Tourism destinations must transition toward climate neutrality without eroding long-term competitiveness. By treating destination competitiveness as an outcome of sustainability transitions, where environmental, social and governance improvements generate competitive advantages through cost resilience, market differentiation and credible sustainability signaling, this study aims to examine Austria’s Climate and Energy Model Regions (KEM) program across two tourism-intensive areas. A logic model framework (inputs–activities–outputs–outcomes–impacts) analyzes how program design and collaborative governance contribute to sustainability results and destination-level competitiveness.
The authors adopt a qualitative case-study approach for program evaluation. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews with KEM stakeholders were analyzed through thematic analysis. Triangulation with program documents and project records was used where available. The study maps KEM outputs, outcomes and impacts to international sustainability and competitiveness frameworks.
KEM inputs (e.g. national co-funding, dedicated regional staff, program toolkits) enable activities (e.g. stakeholder engagement, energy audits, procurement support, training) that produce tangible outputs (e.g. PV installations, eco-certifications) that yield relevant outcomes and impacts for destinations. Outcomes are reduced energy cost exposure, emissions reductions, improved accessibility and stronger resident–business alignment. Impacts include clearer sustainability branding, greater resilience to energy shocks, cultural conservation and increased community well-being.
The paper advances the sustainability–competitiveness nexus by offering a logic model-based assessment of a national climate–energy program’s destination-level implications. By deriving destination-level operational indicators from the competitiveness literature and validating them through triangulated qualitative evidence, the study offers a transferable monitoring template that operationalizes the sustainability–competitiveness nexus for other destinations undergoing sustainability transitions.
1. Introduction
Tourism destinations are navigating a structural transition: they must decarbonize and enhance social and environmental performance while staying competitive. Climate change, resource constraints and shifting visitor expectations impact decisions for destination managers and policymakers (Scott, 2021). Policy instruments have expanded, yet there is little destination-level evidence on how program design, funding and coordination translate public investment into tangible outcomes that sustain competitiveness (Crabolu et al., 2024; Nižić et al., 2023).
This paper evaluates Austria’s Climate and Energy Model Regions (KEM) program (Klima- und Energiefonds, 2025) in two tourism-intensive regions. While not designed as a competitiveness program, KEM’s sustainability interventions generate outcomes relevant to destination competitiveness. Using an input–output logic model we trace how program inputs and activities generate measurable outputs and destination-level outcomes, and how these changes impact long-term competitiveness. We anchor our assessment in Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8.9 “Sustainable Tourism” (United Nations, 2015), and the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Development Index (TTDI) (World Economic Forum, 2024). We adopt a sustainability-oriented perspective on competitiveness, where enduring competitive advantage is shaped by cost efficiency, risk resilience, social legitimacy and credible sustainability signaling.
We conceptualize destination competitiveness as an outcome of sustainability transitions. Rather than viewing sustainability and competitiveness as separate, we argue, following Goffi et al. (2019), that practices such as resource efficiency, stakeholder inclusion and environmental stewardship generate competitive advantages, consistent with prior evidence (Önder et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2023). Our analysis traces how institutional inputs and collaborative activities translate into competitiveness-relevant outcomes.
We integrate three conceptual lenses to explain how program architecture produces destination-level change. Institutional theory shows how and why rules, resources and incentives embed sustainability practices (Earl and Hall, 2021). It explains why certain program design features enable sustainability practices to become institutionally embedded. Network and collaborative governance theory explains how orchestrators (e.g. regional coordinators) align actors and enable coordinated implementation (Nunkoo, 2017; Dangi and Petrick, 2021; Provan and Kenis, 2007). This lens helps understand how inputs are converted into outputs across organizational boundaries. Stakeholder theory addresses when inclusion, representation and coproduction are necessary for sustainability transitions (Mahajan et al., 2023; Byrd, 2007).
Accordingly, we investigate the following research questions (RQs):
How do KEM inputs and activities translate into tangible outputs in the tourism destinations?
What destination-level outcomes emerge and how do identified impacts strengthen long-term destination competitiveness?
Methodologically, we adopt a program-evaluation approach, namely a logic model (World Bank, 2025). Data consists of semi-structured interviews with KEM stakeholders, triangulated with program documents and project records. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we provide a structured evaluation of a national climate–energy program’s implications for destination sustainability and competitiveness, addressing the gap that destination-level evidence linking policy programs to competitiveness outcomes (Crabolu et al., 2024; Nižić et al., 2023). RQ1 targets this gap by tracing how program inputs convert into tangible outputs. Second, we advance understanding of how institutional design and networked governance translate public inputs into outputs, outcomes and impacts that underpin competitive advantage, such as cost resilience, sustainability signaling and social license (Goffi et al., 2019). RQ2 investigates which outcomes and impacts emerge and how they strengthen competitiveness. Third, we operationalize the sustainability–competitiveness nexus by mapping outcomes to SDGs and TTDI pillars, deriving destination-level indicators from the competitiveness literature and proposing a transferable monitoring template (United Nations, 2015; World Economic Forum, 2024).
2. Literature background
2.1 The Sustainability-Competitiveness nexus
The relationship between sustainability and destination competitiveness has gained increasing attention in tourism research (Mior Shariffuddin et al., 2023). While early models treated environmental and social factors as contextual constraints (Mazanec et al., 2007), recent work positions sustainability as a driver of long-term competitive advantage (Goffi et al., 2019). This shift is reflected in the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI) to TTDI, which explicitly incorporates sustainability (González-Rodríguez et al., 2023; World Economic Forum, 2024).
