This paper aims to critically explore how effectiveness, equity and efficiency (i.e. the “3Es”) are applied to evaluate service delivery across the hospitality, tourism and recreation fields. It addresses organizations’ and researchers’ tendency to work in silos, highlighting the need for a more integrated approach to performance measurement.
This paper adopts a comprehensive performance measurement system (CPMS) framework. Under this model, service delivery and staff commitment can be assessed based on three criteria: effectiveness – does the service deliver the intended benefits?; equity – are all stakeholders treated fairly?; and efficiency – how do inputs and outputs reflect effort, expense and/or waste? A review of the literature and contemporary empirical evidence informs this analysis.
Performance management systems have historically prioritized efficiency, often at the detriment of effectiveness and equity. This paper reveals sectoral variations: recreation emphasizes access and community outcomes; hospitality focuses on service quality; and tourism targets destination management. Rebalancing the 3Es is essential for delivering sustainable, inclusive outcomes.
Organizations in the visitor economy can use the 3Es framework to design performance systems that balance profitability with social fairness and environmental responsibility. More conscientious service delivery will follow.
By positioning the 3Es within the CPMS framework, this paper places a novel cross-sectoral lens on service delivery in the evolving visitor economy. It provides a structured yet refined foundation for promoting performance measurement that is equitable, effective and efficient.
1. Introduction
Hospitality, tourism and recreation organizations devote substantial resources to creating and implementing performance measurement systems (PMSs) (Taheri et al., 2019). Early PMSs’ content tended to be narrow, linked to goals such as “quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action” (Neely et al., 1995, p. 80). Most evaluations used numerical ratios to operate efficiently. Intangible dimensions were far less prominent; they generally captured services’ effectiveness based on factors such as product or service quality, flexibility and customer satisfaction. Notably, nearly all assessment strategies disregarded the equitable treatment of staff, customers, or other stakeholders. Evaluations instead favored control-based efficiency measures to the neglect of outcomes tied to service impact, fairness and sustainability. The visitor economy comprises sectors that facilitate travel-related production and consumption: hospitality, tourism, recreation and associated services (e.g. events, attractions and transportation) (Taheri et al., 2021). The visitor economy is unique in several respects. It stresses experiential, intangible outcomes; relies on multi-stakeholder delivery systems; and is committed to visitor satisfaction as well as community well-being. These characteristics demand a performance measurement approach that goes beyond conventional output-driven (e.g. financial) metrics to consider social, environmental and experiential features. Customer-facing services often operate across public–private boundaries and serve both commercial and social purposes; service delivery appraisal therefore mandates a holistic lens (Waligo et al., 2013). This paper accordingly adapts a comprehensive performance measurement system (CPMS) framework to the visitor economy’s realities. Efficiency, effectiveness and equity (i.e. the “3Es”) provide a balanced foundation for assessment.
The visitor economy’s industries simultaneously pursue economic, social, cultural and environmental goals to optimize returns. Franzoni’s (2015) performance assessment model, developed for the tourism sector, offers a logical starting point: it outlines performance indicators across three tiers (i.e. community, tourist destination and organization) and multiple dimensions (i.e. social, competitive and economic). We take this framework as a guide, with our focal tiers being recreation, tourism and hospitality firms. Our dimensions of interest cover economic, socio-cultural and environmental aspects.
In this conceptual paper, we critically review the 3Es’ applications for evaluating service delivery in the hospitality, tourism and recreation sectors. Our core indicators encompass the 3Es (e.g. Glover, 1999). We explore these criteria from socio-cultural, economic and environmental angles. Each of the aforementioned sectors maintains its own focus on the visitor economy:
hospitality centers on how a destination treats visitors upon their arrival in a community;
in tourism, destinations seek to inspire people to leave home and to match attractions’ demand with long-term sustainability; and
recreation involves activities that encourage people to pursue enjoyment, relaxation, or personal enrichment.
More generally, individuals may travel for professional, social, or personal purposes. We examine leisure-driven visits in this paper. Relevant settings (e.g. parks, trails and cultural venues) are key to enhancing well-being and community vitality.
Regarding the 3Es, effectiveness refers in this case to whether a service delivers the intended benefits to its customers. Equity concerns the fairness of stakeholder treatment. Efficiency reflects how inputs and outputs relate to the effort, expense and/or waste involved in providing a service. Although efficiency is crucial to firms’ survival, fully prioritizing it over effectiveness and equity can undermine long-term business success. This conceptual paper draws on existing literature and insights from a cross-disciplinary academic colloquium to address how these three criteria apply to the economic, socio-cultural and environmental dimensions of recreation, tourism and hospitality. It highlights each criterion’s sector-specific nuances and underscores the value of an integrated approach to performance measurement. Our use of a structured framework and cross-sectoral lens is meant to enable more inclusive, sustainable and context-sensitive service performance evaluations in the visitor economy.
