Grounding Sustainable Tourism in Science—A Geographic Approach

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

This paper presents empirical research that supports territorial approaches to tourism product development that ground tourism in science, as a mechanism to support sustainable tourism heritage conservation goals. Scientific Tourism (ST), in this context, builds on the scientific heritage of a geography, matching researchers with local actors and tourists, through a five-stage iterative process that leads to new scientific knowledge, advancing theory and building relevance for communities through socio-cultural and economic development. This article focuses on the initial stage of the ST product development process, documenting empirical research conducted within the geographies surrounding the Palena River watershed in the Aysén Region of Chilean Patagonia. Both geo-structured literature review methods and results are presented and discussed to illustrate how the outcomes, including a series of maps, can inform and ground actors’ processes of heritage resource identification, justification, conservation, and exhibition, through the development of pilot ST initiatives within the territory. Similar research approaches may prove valuable for other low-density and peripheral geographies that share an interest in grounding tourism on the science taking place within their geography.

Related collections

Most cited references 32

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

Maria J Grant, Andrew Booth (2009)

The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.

0 comments Cited 1579 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review

Trevor McGrath, Mostafa Alabousi, Becky Skidmore … (2017)

Background This study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in order to compile a list of potential items that might be included in a reporting guideline for such reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA). Methods Study protocol published on EQUATOR website. Articles in full text or abstract form that reported on any aspect of reporting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy were eligible for inclusion. We used the Ovid platform to search Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase Classic+Embase through May 5, 2016. The Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (Wiley version) was also searched. Title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening of all search results was performed independently by two investigators. Guideline organization websites, published guidance statements, and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy were also searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) were assessed independently by two investigators for relevant items. Results The literature searched yielded 6967 results; 386 were included after title and abstract screening and 203 after full-text screening. After reviewing the existing literature and guidance documents, a preliminary list of 64 items was compiled into the following categories: title (three items); introduction (two items); methods (35 items); results (13 items); discussion (nine items), and disclosure (two items). Conclusion Items on the methods and reporting of DTA systematic reviews in the present systematic review will provide a basis for generating a PRISMA extension for DTA systematic reviews.