Goffi et al. (2019) demonstrate that sustainability practices, particularly environmental management and stakeholder collaboration, enhance destination competitiveness. Indicator-based approaches argue that traditional economic measures are insufficient (Önder et al., 2017), while sustainability-oriented investments improve destination attractiveness, visitor satisfaction and community support (Wu et al., 2023). However, no consensus exists on how to operationalize the sustainability–competitiveness relationship, and most studies rely on quantitative indicators (Xu and Au, 2023).
The geography of sustainability transitions provides further theoretical grounding, emphasizing that transitions are place-specific and shaped by local institutions, networks and resources (Hansen and Coenen, 2015). This matters for tourism, where competitive advantages are rooted in local assets. By examining two place-specific KEM regions, this study captures how national sustainability programs translate into destination-level outcomes.
Destination competitiveness is conceptualized as an outcome of sustainability transitions, generated through four pathways:
cost resilience, via resource efficiency;
risk mitigation, through diversification and adaptation;
market differentiation, through signaling; and
social license through stakeholder inclusion (Goffi et al., 2019; Hanafiah and Zulkifly, 2019).
Two key challenges stand out. First, sustainable transportation is critical, as travel-related emissions represent the largest share of tourism’s climate impact (Gössling and Higham, 2021; Scott, 2021). Investments in low-carbon mobility improve accessibility and environmental performance. Second, overtourism and social sustainability pressures threaten destination attractiveness and residents’ quality of life (Milano et al., 2019). Proactive management of visitor flows and inclusive governance are therefore essential. Both challenges require coordinated, multi-actor governance.
2.2 Governance mechanisms for destination-level sustainability transitions
Destinations face interlinked sustainability and competitiveness pressures. Resource shocks, climate risks and environmental degradation affect performance, while resident support depends on visible benefits and inclusion. At the same time international and national sustainability agendas reshape expectations for emission reduction, accessibility and inclusive growth.
Destinations are dynamic systems that are shaped by interactions among tourists, residents, businesses, governments and civil society (Burton et al., 2025). This interdependence highlights the need for collaborative governance (Bichler and Lösch, 2019). Effective governance arrangements mobilize multi-actor collaboration, reduce transaction costs, and align outcomes (Basyar et al., 2025; Dangi and Petrick, 2021; Sentanu et al., 2023).
The governance literature identifies three complementary mechanisms concerning sustainability transitions at the destination level. Institutional theory explains why certain program features, such as stable multiyear funding, standardized frameworks and reporting, enable sustainability practices to become institutionally embedded rather than remaining episodic or voluntary. Institutional environments embed norms and expectations shaping stakeholder behavior toward sustainability and competitiveness goals (Earl and Hall, 2021).
Network and collaborative governance theory explains how coordination across organizations produces collective outputs (Nunkoo, 2017; van Oord et al., 2023). Regional coordinators act as boundary-spanning orchestrators who align heterogeneous actors, reduce transaction costs, and enable coordinated implementation (Provan and Kenis, 2007; van Oord et al., 2023). Trust, communication and the relational structures can significantly influence network effectiveness, leading to better sustainability outcomes (Burton et al., 2025).
Although sustainability initiatives often focus on discrete interventions (e.g. energy efficiency, mobility, certifications), polycentric governance scales these through shared standards, co-funding and knowledge diffusion (Sentanu et al., 2023). Public–private investments improve infrastructure and service quality while coordinated responses to disruptions are more effective in multi-stakeholder systems (Basyar et al., 2025). The literature consistently suggests that destinations adopting collaborative governance deliver sustainability outcomes with competitiveness implications, including resilience, differentiation and resident support (Goffi et al., 2019; Hanafiah and Zulkifly, 2019).
Stakeholder theory addresses the legitimacy conditions for effective delivery. It explains when inclusion, representation and coproduction are necessary for sustainability transitions to be accepted by the community and sustaining social engagement (Byrd, 2007; Mahajan et al., 2023). Engaging diverse stakeholders, from local businesses and communities to governmental bodies, improves policy relevance, social acceptance and implementation effectiveness (Mahajan et al., 2023; Burton et al., 2025; Williams, 2013). Inclusion fosters social license, reduces conflict, and strengthens sustainability signaling supporting long-term competitiveness (Bichler and Lösch, 2019; Dickinger and Kolomoyets, 2024).
Despite growing research in the field, three gaps remain. First, while composite indices (e.g. TTDI) and cross-national quantitative studies establish that sustainability and competitiveness are positively associated, they do not explain how specific policy interventions produce competitiveness outcomes (Crabolu et al., 2024; Nižić et al., 2023). Second, although governance mechanisms are recognized as essential for sustainability transitions, few studies examine how institutional design and network orchestration jointly translate public investment into measurable outcomes in tourism destinations. Third, operational indicators linking program-level outputs to international competitiveness frameworks at the destination scale remain limited constraining comparability and transferability (González-Rodríguez et al., 2023; Önder et al., 2017).