2. Implementing a comprehensive performance measurement system to assess effectiveness, equity and efficiency (the 3Es)
PMSs were largely rooted in organizational control theory until scholars identified a more appropriate viewpoint: these systems serve as vehicles for organizational learning (Davenport, 2006) and market-focused learning (Calantone et al., 2002). Homburg et al. (2012) considered PMSs to be CPMSs for evaluating suppliers, customers and competitors. Employee satisfaction measures were introduced as researchers realized that granting workers more autonomy fostered employees’ organizational trust and innovation (Dalir, 2024; Glover, 1999; Taheri et al., 2019). Here, we adapt the CPMS framework to appraise service delivery and staff commitment via the 3Es. Our paper is anchored in CPMS theory (e.g. Fatima and Elbanna, 2020; Neely et al., 1995; Sainaghi et al., 2017; Taheri et al., 2019) and a systematic synthesis of empirical evidence published between 2008 and 2025. Informal academic discussions contributed to the preliminary stages of framework development. Methodologically, our model features theoretical integration and validation based on studies conducted in diverse geographical and service settings (see Appendix). The proposed framework aligns with established approaches to performance measurement, emphasizing knowledge integration rather than primary data collection. Service performance is assessed using three interrelated criteria:
Effectiveness: Does the service deliver the benefits that it is intended to provide to customers?
Equity: Are all stakeholders being treated fairly?
Efficiency: How does the relationship between inputs and outputs reflect the amount of effort, expense and/or waste involved in delivering a service?
Only when the first two criteria have been fulfilled can firms address efficiency (i.e. is the service being delivered as cost-effectively as possible?). Many organizations within the visitor economy see efficiency as dominant; effectiveness and equity tend to be more latent and difficult to measure. The cliché relating to evaluation is “Expect what you inspect”: what gets measured gets done. Yet when efficiency measures prevail, service delivery’s effectiveness and equity can go ignored under the implicit – but usually false – assumption that they are strong. Moreover, if efficiency is the principal criterion, then personnel will likely interpret it as the managers’ priority and strive to meet it. The remaining two criteria are consequently neglected despite being more important.
Effectiveness can be assessed in four ways (Niavis and Tsiotas, 2019). First, many organizations consider unsolicited responses from clients and staff. Doing so is common but of limited utility: responses may not represent the entire customer base, and the absence of complaints does not necessarily indicate optimal customer satisfaction. Second, interactions between managers and their customers/staff may produce insights that enhance service delivery. As with unsolicited feedback, though, these observations are unlikely to apply to all clients. Third, unidimensional surveys can yield a probability-based sample: respondents use a standardized scale to rate different aspects of service delivery and employees’ benefits. This questionnaire format tends to evoke a positive bias, with answers clustering around the favorable end of the scale. When results convey little dissatisfaction, they provide few insights for refining service effectiveness or staff benefits.
The performance criterion of equity addresses the fundamental idea of fairness (Crompton and West, 2008). This notion reflects people’s value systems, which naturally vary but fall into main groups. Compensatory equity provides additional incremental resources (e.g. services) to groups, individuals or areas thought to be disadvantaged. Under equal opportunity, services and resources are available regardless of stakeholders’ needs or the amount of money paid. Market equity means that people who pay more (e.g. for premium services) get more or better services; for instance, a private tour may include greater access than a free group tour. Horizontal equity holds that clients/staff receiving the same level of services/resources should be treated equally.
Efficiency measures demonstrate the relationship between the work being conducted and the resources needed to perform it (Neely et al., 1995; Niavis and Tsiotas, 2019; Taheri et al., 2019). These measures can be grouped into two major categories. The first involves output/input ratios. Examples of output include the number of clients served, the number of trees trimmed and the number of complaints handled. These figures are then tied to the input resources needed to produce the output (e.g. the number of clients served per dollar or employee hour). However, this approach fails to address the effectiveness of service delivery and the fairness of staff treatment. The second category ties these ratios to effectiveness; that is, the above ratio would change to the number of clients scoring high on an effectiveness scale served per dollar or employee hour.
In summary, within the literature on performance measurement in tourism, hospitality and recreation, many authors have addressed these sectors independently and applied standalone metrics. Tourism research favors sustainability, destination competitiveness and the visitor experience (Franzoni, 2015; Hall et al., 2015; Taheri et al., 2021; Uysal and Sirgy, 2022). Most hospitality studies revolve around operational efficiency and brand outcomes (Taheri et al., 2019). The recreational literature primarily focuses on equity and community benefits (Glover, 1999; McCool, 2022). Few models have assumed a cross-sectoral view that captures the visitor economy’s complexity. We bridge that gap by incorporating these insights into an evaluative method grounded in CPMS and the 3Es. Efficiency is typically deemed essential for business survival; however, a laser focus on it can be counterproductive in service settings. CPMS frameworks call for a more balanced approach, particularly regarding the visitor economy; service delivery must be effective and equitable. Prioritizing efficiency without addressing these other elements can distort organizational objectives, erode service quality and diminish stakeholder trust. Sustainable performance thus requires a strategy that integrates all three criteria and uses inclusive, context-sensitive evaluation tools.
