A systematic review of sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality: trends and gaps Open Access

Unsustainable human activities have caused a substantial environmental crisis, endangering the future of both humanity and the planet, as demonstrated by climate change and the pollution of air, soil and water, among other factors (Hidalgo-García & Rezapouraghdam, 2026; Puga-Bonilla, Hidalgo-Garcia, Rezapouraghdam, & Bolivar, 2025). Given the size of the industry and its global impact, tourism is being urged to respond to these crises by implementing sustainable practices. Tourism counts as one of the most prominent industries in the global economy by creating a wide range of positive effects, such as enormous job opportunities, economic development, supporting industrial growth, as well as serving as a key component of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) (Rasool, Maqbool, & Tarique, 2021; Rezapouraghdam, Altun, Saydam, & Erkut, 2024; Webster & Ivanov, 2014; Zvaigzne, Litavniece, & Dembovska, 2022). This phenomenon, on the other hand, has faced immensely detrimental consequences at various social, environmental, economic and cultural levels that have emanated from the rise in demand for tourism, inadequate tourism policy and planning, as well as the narrow focus on monetary aspect of tourism which has led to an issue called “mass tourism” (Alamineh, Hussein, Mulu, & Taddesse, 2023; Faxina & Freitas, 2020).

As a response to this issue, in recent decades, sustainable tourism, as an alternative tourism, has garnered a lot of attention in tourism research studies (Rahmadian, Feitosa, & Zwitter, 2022; Rezapouraghdam, Akhshik, & Ramkissoon, 2023; Qian, Shen, & Law, 2018). Sustainable tourism is described as “one of the great success stories about tourism research and knowledge transfer” (Hall, 2021, p. 649). This topic has been covered thoroughly in both scholarly and general settings. The Journal of Sustainable Tourism, as an example, is a scholarly publication started in 1993 and solely focused on this topic, supporting sustainable tourism as a significant concept for scientific investigation (Thumpanit, Kasim, Phongphet, & Khuadthong, 2021). According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), sustainable tourism plays a key role in tourism destinations' management and planning (Hall, 2021). Additionally, the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development posits the relationship of tourism with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as alleviating poverty, community and city sustainability, and cultural protection (Arora & Mishra, 2019; United Nations, 2015). Even so, Sustainability in tourism involves many dimensions, including ethical, political, environmental, socio-cultural and economic (Mihalic, 2020; Moyle, Moyle, Ruhanen, Weaver, & Hadinejad, 2020).

The interactions between tourists, operators, tourism administrators, governments, locals and the environment result in a variety of processes, actions, and outcomes that define tourism as a social phenomenon (Erkuş-Öztürk & Eraydın, 2010). According to Gladwin, Kennelly, and Krause (1995), sustainability is a unique yet questionable issue, particularly in the tourism and hospitality fields and businesses (Jones, Hillier, & Comfort, 2016). Sustainability includes fundamental changes to the company's goals, concepts and management system. A sustainable industry has transformed its fundamental goals, concepts and management system (Gladwin et al., 1995). According to Suárez-Cebador, Rubio-Romero, Pinto-Contreiras, and Gemar (2018), sustainability causes hotels to improve the social and environmental well-being of their communities.

Sustainability in tourism is attributed to the notion of resource consumption in an efficient manner and meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Lin, Huang, & Lu, 2023). Some efforts have been implemented to reduce CO₂ emissions caused by vehicles, scarcity, overuse of natural resources, deforestation and a focus on waste management (Gross & Grimm, 2018). Since the tourism and hospitality industry serves as a pivotal factor in the natural heritage, sustainable approaches have emerged to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism while enhancing its positive effects through some protected patterns (Antimova, Nawijn, & Peeters, 2012; Manniche, Larsen, & Broegaard, 2021).

Furthermore, tourism can be a means that leads to more infrequent interactions between different cultures (Henderson, 2003). Tourists play an important role in this process due to their cross-cultural competency, which stems from cultural differences or similarities that affect both locals and tourists (Reisinger & Dimanche, 2010; Tsaur, Yen, & Teng, 2018; Ye, Zhang, & Yuen, 2013). This cultural exchange focuses on both tourists' behaviors, experiences and actions in the host location, as well as an increase in respect for local cultural heritage, which leads to high honor among locals (Pizam, Uriely, & Reichel, 2000; Huimin & Ryan, 2012). On the other hand, it can have a negative impact known as cultural commodification that is attributed to when “tourism turns culture into a commodity, packaged and sold to tourists, resulting in a loss of authenticity” (Cole, 2007, p. 945). Therefore, it is important to take necessary actions for maintaining cultural sustainability.