3. Materials and methods
3.1 Research approach
We structure the program assessment using the World Bank’s Tourism Theory of Change, applying an input-output logic model that links inputs and activities to outputs, outcomes and impacts (Twining-Ward et al., 2018; World Bank, 2025). A qualitative evaluation design is appropriate because the primary interest lies in understanding how and why program elements produce destination-level change, including mechanisms and actor dynamics that quantitative approaches alone cannot capture (Miller and Torres-Delgado, 2023). Particularly when evaluating community-based initiatives or programs involving community participation, the logic model has been suggested as a means of holistic program evaluation (Meyer et al., 2022; Kaplan and Garrett, 2005).
In the logic model, “inputs” encompass financial resources, human capital and infrastructural investments necessary to implement tourism projects (Wisudayati et al., 2025). “Activities” refer to strategic initiatives designed to enhance visitor experiences, development of sustainable tourism practices, and partnerships with local stakeholders (Twining-Ward et al., 2018). Together, these generate tangible, measurable “outputs” (e.g. overnights, revenue) (Twining-Ward et al., 2018).
The outputs feed into destination-level “outcomes”, including improved satisfaction, increased sustainability and enhanced social cohesion, which are key indicators of competitiveness (Chin et al., 2016). Ultimately, the multilevel changes contribute to measurable “impacts” on long-term competitiveness, such as resilience and adaptability in the face of social, environmental and economic fluctuations. By effectively tracking performance over time, tourism environments that thrive not just economically but also socially and environmentally are fostered, can secure a competitive edge in an increasingly complex market (Mazanec et al., 2007).
3.2 Research context
KEM is a nationally administered program that provides multi-annual co-funding, technical guidance and coordination support to regions that commit to climate and energy transition goals (Klima- und Energiefonds, 2025). Each participating region has a designated KEM coordinator responsible for convening municipalities, destination management organizations (DMOs), small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and community organizations, codeveloping work programs, and steering implementation (Klima- und Energiefonds, 2025). Core features include:
Programmatic inputs: earmarked public funding, dedicated regional coordination capacity, technical toolkits and guidance.
Coordinated activities: structured stakeholder engagement, planning and prioritization processes, technical assistance, and facilitation of cross-actor collaboration.
Monitoring orientation: monitoring and tracking to demonstrate progress and inform adaptive management and reporting.
For tourism-intensive regions, KEM’s relevance stems from three characteristics. First, it provides a governance scaffold for aligning municipal and tourism actors around climate and energy priorities. Second, it focuses on interventions with benefits for both local communities and tourists (e.g. risk management, inclusive access, improved mobility integration). Third, it emphasizes documentation and communication of results, which supports trust, coordination and credible sustainability communication.
3.3 Data collection
We focus on two tourism-intensive KEM regions as the unit of analysis. Both destinations offer year-round tourism across Alpine settings, including winter and summer activities. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 25 key stakeholders, including policymakers, KEM administrators, tourism managers, business owners and community representatives. Anonymized respondents are summarized in the Appendix (Table A1).
A semi-structured interview guide covered seven aspects, including roles within KEM, program development, stakeholder interaction, project implementation, perceived advantages and disadvantages, observed changes and success factors. Questions focused on participants’ perceptions and were formulated as open-ended to encourage elaboration (e.g. “Please explain the process of how initiatives and new projects are implemented and managed,” or “From your perspective, what have been the main facilitating factors toward the success of the KEM?”).
Participants were informed about the study purpose, recorded with consent, and transcribed. Interviews lasted roughly an hour and were conducted in person or online. To reduce social desirability bias anonymity was ensured, questions were neutrally phrased and open-ended (including follow-up questions), and triangulation with program documents and reports was applied for verification and control.
3.4 Data analysis
Thematic analysis was used to identify, analyze and report patterns (themes). Following (Braun and Clarke, 2006), initial codes were generated using a combination of inductive coding and a deductive structure derived from the logic model. Codes were then grouped into broader categories aligned with the research objectives and aggregated into the five logic model elements (Figure 1). Rather than employing a comparative case-study approach, we use a two-case replication to increase robustness and reliability. This approach reduces the risk of case-specific bias and strengthens generalizability (Makel et al., 2022).
The logic model has 5 connected columns. Inputs include funding, staffing, toolkits, administrative support, and expertise. Activities include workshops and trainings, networking and events, communication material, community outreach and engagement, documentation and monitoring, and audits. Outputs include P V capacity or installation, eco-certifications, mobility pilots and offerings, accessibility upgrades, and heritage-focused products or services. Outcomes include reduced energy costs, reduced emissions, improved accessibility, and resident-tourism alignment. Impacts include demand fluctuation resilience, sustainability branding, resilience to energy shocks, cultural or heritage conservation, and community well-being. Assumptions state that stakeholders are generally interested in the programme and increasing sustainability in the destination; basic administrative capacity exists to host a coordinator and convene stakeholders; consistent policy signals across different levels of government avoid contradictory incentives; and stakeholders are capable of seizing project opportunities. External factors include a stable political environment, stability of leadership in the destination, and availability of programme resources.KEM logic model for tourism destinations
Source: Authors’ own work
The logic model has 5 connected columns. Inputs include funding, staffing, toolkits, administrative support, and expertise. Activities include workshops and trainings, networking and events, communication material, community outreach and engagement, documentation and monitoring, and audits. Outputs include P V capacity or installation, eco-certifications, mobility pilots and offerings, accessibility upgrades, and heritage-focused products or services. Outcomes include reduced energy costs, reduced emissions, improved accessibility, and resident-tourism alignment. Impacts include demand fluctuation resilience, sustainability branding, resilience to energy shocks, cultural or heritage conservation, and community well-being. Assumptions state that stakeholders are generally interested in the programme and increasing sustainability in the destination; basic administrative capacity exists to host a coordinator and convene stakeholders; consistent policy signals across different levels of government avoid contradictory incentives; and stakeholders are capable of seizing project opportunities. External factors include a stable political environment, stability of leadership in the destination, and availability of programme resources.KEM logic model for tourism destinations
Source: Authors’ own work
The analysis was accompanied by a reflective journal, in which the nature and rationale of the coding and organization of patterns was documented. This approach enhanced the rigor and consistency of the process among the research team for validation and refinement. Data triangulation of interview notes, transcripts and project documents for internal validity and synthesis of the findings with quotations was conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
4. Results
How do KEM inputs and activities translate into tangible outputs in the tourism destinations?