3. Assessing the 3Es in economic, socio-cultural and environmental contexts
Figure 1 depicts how the CPMS framework operationalizes the 3Es across economic, socio-cultural and environmental dimensions of the visitor economy, including hospitality, tourism and recreation (Mihalic, 2016). This diagram portrays demand and supply perspectives. It also highlights shared principles, interdependencies and sectoral nuances in service delivery, staff engagement and stakeholder alignment (Waligo et al., 2013). Not all indicators can be adopted simultaneously; however, matching chosen measures to organizations’ missions and strategic priorities enables more sustainable, inclusive, outcome-oriented assessment. Table 1 complements Figure 1 by providing examples for each sector and performance dimension. The following sections discuss how the 3Es manifest in the visitor economy. We further describe how practitioners can adapt performance indicators to their needs.
The framework in Table 1 and Figure 1 is grounded in empirical evidence demonstrating the 3Es’ presence across the visitor economy. Contemporary studies have provided validation. For example, firms can optimize efficiency through behavioral funding mechanisms (Nowak and Heldt, 2023) and operational performance measurement (Singh et al., 2022). They can increase effectiveness by considering spatial equity (Zhang and Xu, 2023) and socio-cultural determinants (Bayrakcı and Ozcan, 2023). Moreover, firms may advance equity through comprehensive evaluation systems (Guo et al., 2024) and environmental justice models (Wong et al., 2021). The selected studies, with their numerous geographical contexts and methods, provide support for our framework’s conceptual distinctions.
3. Hospitality: assessing the 3Es in economic, socio-cultural and environmental contexts
3.1 Economic contexts
As a pillar of the visitor economy, the hospitality sector offers a rich context for examining how the 3Es shape organizational performance. This sector functions as an input–output system: hospitality firms transform resources such as labor, capital and land into tourism services (Li et al., 2023). Artificial intelligence-enabled operations have transformed the industry by facilitating service processes and decision-making (Kim et al., 2024). Data-driven supply chain management has similarly strengthened efficiency by improving inventory control and demand forecasting (Cole et al., 2019). Brand portfolio management is another driver of economic performance: a strong portfolio fosters brand synergy, clarity and differentiation (Aaker, 2004; Taheri and Shaker, 2025). Brand portfolio characteristics (e.g. brand number, segmentation) have been empirically linked to several metrics: marketing effectiveness (e.g. loyalty, market share); efficiency (e.g. advertising-to-sales ratios); and financial performance (e.g. cash flow, Tobin’s q; Morgan and Rego, 2009). These insights can help hotel executives enhance their brand structures and resource allocation.
Maintaining superior service quality is paramount regardless of brand affiliation. Elements such as empathy, responsiveness and ambient service environments shape organizations’ long-term effectiveness. Using technology to augment, rather than replace, human service boosts personalization and customer engagement (Carvalho and Alves, 2023; Lai et al., 2023; Taheri and Shaker, 2025). Tools such as mystery shopping, brand audits and real-time data analytics support ongoing quality assessment and tailored guest experiences. Equity often goes underexamined but is nonetheless essential in the CPMS framework. Inclusive reservation systems and fair workplace practices increase accessibility and equality across diverse consumer and employee groups. Embracing horizontal equity principles promotes inclusive, responsible, sustainable performance amid shifting social and ethical expectations (Otterbring et al., 2025).
3.2 Socio-cultural contexts
The socio-cultural dimension of hospitality performance pertains to service delivery, customer experience design and stakeholder inclusivity. Smart, data-driven pricing and service systems permit hyper-personalized experiences by accounting for factors such as social trends and events (Buhalis and Leung, 2018; Buhalis et al., 2023). Efficiency and effectiveness improve as a result. Service quality is rooted in empathy, responsiveness and the physical and social setting; it is indispensable to guests’ satisfaction and firms’ success. Sustainability-oriented practices (e.g. eco-friendly operations and positive reinforcement of pro-environmental behavior) align hospitality services with broader social values (Buhalis et al., 2023; Khalilzadeh et al., 2025). Artificial intelligence–enabled resource management and supply chain optimization increase efficiency through more precise forecasting and reduced waste (Kim et al., 2024). Meanwhile, mystery shoppers, brand audits and user-generated content support timely quality assessment and service refinement (O’Connor, 2020; Taheri and Shaker, 2025). Equity manifests through inclusive employment practices, wage fairness and cultural sensitivity toward guests and staff. Commitments to local sourcing and green building elicit community engagement and environmental stewardship. Collectively, these strategies foster socially responsible, inclusive, sustainable service performance that elevates guests’ well-being and hospitality firms’ long-term competitiveness.
3.3 Environmental contexts
Environmental concerns in hospitality should be assessed based on the 3Es to preserve local resources (Davis et al., 2013; Jones and Hillier, 2016). The CPMS framework (Homburg et al., 2012; Taheri et al., 2019) maintains that the demand (e.g. customers) and supply (e.g. management) sides must address environmental impacts responsibly. For instance, customers may engage in sustainable practices while traveling. Hospitality operations consume substantial resources such as land, water and scenic views; therefore, customers should ideally behave in an eco-friendly manner and opt for sustainable offerings such as eco-resorts (Warnken et al., 2005; Khalilzadeh et al., 2025).
