An Overview of Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Tourism, Destination, and Hospitality Research Based on the Web of Science

Abstract

Sustainability, entrepreneurship and tourism, destination and hospitality research have attracted scholars’ attention for their relevance in bringing to fruition a future that links economic well-being with the environmental, cultural, and social sustainability of human beings. This article provides a bibliometric overview of the academic research where these topics intersect. To accomplish this, various bibliometric methods are implemented, which include a performance analysis and graphic mapping of the academic production in this specific topic. This research uses the Web of Science database to identify and classify the most preponderant investigations in the field and considers articles, authors, institutions, countries, and journals. To complete the performance analysis, a series of indicators, such as number of papers and number of citations, are used. Graphic visualization maps are produced using the co-citation and co-occurrence of keywords under the Visualization of Similarities—VOSviewer—software. The results show a growing concern for entrepreneurship in sustainable tourism development research, which is evidenced in the increasing number of studies during the last decade. Some influential research institutions and authors from countries including the USA, New Zealand, and Norway are found to be influential leaders in this topic. Additionally, the results show that journals from the area of hospitality, leisure, sport, and tourism are frontrunners in this subject.

1. Introduction

The tourism industry is one of the largest in the world and has shown rapid growth in recent decades; further, it has been promoting and sustaining, to a great extent, the economic development of many countries. However, the growth orientation, development, and wealth creation of the industry have not been without their critics, and many studies have held the industry responsible for obvious environmental consequences [1]. Therefore, for some years now, experts have been calling for profound changes in the industry, moderating its focus on purely economic aspects, and strongly involving those based on sustainability [2]. Echoing these calls, the tourism industry has been adopting sustainable forms of tourism in all areas involving this concept. The adoption and development of sustainability in the tourism industry also requires that new companies and entrepreneurs enter the industry as agents of change, committed to the creation of social, ecological, and economic value—in other words, committed to sustainable development [3].

Entrepreneurship in the tourism industry plays a fundamental role in the economic development of countries and their regions [4]. In addition, it is increasingly seen as an economic development strategy for the weakest and most vulnerable regions, and many countries are encouraging the development of this industry in less-developed regions [5]. Therefore, the importance of tourism entrepreneurship has not gone unnoticed in the scientific community, and thus, the literature that is focused on this particular field of study has increased in recent years, covering a fairly wide variety of topics that apply to various sectors of the tourism industry. Of course, the challenges posed by sustainability to tourism entrepreneurship have been assessed by experts in this field and, currently, the literature that focuses on the intersection of knowledge from sustainability, entrepreneurship, and tourism is growing. Therefore, it is necessary to synthesize and organize sustainable entrepreneurship in tourism (SET) research knowledge in order to serve as a source of information and decision making for the different actors of society linked to this industry, such as researchers, students, policy makers, and professionals.

To evaluate the trends of a field of study and organize its knowledge, there are several techniques used in science [6]. One of the most important and most used in recent times is bibliometrics, which is a set of methods that measure current research trends through scientific publications stored or indexed in large reference databases [7]. Bibliometrics can contribute to research in several ways, for example, by identifying the main scientific players in a given field [8]; by offering guidelines that promote and motivate future research [9]; by developing bibliometric indexes to evaluate and organize scientific production in various sources of knowledge [10]; and, in particular, by providing more objective and complete results than the typical bibliographic review [11,12,13]. The potential of these contributions, therefore, has promoted the publication of this type of analysis and has been applied to a wide variety of fields and subfields of study [14]. For example, in the field of entrepreneurship, interesting bibliometric studies applied to international entrepreneurship [15], sports entrepreneurship [16], and social entrepreneurship [17], among many others, have been developed. However, to the best of our knowledge and experience in searching for such analyses, there are no bibliometric analyses that focus on SET research. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to provide both a quantitative and qualitative view of the published literature on SET research by means of bibliometric techniques or procedures, such as bibliometric performance analysis and scientific mapping analysis.

To achieve this objective, references obtained from the main referential database, namely the Web of Science (WoS hereinafter), are analyzed. Bibliometric techniques will be applied to different units of analysis, such as authors, journals, universities, and countries. Thus, bibliometric performance analysis organizes the information based on different performance indicators, such as the number of publications, the number of citations, and the h-index—an indicator that combines the two previous indicators. Science mapping analysis, meanwhile, complements the previous analyses, and presents information on the most representative connections between the different elements that make up the field of study. In this study, both bibliometric techniques are applied on the basis of documents published in the WoS between 1989 and 2021. With all of this, we believe we offer a fairly complete and novel overview of SET research.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical background which provides the foundation of SET research. Section 3 describes all aspects related to the methodology used. Section 4 presents the results derived from both the analysis of bibliometric performance (Section 4.1) and the scientific mapping analysis of SET research (Section 4.2). Section 5 describes and interprets these findings in light of other studies within the literature. Finally, Section 6 presents the main conclusions of this work.

2. Background

The tourism industry has been highlighted as a growth engine to destination communities, which is achieved by boosting the generation of employment and economic wealth [18]. Notwithstanding this, there has been a growing focus in the literature regarding the social and environmental concerns as well as the collateral harms derived from the tourism industry [19]. The literature on negative tourism impacts demonstrates a wide range of studies that show how tourism has played a role in social problems such as human trafficking [20], cultural harms [21], displacement of viable economic traditional activities [22], negative environmental impacts on ecosystems [23], as well as an overall deterioration of residents’ life in destination areas due to excessive touristic exploitation [24]. This literature has increasingly documented urgent calls to make changes within the industry from various interest groups, such as politicians, community organizations, and academics, in response to these sustainability concerns.