4.1 Inputs
Participants consistently emphasized enabling inputs that facilitated coordinated action. Financial incentives were widely viewed as catalytic. While some businesses were intrinsically motivated, others were driven by subsidies. One coordinator noted, “There are indeed very, very many businesses… that have taken steps toward energy efficiency, climate protection, and so on because there are [financial] subsidies” (K3).
Dedicated coordination and administrative support emerged as equally important. Stakeholders emphasized KEM personnel, streamlined processes, and access to program resources that reduce transaction costs and accelerate projects. One political representative observed:
Certain things simply come together with the KEM. There is personnel, there is data, there are funding streams, there are contacts, and we naturally use that because everyone on their own is simply inferior as a lone fighter (P2).
Interviewees also valued standardized toolkits and project frameworks that translate policy aims into practical steps. Templates, checklists and guidance materials lower adoption barriers, while consistent reporting simplified oversight. Governance arrangements harmonize activities and resources across actors, creating synergies and operational efficiencies. Decentralized decision-making was complemented by overarching support and clear guidance from authorities. These inputs provided the institutional scaffolding for multi-actor coordination and accelerated the conversion of program intent into implementable projects.
4.2 Activities
KEM managers organized structured engagement processes, bringing together municipal leaders, DMOs, SMEs and civil society through forums, stakeholder meetings and workshops. These created shared agendas, clarified responsibilities and established communication routines.
Networking facilitated cross-industry collaboration among organizations that had previously operated in silos. As one participant observed, “something has really happened because industries have come together that previously didn’t think they could work together in the municipalities” (C1). Stakeholders also noted a visible increase in day-to-day cooperation among businesses: “you can see that the businesses collaborate much more with each other than was previously the case. That is definitely an advantage” (K3).
Capacity building took the form of hands-on trainings and workshops linked to real projects. Sessions were designed as clinics, so participants left with concrete artifacts such as draft specifications, funding applications or implementation roadmaps. Decision-support tools helped clarify objectives and prioritize actions. Before moving to delivery, coordinators emphasized feasibility screening and staged pilots to reduce risk. Several interviewees noted that pacing implementation after careful appraisal often improved results. This is underscored by B9:
With many topics, we also had incredibly many learnings, which, from my personal point of view, could not have been foreseen before the project started. There are many learning effects involved. We also had to strongly adapt certain measures during the project runtime
Coordinators cultivated a pragmatic culture of experimentation. Participants appreciated the latitude to test and T1 iterates:
I’m glad there are initiatives like the KEM. Some things will surely work well, some things may go downhill. Because one also has to recognize […] that there are things that are simply too difficult. But my approach to this is, first, you have to try them at least three times
4.3 Outputs
Participants identified deliverables aligned with KEM priorities. The program supported onsite renewable installations and rising energy prices accelerated uptake. One interviewee noted:
[…] a big help was certainly the issue of energy prices in the last 12–18 months, if you want to put it that way; now there the people really engaged with the topic of energy self-sufficiency and renewable energy, PV, etc. (B8).
Others echoed that rising operating costs had prompted businesses to act, underscoring the relationship between economic pressures and sustainability measures.
Furthermore, stakeholders reported the launch of coordinated mobility solutions, integrating rail infrastructure with last-mile options and ride-sharing concepts. As one respondent explained when describing the launch of a new mobility app that connects different mobility providers, “This means that, on the one hand, a direct train service is offered and, on the other hand, the last mile is covered” (B9). These end-to-end services were presented as direct outputs of cross-actor collaboration to improve access while reducing environmental impacts.
In certification processes, accommodation providers and event organizers implemented recognized environmental standards and process improvements. Interviewees described adjustments in energy and water management, waste reduction, and procurement formalized through eco-certification, thereby translating program guidance into verifiable changes at the organizational level. Destinations also delivered upgrades that broadened inclusion and improved the visitor experience. One participant highlighted: “a new hiking trail was designed to be wheelchair accessible, and everything on the alpine pasture is handicapped accessible” (T2). These interventions demonstrate a commitment to barrier-free infrastructure and services, while reflecting the program’s commitment to inclusivity in tourism offerings.
These outputs directly answer RQ1: KEM’s institutional inputs, namely financial incentives, coordination, toolkits and governance scaffolding, combined with structured activities, specifically stakeholder engagement, capacity building, feasibility screening and monitoring, and streamlined communication, translate into a portfolio of tangible outputs such as renewable energy installations, integrated mobility solutions, eco-certifications and accessibility upgrades.
What destination-level outcomes emerge and how do identified impacts strengthen long-term destination competitiveness?