Based on the aforementioned materials, while considering sustainable tourism as an ultimate solution, it is crucial to take both dimensions of social and cultural sustainability into account. Both social and cultural dimensions cause significant changes in all aspects of individuals' behaviors, traditional habits, communications, values and societal frameworks, shedding light on the sociocultural modifications on the tourism performance of the host country (Rátz, 2002). The meaning of sociocultural tourism can be mentioned as communication between tourists and the local community and relates to some sort of direct and indirect social and cultural exchange under its influence (Scheyvens & Russell, 2012; Amalu et al., 2021). Both concepts of social and culture cannot be considered separate subjects since they both have reciprocal effects on each other that can form and reform a destination (Ameri, 2020; Da Costa, Almeida, Chim-Miki, & Brandão, 2025; Lefebvre, 2012).

Even so, conducting research on sustainable tourism as a multidimensional construct necessitates considering preservation of its dimensions comprehensively; however, there is an imbalance among these three core dimensions in the sustainable tourism literature: most of the research studies have remarked economic and environmental sustainability, while in comparison with them, sociocultural sustainability lacks from scholarly attention (Kumar, Aggarwal, Kumar, & Saini, 2024; Rafi, Rehman, Musu, Rather, & Kautish, 2025). Additionally, several studies have considered the development of sustainable tourism as a whole concept and conducted studies neglecting to notice its different dimensions separately (Liu, Hao, & Qiu, 2025; Lima Santos, Cardoso, Araújo-Vila, & Fraiz-Brea, 2020), for instance, it is mentioned by Zhang, Wei, Fan, Milman, and King (2025) sociocultural tourism should be considered as a whole since they can influence each other. Moreover, although sustainability has garnered so much attention in recent years, there is still a lack of studies in the literature about understanding all dimensions of sustainable tourism (Rezapouraghdam, Alipour, Kilic, & Akhshik, 2022). Moreover, based on the study of Rezapouraghdam and Akhshik (2021), the majority of the respondents merely related sustainability to one aspect of environmental preservation and protection despite recognizing two other critical dimensions, particularly the social aspect. The studies of Rafi et al. (2025) and De Bruyn, Said, Meyer, and Soliman (2023) call for more in-depth and comprehensive research studies using a more accurate analytical tool to find a deeper thematic content mapping with incorporating systematic literature review study.

Despite the growing emphasis on sustainability in tourism and hospitality, existing research has predominantly concentrated on environmental and economic dimensions. Issues such as resource efficiency, carbon reduction and financial performance have been extensively studied (Madanaguli, Srivastava, Ferraris, & Dhir, 2022; Mascarenhas, Pereira, Rosado, & Martins, 2021; Streimikiene, Svagzdiene, Jasinskas, & Simanavicius, 2021), while sociocultural sustainability has remained relatively sparse and often neglected in the academic discourse. This limited focus overlooks crucial aspects such as community well-being, cultural heritage preservation and social equity, all of which are essential for achieving truly sustainable development in the sector (Pang, Wu, Xiao, Song, & Huang, 2025; Su et al., 2025). Addressing this imbalance is vital to advancing a more holistic understanding of sustainability within tourism and hospitality.

Accordingly, this study sets out to achieve the following objectives:

1. To analyze recent literature on sociocultural sustainability in the tourism and hospitality domain and identify patterns and trends related to this component.

2. To provide insights and recommendations for future research in tourism and hospitality based on a thorough exploration of existing sociocultural sustainability literature, thereby influencing and guiding scholarly pursuits in this important yet underexplored area.

Tourism has long been recognized as a key driver of economic and social advancement (Sharpley, 2020). It represents one of the world's largest industries, with international tourist arrivals rising dramatically from 687 million in 2000 to 1.401 billion in 2018 and expected to reach 1.8 billion by 2030 (UNWTO, 2019). The notion of sustainable development, first articulated in the Brundtland Report, encouraged scholars and policymakers to identify strategies that satisfy current needs while safeguarding the ability of future generations to meet their own. In this context, the idea of “sustainable tourism” emerged, aiming to integrate economic, environmental and social objectives while addressing the broader impacts of tourism (Elgin & Elveren, 2024).

Building on critical sustainability debates, Mowforth and Munt (2015) highlight that tourism development is inherently shaped by uneven and unequal global processes, where First World capital and discourse often dominate the trajectories of destinations in the Global South. They argue that understanding sociocultural sustainability requires a “geography of power” recognizing how globalization stretches economic, cultural as well as political relationships while producing imbalances between regions and communities. This critical lens underscores that claims of “new” or “alternative” tourism are frequently intertwined with neo-colonial and eco-colonial dynamics, raising questions about who defines and benefits from sustainable tourism. Such an approach enriches sociocultural sustainability research by situating case studies within broader geopolitical and economic contexts and by revealing that sustainability narratives are contested, socially constructed and unevenly applied across destinations.