In reply to these foregoing warnings, there a flourishing line of research has developed within tourism literature, with an emphasis on new businesses and entrepreneurs committed as agents of change [25]. Sustainable entrepreneurship within the tourism industry has been understood as a development model [26]. Practices of sustainable entrepreneurship within the tourism industry are preponderant, since they facilitate the incorporation of the material and non-material welfare of communities [27], the development and use of local labor and product demand [28], the ensuring of cultural integrity and social belongingness [23], while also protecting the environment [29]. This diverges from the traditional entrepreneurial approach within the industry, which does not present the same interdependence for its subsistence [30].

Before presenting the main trends in this important field of research, information on the bibliometric techniques used in this study are provided below.

3. Methodology

This study classifies the academic output that is framed in SET research through an analysis of the bibliographic records available on the Web of Science (WoS) database, which is currently owned by Clarivate. This database is a traditional source for both literature searches and citation analyses [10,31]. The WoS database covers approximately 151 areas of investigation, gathering more than 12,000 journals, around 50 million articles, and other products of scientific publications as of the current date on which our search was carried out.

Note that several other databases such as ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Scopus can also be used for data retrieval [7,32]. However, it should be recognized that they do not cover scientific fields in the same way as the WoS, as their data retrieval functions depend, in part, on the discipline [33]. In addition to this, the retrospective coverage is different in each database; as such, differences in the total number of documents reported can be found despite using the same search criteria [34]. For this study, we used the WoS because it is a world-leading scientific database [35], perceived in the scientific community as more selective [36] and with the highest quality standards [37]. In addition, other researchers have noted that the WoS is useful for examining intellectual content and identifying research opportunities [38], as well as for conducting bibliometric studies of specific research topics [39,40,41].

We performed a basic topic search in the categories business, management, and hospitality, leisure, and sport tourism within the WoS database; this was conducted as this work aims to focus on an entrepreneurial-based perspective. As our exploration is aimed at the intersection between three different subjects of research, we therefore used a compound basic search (employing three groups of keywords), which has been used in previous bibliometric-based investigations and systematic revisions in the literature. In the first group of keywords, considering entrepreneurship, we used: “entrep*”, “new ventur*”, “start-up*”, “spin-off*”, “new firm*”, and “new business*”. The second group of keywords, related to tourism, considered the following keywords: “touris*”, “destination*”, and “hospitalit*”. Finally, in the third group, we searched for sustainability issues utilizing the following keywords: “sustainab*”, “green*”, “recycl*”, “renew*”, “remanuf*”, “environment*”, “ecotourism”, “Social Responsibility”, “CSR”, “social entrep*”, “eco-innovation”, “sharing econom*”, “social innov*”, “circular econom*”, “corporate environment*”, “eco-design*”, “ecodesign*”, “eco-effi*”, “bioeconom*”, and “14001”. Following [42], we retained studies involving articles, reviews, and early access manuscripts for analysis, totaling 874 publications.

Once the reference search process was completed, we proceeded to implement bibliometric analysis techniques, which offer a general and quantitative perspective of a topic or field of research [43,44]. Bibliometric techniques encompass two central approaches: a performance analysis, and a network analysis of science or bibliometric mapping. The performance analysis is useful to determine both the relevance and impact of any actor at different levels of analysis, including authors, institutions, countries, journals, and the structure of the field [45]. Bibliometric techniques are based on indicators such as the number of publications and the number of citations as valid and reliable measurements of scientific output, to determine both their importance and influence [46]. Similarly, following well-cited studies [e.g., 8,10], we used other indicators that are commonly used, such as the h-index [47], and thresholds that categorize the number of articles above a certain number of citations based on SET research. The h-index is calculated as the number of publications that have received at least the same number of citations [48].

The network analysis is an important methodology in the field of scientometrics, since it permits researchers to examine the intellectual associations within a subject of research [49]. This analysis matches the inspection of the distance and clustering between items, where the nearness of the items in a network map echoes a robust relationship between them. Additionally, the size of the items varies according to the importance of the item [13]. A key feature of this approach is that it permits a fractional counting assignation, which allocates the same percentage of authorship to each author [10]. We used two different measures to extract and represent networks within SET research. First, we used co-citation analysis, which embodies the probability that when a document cites two others, both cited sources are related by its content [50]. This measure is useful in quantifying the content of publications and. therefore, providing information on the internal structure of the field [6]. Second, we used co-occurrence linkages between keywords, which is useful for studying the conceptual structure of a subject of research [51]. For the latter, version 1.6.6 of the VOSviewer software was used.

4. Results

4.1. Performance Bibliometric Analysis

This section shows the performance analysis of academic output based on the bibliometric indicators described above, associated with SET research published in the WoS database until 2021.

Publications and Citations in SET Research

First, we present the general aspects of SET research. Figure 1 presents the evolution of publications in SET investigations found in the WoS over time. It is clear that research on SET topics has been growing significantly in the areas of business and management in recent years. Interestingly, the number of articles published in almost all areas has accumulated over the last decade. In particular, since 2016, the number of publications in SET research has reached three digits, amounting to 803 papers, which represents almost 86.5% of the total volume. This growth can be related to several factors. The first is the formulation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the United Nations’ new sustainable development agenda, where world leaders adopted a set of global aims addressing poverty, prosperity, and protection of the planet issues [52]. The second is that an increasing number of researchers worldwide are highlighting the importance of sustainability in entrepreneurship [53], as well as in tourism, destination, and hospitality research [54]. The third is that there is an increasing number of specialized journals on sustainability science, as well as others, that have emerged at the intersection of the fields of entrepreneurship, tourism, destination, and hospitality research, including, but not limited to, Sustainability, the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Tourism Management, and the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

Another way of analyzing the evolution of SET research is through the number of citations. To evaluate the general citation pattern in SET research,

Table 1. General citation structure of SET research.