Food waste represents another pertinent issue. Hotels and restaurants are being urged to promote waste prevention and resource-conscious dining (Filimonau et al., 2019; Teng et al., 2023; Khalilzadeh et al., 2025). Luxury resorts, many of which are resource-intensive, can foster environmental equity by requesting guest donations or donating a portion of revenue to local sustainability initiatives (Kerr and Wardana, 2020). Establishments such as Misool Resort, Papua Paradise Eco Resort and Kri Eco Resort in Raja Ampat, Indonesia, exemplify these efforts (Adrianto et al., 2021). Hospitality firms can contribute to environmental protection by implementing eco-friendly strategies, employee training, environment-oriented operations and recycling initiatives (Graves et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2016). Green design and environmentally conscious properties, as mapped via frameworks such as Hsiao et al.’s (2014) 67-point environmental management system, can guide sustainable management. Supporting local sourcing further promotes sustainability and community welfare by highlighting regional ingredients and cultural culinary experiences (Kuo et al., 2024; Otterbring et al., 2025). Our “Manager’s Takeaway” table (Table 2) serves as a reference in this regard: it summarizes strategies derived from our model, thus translating conceptual ideas into practice.
4. Tourism: assessing the 3Es in economic, socio-cultural and environmental contexts
4.1 Economic contexts
Tourism is one of the world’s most dynamic economic sectors (Konstantakis et al., 2017). From a consumer perspective, economic efficiency maximizes value and affordability (Xiang and Fesenmaier, 2017), optimizes experiences (Buhalis and Leung, 2018) and reduces unnecessary expenses (Gössling and Scott, 2018). Dynamic pricing represents a popular efficiency mechanism: prices are adjusted in real time based on market demand, competition and other factors. This approach is common in industries such as airlines and hotels, where short-term capacity adjustments are difficult and variable costs are low. Yet even though dynamic pricing increases revenues and supports inventory control, it can raise concerns about fairness. Firms need to consider the optics of their decisions. Perceived price manipulation can weaken consumer trust (Choi and Mattila, 2004). Transparent dynamic pricing instead accommodates budget-conscious and premium customers alike (Dolgui and Proth, 2010) if firms demonstrate objectivity and fairness.
Service effectiveness relates to whether the public benefits from a service as intended. Firms see positive impacts when outcomes align with customer expectations: their reputations become stronger; they attract more visitors; and their long-term performance improves. As with dynamic pricing, internet technologies have enabled dynamic packaging. Real-time trip customization enhances firms’ effectiveness by offering flexibility, choice and security (Ayazlar, 2014). Economic efficiency also depends on economies of scale, such that grander operations enjoy lower per-unit costs. Jenkins (1982) noted that large-scale tourism development is often inevitable because of global market forces; however, thoughtful pre-project plans can mitigate negative externalities. Both scale and scope economies appear vital for organizational competitiveness (Ma et al., 2015). Inefficiencies in cost management, such as those identified in Taiwan’s hotel sector (Lin and Liu, 2000), underline the persistent need for strategic planning and optimized resource use in tourism.
4.2 Socio-cultural contexts
Integrating sustainability in tourism requires firms to balance their social, competitive and financial objectives. Franzoni (2015) proposed a performance measurement model for this sector that would enable sustainability evaluation across specific tiers (i.e. community, destination and organizational) and dimensions (e.g. social, competitive and economic). This framework’s tailored indicators promote sustainable development. Tourists’ backgrounds are known to influence service quality expectations and perceptions: Weiermair (2000) and Luk (1994) observed that cultural norms shape preferences, and Buhalis (2021) later found that cultural values inform service evaluations. Cultural festivals and events enrich tourism by delivering authentic experiences and safeguarding local traditions; destination image and tourism growth increase accordingly (Chang and Tsai, 2016; Richards, 2022).
Technological advancement has transformed socio-cultural engagement in tourism. Intelligent systems expedite information searches, decision-making and operational workflows via adaptive learning (Gretzel et al., 2015). Oktadiana and Pearce (2020) advocated for personalized applications that enhance travelers’ experiences. The evolution from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 has intensified user–organization interaction and fueled smart tourism ecosystems’ rise, thanks in part to artificial and ambient intelligence. These innovations improve resource allocation, information sharing and service quality to ultimately augment customer satisfaction and organizational competitiveness. Equity is key in sustainable tourism as well. Accessible infrastructure fosters social inclusion along with economic performance (Cockburn-Wootten and McIntosh, 2020; Tomej, 2019); public interventions help ensure vulnerable groups’ equal participation (Thakur et al., 2023). Residents’ attitudes also affect tourism outcomes, namely, through community support and enduring success. Holistically combining economic, socio-cultural and environmental dimensions is essential for realizing the 3Es in sustainable tourism service delivery.
4.3 Environmental contexts
Following the CPMS framework (Taheri et al., 2019), tourists and destination management organizations (DMOs) share responsibility for addressing environmental concerns through sustainable attitudes and behavior (Ghazvini et al., 2020). Tourists can contribute by engaging in travel modes such as bicycle, slow, or ecotourism. Some visitors may decide to support conservation initiatives, choose organic menus and avoid unsustainable practices (Passafaro, 2020). Green consumption, such as buying eco-friendly tourism products instead of environmentally harmful ones, advances sustainability (Nekmahmud et al., 2022). Residents similarly deserve access to eco-conscious tourism opportunities (Cole, 2006). Bringing locals into the fold as active participants (e.g. “What should be done?”) rather than passive consultants (e.g. “What do you think?”) can inform environmental governance (Lawton and Weaver, 2015). On a larger scale, DMOs can collaborate with residents to co-create eco-villages. International examples include Sólheimar (Iceland), Arcosanti (Arizona, USA) and Taomi (Taiwan; Doğan, 2019; Lee, 2009; Prince, 2019).