Initially, sustainability was presented in the World Charter for Nature as a means of concern for the environment (UN, 1982). The Brundtland Commission's World Commission on Environment and Development, under the title “Our Common Future” (Wced, 1987, p. 43), set the stage for a deeper reflection on sustainability, aiming to manifest both environmental conservation and economic growth (Hák, Janoušková, & Moldan, 2016). The societal aspect of sustainable development is presented as the third basis by the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995 (Havard, 1995), and in 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, it is subjoined to the two other pillars of sustainability improvement. Furthermore, Duxbury and Gillette assert that “environmental responsibility, economic health, social equity, and cultural vitality” (Duxbury, 2007) are all important aspects of sustainable tourism. Tourism sustainability has been attributed to maintaining a balance between its various aspects, including economic, environmental and social objectives, while focusing on tourism and its impacts (Buckley, 2012; Hall, Gössling, & Scott, 2015; Waligo, Clarke, & Hawkins, 2013).

In recent decades, sustainable tourism has gained a great deal of attention from scholars by focusing on its issues and trends. By this means, various systematic literature review studies have demonstrated the importance of tourism sustainability. For instance, the study of Streimikiene et al. (2021), a comprehensive systematic review research, has demonstrated emerging themes and collaborative networks in sustainable tourism. In addition, Kumar et al. (2024) have provided a 10-year review study from 2013 to 2023 about tourism sustainability, obtained from Scopus-indexed articles, to exhibit main authors, highly cited articles, and propose main sub-dimensions of sustainable tourism, such as ecology preservation, decreasing climate change and enhancing community engagement. Moreover, as one of the most recent and comprehensive studies in this field, it is valuable to mention the work of Rafi et al. (2025), which is based on reviewing 30 years of studies in tourism sustainability by first: highlighting the connection between tourism with sustainable development goals, and introducing new and unique subdomains, including “regenerative tourism”, “responsible travel behavior”, as well as “tourism right-sizing”. These reviews point out that tourism sustainability and its dimensions have gained a lot of attention in the literature; however, it lacks a balanced theme since most of the studies have focused on two major dimensions, such as environmental and economic, while the sociocultural dimension remains comparatively underexplored (Rafi et al., 2025; Kumar et al., 2024). Additionally, the studies are mainly conducted in Europe, North America and China, which illustrates a geographical bias among publications (Alfaro, Reátegui, Villacorta, Ruales, & Orbe, 2024; Musa et al., 2025). Duxbury and Gillette assert that “environmental responsibility, economic health, social equity, and cultural vitality” (Duxbury, 2007) are all important aspects of sustainable tourism. It was originally recognized as a component of social sustainability; however, it is now defined as a single dimension (Soini & Birkeland, 2014).

Tourism development has led to various negative impacts on both the cultural and the social aspects of a tourism destination. For instance, there are some social and cultural detrimental effects of tourism on the local communities through the lens of overtourism, acculturation, and carrying capacity, which have put more pressure on residents’ daily life (Qin, Shen, Ye, & Zhou, 2021). To address these issues, the concept of sociocultural sustainability has emerged, which emphasizes the need for a sustainable sociocultural element to maintain a balance among all tourism stakeholders. This notion is defined as “a common system of culture and lifestyle choices” (Acharya & Halpenny, 2017, p. 8).

Sociocultural sustainability as one of the important yet underexplored pillars of sustainability is sociocultural sustainability (Da Costa et al., 2025), combines both aspects of social and cultural dimensions that promote and recognize the beneficial features of various cultures and their residents, to actively participate in creating an effective balance between political and social facets in their daily lives. This subject reflects the cultural identity, social integration, social and cultural heterogeneity, as well as common ethical principles through all generations (Axelsson et al., 2013; Soini & Birkeland, 2014). According to Duxbury and Jeannotte (2012), it encompasses settings that promote social equity, participatory citizenship and intercultural collaboration. In addition, this notion entails all aspects of identity and relational aspects of human beings in general through the lens of ethically inspiring individuals to attain their cultural and ethnic identity, even while they are deeply involved in various societal concepts (Soini & Birkeland, 2014). The sociocultural aspect of sustainable tourism reinforces a community's social and cultural values, including cultural norms and critical beliefs, as well as its cohesion and satisfaction (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006).