Decade	Year	TP	TC 2021	TC/TP	H-I (Year)	H-I	TC	≥200	≥100	≥50	≥20	≥10	≥5	≥1	=0
1	2001	1	122	6	1	29	3581	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
	2002	2	253	13	2			1	-	-	1	-	-	-	-
	2003	0	0	0	0			-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	2004	1	144	8	1			-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
	2005	1	90	6	1			-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-
	2006	3	177	12	3			-	1	-	1	-	1	-	-
	2007	4	346	25	4			-	2	1	-	-	1	-	-
	2008	8	140	11	5			-	-	1	1	2	1	2	1
	2009	4	301	25	4			1	-	1	1	-	1	-	-
	2010	12	1084	99	10			1	1	2	3	3	1	1	-
	2011	18	924	92	11			1	2	5	2	1	5	1	1
2	2012	22	968	108	17	33	11,946	-	3	3	10	3	2	1	-
	2013	24	981	123	16			-	4	4	5	7	1	3	-
	2014	28	980	140	15			-	3	3	7	9	2	1	3
	2015	52	1164	194	22			-	2	3	17	9	6	9	6
	2016	51	1271	254	20			-	-	8	12	17	7	6	1
	2017	98	1253	313	20			-	2	2	16	19	18	21	20
	2018	112	1238	413	21			-	-	2	20	20	28	28	14
	2019	154	1782	891	22			-	2	2	21	29	41	48	11
	2020	203	2043	2043	18			1	-	2	13	23	36	102	26
	2021	185	266	266	8			-	-	1	1	2	13	72	96
Total		983	15,527					5	24	41	131	144	164	295	179
Percentage of papers								0.5%	2.4%	4.2%	13.3%	14.7%	16.7%	30.0%	18.2%
Accumulated papers								5	29	70	201	345	509	804	983
Accumulated papers (%)								0.5%	2.9%	7.1%	20.4%	35.1%	51.7%	81.8%	100%

Rankings are developed according to citation productivity and impact. In the case of a tie, the h-indexes are considered. Notes: abbreviations—TP: total papers; TC: times cited; TC/TP: number of citations per paper; H: h-index; and ≥200, ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, ≥10, ≥5, and ≥1: number of papers with equal to or more than 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 1, and 0 citations (without accumulating documents from previous thresholds).

presents the overall citation structure of SET investigations. The number of citations was classified by different threshold citation values, including the number of papers that each rank references, the total number of citations received per paper, and the number of citations received during 2021. Note that only five papers reached more than 200 citations, four of which were published in the first decade, suggesting seminal papers that show evidence of the construction of knowledge and learning in SET research. The number of citations received per paper in the last quinquennium is also interesting as they have an average rate of 1316 citations per paper published. Considering the h-index, note that in the first decade it is 29, and in the second decade it reaches 33. This suggests that there are at least that many of papers that have received at least the same number of citations in each decade. Finally, note that the h-index per year has increased over time. Since the h-index is a measure of the impact of research output from individual scientific achievements, this evidences the growing relevance that sustainability has had on entrepreneurship in tourism, destination, and hospitality research. Interestingly, since 2020, the h-index per year has decreased. This might be due to the unprecedented worldwide travel restrictions and stay-at-home instructions that may have impacted the research of new ventures in the tourism, destination, and hospitality industry.

One of the most important concerns that bibliometrics are used for is to unveil the most popular and influential articles in SET research. In order to do so,

Table 2. Top 50 most-cited papers on SET research during the 2000–2022 period.

