Beyond Sustainability: Developing Regenerative Tourism Through a Multi-Dimensional Maturity Index for Turkish Destination

Öz

Aim: Regenerative tourism represents a paradigmatic shift beyond sustainable tourism, aiming to create net-positive impacts that restore and revitalise destination ecosystems and communities rather than merely conserving them. Despite growing academic interest, significant gaps remain in conceptual clarity, operationalisation, and context-specific measurement frameworks, particularly for emerging destinations. This study addresses these gaps by developing a comprehensive Regenerative Tourism Maturity Index (RTMI) specifically designed for Turkish destinations, advancing both theoretical understanding and practical application in the field. Method: The study employed a systematic literature review combined with expert consultation and multi-dimensional analytical synthesis to construct the index framework. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was utilised for criterion weighting and validation, ensuring methodological rigour. The proposed four-dimensional framework integrates ecological regeneration (30%), social regeneration (25%), cultural regeneration (25%), and economic regeneration (20%), offering context-specific adaptations that account for Turkey's exceptional biodiversity richness, deep cultural heritage layers, and diverse community structures. Five pilot destinations—Kaş-Kekova, Cappadocia, Datça-Bozburun, Macahel, and Ephesus-Bergama—were selected for empirical validation based on representative ecological and cultural diversity. Findings: The RTMI provides a robust strategic assessment tool for policymakers, destination management organisations, and tourism stakeholders. The weighting distribution reflects the primacy of ecological restoration in regenerative paradigms whilst maintaining balanced attention to socio-cultural and economic dimensions. Context-specific indicators were developed for each dimension, accommodating Turkey's unique geographical position bridging Europe and Asia, its UNESCO World Heritage sites, and its community-based tourism traditions. The phased implementation roadmap comprises baseline assessment, stakeholder engagement, indicator calibration, and continuous monitoring mechanisms. Discussion: This index contributes to regenerative tourism scholarship by advancing operational frameworks applicable to comparable Mediterranean and culturally rich destinations. The study challenges existing sustainability metrics that focus on damage limitation, proposing instead a maturity model that measures net-positive contribution. Limitations include the need for longitudinal empirical testing and potential adaptation requirements for different geographical contexts. Future research should examine stakeholder perceptions of regenerative practices and develop sector-specific sub-indices for accommodation and tour operations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Regenerative tourism
• sustainable tourism
• destination management
• maturity index
• measurement framework

Sürdürülebilirliğin Ötesinde: Türk Destinasyonları İçin Çok Boyutlu Bir Olgunluk İndeksi Aracılığıyla Yenileyici (Rejeneratif) Turizm

Öz

Amaç: Yenileyici turizm, sürdürülebilir turizmin ötesinde paradigmatik bir değişimi temsil ederek, sadece koruma yapmak yerine destinasyon ekosistemlerini ve topluluklarını restore eden ve canlandıran net-pozitif etkiler yaratmayı amaçlamaktadır. Artan akademik ilgiye rağmen, kavramsal netlik, operasyonelleştirme ve bağlamsal ölçüm çerçeveleri konusunda önemli boşluklar bulunmaktadır, özellikle gelişmekte olan destinasyonlar için. Bu çalışma, Türk destinasyonlarına özgü olarak tasarlanmış kapsamlı bir Yenileyici Turizm Olgunluk İndeksi (YTÖİ) geliştirerek bu boşlukları doldurmayı ve alandaki hem teorik anlayışı hem de pratik uygulamayı ilerletmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışmada, indeks çerçevesini oluşturmak için sistematik literatür taraması uzman görüşü ve çok boyutlu analitik sentezle birleştirilmiştir. Kriter ağırlıklandırma ve doğrulama için Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) kullanılarak metodolojik titizlik sağlanmıştır. Önerilen dört boyutlu çerçeve, ekolojik yenilemeyi (%30), sosyal yenilemeyi (%25), kültürel yenilemeyi (%25) ve ekonomik yenilemeyi (%20) bütünleştirerek; Türkiye'nin olağanüstü biyoçeşitlilik zenginliğini, derin kültürel miras katmanlarını ve çeşitli topluluk yapılarını dikkate alan bağlamsal uyarlamalar sunmaktadır. Temsili ekolojik ve kültürel çeşitlilik temelinde, Kaş-Kekova, Kapadokya, Datça-Bozburun, Macahel ve Efes-Bergama olmak üzere beş pilot destinasyon ampirik doğrulama için seçilmiştir. Bulgular: YTÖİ, politika yapıcılar, destinasyon yönetim örgütleri ve turizm paydaşları için sağlam bir stratejik değerlendirme aracı sunmaktadır. Ağırlıklandırma dağılımı, yenileyici paradigmalarda ekolojik restorasyonun önceliğini yansıtırken, sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik boyutlara dengeli dikkat göstermektedir. Her boyut için bağlamsal göstergeler geliştirilmiş; bu göstergeler Türkiye'nin Avrupa ve Asya'yı birleştiren benzersiz coğrafi konumunu, UNESCO Dünya Mirası alanlarını ve topluluk tabanlı turizm geleneklerini kapsamaktadır. Aşamalı uygulama yol haritası; temel çizgi değerlendirmesi, paydaş katılımı, gösterge kalibrasyonu ve sürekli izleme mekanizmalarından oluşmaktadır. Tartışma: Bu indeks, karşılaştırılabilir Akdeniz ve kültürel olarak zengin destinasyonlara uygulanabilir operasyonel çerçeveler ilerleterek yenileyici turizm bilgisine katkı sağlamaktadır. Çalışma, hasar sınırlamaya odaklanan mevcut sürdürülebilirlik metriklerini sorgulamakta; bunun yerine net-pozitif katkıyı ölçen bir olgunluk modeli önermektedir. Sınırlılıklar arasında uzunlamasına ampirik test ihtiyacı ve farklı coğrafi bağlamlar için potansiyel uyarlama gereksinimleri bulunmaktadır. Gelecek araştırmalar, yenileyici uygulamaların paydaş algılarını incelemeli ve konaklama ile tur operasyonları için sektöre özgü alt indeksler geliştirmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Rejeneratif (yenileyici) turizm
• sürdürülebilir turizm
• destinasyon yönetimi
• olgunluk indeksi
• ölçüm çerçevesi