4.4 Outcomes
Stakeholders reported improvements in operational performance, including reduced energy consumption, lower exposure to price volatility, and emissions reductions. Participants emphasized that these efficiencies translate directly into competitive gains at the organizational level and ultimately for the destination. As one tourism manager explained:
It makes perfect sense, economically speaking, to examine a business with a focus on sustainability. Until now, everyone has said that it is interesting and that they had not even noticed how much heat they were releasing into the air, how much water they were consuming, how much food consumption per guest overnight stay could be reduced, etc. So, it is certainly exciting that an ecological orientation also has positive economic effects (T1).
Improvements in mobility infrastructure enhance accessibility, inclusiveness and service quality. Interviewees described better-connected transport options and barrier-free infrastructure as changes broadening participation and improving the visitor experience while also benefiting residents.
Respondents highlighted a shift toward stronger alignment between local businesses and residents. One participant observed, “The problem is that many often believe we do everything just for the guests […] and the population or the locals are forgotten” (T4). Engagement processes and a focus on co-benefits helped reframe initiatives as improvements to the shared living environment. Visible local benefits, such as more reliable mobility options and enhanced energy resilience, contributed to more favorable attitudes.
Outcomes reflect a community-centric approach, with several stakeholders stressed that lasting initiatives must prioritize the needs of residents:
It should work first for the locals, and if it works for them, it will work for the tourists or guests. We don’t place as much value on inventing something that benefits and attracts tourists. If the local population and the structures do not support it and do not carry it, then it makes no sense, it is not sustainable (P2).
These outcomes connect environmental performance and service quality improvements with community alignment, reinforcing the conditions for long-term destination competitiveness.
4.5 Impacts
Interviewees perceived enhanced sustainability positioning alongside improved resilience to energy shocks and demand fluctuations, driven by increased self-sufficiency and improved cost control. The consistent implementation of visible projects was perceived to reshape regional image: “These sustainability projects are changing the image of the region. It is already apparent that the region is being perceived differently, both internally and externally” (K2). External recognition of a pioneering role was also emphasized:
When we have appointments outside the region, I believe that our region is perceived as a very sustainable region that definitely plays a pioneering role in many respects. That is certainly the case. I don’t know whether the local population already perceives it that way. But I think our tourists have been aware of this for at least a year now (B3).
Participants framed competitive advantage as a forward-looking outcome of the transition portfolio, emerging gradually rather than through immediate performance gains. As one stakeholder noted:
I think that KEM’s activities will develop into a competitive advantage. That shouldn’t just be our goal, it should also become a reality. We’re also doing this to gain a competitive advantage over regions that aren’t doing the same thing. But we mustn’t lose sight of the bigger picture, of why we are doing this. Ultimately, it’s about our environment. And of course, it has a positive economic side effect. Yes, but we need that too. After all, we want to make our region fit for the future (B2).
Although respondents agreed that KEM initiatives strengthened sustainable destination branding, expectations regarding economic impacts varied. Several highlighted a persistent attitude–behavior gap: “Many people do say that sustainability is important. But between saying it’s important and making a booking decision, there’s still a very, very big gap” (B8). Nevertheless, stakeholders consistently identified risk mitigation, credibility gains, and a sustainability image as competitiveness-relevant impacts. Accessibility improvements, particularly considering demographic change and aging populations, were also seen to support demand resilience.
Cultural and heritage conservation emerged as an additional impact, especially in regions emphasizing socially sustainable initiatives. Sustainability efforts extended to the stewardship of cultural assets such as cuisine, craftsmanship and traditions. Interviewees pointed to initiatives promoting regional practices through workshops and guided experiences, which both safeguard heritage and strengthen competitive distinctiveness through place-based offerings.
Finally, respondents from both KEM regions linked long-term economic vitality to community well-being. “Tourism is already a major source of income and should be developed in such a way that it is sustainable and available to both current and future generations” (K1). A related ambition concerns demographic stability and place attachment, limited rural exodus and brain drain.
These outcomes and impacts collectively answer RQ2 and support our conceptual positioning that destination competitiveness is an outcome of sustainability transitions. At the outcome level, the KEM program contributes to operational efficiencies, improved accessibility and service quality and stronger resident–business alignment. At the impact level, these outcomes translate into competitiveness through four pathways identified in Section 2.1:
cost resilience through energy efficiency and self-sufficiency;
risk mitigation through reduced exposure to energy price volatility and demand fluctuations;
market differentiation through credible sustainability branding and cultural heritage conservation; and
social license to operate through community well-being and resident support.
These findings demonstrate that gains in competitiveness emerge as outcomes of sustainability transitions, mediated by collaborative governance mechanisms, rather than as independent or parallel developments.
5. Implications and contribution
5.1 Alignment with sustainability and competitiveness frameworks
We align the identified outputs, outcomes and impacts from the logic model with broader sustainability and competitiveness frameworks. Specifically, we map our results to SDG (United Nations, 2015) and TTDI pillars (World Economic Forum, 2024) and propose operational measures applicable to other destinations. While official indices are not reported sub-nationally, we treat them as alignment benchmarks rather than direct scores. In addition, the provided mapping serves as a template rather than a validated scoring framework.
Core TTDI pillars for this study include Prioritization of Travel and Tourism, Environmental Sustainability and Socioeconomic Impact. We further consider Price Competitiveness, Human Resources and Labour Market, Ground and Port Infrastructure, Cultural Resources and Demand Sustainability. TTDI is at the national level and we adapt “TTDI-consistent” indicators on the destination-level (World Economic Forum, 2024).