R	Title	Author(s)	Journal	TC	PY	C/Y
1	Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19 [56]	Gössling, S; Scott, D; and Hall, CM	JST	923	2021	923
2	A review of innovation research in tourism [55]	Hjalager, AM	TMG	686	2010	57
3	Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural eastern North Carolina [57]	Byrd, ET; Bosley, HE; and Dronberger, MG	TMG	225	2009	17
4	Policy learning and policy failure in sustainable tourism governance: from first- and second-order to third-order change? [58]	Hall, CM	JST	213	2011	19
5	Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability—Issues of the ‘new tourism’ [59]	Ryan, C	TMG	208	2002	10
6	Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua [60]	Zapata, MJ; Hall, CM; Lindo, P; and Vanderschaeghe, M	CIT	176	2011	16
7	The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination—A case study [61]	Komppula, R	TMG	175	2014	22
8	Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid: A Recipe for Inclusive Growth or Social Exclusion? [62]	Hall, J; Matos, S; Sheehan, L; and Silvestre, B	JMS	167	2012	17
9	Scale, change and resilience in community tourism planning [63]	Lew, AA	TGE	157	2014	20
10	Constructing sustainable tourism development: The 2030 agenda and the managerial ecology of sustainable tourism [64]	Hall, CM	JST	153	2019	51
11	The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management [65]	Kajanus, M; Kangas, J; and Kurttila, M	TMG	146	2004	8
12	The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance [66]	Haber, S; Reichel, A	JBV	142	2007	9
13	Current issue in tourism: The authentic tourist [67]	Yeoman, I; Brass, D; and McMahon-Beattie, U	TMG	136	2007	9
14	Food tourism, niche markets and products in rural tourism: combining the intimacy model and the experience economy as a rural development strategy [68]	Sidali, KL; Kastenholz, E; and Bianchi, R	JST	131	2015	19
15	An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of multi-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation [69]	Vallaster, C; von Wallpach, S	JBR	131	2013	15
16	Internationalization and innovation in tourism [70]	Williams, AM; Shaw, G	ATR	127	2011	12
17	From contents to processes: Versus a dynamic destination management model (DDMM) [71]	Sainaghi, R	TMG	127	2006	8
18	Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment [72]	Lerner, M; Haber, S	JBV	123	2001	6
19	Business resilience in times of growth and crisis [73]	Dahles, H; Susilowati, TP	ATR	118	2015	17
20	Supporting innovation for tourism development through multi-stakeholder approaches: Experiences from Africa [74]	Carlisle, S; Kunc, M; Jones, E; and Tiffin, S	TMG	118	2013	13
21	Framing behavioural approaches to understanding and governing sustainable tourism consumption: beyond neoliberalism, nudging and green growth? [75]	Hall, CM	JST	118	2013	13
22	Mediating Effects of Place Attachment and Satisfaction on the Relationship between Tourists’ Emotions and Intention to Recommend [76]	Hosany, S; Prayag, G; Van Der Veen, R; Huang, S; and Deesilatham, S	JTR	115	2017	23
23	Nonfamily Managers, Family Firms, and the Winner’s Curse: The Influence of Noneconomic Goals and Bounded Rationality [77]	Chrisman, JJ; Memili, E; and Misra, K	ETP	114	2014	14
24	How community context affects entrepreneurial process: A diagnostic framework [78]	Hindle, K	ERD	109	2010	9
25	The Place Identity—Performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis [79]	Hallak, R; Brown, G; and Lindsay, NJ	TMG	108	2012	11
26	Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services [80]	Hwang, JY; Griffiths, MA	JCM	107	2017	21
27	Overtourism, optimisation, and destination performance indicators: a case study of activities in Fjord Norway [81]	Oklevik, O; Gössling, S; Hall, CM; Jacobsen, JKS; Grotte, IP; and McCabe, S	JST	105	2019	35
28	Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: a comparison between agritourism and other farm entrepreneurial ventures [82]	Barbieri, C	JST	101	2013	11
29	Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties [83]	Zellweger, TM; Kellermanns, FW; Eddleston, KA; and Memili, E	JFBS	101	2012	10
30	Social conflict in communities impacted by tourism [84]	Yang, JJ; Ryan, C; and Zhang, LY	TMG	99	2013	11
31	Tourism-related Social Capital and Its Relationship with Other Forms of Capital: An Exploratory Study [85]	McGehee, NG; Lee, S; O’Bannon, TL; and Perdue, RR	JTR	99	2010	8
32	Innovation, entrepreneurship, and restaurant performance: A higher-order structural model [86]	Lee, C; Hallak, R; and Sardeshmukh, SR	TMG	96	2016	16
33	Global tourism vulnerability to climate change [87]	Scott, D; Hall, CM; and Gössling, S	ATR	95	2019	32
34	Determinants of self-employment survival in Europe [88]	Millan, JM; Congregado, E; and Roman, C	SBE	93	2012	9
35	Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe [89]	Matlay, H; Westhead, P	ISB	92	2005	5
36	Feeling capable and valued: A prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and social entrepreneurial intentions [90]	Bacq, S; Alt, E	JBV	90	2018	23
37	Wine tourism: Motivating visitors through core and supplementary services [91]	Byrd, ET; Canziani, B; Hsieh, YC; Debbage, K; and Sonmez, S	TMG	88	2016	15
38	Tourism and poverty alleviation: perceptions and experiences of poor people in Sapa, Vietnam [92]	Truong, VD; Hall, CM; and Garry, T	JST	88	2014	11
39	Can tourism be part of the decarbonized global economy? The costs and risks of alternate carbon reduction policy pathways [93]	Scott, D; Gössling, S; Hall, CM; and Peeters, P	JST	79	2016	13
40	Inter-market variability in CO2 emission-intensities in tourism: Implications for destination marketing and carbon management [94]	Gössling, S; Scott, D; and Hall, CM	TMG	76	2015	11
41	The Operational and Regional Vulnerability of Winter Tourism to Climate Variability and Change: The Case of the Finnish Nature-Based Tourism Entrepreneurs [95]	Tervo, K	SJHT	76	2008	5
42	Organic food as self-presentation: The role of psychological motivation in older consumers’ purchase intention of organic food [96]	Hwang, J	RCS	75	2016	13
43	The impacts of tourism at a UNESCO heritage site in China—A need for a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Diaolou [97]	Ryan, C; Zhang, CZ; and Deng, Z	JST	73	2011	7
44	Tourism governance and sustainable national development in China: a macro-level synthesis [98]	Sofield, T; Li, S	JST	73	2011	7
45	Competitive Strategy in Socially Entrepreneurial Nonprofit Organizations: Innovation and Differentiation [99]	Weerawardena, J; Mort, GS	JPPM	69	2012	7
46	Sharing versus collaborative economy: How to align ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism? [30]	Gössling, S; Hall, CM	JST	67	2019	22
47	A report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and its implications for tourism: why we will always have Paris [100]	Scott, D; Hall, CM; and Gössling, S	JST	67	2016	11
48	Egalitarianism, Cultural Distance, and Foreign Direct Investment: A New Approach [101]	Siegel, JI; Licht, AN; and Schwartz, SH	OSC	67	2013	7
49	Social value creation through tourism enterprise [102]	Altinay, L; Sigala, M; and Waligo, V	TMG	64	2016	11
50	Oil depletion: What does this mean for Scottish tourism? [103]	Yeoman, I; Lennon, JJ; Blake, A; Galt, M; Greenwood, C; and McMahon-Beattie, U	TMG	64	2007	4

Note: abbreviations—R: ranking; TC: times cited; PY: publication year; and C/Y: number of citations received per year. Journal abbreviations—ATR: Annals of Tourism Research; CIT: Current Issues in Tourism; ERD: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development; ETP: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice; ISB: International Small Business Journal; JBR: Journal of Business Research; JBV: Journal of Business Venturing; JCM: Journal of Consumer Marketing; JFBS: Journal of Family Business Strategy; JMS: Journal of Management Studies; JST: Journal of Sustainable Tourism; JTR: Journal of Travel Research; OSC: Organization Science; JPPM: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing; RCS: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services; SBE: Small Business Economics; SJHT: Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism; TGE: Tourism Geographies; and TMG: Tourism Management. Note that the gray color interspersed in the table rows is to make a distinction between them.

presents the 50 most-cited papers until 2021. In this list, the most influential article is [30], portraying the serious problems faced by global tourism within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it is noted that four authors have at least three articles in this top 50 list, namely, Hall, C.M.; Gosling, S.; Scott, D.; and Ryan, C. Of the 102 authors in the list, 90 co-authored one paper each, which suggests a consistent distribution. The works of Hjalager (2010) [55] and Gössling et al. (2021) [56] have become two of the most popular articles, with an outstanding number of citations.