In the same vein, DMOs can encourage sustainable resource use in multiple ways: by heightening environmental awareness through public campaigns, justifying past actions, prompting stakeholder dialogue and tracking progress via monitoring systems (Gasparini and Mariotti, 2023). For instance, Italian DMOs in Cagliari, Rome, Villasimius and Oristano have adopted the European Tourism Indicators System to assess sustainability outcomes (Modica et al., 2018). Social justice is another part of tourism development. Practices such as Aboriginal tourism foster cultural preservation, community pride and economic inclusion (Thimm, 2019). Successful cases can offer inspiration (Hipwell, 2007; Lemelin et al., 2015); the Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park (Australia), Tanayiku Natural Ecology Park (Taiwan), and the Cree Village Eco Lodge (Canada) are illustrative. Our “Manager’s Takeaway” table (Table 1) again links relevant principles to sustainable destination management and visitor engagement.
5. Recreation: assessing the 3Es in economic, socio-cultural and environmental contexts
5.1 Economic contexts
Recreation services, especially those that are publicly or communally provided, must be appraised in light of economic efficiency, community effectiveness and equitable access (McCool, 2022). Economic efficiency involves strategic resource allocation and monitoring so that inputs (e.g. staffing, maintenance, capital expenditures) yield optimal community benefits. Several practices facilitate this aim. Cost-accounting systems and cost-recovery rates enable managers to assess actual resource use and make informed fiscal decisions. Measuring facility use relative to capacity can uncover inefficiencies and possible investment priorities. Minimizing regressive taxation keeps low-income populations from shouldering undue financial burdens. Complementary (vs competing) partnerships with private providers promote efficiency as well. For example, public agencies can collaborate with health-care centers, YMCAs, or hospitality firms to share facilities or sell excess capacity; such steps can improve space utilization and service reach. Diversifying revenue streams (e.g. through user fees, sponsorships or lease agreements) reduces dependency on tax revenues and increases financial resilience. Planned outsourcing or service adjustments can aid firms in adapting to fluid market demands.
Community effectiveness extends to workforce investment. Continuous training and retention programs help maintain skilled personnel. Lifecycle upkeep for infrastructure and equipment similarly supports safety, reliability and cost-effectiveness to reinforce public trust. Equitable access requires inclusive pricing and proactive measures to welcome low-income populations. For example, avoiding stigmatization while promoting fair participation in recreation aligns with community development and social justice objectives (Pitas et al., 2022). Overall, recreation services should emphasize community return on investment. This focus places collective well-being and economic vitality over profit.
5.2 Socio-cultural contexts
Recreation’s socio-cultural value lies in its ability to strengthen well-being, social inclusion and community identity. To be effective, recreation providers must shift from simply delivering programs (outputs) to making sure that these programs have meaningful outcomes (e.g. a better quality of life, greater community cohesion and more cultural participation). Efficiency may be less quantifiable but can still be enhanced through various means. Strategic stakeholder communication, user-friendly outreach materials and feedback mechanisms that center community voices in program design and evaluation are all worthwhile efforts (Glover, 1999).
Introducing cultural narratives and heritage-based programming can preserve and celebrate community identity. Furthermore, nurturing a sense of ownership and engagement among users (e.g. via participatory planning, community boards or co-design initiatives) ensures that services remain responsive to cultural and recreational needs. Socio-cultural recreation becomes equitable once access barriers are removed (Crompton and West, 2008; Guo et al., 2024). For instance, community members should have equal access to information. Vulnerable groups should also be involved in planning, and regressive tax structures that unintentionally benefit more affluent users must be remedied. The JLC/Edouard model of resource supply offers an insightful framework for identifying differentiated access between the public and private sectors; it emphasizes fair resource allocation. In short, accessibility encompasses inclusive design that accommodates people of all ages, races, income levels and abilities.
5.3 Environmental contexts
Recreation services often occur in natural or semi-natural settings, with environmental stewardship being instrumental. Firms must prioritize their daily operations’ sustainability (e.g. water conservation, energy-efficient infrastructure, reinforcement of pro-environmental behavior). For example, reducing urban heat island effects and ecological externalities contributes to long-term community resilience. Yet effectiveness extends beyond building green infrastructure; it also involves creating walkable, trail-connected and sidewalk-accessible sites that benefit individuals’ health as well as the environment (Glover, 1999). Planners and managers must assess positive externalities (e.g. community green space, biodiversity support) and negative ones (e.g. erosion, overuse) through performance metrics.