Previous research studies have demonstrated that sociocultural sustainability can have positive influences on both individual and systemic levels. It can boost community well-being, quality of life, and a strong social identity (Dash, 2025; Manahasa, Logli, & Manahasa, 2025). The strong integration of local culture into tourism productions and activities (Müller, 1994) is critical for sociocultural sustainability, as it may foster a sense of belonging and identity among locals (Simpson, 2001). These feelings of belonging to a community, as well as people's overall enjoyment of their experiences, are critical components of their life quality (Andereck & Nyaupane, 2011).

According to Chiu (2004) and Vallance, Perkins, and Dixon (2011), sociocultural sustainability counts as a prerequisite for environmental sustainability since environmental needs will be met when, at the first point, individuals fulfill their expectations. Even so, the primary goal of sociocultural sustainability tourism, through a bottom-up participation approach, is to transfer decision-making and ownership from the “haves” to the “have-nots,” thereby improving the economic and social welfare of society (Euzéby, 2010) through empowering stakeholders to participate in generating beneficial tourism initiatives (Neto, 2003). Despite the growth of knowledge regarding sustainable tourism and its effective dimension, sociocultural sustainability has remained understudied since the literature mainly has focused on other dimensions of sustainability-economic and environmental-while sociocultural sustainability is insufficiently explored.

Despite the growing body of research on sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality, the literature remains geographically uneven, with a strong concentration on Western and Global North contexts (Ferrari, Hernández-Maskivker, & Nicotera, 2022; Ooi, Laing, & Mair, 2015). In contrast, studies emerging from Asia, Africa and Latin America tend to conceptualize sociocultural sustainability through lenses of collective identity, cultural continuity and community empowerment, rather than individual attitudes or managerial performance indicators (Adu-Ampong & Kimbu, 2019; Martínez & Poveda, 2024; Yousaf, Liu, & Xiang, 2025; Zhang, Pearce, & Chen, 2019). Asian research often reveals disputes between the aspects of culture preservation and the ones of tourism creation of their own with the local culture then shaped to attract the tourists in particular areas like in heritage sites and community tourism initiatives (Chong & Balasingam, 2019; Zhang, Xiong, Lee, Ye, & Nunkoo, 2021). Likewise, the discourse surrounding the development of tourism in Africa touches upon the issue of the local community's quality of life drawing lines of inequality in benefit distribution and the constant power of post-colonial influences (Atadouanla Segning, Fouopi Djiogap, Piabuo, & Ngasseu Noupie, 2024; Mbaiwa, 2005; Okech, 2010). In the case of Latin America, the sociocultural aspect of sustainability is portrayed as a power struggle between local people and the government with the indigenous rights, social justice, and grassroots participation in the tourism planning process being the main concerns of the people (Jamal & Camargo, 2014; Selfa et al., 2015). The fact that these viewpoints are relatively absent from the prevailing discussions on sustainability reveals an epistemological imbalance that restricts the validity of the current theories and points out the necessity for more context-dependent and inclusive strategies in regard to sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality research.

In the last 20 years, research has extensively looked at the economic factor, especially with profitability, the creation of jobs as well as financial sustainability and the environmental factor, with larger consideration of resource efficiency, carbon mitigation and ecological protection (Streimikiene et al., 2021; Khizar, Younas, Kumar, Akbar, & Poulova, 2023). On the other hand, the sociocultural pillar, including matters such as cultural heritage preservation, host-guest relations, resident quality of life, social equity and community empowerment, remains rather underdeveloped and less cohesive (Madanaguli et al., 2022). Such imbalances point to an important niche: While economic and ecological bearings of tourist trade are well expounded, an integrative insight into tourism's pattern in, and impact on, the social structure and cultural vitality of destinations is still scanty (Elbelehy & Crispim, 2025). Closing this gap would allow catching the whole sustainability picture of tourism and pave the way to culturally sensitive development strategies.

We engaged in a systematic review of the literature following the SPAR-4-SLR (Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews) approach (Paul, Lim, O’Cass, Hao, & Bresciani, 2021). This structured protocol – encompassing Identification, Acquisition, Organization, Evaluation and Reporting – enhances methodological rigor, transparency and replicability throughout the review process (Vyas, Rathore, Kumar, & Kumar, 2025; Annu & Tripathi, 2025).

Using the Web of Science (SSCI) database as the primary data source, we considered publications from 2014 up to 2024. WoS was selected for its comprehensive coverage, rigorous indexing standards and strong emphasis on high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, which ensures the inclusion of impactful and academically credible studies (Koseoglu, Yick, King, & Arici, 2022; Wang, Togtokhbuyan, & Yadmaa, 2021). Compared to other databases such as Scopus or Google Scholar, WoS also offers refined filtering options, including precise subject categories and citation indexing, improving the accuracy and relevance of retrieved articles. The search deployed targeted keywords — “sustainability,” “social,” “cultural,” “socio-cultural,” “tourism,” and “hospitality.” The initial screening identified 211 papers; 111 were excluded due to irrelevance, 18 for subject mismatch and 11 were duplicates or contained misaligned abstracts, leaving 82 full-length English-language articles for review (Figure 1).