The term “sustainable tourism” has been increasingly adopted at different levels of aggregation by both public and private sectors [58]. As a practice, sustainable tourism has become a paramount success of knowledge transfer that has contributed to the cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process [104]. As a phenomenon, sustainable tourism has been primed by continuous growth and has a large participation in academic, business, and governance terms [55]. An important aspect when providing an overview of a topic of academic interest is determining the most prolific and preponderant authors in the area of research.

Table 3. The top 30 most productive and influential authors in SET research.

			Topic				All Areas
R	Author	University	Country/Region	TP	TC-TOPIC	H	TP_AA	TC_AA	Number of Cited Articles	H	FPA	LPA	CAU
1	Hall CM	U. Canterbury	NZL	65	2911	26	378	11623	7874	55	56	25	56
2	Gössling S	Western Norway Res Inst; Lund Univ Linnaeus Univ	NOR, SWE	18	1596	16	190	7344	4751	48	67	18	65
3	Prayag G	U. Canterbury	NZL	15	353	10	70	3445	2730	28	64	23	57
4	Scott D	U. of Surrey; Western Norway Res Inst	NOR, UK	12	1406	11	106	6618	3485	44	34	35	35
5	Ratten V	La Trobe U.	AUS	12	149	6	220	2246	1621	26	65	22	74
6	Kline C	Appalachian State U.	USA	9	120	6	66	713	650	14	39	24	45
7	Seyfi S	U. Oulu	FIN	9	119	6	32	433	328	9	67	33	33
8	Strzelecka M	Linnaeus U. 2.; Jagiellonian Univ	SWE, POL	8	201	6	25	313	239	9	56	16	60
9	Memili E	U. North Carolina Greensboro	USA	7	314	6	65	1975	1652	24	38	9	29
10	Hwang J	U. N Carolina	USA	7	165	5	15	472	457	9	47	40	47
11	Saarinen J	U. Oulu; U. Johannesburg	FIN, ZAF	7	121	6	107	1657	1204	23	46	34	48
12	Zhang Y	Minzu U. China	CHN	7	64	4	3	45	45	2	63	21	47
13	Hjalager AM	U. Southern Denmark	DNK	6	761	4	58	1989	1551	16	72	16	60
14	Kallmuenzer A	CERIIM Excelia Business Sch	FRA	6	153	5	0	0	401	0	42	21	48
15	Ram Y	Ashkelon Acad Coll	ISR	6	134	5	32	667	616	14	53	31	53
16	Peters M	U. Innsbruck	AUT	6	112	5	205	5634	4182	34	19	15	10
17	Chen N	U. Canterbury	NZL	6	112	5	18	307	234	10	50	28	44
18	Altinay L	Oxford Brookes Univ	UK	6	104	3	116	2872	2433	31	29	28	33
19	Alonso AD	Curtin U.	AUS	6	43	3	181	2676	2208	24	90	2	99
20	Hallak R	U. S Australia	AUS	5	293	5	32	889	763	17	38	31	53
21	Nunkoo R	U. Mauritius; U. Johannesburg; Griffith U.; and Copenhagen Business School	MRI, ZAF, AUS, DNK	5	117	4	97	4148	2558	33	51	28	66
22	Wall G	U. Waterloo	CAN	5	61	3	164	2286	1796	26	25	41	32
23	Pechlaner H	Catholic U. Eichstatt Ingolstadt	GER	5	42	3	27	148	134	7	26	41	19
24	Kljucnikov A	U. Entrepreneurship & Law	CZE	5	40	4	47	611	454	14	55	13	53
25	Lee TJ	U. Sunshine Coast	AUS	5	32	3	95	1223	1050	21	20	48	74
26	Xiong Y	East China U. Technol	CHN	5	32	3	9	43	40	4	11	56	0
27	Yang ZY	U. North Carolina Greensboro	USA	5	15	3	284	3155	3036	28	27	20	29
28	Byrd ET	U. N Carolina	USA	4	308	2	18	815	722	10	50	17	50
29	Boley BB	U. Surrey	USA	4	164	4	53	1290	926	20	36	25	43
30	Dahles H	Griffith U.	AUS	4	151	4	29	585	567	10	66	24	62

Note: abbreviations: TP: total papers; TC-TOPIC: total citations in the topic; H: h-index; TP_AA: total papers in all areas; TC_AA: total citations in all areas; FPA: first author on a paper; and LPA: last author on a paper (no person is counted as both first and last author on a single-author paper, they are counted only as the first author); CAU: corresponding author. Country/Region abbreviations—AUS: Australia; AUT: Austria; CAN: Canada; CHN: China; CZE: Czech Republic; DNK: Denmark; UK: United Kingdom; FIN: Finland; FRA: France; GER: Germany; ISR: Israel; MRI: Mauritius; NZL: New Zealand; NOR: Norway; POL: Poland; ZAF: South Africa; SWE: Sweden; and USA: United States. Note that the gray color interspersed in the table rows is to make a distinction between them.

shows the results of this exploration, ordered by their impact in SET research, considering their h-index.