Equity in environmental contexts requires that all communities (not only those that are affluent or centrally located) have access to clean, safe, ecologically sound recreational spaces. Systematically assessing tree canopies, water cleanliness, wildlife habitats and soil health provides a basis for ensuring environmental justice. Recreation providers are urged to think globally but act locally by putting climate-sensitive strategies into place. Full-soft vegetation covers, CO2 reduction plans and similar initiatives will benefit current and future generations (see Table 1 for related recommendations). The recreation, hospitality and tourism sectors should aim to balance the 3Es and inspire stakeholder participation: sustainability is at once an efficiency engine and an equity imperative (Guo et al., 2024; Gursoy and Maier, 2023; Singh et al., 2022; Wong et al., 2021; Zhang and Xu, 2023; Yousaf et al., 2025).
6. Sample studies evaluating the 3Es
Appendix synthesizes a set of studies on the 3Es in recreation, hospitality and tourism (Bramwell and Lane, 2011) across economic, socio-cultural and environmental dimensions. The selected nine papers, published between 2021 and 2025, affirm that the 3Es framework is prevalent in recent research. They comprise one conceptual study and eight empirical investigations. Their varied locations (e.g. Sweden, Singapore, China, India, Spain and Turkey) reflect the 3Es’ worldwide relevance in service-based contexts. A holistic framework that extends the CPMS perspective (e.g. Fatima and Elbanna, 2020; Neely et al., 1995; Sainaghi et al., 2017; Taheri et al., 2019) and consolidates these approaches nevertheless remains lacking. We have referenced the chosen studies to develop a model and applicable roadmap that can guide performance measurements in tourism and adjacent disciplines.
7. Conclusions
This conceptual paper makes several contributions to performance measurement theory and practice in the visitor economy. First, we found that PMSs have largely overemphasized efficiency at the expense of effectiveness and equity. The resulting measurement gaps undermine sustainable service delivery. Our analysis of the recreation, hospitality and tourism domains demonstrates that this bias fails to capture the experiential, social and environmental dimensions key to the visitor economy’s success.
Second, our cross-sectoral analysis uncovered commonalities and distinctions within the 3Es framework. Similarities include the challenge of balancing efficiency demands with effectiveness and equity goals, the importance of stakeholder engagement (irrespective of setting) and environmental sustainability’s growing popularity as an operational tenet and an equity determinant. Differences reflect sectoral priorities: recreation considers public access and community well-being through inclusive pricing and environmental justice initiatives; hospitality pursues service quality optimization via technology integration and workforce diversity; and tourism realizes destination management through dynamic pricing and cross-border collaboration (Dwivedi et al., 2025).
Third, we noticed that enhancing the CPMS framework with the 3Es yields more comprehensive performance evaluation than efficiency-focused models. Our approach allows organizations to appraise service delivery economically, socioculturally and environmentally while accounting for the supply side (management and communities) and the demand side (customers/visitors). This dual-perspective approach offers a nuanced understanding of performance trade-offs and stakeholder impacts. Fourth, evidence from nine studies (2021–2025) in varied geographical locations validates our framework’s utility. These papers indicate success in several forms: efficiency optimization through behavioral funding mechanisms, greater effectiveness through spatial equity considerations and equity advancement through multifaceted evaluation.
Finally, we observed that practitioners should look beyond siloed, sector-specific metrics in favor of assessments that include the 3Es to promote sustainable visitor economy performance. Organizations that focus solely on efficiency risk compromising stakeholder trust, service quality and community support. Firms that balance the 3Es tend to enjoy stronger operational resilience and more inclusive outcomes. Our multidimensional framework extends CPMS theory (e.g. Taheri et al., 2019) by incorporating the 3Es into hospitality, tourism and recreation. Our method is meant to spark debate on which aspects of performance should be measured, which metrics are most valuable and how they can shape service planning and delivery (Waligo et al., 2013).
Target metrics should match an organization’s mission, values and objectives. Assessments can therefore signal progress (or lack thereof) in accomplishing a firm’s strategic aims (Mihalic, 2016). Managers must contemplate which indicators will provide salient insights while being suited to operational realities (Cooper, 2016). A well-structured plan for data collection and stakeholder engagement is hence required to compile information from available resources. It will prevent data overload and promote clarity to spur the visitor economy’s improvement, accountability and sustainability.
7.1 Theoretical implications
This paper responds to calls for post-efficiency means of sustainability assessment. In exploring how the 3Es apply to the visitor economy’s supply and demand, our theoretical contributions transcend other performance measurement frameworks.
7.1.1 Supply–demand integration in performance measurement systems.
We have extended the 3Es’ performance management applications as proposed by Davis et al. (2013). In particular, we adhered to the CPMS to address our focal sectors’ demand and supply sides (Homburg et al., 2012; Taheri et al., 2019). Our framework displays how performance outcomes arise from the interaction between supply-side management decisions and demand-side stakeholder experiences (see Appendix). This multidimensional approach to sustainable service evaluation covers economic, socio-cultural and environmental contexts.
7.1.2 Sector-specific applications and cross-sectoral patterns.
We identified universal and sector-specific applications across the visitor economy. The recreation sector’s effectiveness is reflected in user-friendly experiences as well as sustainable, community-centered environments. Equity emerges from inclusive access (e.g. for vulnerable populations), local engagement and fair labor practices. Efficiency supports rather than overrides these aims based on stakeholder collaboration, seasonal pricing and eco-service integration. The hospitality domain exhibits effectiveness by providing personalized, high-quality experiences informed by brand audits and data-driven service assessments. Equity is maintained via accessible payment options, workforce representation and support for local economies. Smart algorithms, dynamic pricing and integrated service systems enhance sectoral efficiency by complementing human labor instead of replacing it (Taheri and Shaker, 2025; Wang, 2025).