For the thematic analysis, we employed Leximancer software, an advanced text analytics and visualization tool designed to identify, extract and map key themes and concepts from large volumes of textual data (Brochado, Rita, Oliveira, & Oliveira, 2019; Saydam & Altun, 2023; Tseng, Wu, Morrison, Zhang, & Chen, 2015). Leximancer uses machine learning algorithms to analyze the co-occurrence of words and automatically generate concept maps that visually represent themes as interconnected bubbles (Arici, Saydam, Sökmen, & Cakmakoglu Arici, 2025; Saydam, Ozturen, & Kilic, 2022). The size of each bubble indicates the relative importance or prominence of the theme, while the proximity between bubbles illustrates conceptual relationships and co-occurrence patterns (Thomas, 2014; Saydam, Borzyszkowski, & Karatepe, 2024b). This approach enables a more objective and systematic exploration of patterns compared to traditional manual coding, reducing researcher bias and enhancing reproducibility (Rezapouraghdam, Saydam, Altun, Roudi, & Nosrati, 2025; Saydam, Olorunsola, & Rezapouraghdam, 2023). In this study, Leximancer allowed us to uncover dominant thematic structures and conceptual linkages across the selected literature on sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality, providing deeper insights into the thematic focus and distribution of existing research. Unlike bibliometric tools such as VOSviewer or CiteSpace, which primarily map citation- and author-based relationships (Yang, Qu, & Hua, 2022), Leximancer enables a content-driven analysis by automatically identifying conceptual themes and semantic associations within the textual corpus, making it particularly suitable for exploring the sociocultural dimensions emphasized in this review (Saydam, Arici, & Koseoglu, 2024a).

Figure 2 provides the annual distribution of publications about sociocultural sustainability in the tourism and hospitality (T&H) area during 2014–2024. The figure evidently points toward a general upward trend during the period under scrutiny, notwithstanding intervening dips and rises.

Up until 2016, publication numbers were relatively low, from 5 to 9 articles per year, meaning little academic attention was paid to sociocultural sustainability in contrast to environmental and economic aspects. Starting from 2017, however, a modest rise started to appear, and it exploded in 2019 and 2020, with the numbers climbing to 14 and 20 articles. This peak probably means that the social and cultural dimensions of sustainable tourism development were gaining prominence in contention, perhaps due to world issues around community resilience and cultural preservation.

Although there was a slight decline in 2021 and 2022, with 13 and 12 articles respectively, research activity remained substantially higher than in the earlier years. The upward momentum resumed in 2023 and reached its highest point in 2024, with 22 publications, reflecting heightened academic and practical interest in the sociocultural dimensions of sustainability. This trend underscores a shifting focus in the literature, highlighting that while sociocultural sustainability was previously underexplored, it has gained increasing prominence in recent years. However, the fluctuation also indicates that this area is still developing and subject to changing research priorities and external global dynamics.

In terms of method, among the 82 articles analyzed, a substantial majority (approximately 52 studies) employed qualitative methods, emphasizing the exploration of community experiences, cultural impacts, and social transformations in context-specific ways. For instance Choe and Lugosi (2022) conducted interpretive research on migration and social sustainability, Mkono (2016) analyzed indigenous tourism narratives through social media content, and Puhakka, Sarkki, Cottrell, and Siikamäki (2009) examined Local discourses and international initiatives in Finland. Other examples include Stevenson (2016) on local festivals and social capital. Quantitative studies accounted for around 20 articles, focusing on surveys and scale development to capture residents' attitudes and measure sustainability-related constructs. For example, Lee and Jan et al. (2019) gauged community-based tourism from the lens of residents in Taiwan. Zhang et al. (2021) conducted survey and gauged sociocultural Sustainability and the formation of social capital from community-based tourism in China. Zhang, Ruan, Li, Li, and Wang (2024) validated a scale on cultural distortion risks at heritage sites, and Chandran et al. (2021) designed a second-order scale measuring sustainable tourist behavior. Liu, Wang, Dupre, and McIlwaine (2022) used interviews to explore heritage tourism on community livelihoods in China. Finally, a smaller group research studies adopted mixed-method approaches, integrating both qualitative and quantitative techniques to provide more comprehensive insights. Examples include Puhakka et al. (2009) utilized mixed-method to examine local discourses and international initiatives in Finland. Yao, Pang, Fang, and Qiao (2025) used mixed-method approach to analyze sustainable performance of cultural heritage tourist sites. Shang, Qiao, and Chen (2020) also used mixed-method approach in order to gauge place attachment in China.