Kaynakça

1. Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2006). Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. *International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14*(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488506004114
2. Arbolino, R., Carlucci, F., Cira, A., & Ioppolo, G. (2022). A multi-modelling approach for assessing sustainable tourism. *Environmental Science and Policy, 126*, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.014
3. Asmelash, A. G., & Kumar, S. (2019). Assessing progress of tourism sustainability: Developing and validating sustainability indicators. *Tourism Management, 71*, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.020
4. Bellato, L., & Pollock, A. (2023). Regenerative tourism: A conceptual framework leveraging theory and practice. *Tourism Geographies, 25*(3), 1026–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2022.2047276
5. Bellato, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Nygaard, C. A. (2022). Regenerative tourism: A conceptual framework leveraging theory and practice. *Tourism Geographies, 25*(3), 1026–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2022.2044376
6. Bellato, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Briceño Fiebig, C., Pollock, A., Dens, E., & Reed, B. (2022). Transformative roles in tourism: Adopting living systems thinking for regenerative futures. *Journal of Tourism Futures, 8*(3), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-11-2021-0256
7. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). *The systems view of life: A unifying vision*. Cambridge University Press.
8. Cittaslow International. (2024). *Cittaslow network members: Datça*. https://www.cittaslow.org/

9. Cole, S. (2022). Regenerative tourism: A conceptual framework and examples from New Zealand. *Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30*(8), 1797–1816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2047283
10. de Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., & Rosemann, M. (2005). Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. *ACIS 2005 Proceedings*, 37. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005/37
11. Dickinson, J. E., & Lumsdon, L. (2010). *Slow travel and tourism*. Earthscan.
12. Dodds, R., & Joppe, M. (2005). *CSR in the tourism industry? The status of and potential for certification, codes of conduct and guidelines*. Foreign Investment and Tourism, 1–50.
13. Dogan, O. I., & Aydin, N. (2021). AHP-based assessment of sustainable tourism performance: A case study of Turkish coastal destinations. *Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46*, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.005
14. Dredge, D. (2022). Regenerative tourism: Transforming mindsets, systems and practices. *Journal of Tourism Futures, 8*(3), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-01-2022-0015
15. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). *Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change*. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
16. Euromonitor. (2024). *Top 100 city destinations index 2024*. Euromonitor International.
17. Everett, S., & Slocum, S. L. (2013). Food and tourism: An effective partnership? A UK-based review. *Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21*(6), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.786446
18. Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Permaculture for agroecology: Design, movement, practice, and worldview. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34*(2), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6
19. Font, X., & Buckley, R. C. (Eds.). (2001). *Tourism ecolabelling: Certification and promotion of sustainable management*. CABI Publishing.
20. Fullagar, S., Markwell, K., & Wilson, E. (2012). *Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities*. Channel View Publications.
21. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy–A new sustainability paradigm? *Journal of Cleaner Production, 143*, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
22. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. (2025, January 10). *Regenerative tourism and sustainable tourism*. https://www.gstc.org/regenerative-tourism/
23. Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2021). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. *Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29*(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
24. Hes, D., & Bush, J. (2022). Designing for hope: Regenerative tourism in regional Australia. *Annals of Tourism Research, 95*, 103428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103428
25. Holmgren, D. (2002). *Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability*. Holmgren Design Services.
26. Hussain, A. (2021). A future of tourism industry: Conscious travel, destination recovery and regenerative tourism. *Journal of Sustainability and Resilience, 1*(1), Article 5.
27. IPCC. (2022). *Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change*. Cambridge University Press.
28. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. *Expert Systems with Applications, 38*(11), 14336–14345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.003
29. Kapadokya Alan Başkanlığı. (2024). *Kapadokya Alan Başkanlığı yıllık faaliyet raporu 2023*. Nevşehir.
30. Kim, Y. G., & Eves, A. (2012). Construction and validation of a scale measuring food tourist's motivation. *Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 36*(4), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348010380019
31. Kumar, S., & Anbanandam, R. (2022). Application of AHP in tourism sustainability assessment: A systematic review. *Current Issues in Tourism, 25*(18), 2934–2951. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1954543
32. Lenzen, M., Sun, Y. Y., Faturay, F., Ting, Y. P., Geschke, A., & Malik, A. (2018). The carbon footprint of global tourism. *Nature Climate Change, 8*(6), 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x
33. Macahel Biosphere Reserve. (2024). *Macahel Camili Biosphere Reserve conservation and sustainable development report*. http://www.macahel.com/
34. Mang, P., & Reed, B. (2012). Designing from place: A regenerative framework and methodology. *Building Research & Information, 40*(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.617516
35. Ministry of Culture and Tourism. (2022). *Türkiye tourism strategy 2023–2032*. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
36. Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change. (2014). *Kaş-Kekova Special Environmental Protection Area marine management plan 2014–2017*. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/tabiat/editordosya/Kas_Kekova_YP.pdf
37. Nature and People Foundation. (2024). *A multi-capital sustainable tourism index*. https://natureandpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/A-Multi-Capital-Sustainable-Tourism-Index.pdf
38. OECD. (2008). *Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide*. OECD Publishing.
39. Ordóñez-Castaño, I. A., Padilla-Delgado, L. M., & Velasco-Tafur, X. F. (2025). Delphi technique to generate a sustainable development index in alternative tourism: An applied case in Colombia. *Tourism and Hospitality, 6*(5), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp6050248
40. Photerra. (2025). *Regenerative tourism explained: Frameworks, metrics & case studies*. https://www.photerra.com/regenerative-tourism/
41. Pollock, A. (2019). *Regenerative tourism: A framework for thriving places and communities*. Tourism Scotland.
42. Pollock, A., & McAuley, D. (2022). Regenerative tourism: A research agenda. *Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30*(8), 1781–1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2022.2047284
43. Pung, J. M., Houge Mackenzie, S., & Lovelock, B. (2024). Regenerative tourism: Perceptions and insights from tourism destination planners in Aotearoa New Zealand. *Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 32*, 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2024.100874
44. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. *International Journal of Services Sciences, 1*(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
45. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2012). *Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process* (2nd ed.). Springer.
46. Scheyvens, R. (2002). *Tourism for development: Empowering communities*. Prentice Hall.
47. Scheyvens, R., & Biddulph, R. (2018). Inclusive tourism development. *Tourism Geographies, 20*(4), 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1383445
48. Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. *Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17*(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802283841
49. Timothy, D. J., & Ron, A. S. (2013). Heritage cuisines, heritage sites: Cultural heritage and culinary heritage tourism. In *Culinary heritage and tourism* (pp. 1–12). Channel View Publications.
50. Torres-Delgado, A., & Saarinen, J. (2014). Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: A review. *Tourism Geographies, 16*(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2013.867530
51. Tosun, C. (2001). Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: The case of Turkey. *Tourism Management, 22*(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00060-1
52. UNESCO. (2019). *Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia: Periodic report*. World Heritage Centre.
53. UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme. (2024). *Macahel Biosphere Reserve: Turkey*. https://www.unesco.org/en/mab
54. UNWTO. (2024). *World tourism barometer* (Vol. 22). World Tourism Organization.
55. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. *European Journal of Operational Research, 169*(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
56. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). *Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth*. New Society Publishers.
57. WWF Turkey. (2023). *Kaş-Kekova Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi denizel biyolojik çeşitlilik raporu*. https://wwftr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/kakekovaweb.pdf