Customized travel packages and cultural engagement enable effective tourism. DMOs should strive to balance resources and encourage sustainability. Equity involves improving access for underserved populations and supporting inclusive labor. Local sourcing and business development should be promoted as well. Dynamic pricing, intuitive infrastructure and environmental initiatives (e.g. revegetation and eco-services) render tourism more efficient. Although efficiency is important for financial survival, service providers must also attend to the other two Es for the sake of long-term viability and stakeholder satisfaction.
7.1.3 Cross-sectoral integration and framework novelty.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is one of the first to present a conceptual model situating the 3Es in a cross-sectoral visitor economy context. It expands the sustainability literature beyond industry boundaries. In addition, we have shed more light on sustainability practices; our suggestions hold particular value for parks and recreation (Cerveny, 2022; Perry et al., 2022), green hotels and restaurants (Hu et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2010) and sustainable tourism (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2023; Tanguay et al., 2013).
Furthermore, this paper represents a pioneering effort to deliberately apply the 3Es within the visitor economy. We have explored their potential to bring together the supply and demand sides by considering numerous sectors. Our framework, which draws on CPMS theory, offers a wider view of performance management. It can therefore enhance business operations and sustainability efforts in visitor-oriented industries (Homburg et al., 2012; Taheri et al., 2019).
7.2 Practical implications
Hospitality, tourism and recreation practitioners should adapt the 3Es to their organizations’ goals while accounting for stakeholders’ needs and resource constraints (Mihalic, 2016). Firms that conduct tailored performance evaluations, instead of relying on fragmented or legacy metrics, can more easily meet their strategic objectives and identify progress or shortcomings (Waligo et al., 2013). Choosing relevant metrics accelerates decision-making and prevents data overload. As noted, a defined plan for data collection and stakeholder engagement is necessary: information can then be gathered efficiently as operations allow (Bramwell and Lane, 2011). By moving away from efficiency-only models, practitioners can create more inclusive performance dashboards – ones that capture stakeholders’ values, community well-being and firms’ ambitions. Our “Manager’s Takeaway” table (Table 1) supports this mission. It also narrows the gap between conceptual frameworks and day-to-day business.
We would like to offer three vignettes to further illustrate our framework’s utility. In hospitality, a mid-sized eco-hotel in the US state of Oregon implemented dynamic pricing to enhance operational efficiency; provided inclusive service training and fair wages to promote equity; and administered guest surveys to improve service effectiveness, thereby boosting return bookings and fairness ratings. In tourism, a rural DMO in Slovenia adopted a visitor flow system (efficiency), co-created inclusive tour packages (effectiveness) and launched training programs for marginalized groups (equity). These efforts prompted longer visitor stays and stronger community support. In recreation, the Colorado Parks Department introduced fee waivers for low-income users (equity), installed solar lighting and rainwater systems (efficiency) and redesigned trails using public health feedback (effectiveness). The department’s actions led to increased facility use, operational cost savings and greater community well-being. These examples indicate how the 3Es can guide real-world service improvements across the visitor economy (Taheri et al., 2019).
Outside higher quality service delivery, balancing the 3Es has tangible organizational benefits. Inclusive workforce practices and responsive guest engagement in hospitality enhance guests’ experiences while reducing staff turnover and increasing morale. Revenue and brand equity rise as a result. Equitable workforce development and community-led service design in tourism foster local buy-in and destination loyalty; effective services lengthen visitors’ stays and diversify revenue streams. In recreation, equitable access initiatives and health-focused design encourage broader facility use, community trust and resilient funding. Efficiency improvements (e.g. innovative resource management) minimize waste and operational costs across all sectors (Mihalic, 2016). Organizations can monitor such gains through integrated metrics that align service quality with strategic performance. Pertinent measures include guest satisfaction scores, staff retention rates, resource optimization data and stakeholder sentiment indicators. The 3Es thus function as an evaluation framework and a compass linking service design and delivery with sustainable success in the visitor economy.
At national and local levels, we recommend that countries’ federal and regional governments apply our framework to devise tourism, hospitality and recreation regulations that bolster the visitor economy. Public agencies worldwide can partner with tourism and hospitality scholars to propose legal protections for the planet’s limited resources. To raise awareness of sustainable development, government agencies should host annual award ceremonies to honor companies, DMOs, organizations, or individuals for their outstanding performance in balancing the 3Es. The recognized parties should also receive government sponsorship for international visits to share their experiences and learn from foreign role models.
7.3 Limitations and future research
This paper is not without limitations. First, our model should be empirically validated in real-world settings. A lack of primary data and case studies currently limits findings’ applicability. Additionally, we mainly focused on theoretical constructs and may not have fully captured regional variations in sustainability practices. Scholars should test our concepts in a variety of cultural, economic and environmental contexts. We also challenge others to further develop our “inter-silo” model. This paper is meant to ignite debate about which aspects should be assessed and how, which performance measures are most useful and how metrics might inform service planning and delivery. By fostering dialogue, we hope to contribute to sustainability practices’ evolution in tourism, hospitality and recreation.