The thematic analysis conducted in this study aimed to examine the concentration of research efforts across key themes within sociocultural sustainability in the tourism and hospitality domain. The analysis revealed that “perception of residents”, broadly speaking community well-being and empowerment received substantial scholarly attention, highlighting the critical importance of involving local residents in tourism decision-making and ensuring that tourism initiatives contribute positively to their quality of life (Figure 3).

For example, Buzinde, Kalavar, and Melubo (2014) found that tourism contributes to the elevation of women's status in Tanzania. Dolezal and Novelli (2022) conducted a study on community-based tourism and cited authors found that themes such as social equity, resident perceptions, and intercultural exchange remain comparatively underexplored in Bali. Gupta, Nath Mishra, and Kumar (2023) found that tourist empowerment plays a mediating role between tourist participation and service experience.

Community well-being and empowerment emerged as a prominent theme, emphasizing the importance of involving local communities in decision-making processes and ensuring that tourism contributes positively to their quality of life. This theme underscores the shift toward participatory approaches that value community voices, aligning with studies focusing on social capital and stakeholder engagement. For example, Biagi, Ladu, Meleddu, and Royuela (2020) investigated the link between tourism presence and perceptions of the urban quality of life. Liang and Hui (2016) gauged residents' quality of life and attitudes toward tourism development in China. Kim, Uysal, and Sirgy (2013) analyzed the community impact on the quality of life of community residents.

Another emerged theme was “attitudes and behavior.” The theme of attitudes and behavior emphasizes the crucial link between individuals' perceptions of tourism and their actual actions toward it. This theme encompasses sub-concepts such as support for tourism development, willingness to participate and responsible or sustainable behavior. For example, Confente and Scarpi (2021) gauged social-cultural sustainability of roots tourism in Calabria, Italy. He, Hu, Swanson, Su, and Chen (2018) analyzed destination perceptions, relationship quality and tourist environmentally responsible behavior from the lens of visitors.

The theme of Management emphasizes the crucial intervention of local destination management in assuring sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality. Local authorities, in collaboration with tourism bodies and community leaders, have a responsibility to balance development aspirations against cultural and social values. Related sub-concepts entail cultural heritage preservation, a concept applied to management efforts in protecting both tangible and intangible culture from degradation or commercialization; competitiveness, which is concerned with ensuring the destinations remain attractive and unique in a context that integrates sustainable development, and stakeholder coordination, which underlines the formulation of governance models incorporating the different actors of the community in the decision-making process. For example, Jamal and Stronza (2009) investigated collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas. Ruhanen (2013) conducted interviews with local government representatives and key destination stakeholders and found that power struggles and the robust effect of local government authority in local governance structures were barriers to sustainable tourism development. Santa and Tiatco (2019) researched tourism, heritage and cultural performance nexus in Philippines. Hughes and Carlsen (2010) investigated the success factors of cultural heritage tourism. Maziliauske (2024) explored how small and medium-sized tourism enterprises in rural destinations support sociocultural sustainability by engaging in co-creation in innovation for sustainability.

The theme of Festivals underscores the important role that cultural events and community celebrations play in promoting sociocultural sustainability within tourism and hospitality. Festivals serve as powerful platforms for preserving and showcasing local traditions, arts, and cultural identities, helping to strengthen community pride and foster a sense of belonging among residents (O'Sullivan & Jackson, 2002). They also provide opportunities for meaningful cultural exchange between hosts and visitors, enhancing mutual understanding and respect (Ma & Lew, 2012). Several studies underscored the significance of festivals as key instruments for reinforcing cultural identity and strengthening social cohesion within local communities. For example, Zou, Meng, Bi, and Zhang (2021) evaluated sustainability of cultural festival tourism. Hassanli, Walters, and Williamson (2021) analyzed how multicultural festivals foster social sustainability in Australia. Thelen and Kim (2024) researched social sustainability and food tourism festivals from the lens of both local community and festival organizers. Bagiran and Kurgun (2016) researched social impacts of the Foça Rock Festival in Türkiye.