In general terms, Hall, C.M. is the author who currently has the greatest impact on SET research, as shown by analyzing the number of citations received in his publications, which collect approximately 29% of all citations made in SET research in Table 3’s list. Other well-known authors within this list include Gössling, S., Scott, D., and Prayag, G., who are also, between themselves, the most productive authors in SET research. Note that when considering the institutions that the most productive and influential authors represent, there is no clearly marked regional domain; the only exception is when the country in which the authors are located is taken into account. In this regard, Australia, the USA, and New Zealand are the countries with the greatest accumulation of the most productive and prominent SET researchers.

The singularities of sustainable new ventures in the tourism, hospitality, and destination sector have drawn the attention of numerous research institutions around the world. To take a more detailed overview in this sense,

Table 4. The top 30 most productive and influential institutions in SET research.

R	University	Country/Region	YFP	TP	TC	H	TC/TP	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥5	≥1	=0	ARWU	QS	T50
1	U. Canterbury	NZL	2013	90	3437	34	38	8	10	23	29	17	3	401–500	270	11
2	Linnaeus U.	SWE	2013	56	2272	23	41	3	7	10	18	12	6	801–900	-	8
3	U. Oulu	FIN	2013	54	836	18	15	1	3	6	-	-	-	401–500	377	7
4	U. Johannesburg	ZAF	2013	40	774	17	19	1	2	8	16	7	6	601–700	434	3
5	U. North Carolina Greensboro	USA	2009	38	985	14	26	4	3	3	13	10	5	801–900	-	6
6	U. Surrey	GBR	2010	24	1454	13	61	2	3	3	13	2	1	301–400	272	3
7	Lund University	SWE	2015	24	1281	12	53	1	2	5	8	7	1	151–200	87	3
8	La Trobe University	AUS	2008	21	281	8	13	-	1	5	6	6	3	301–400	362	1
9	U. Waterloo	CAN	2006	20	1478	14	74	1	4	6	5	3	1	151–200	149	5
10	Griffith University	AUS	2011	20	427	10	21	1	1	5	9	4	-	201–300	290	1
11	Hong Kong Polytechnic University	CHN	2008	17	308	10	18	-	-	6	8	-	3	151–200	66	-
12	U. Innsbruck	AUT	2013	15	359	10	24	1	-	3	11	-	-	201–300	281	1
13	U. South Australia	AUS	2012	14	565	10	40	2	2	3	6	-	1	401–500	326	4
14	Western Norway Res Inst	NOR	2015	13	1381	11	106	2	3	4	3	1	-	-	-	5
15	U. Otago	NZL	2010	13	302	9	23	-	2	2	7	2	-	301–400	194	1
16	Sun Yat-sen U.	CHN	2011	13	249	7	19	-	1	3	3	5	1	79	263	1
17	U. London	GBR	2014	12	259	8	22	1	-	1	6	2	2	-	-	1
18	U. Aveiro	POR	2012	12	184	5	15	1	-	-	4	2	5	601–700	601–650	1
19	Auckland U. Technology	NZL	2011	12	142	12	12	-	1	1	3	5	2	-	451	-
20	East Carolina U.	USA	2013	11	120	6	11	-	-	1	7	2	1	901–1000	-	-
21	U. Central Florida	USA	2016	10	2568	8	257	-	1	3	6	-	-	301–400	751–800	1
22	Oxford Brookes University	GBR	2010	10	234	5	23	1	1	1	3	2	2	-	376	2
23	Mid Sweden University	SWE	2012	9	118	6	13	-	-	1	6	1	-	-	-	1
24	U. Entrepreneurship Law	USA	2019	9	115	5	13	-	-	2	3	3	1	-	-	-
25	U. Sevilla	ESP	2016	9	47	4	5	-	-	2	3	3	1	-	551–600	-
26	Taylor’s U.	MYS	2015	8	123	4	15	-	-	3	1	2	2	-	332	-
27	U. Valencia	ESP	2011	8	47	5	6	-	-	-	5	2	1	301–400	571–580	-
28	North Carolina State U.	USA	2009	8	259	4	32	1	-	-	3	2	2	201–300	300	1
29	U. Greenwich	GBR	2016	8	70	4	9	-	-	1	3	3	1	801–900	751–800	-
30	National Kaohsiung U. Sci. Tech.	TWN	2018	8	35	3	4	-	-		3	2	3	-	-	-

Notes: abbreviations—R: ranking; YFP: year first publication; TP: total papers; TC: total citations; H: h-index; TP: total papers; TC: times cited; TC/TP: number of citations per paper; ≥100, ≥50, ≥25, ≥5, ≥1, and =0: number of papers with equal to or more than 100, 50, 25, 5, 1, and 0 citations (without accumulating documents from previous thresholds); ARWU: academic ranking of world universities; QS: world university rankings; T50: papers among the fifty most cited. Country/Region abbreviations: AUS: Australia; AUT: Austria; CAN: Canada; CHN: China; SPA: Spain; FIN: Finland; UK: United Kingdom; MYS: Malaysia; NLD: Netherlands; NOR: Norway; NZL: New Zealand; POR: Portugal; SWE: Sweden; TWN: Taiwan; USA: United States of America; ZAF: South Africa. Note that the gray color interspersed in the table rows is to make a distinction between them.

presents the most prolific and preponderant institutions that have addressed SET investigations. This list considers several bibliometric performance indicators in this categorization, such as the specific SET h-index, the total volume of SET articles published, as well as several thresholds of the number of citations received. Furthermore, to obtain a complete overview, additional indicators are included, such as the current global ranking of these institutions, according to the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings, and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU).

According to the above, the University of Canterbury is the most influential and prolific institution in SET research, considering the specific h-index and the number of papers published in this topic. Three of the most relevant academics in SET investigations presented in Table 3 are from this university, which also explains why the University of Canterbury thus obtains good indicators in this research area. Concerning scientific productivity in investigation topics, the second and third most fruitful research institutions are Linnaeus University and the University of Oulu. The European universities are the most numerous in this ranking, with twelve institutions (40%) on this list, led by Sweden with three institutions. The fact that Europe has the greatest number of institutions participating in SET investigations highlights the common interest in SET research spread throughout the region. It is also noteworthy that the number of institutions and publications from Oceania is greater than the number of publications and institutions from North America, which is surprising compared to other related subjects of research such as social entrepreneurship or eco-tourism, in which North America obtains almost all the top positions [17,105].

