary research, multistakeholder fairness
Citation: Müllner P, Schreuer A, Kopeinik S, Wieser B and Kowald D (2025) Multistakeholder fairness in tourism: what can algorithms learn from tourism management? Front. Big Data 8:1632766. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2025.1632766
Received: 21 May 2025; Accepted: 26 August 2025;
Published: 18 September 2025.
Edited by:
Pablo Sánchez Pérez, Comillas Pontifical University, SpainReviewed by:
Linus W. Dietz, King's College London, United KingdomCopyright © 2025 Müllner, Schreuer, Kopeinik, Wieser and Kowald. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Peter Müllner, cG11ZWxsbmVyQGtub3ctY2VudGVyLmF0