In light of emerging themes, Sport and Ecotourism aspects have, indeed, found contemporary relevance for sociocultural sustainability within tourism and hospitality research. Sport tourism studies have focused on how sporting events and recreational pursuits could inculcate pride in the community, inculcate healthy lifestyles in their residents, and create social bonds among residents and visitors. Authors who have researched this domain are of the view that sports could evolve as a unifying cultural force in the enhancement of local identity and offer a platform for inclusive participation. However, they have cautioned that a disregard for sensitivity in planning and implementation could lead to social displacement or an accentuation of existing inequalities through sport tourism. It is, therefore, imperative that access and management be geared toward event planning from an equitable standpoint and community perspective. For example, Hinch and Holt (2017) aimed to gain insight into the sustainability of this type of active sport tourism event by scrutinizing the way that locals as well as runners, comprehend place. Singh, Dash, and Vashko (2016) developed a framework for pinpointing the requirement for ecotourism certification within ecotourism and sport tourism. Sánchez-Sánchez and Sánchez-Sánchez (2023) researched the nexus between ecotourism and COVID-19 in Spain. Walker and Moscardo (2014) researched ecotourism through the lens of cruisers. Tsaur, Lin, and Lin (2006) assessed ecotourism sustainability by using subjective measures to analyze the relationships among resources, the community and tourism.

This study embraces the crucial yet often disregarded dimension of sustainability discourse and aims to comprehensively and systematically assess sociocultural sustainability research in tourism and hospitality. Adhering to the SPAR-4-SLR protocol and conducting thematic analysis by means of Leximancer software, this research brings forth an objective and rigorous synthesis of 82 peer-reviewed articles published up until 2024. The results indicate that an overwhelming majority of research is concentrated on community well-being and empowerment as well as cultural heritage conservation, hence manifesting the growing acknowledgment of the ability of tourism development to realize social and cultural aspects. Social equity topics, on the other hand, are grossly understudied, as are resident attitudes, but also behaviors and interpretations-culture exchange.

More so, the dominance of qualitative approaches highlights the need for methodological diversification, including more quantitative and mixed-method studies, to increase the generalizability of the findings and have greater depth. By identifying these thematic focuses and gaps, the review provides a solid foundation for going forward and insists on the greater need for employing more balanced and inclusive lenses in advancing the study of sociocultural sustainability. In general, this study offers an enhanced understanding of the contemporary state of sociocultural sustainability research in tourism and hospitality while calling for further attention to neglected areas in order to assure a more holistic and complete approach to sustainability in the domain.

The findings from this systematic review lend insights into how sociocultural sustainability has been treated in the realm of tourism and hospitality literature. There is a clear trend wherein emphasis is laid on community well-being and empowerment, as well as cultural heritage conservation (Brooks, Waterton, Saul, & Renzaho, 2023; Capucho, Leitão, & Alves, 2025). These areas have always attracted attention in academia, reflecting a shared view that local cultures must be protected and there must be an improvement in the livelihood of residents as tourism pressures grow. While this could be seen as a gradual broadening of the term toward more holistic approaches from being previously dominated by economic and environmental sides, it is certainly a landmark shift (Hurst, Anderson, & Crimaldi, 2021).

In comparison, themes such as social equity and inclusiveness, resident attitudes and behaviors, and intercultural exchange remain comparatively underexplored. The evident emphasis on community empowerment tends to make local involvement central to planning and development of tourism and, ideally, the sharing of benefits; however, little focus on the issue of social equity is indicative of a missing link in studying the possibility that these benefits may not be fairly spread among various social groups. This opposition reveals that there may be a compromise of opportunities and outcomes in terms of equity that past community involvement did not seem to address.

Similarly, while resident attitudes and perceptions have been explored in some studies (Hadinejad, D. Moyle, Scott, Kralj, & Nunkoo, 2019; Rasoolimanesh & Seyfi, 2021), they often appear as secondary topics rather than central elements shaping sustainable tourism outcomes. This stands in contrast to the strong emphasis placed on community well-being (Moscardo, Konovalov, Murphy, & McGehee, 2013), revealing an imbalance in how local voices are valued and integrated into broader sustainability discussions. Moreover, intercultural exchange, which has the potential to deepen mutual understanding and strengthen relationships between visitors and hosts, remains notably underrepresented. This lack of focus is surprising, especially given the growing global attention to cultural diversity and the importance of fostering meaningful cross-cultural connections in tourism.

On the methodological front, the clear dominance of qualitative approaches highlights the field's preference for rich, context-specific insights. These approaches are invaluable for capturing local realities and nuanced experiences. However, the relatively limited use of quantitative and mixed-method designs points to missed opportunities for broader generalization and stronger evidence-based comparisons across different settings. Incorporating more mixed methods could help bridge this gap, allowing researchers to draw on both in-depth qualitative narratives and robust quantitative data to build a more comprehensive picture.