Finally, considering the overall indicators of universities, only two of them appear in the top 100 of the QS top ranking universities, and only one in the ARWU ranking. This suggests quite varied influences in the world, but also suggests a lack of interest in these issues on the part of the most influential institutions in the world.

Tourism is one of the most important economic activities worldwide, fostering economic expansion [106]. Based on the premise that sustainability fosters tourism destination competitiveness, countries are increasingly investing in research activities in this sector [107]. Further, with the aim of obtaining a more complete overview of SET research, this section analyzes the subject of sustainability in tourism destination competitiveness research according to the geographical origin of its academic output. Since an author may have several publications when working in different locations, this analysis addresses the country in which the researcher was working at the time of publication.

Table 5. The top 30 most productive and influential countries in SET research.

R	Country/Region	TP	YET	CA	TC	TC/YET	TC/TP	H	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥5	≥1	=0	T50
1	USA	150	15	2542	2653	177	18	28	6	8	18	64	38	16	11
2	England	130	16	2985	3081	193	24	25	6	8	12	53	37	14	11
3	New Zealand	117	19	3483	4012	211	34	31	8	12	19	41	28	9	16
4	Australia	111	13	2007	2154	166	19	29	4	11	20	35	32	9	8
5	Sweden	90	10	2448	2779	278	31	25	4	8	14	34	21	9	9
6	China	86	13	945	996	77	12	19	-	2	10	36	21	17	2
7	Spain	75	13	602	598	46	8	14	-	2	4	28	28	13	1
8	Finland	64	17	1491	1726	102	27	22	4	6	9	26	13	6	9
9	South Africa	59	9	751	857	95	15	18	1	2	9	33	2	17	3
10	Italy	51	15	726	743	50	15	15	2	1	4	22	16	14	2
11	Canada	44	15	1965	2042	136	46	20	3	5	18	4	9	5	7
12	Germany	36	10	847	874	87	24	16	3	3	6	13	6	5	4
13	Portugal	33	9	339	339	38	10	10	1	1		13	9	9	1
14	Norway	30	11	1473	1546	141	52	14	2	2	6	11	8	1	6
15	France	27	6	332	342	57	13	12	-	1	4	12	6	4	-
16	Netherlands	27	19	368	376	20	14	11	-	1	4	11	6	5	1
17	Malaysia	26	10	274	263	26	10	8	-	-	5	6	8	7	-
18	Austria	24	8	453	460	58	19	12	1	-	5	14	2	2	1
19	Scotland	22	14	472	475	34	22	11	1	1	6	10	4	-	2
20	Turkey	22	12	158	149	12	7	6	-	-	2	7	10	3	-
21	Brazil	22	6	68	66	11	3	5	-	-	-	6	4	12	-
22	India	22	6	47	43	7	2	3	-	-	-	2	10	10	-
23	Taiwan	20	5	210	204	41	10	8	-	-	2	11	3	4	-
24	Czech Republic	20	4	142	169	42	8	6	-	-	3	5	8	4	-
25	Vietnam	19	7	226	224	32	12	7	-	2	-	6	8	3	1
26	Poland	18	5	177	180	36	10	7	-	1	2	7	5	3	-
27	Slovakia	18	3	86	90	30	5	5	-	-	2	3	4	9	-
28	Denmark	16	11	806	821	75	51	6	1	-	2	6	5	-	1
29	Romania	15	13	79	76	6	5	5	-	-	-	7	8	-	-
30	Russia	14	8	168	172	22	12	8	-	1	-	7	5	1	1
31	South Korea	14	4	125	114	29	8	6	-	-	-	8	5	1	-

Notes: abbreviations—R: ranking; TP: total papers; YET: years of experience in the topic; CA: citing articles; TC: total citations; TC/YET: times cited per number of years of experience; TC/TP: number of citations per paper; H: h-index; ≥100, ≥50, ≥25, ≥5, ≥1 and =0: number of papers with equal to or more than 100, 50, 25, 5, 1, and 0 citations (without accumulating documents from previous thresholds); and T50: papers among the fifty most cited. Note that the gray color interspersed in the table rows is to make a distinction between them.

presents this analysis considering the top 30 countries in SET research. We use similar indicators previously used in the analysis of institutions, but we also consider the number of years of experience in the topic (YET), which represents the number of years since the author’s first publication. In a similar manner, the results are ordered considering the h-index in SET research. The first tiebreaker is the total number of citations, and the second tiebreaker is the number of papers published in SET research.

New Zealand is the leading country in SET research considering the impact of its publications as well as the number of citations received, followed closely by Australia and the USA. Likewise, the New Zealand citation level is well above England’s, the second country, considering the number of citations received. Moreover, New Zealand is the country with the most papers among the 50 most influential articles in SET investigations. Additionally, the threshold citation value shows that New Zealand has published most of the principal papers in SET research. This leadership is supported by the years of experience in the topic (i.e., 19 YET), which, together with the Netherlands, are the most experienced countries in this topic of research. Nevertheless, the USA is still the most productive country in terms of SET research.

Note that most of the countries that emerge in this ranking belong to the region of Europe (17 countries), representing more than half of the list. Likewise, seven countries in the list are from the region of Asia, led by China as the most prolific country when considering the number of papers and the numbers of citations received in SET research. However, it is important to highlight the poor productivity in developing countries, both in quantity and influence. Even when emerging economies show concerns related to environmental sustainability and prioritization of tourism [107], this result is to be expected, since the top ranks of the World Economic Forum Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index are regularly dominated by advanced countries [108].