In addition, we relate our results to SDG 8.9, which calls for policies to promote sustainable tourism, jobs, and local culture and products (United Nations, 2015). Although the sub-indicators, 8.9.1 (tourism direct GDP as share of total GDP and growth) and 8.9.2 (proportion of jobs in sustainable tourism), are typically reported nationally, we approximate them locally.
The operational indicators presented in Table 1 are derived from the competitiveness and sustainability domains identified in Section 2.1. Resource efficiency and energy performance indicators draw on Goffi et al. (2019) and Önder et al. (2017); certification and standard metrics reflect Crabolu et al. (2024); mobility and accessibility indicators build on González-Rodríguez et al. (2023) and the TTDI infrastructure pillars; resident sentiment and community well-being measures operationalize the social dimensions emphasized by Hanafiah and Zulkifly (2019) and Chin et al. (2016); and sustainability signaling indicators capture the market differentiation pathway highlighted by Goffi et al. (2019). Table 1 outlines how KEM deliverables correspond with the TTDI pillars and SDG 8.9.
KEM Deliverables against TTDI pillars and SDG 8.9
| Type | KEM deliverable | TTDI pillar(s) alignment | SDG 8.9 alignment | Operational indicators (destination-level) | Empirical support | Interview support (frequency) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Output | Energy audits | Prioritization of travel and tourism (government facilitation); environmental sustainability | 8.9.2 proxy: % firms implementing sustainable practices | # tourism SMEs audited; % adopting | Strong | 18 |
| PV installations/ renewable energy | Environmental sustainability | 8.9.2 proxy: adoption of low-carbon operations | kWp supported in tourism SMEs; # SMEs with PV; % electricity from renewables | Moderate | 8 | |
| Eco-certifications | Prioritization of travel and tourism (government facilitation); environmental sustainability; socioeconomic impact (quality/jobs) | 8.9.2 proxy: share of employment in “sustainable” firms | # and % of bed capacity with recognized eco-certifications | Strong | 22 | |
| Mobility solutions | Environmental sustainability; prioritization of travel and tourism; ground infrastructure | 8.9.2 proxy: availability of sustainable mobility services | # pilots launched (rail links, shuttles/ride-share, last-mile); service-days offered | Strong | 22 | |
| Accessibility upgrades | Socioeconomic impact (equity, inclusion); tourism services and infrastructure | 8.9 target: inclusive sustainable tourism offerings | # accessible tourism assets; % sites with accessibility features | Moderate | 7 | |
| Training/ capacity building | Prioritization of travel and tourism (capacity building); human resources and labour market | 8.9.2 proxy: workforce upskilling in sustainable practices | # participants; training-hours delivered; % SMEs | Moderate | 9 | |
| Cultural/ heritage experiences | Socioeconomic impact (local culture, MSME participation); cultural resources | 8.9 target: promote local culture and products | # new/updated cultural experiences; % local suppliers | Strong | 20 | |
| Outcome | Mobility performance | Environmental sustainability; socioeconomic impact (access); ground infrastructure | 8.9.2 proxy: user adoption of sustainable services | Ridership; modal share shift to low-carbon modes (%); estimated tCO2e avoided | Strong | 17 |
| Accessibility coverage | Socioeconomic impact (inclusion) | 8.9 target: inclusive sustainable tourism offerings | % of experience portfolio with accessibility features | Emerging | 3 | |
| Business uptake | Environmental sustainability; socioeconomic impact (MSME resilience) | 8.9.2 proxy: firm-level adoption of sustainable practices | % SMEs implementing sustainability actions | Strong | 18 | |
| Energy/ cost outcomes | Price competitiveness | 8.9.1 complement: productivity/ cost savings | % energy cost reduction among participating SMEs | Strong | 21 | |
| Resident sentiment | Socioeconomic impact (well-being; social license) | 8.9.2 proxy: societal support for sustainable tourism | Resident support index (0–100) for sustainable tourism actions | Strong | 32 | |
| Impact | Sustainable demand | Demand sustainability (complement); environmental sustainability | 8.9.1 complement: revenue from sustainable products/ services; 8.9.2 proxy: sustainable jobs/enterprises | % revenue from sustainable products/services | Strong | 17 |
| Brand/ market signaling | Prioritization of travel and tourism (branding); socioeconomic impact | 8.9.2 proxy: market uptake of sustainable offerings | Share-of-voice for sustainability in destination media; % reviews citing sustainability | Strong | 23 | |
| Energy price resilience | Environmental sustainability; price competitiveness | 8.9.1 complement: stability supporting jobs/GDP | Index of energy cost variance per occupied room/visitor-day vs baseline | Strong | 13 | |
| Cultural/ heritage conservation | Socioeconomic impact (cultural vitality); cultural resources | 8.9 target: safeguarding local culture/products (proxy) | % of tourism SMEs practicing traditional production process, offering local cultural services/products | Moderate | 10 | |
| Community well-being | Socioeconomic impact (quality of life; cohesion) | 8.9.2 proxy: social outcomes of sustainable tourism | Community well-being index (QoL composite: livability, perceived fairness, trust in tourism governance; perceived benefits vs costs) | Moderate | 8 |
The mapping reveals that KEM outputs in environmental sustainability show the strongest empirical coverage, with multiple respondents across both regions and all stakeholder groups providing concrete evidence. This reflects KEM’s design emphasis on energy and climate interventions and demonstrates that the program produces measurable outputs aligned with the TTDI Environmental Sustainability pillar and SDG 8.9.2 proxies. Training and capacity building shows moderate coverage, with evidence of workforce upskilling across both regions. At the outcome level, business uptake and energy/cost outcomes, as well as mobility performance and resident sentiment demonstrate strong empirical grounding.