Taken together, these observations suggest that while research on sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality has made important strides, especially in areas like community empowerment and cultural preservation, there is still work to be done. Gaps persist around social equity, local behavioral dynamics and intercultural engagement. Addressing these less-explored areas and embracing a wider range of methodological tools will be key to developing a more inclusive and holistic understanding of sociocultural sustainability that truly reflects the diverse realities of communities and visitors alike.

This study contributes to the theoretical development of sociocultural sustainability in tourism and hospitality by providing a structured synthesis of existing literature and highlighting key thematic concentrations and gaps. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating community well-being and cultural preservation into sustainability frameworks, suggesting that sociocultural dimensions should be treated as core pillars rather than supplementary considerations. By identifying underexplored areas such as social equity, resident behavior and intercultural exchange, this review encourages scholars to expand theoretical discussions and develop more integrated models that capture the complex social dynamics inherent in tourism systems. The study also emphasizes the need for greater theoretical grounding overall, encouraging researchers to move beyond descriptive approaches and adopt more robust conceptual frameworks in future work. In closing, the review, on the theoretical side, emphasizes the scattered character of the sociocultural sustainability studies throughout different disciplines and methods. To overcome this, future studies might create a comprehensive conceptual framework that interweaves the sociocultural results (like cultural continuity, social equity and resident well-being) with governance, stakeholder engagement and context across destinations. This framework would not only facilitate the theme-in-isolation analysis but also provide a comprehensive view through which to see how tourism systems produce, contest and maintain the sociocultural sustainability, thus contributing to theory building and also enabling research comparisons through different geographical and institutional contexts.

From a managerial perspective, this study highlights the need for destination managers and tourism operators to adopt more community-centered and culturally sensitive approaches to foster sociocultural sustainability. First, designing participatory decision-making frameworks for instance community councils or regular local advisory meetings, might empower residents in order to actively shape tourism policies and development, also strengthening local ownership and support. Second, collaborating with local artisans and cultural custodians to develop authentic cultural experiences helps preserve cultural integrity while providing tourists with meaningful, immersive interactions. Third, implementing social equity monitoring tools and benefit-sharing mechanisms ensures that tourism-generated advantages are distributed fairly across all community groups, addressing potential inequalities and reinforcing social cohesion. Fourth, integrating structured intercultural exchange programs, including volunteer opportunities or shared community activities, can deepen mutual understanding between visitors and residents, enhance destination image as well as enrich visitor experiences. Together, these strategies encourage more inclusive, equitable and culturally respectful tourism management practices that align with long-term sustainability goals. Lastly, current research, akin to the recognized sociocultural sustainability themes, proposes diverse strategies for major stakeholder groups. Local authorities can enhance participatory governance by integrating the community consultation mechanisms already in place into the destination planning process and monitoring the sociocultural impacts through the use of locally grounded indicators of cultural well-being and social inclusion. The nongovernmental organizations can take the position of a mediator by providing a platform for communicating between the residents and the tourism developers, granting their support to the training programs and protecting the cultural voices of the marginalized groups. For the industry practitioners, aforementioned are especially the destination managers and the hospitality operators who will benefit most from integrating the sociocultural sustainability into the operational practices, like employing local cultural mediators, backing up community-led cultural events and pushing for ethical representation guidelines to the extent of improving both social legitimacy and the long-term destination resilience.

Despite its comprehensive scope, our research includes certain limitations. First, the analysis relied exclusively on articles indexed in the Web of Science database, which might have excluded relevant studies from other reputable sources or regional journals. Second, the reliance on keyword-based search strategies may have led to the omission of studies using alternative terminology. Additionally, while Leximancer provided objective insights into thematic patterns, the interpretation of these themes still involves a degree of researcher subjectivity.

Future research should consider broadening the scope by including additional databases and alternative search methods to capture a more diverse range of perspectives. Researchers are also encouraged to adopt more varied methodological approaches, particularly quantitative and mixed-method designs, to complement qualitative insights and enable cross-context comparisons. Furthermore, deeper exploration of underrepresented themes such as social equity, resident behavior and intercultural exchange is essential to developing a more comprehensive understanding of sociocultural sustainability. Please see Table 1 for more detailed future research directions. Lastly, despite conducting a meticulous systematic literature review and utilizing Leximancer to highlight and illustrate prominent themes in the examination of sociocultural sustainability, this research does not apply any quantitative methods, such as bibliometric techniques, citation analysis or co-authorship network mapping. Therefore, the analysis draws attention to the thematic patterns rather than the intellectual structure and the collaborative dynamics of the field. A future study might consider a mixed-methods review approach by integrating bibliometric indicators with text-mining tools to corroborate the findings, thus providing richer insights into the significant publications, author connections and the development of sociocultural sustainability research in tourism and hospitality areas.