References
Further reading
Appendix
References
Abrate, G., Nicolau, J.L. and Viglia, G. (2019), “The impact of dynamic price variability on revenue maximization”, Tourism Management, Vol. 74, pp. 224–233.
Arbelo, A., Arbelo-Pérez, M., De Vera, V., and Bilgihan, A. (2025). “Green premiums: assessing the revenue impact of eco-certification in the hospitality sector”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 37 No. 13, pp. 64–83.
Ayazlar, R.A. (2014), “Dynamic packaging applications in travel agencies”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 131, pp. 326–331.
Bayrakcı, S., and Ozcan, C. C. (2023). “The socio-cultural determinants of tourism: The case of Turkey”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 222–245.
Buhalis, D. and Leung, R. (2018), “Smart hospitality—Interconnectivity and interoperability towards an ecosystem”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 71, pp. 41–50.
Cole, R., Stevenson, M. and Aitken, J. (2019), “Blockchain technology: implications for operations and supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 469–483.
Cole, S. (2006), “Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 629–644.
Crompton, J.L. and West, S.T. (2008), “The Role of Moral Philosophies, Operational Criteria and Operational Strategies in Determining Equitable Allocation of Resources for Leisure Services in the USA”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25–58.
Franzoni, S. (2015), “Measuring the sustainability performance of the tourism sector”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 16, pp. 22–27.
Gasparini, M.L. and Mariotti, A. (2023), “Sustainable tourism indicators as policy making tools: Lessons from ETIS implementation at destination level”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1719–1737.
Glover, T. (1999), “Propositions addressing the privatization of public leisure services: Implications for efficiency, effectiveness, and equity”, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol.17, No.2, pp. 1–27.
Guo, R., Diehl, J. A., Zhang, R., and Wang, H. (2024), “Spatial equity of urban parks from the perspective of recreational opportunities and recreational environment quality: A case study in Singapore”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 247, p. 105065.
Gursoy, D., and Maier, T. (2023), “Diversity, equity and inclusion in hospitality: Value centered leadership as a conduit for change”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 445–453.
Hsiao, T. Y., Chuang, C. M., Kuo, N. W., and Yu, S. M. F. (2014), “Establishing attributes of an environmental management system for green hotel evaluation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.36, pp. 197–208.
Kerr, T., and Wardana, A. (2020), “Utopian resort living: islands of reclamation and benvironmental resistance in Bali and Western Australia”, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, Vol. 18 No.6, pp. 629–642.
Kim, H., So, K.K.F., Shin, S. and Li, J., (2024), “Artificial intelligence in hospitality and tourism: Insights from industry practices, research literature, and expert opinions, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, p. 10963480241229235.
Kim, Y. J., Palakurthi, R., and Hancer, M. (2016), “The environmentally friendly programs in hotels and customers’ intention to stay: An online survey approach”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol.13, No.3, pp.195–214.
Kuo, T. M., Liu, C.-R., Wang, Y.-C., and Chen, H. (2024), “Sensory Experience at Farm-to- Table Events (SEFTE): conceptualization and scale development”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol.33, No.2, pp. 169–189.
McCool, S. F. (2022), “Thinking like a system in the turbulent world of outdoor recreation management”, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol.38, p. 100484.
Modica, P., Capocchi, A., Foroni, I., and Zenga, M. (2018), “An assessment of the implementation of the European Tourism Indicator System for sustainable destinations in Italy”, Sustainability, Vol.10, No.9, p. 3160.
Nekmahmud, M., Ramkissoon, H., and Fekete-Farkas, M. (2022), “Green purchase and sustainable consumption: A comparative study between European and non-European tourists”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol.43, 100980.
Nowak, M., and Heldt, T. (2023), “Financing recreational trails through donations: Testing behavioural theory in mountain biking context”, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Vol. 42, p. 100603.
O’Connor, P. (2020), “Online tourism and hospitality distribution: A perspective paper”, Tourism Review, Vol.75, No.1, pp. 290–295.
Park, S., Kim, J. and Lee, S. (2022), “A hybrid model of airline reservation cancellations using machine learning algorithms”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 84, p. 101763.
Passafaro, P. (2020), “Attitudes and tourists’ sustainable behavior: An overview of the literature and discussion of some theoretical and methodological issues”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol.59, No.4, pp. 579–596.
Pitas, N. A., Powers, S. L., and Mowen, A. J. (2022), “Neoliberal conservation and equity in the context of local parks and recreation: Stakeholder perceptions on public-non-profit partnerships” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol.53, No.3, pp. 473–491.
Singh, R., Charan, P., and Chattopadhyay, M. (2022), “Evaluating the hotel industry performance using efficiency and effectiveness measures”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 408–431.
Wong, I. A., Lu, M. V., Ou, J., Hu, R., and Wang, H. (2021). “Destination green equity and its moderating role of travel satisfaction”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 287–298.