As for the identified impacts, when assessed against the four competitiveness pathways identified in Section 2.1, the following picture emerges: Cost resilience shows strong coverage, with clear evidence that sustainability investments reduce operating costs and price exposure. Risk mitigation also shows strong coverage: respondents report increased self-sufficiency and reduced vulnerability to market fluctuations and crises. Market differentiation shows strong signaling coverage, whereby stakeholders report changing perceptions and nascent brand effects, but demand-side responses (e.g. booking behavior linked to sustainability) remain underdeveloped. Social licenses to operate show moderate coverage: qualitative evidence for resident alignment is promising but has limited systematic measurement. Cultural/heritage conservation indicators show moderate and regionally uneven coverage.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This study’s primary theoretical contribution lies at the intersection of sustainability and competitiveness, by demonstrating how sustainability transitions produce competitiveness-relevant outcomes and specifying the governance mechanisms that mediate this relationship. We explicitly treat competitiveness as an outcome of sustainability transitions rather than as a parallel construct. This positioning resolves a persistent ambiguity in the destination competitiveness literature and enables us to trace the specific pathways, namely cost resilience, risk mitigation, market differentiation and social license, through which sustainability generates competitive advantage (Goffi et al., 2019; Önder et al., 2017). Collaborative governance emerges as a foundational mechanism for driving sustainability outcomes that underpin competitiveness (Knežević Cvelbar et al., 2016; Goffi et al., 2019). We contribute to theory in four ways.
First, we reframe destination competitiveness as the product of an explicit theory of change that links policy or program inputs to sustainability outcomes and, in turn, competitiveness-relevant impacts (Wisudayati et al., 2025; Twining-Ward et al., 2018). Rather than viewing competitiveness as an accumulation of static endowments (Mazanec et al., 2007), our logic model clarifies sequencing:
Inputs (e.g. stable co-funding, coordination capacity, technical toolkits) and Activities (e.g. stakeholder engagement, technical assistance, procurement support, training) yield Outputs (documented deliverables in energy, mobility, certification and accessibility).
Outputs enable Outcomes (e.g. reduced energy cost exposure and emissions, improved accessibility and service quality, stronger resident–business alignment).
Outcomes accumulate into Impacts with competitiveness relevance over the medium to long term (e.g. resilience to market shocks and demand fluctuations, credible sustainability positioning, cultural conservation and stronger social license to operate).
This process-oriented explanation directly addresses RQ1 by showing how institutional inputs and coordinated activities yield specific, documented outputs and RQ2 by tracing how these outputs accumulate into competitiveness-relevant outcomes and impacts. It complements studies that call for clearer evidence of how sustainability programs impact destination performance (Nižić et al., 2023; Crabolu et al., 2024).
Second, institutional theory highlights that policies, rules, resources and incentives shape collective action and legitimize new practices (Earl and Hall, 2021), with collaborative governance explaining the coordination and orchestration needed to move from inputs to outcomes (Nunkoo, 2017; Provan and Kenis, 2007; Sentanu et al., 2023). We show how stable co-funding schemes, standardized toolkits and reporting routines impact behaviors. This aligns with research on how norms and expectations in institutional environments shape activities. We extend institutional theory by detailing which specific mechanisms translate policy ambitions to tangible projects and measurable outcomes. This closely relates to stakeholder theory that links inclusion and coproduction to legitimacy and implementation in tourism (Byrd, 2007; Dangi and Petrick, 2021). With residents benefiting we show how community supports competitiveness through social alignment as well as relational and reputational pathways (Chin et al., 2016; Dangi and Petrick, 2021; Williams, 2013). These mechanisms specify how collaborative governance converts sustainability inputs into competitiveness outcomes.
Third, our analysis unpacks how collaborative governance works in practice by identifying specific orchestration mechanisms (Dangi and Petrick, 2021; Sentanu et al., 2023). Convening and alignment through iterative, structured forums create shared priorities and build commitment across diverse stakeholder groups. Standardization via templates, checklists and toolkits reduces transaction costs and lowers adoption barriers. Knowledge diffusion is fostered through peer learning and communication, which reduces perceived risks and accelerates uptake. Visibility and measurement, delivered through basic monitoring and reporting, make progress visible and enhance legitimacy. Together, these mechanisms specify the preliminary elements of collaborative governance in destinations (Bichler and Lösch, 2019). The findings resonate with prior research on collaborative governance but move further by demonstrating how institutional design (rules and resources) and network orchestration (structure and process) coproduce destination level change, beyond generic calls for collaboration (Dickinger and Kolomoyets, 2024; Dangi and Petrick, 2021).
Fourth, by mapping operational indicators to SDG 8.9 and TTDI pillars, we contribute an actionable bridge between qualitative program evaluation and international competitiveness frameworks. The indicator set operationalizes the sustainability–competitiveness nexus at the destination level and provides a transferable template for monitoring competitive positioning in other destinations undergoing sustainability transitions. This addresses calls for destination-level operationalization that go beyond national-level composite indices (Önder et al., 2017; Crabolu et al., 2024; González-Rodríguez et al., 2023).
5.3 Practical implications
The findings suggest that effective program design links sustainability interventions to competitiveness outcomes. In line with institutional theory, multiyear co-funding enables coherent planning and investment across seasons and actors. Standardized toolkits, eligibility criteria and streamlined reporting reduce transaction costs and accelerate uptake, while shared procurement frameworks lower unit costs and mitigate adoption risks. Embedding a compact, comparable indicator set in funding agreements supports consistent reporting.
For destinations and industry, visible projects that deliver cobenefits for tourists and locals alike, such as cost-saving efficiency measures, mobility solutions and accessibility upgrades should be prioritized. DMOs and industries should build credible sustainability signaling aligned with documented results rather than aspirational claims. Futureproofing through integrating infrastructure planning with tourism flows and adopting accessibility by design in refurbishments is recommended. Together, these steps contribute to translating sustainability outcomes into competitiveness advantages. The operational indicators proposed in Table 1 offer a practical monitoring framework. This structured approach enables destinations to communicate progress credibly, a key element of sustainability signaling that contributes directly to market differentiation.
5.4 Limitations and future research
Qualitative approaches provide depth and context, but they often limit generalizability beyond similar governance and program contexts. Future research should complement our findings with quantitative investigations to establish robust causal relationships and validate patterns observed. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches would strengthen explanatory depth and statistical robustness.
Our case study investigation faces limitations in external validity. Even though a two-case replication setup was chosen, future studies could expand the sample size by including multiple cases from diverse settings (e.g. other KEM regions, as well as non-KEM tourism destinations).
As the study relies on self-reported perceptions toward sustainability initiatives, social desirability bias may be an issue. Even though proactive steps were taken to minimize this potential problem, future research could utilize more objective measures.
Future research could explore governmental interventions in other countries or different national programs, considering variations in program setup, governance and stakeholder engagement. The proposed indicators invite empirical testing, reliability analysis and refinement across diverse destination types and governance arrangements.
6. Conclusion
This study set out to answer two research questions about how Austria’s KEM program contributes to sustainability transitions and destination competitiveness in tourism-intensive regions.
Answering RQ1, KEM inputs enable structured activities. These inputs and activities translate into a portfolio of tangible outputs, such as renewable energy installations, integrated mobility solutions, eco-certifications, accessibility upgrades, sustainability-oriented training, and cultural heritage experiences. The institutional scaffolding provided by KEM, particularly stable multiyear funding and dedicated coordinators, proves essential for converting policy ambition into multi-actor projects.
Regarding RQ2, these outputs generate destination-level outcomes including reduced energy costs and emissions, improved accessibility and service quality, and stronger alignment between residents and tourism businesses. Outcomes accumulate into competitiveness-relevant impacts traceable to four pathways:
cost resilience through energy efficiency and self-sufficiency;
risk mitigation through reduced exposure to energy price volatility and demand fluctuations;
market differentiation through credible sustainability branding and cultural heritage conservation; and
social license to operate through community well-being and resident support.
Taken together, these findings demonstrate that competitiveness gains are not parallel to sustainability transitions but emerge from them through coordinated governance mechanisms.
Ethics statement
Hereby it is confirmed that ethical approval has been obtained for all protocols used in this research from Modul University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) on 18.8.2023.
References
Appendix
Interview participants
| Interview | Stakeholder group | Role | Age cluster | Gender | Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Tourism management | Managing director (MD) of tourism office | 45–60 | M | 1 |
| T2 | DMO MD | 45–60 | M | 1 | |
| T3 | DMO MD | 45–60 | M | 1 | |
| T4 | DMO MD | 30–45 | M | 2 | |
| K1 | KEM | KEM manager | 30–45 | F | 1 |
| K2 | Head of regional management office | ≥60 | M | 1 | |
| K3 | KEM manager | 30–45 | M | 2 | |
| B1 | Business | Hotel owner and tourism chairperson | ≥60 | M | 1 |
| B2 | Member of board of directors of cable car | 45–60 | M | 1 | |
| B3 | Head of mobility office | 30–45 | M | 1 | |
| B4 | Chief Operating Officer (COO) of hospitality business | 45–60 | M | 2 | |
| B5 | MD of hospitality business | 45–60 | F | 2 | |
| B6 | MD of hospitality business | 30–45 | F | 2 | |
| B7 | General Manager (GM) of wellness facility | 45–60 | M | 2 | |
| B8 | MD of hospitality business | 30–45 | M | 2 | |
| B9 | Technical lead of cable car | 45–60 | M | 2 | |
| C1 | Civil society | MD of nature park | 45–60 | M | 1 |
| C2 | Lead of local association for energy conservation | 45–60 | F | 1 | |
| C3 | Lead of local association for energy conservation | 30–45 | F | 1 | |
| C4 | MD of leisure and community center | 45–60 | M | 2 | |
| P1 | Politics | District governor | ≥60 | M | 1 |
| P2 | Mayor of municipality | ≥60 | M | 1 | |
| P3 | Vice municipal tourism chairperson | 45–60 | F | 2 | |
| P4 | Mayor of municipality | ≥60 | M | 2 | |
| P5 | Municipal tourism chairperson | 45–60 | M | 2 |