When analyzing journals, there is important information to be gained when integrating the representation of scientific vigilance of rigorousness in research with an overview of SET research.

Table 6. The top 30 most influential journals in SET research.

R	Journal	TP	H	TC	CA	≥100	≥50	≥25	≥5	≥1	=0	T50	YFP	EXP
1	Journal of Sustainable Tourism	87	30	3352	3017	7	9	20	31	14	6	13	2011	10
2	Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues	47	10	209	203	-	-	-	15	18	14	-	2017	4
3	Tourism Management	40	25	2879	2651	9	7	9	11	1	3	15	2002	19
4	International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management	37	18	629	556	-	1	11	18	5	2	-	2012	9
5	Current Issues in Tourism	30	12	553	558	1	1	5	14	6	3	1	2011	10
6	International Journal of Hospitality Management	29	15	602	579	-	3	10	12	3	1	-	2010	11
7	Annals of Tourism Research	22	13	698	706	2	4	3	7	4	2	3	2001	20
8	Tourism Geographies	22	13	543	532	1		7	8	5	1	1	2010	11
9	Tourism on the Verge	19	5	78	50	-	-	-	8	7	4	-	2017	4
10	Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism Philosophy and Practice	18	5	73	45	-	-	-	-	7	11	-	2017	4
11	Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management	17	9	210	217	-	-	3	9	3	2	-	2017	4
12	Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research	17	8	183	172	-	-	3	9	4	1	-	2010	11
13	Tourism Management Perspectives	15	9	240	250	-	-	5	6	2	2	-	2015	6
14	Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism	15	8	185	173	-	1	-	7	6	1	1	2008	13
15	Journal of Travel Research	14	9	423	402	1	3	1	4	4	1	2	2010	11
16	Journal of Business Research	14	8	300	318	1	1	2	8	1	1	1	2013	8
17	Tourism Planning Development	12	6	72	74	-	-	-	6	4	2	-	2018	3
18	International Journal of Tourism Research	11	6	109	106	-	1	-	5	4	1	-	2008	13
19	Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes	11	3	41	40	-	-	-	3	5	3	-	2017	4
20	International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal	10	5	125	145	-	1	1	6	2	-	-	2012	9
21	Entrepreneurship and Regional Development	9	6	225	223	1	-	2	5	1	-	1	2008	13
22	Tourism Review	9	5	87	91	-	-	2	5	1	1	-	2017	4
23	International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior Research	9	3	79	81	-	-	-	6	2	1	-	2015	6
24	Journal of Tourism and Services	8	4	120	100	-	-	3	1	2	2	-	2019	2
25	Amfiteatru Economic	8	4	44	44	-	-	-	4	4	-	-	2008	13
26	Journal of Place Management and Development	8	4	38	36	-	-	-	4	3	1	-	2017	4
27	International Journal of Tourism Cities	8	3	22	25	-	-	-	2	4	2	-	2019	2
28	Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change	7	3	33	34	-	-	-	2	3	2	-	2013	8
29	World Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Development	7	2	9	11	-	-	-	1	2	4	-	2017	4
30	Journal of Destination Marketing Management	6	5	153	151	-	1	3	1	1	-	-	2014	7

Note: abbreviations: R: ranking; TP: total papers; H: h-index; TC: total citations; CA: citing articles; ≥100, ≥50, ≥25, ≥5, ≥1, and =0: number of papers with equal to or more than 100, 50, 25, 5, 1, and 0 citations (without accumulating documents from previous thresholds); T50: papers among the fifty most cited; YFP: year first publication; and EXP: years of experience publishing in the topic. Note that the gray color interspersed in the table rows is to make a distinction between them.

shows the top 30 rankings of journals in SET research. Following the methodology presented in previous analyses, we use the number of papers, the number of citations received, and the h-index, as key indicators to measure the impact of academic output in SET research. As seen previously, articles on SET research are published in a wide spectrum of journals that have adopted aspects related to entrepreneurship, tourism, and sustainability within their scopes of research. From these, only four journals are specialized in sustainability related issues, while six are focused on entrepreneurship topics, and twenty-three are centered on tourism related topics. The most preponderant journals are the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (JST) and the Tourism Management Journal (TMJ), by far. Note that the specific SET h-index of these UK-based journals, as well as their productivity and citation levels, are quite superior to those of the following journals in the list. Gathering 56% of the 50 most preeminent articles, 22.4% of the published papers, and 50.6% of all citations received in this Top 30 ranking, makes them outstandingly the prolific publishers of academic output for SET investigations. Another important journal in the subject is the Annals of Tourism Research, which is the publisher with the most years of experience in publishing SET articles. Further, according to the indicator that shows the number of years of experience for the journals publishing in SET research (EXP), the work carried out by the journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues (ESI) should be highlighted, as it appears as the second most productive journal, despite having only four years of experience in publishing SET research. Other journals, such as the Journal of Business Research and the International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal are two publishers who, although not specialized in entrepreneurship, tourism, or sustainability, have become preponderant editors of SET investigations.

4.2. Science Mapping Analysis of SET Research

As mentioned above, graphic mapping or scientific mapping has become an important methodology in the field of bibliometrics [109]. This methodology aims to provide a spatial representation of how the different scientific actors of a dynamically changing field of knowledge relate to each other [50]. In summary, scientific mapping shows the structural and dynamic aspects of scientific research [110], and can be used as a complementary approach to bibliometric performance indicators [10]. Therefore, in order to obtain a more complete and complementary image of the results previously shown, the graphic mapping of the main scientific actors that publish in SET topics are presented in this section. As mentioned, this analysis is accomplished using the VOSviewer software, which visualizes the bibliographic material through bibliographic coupling [111] and the analysis of citations and co-citations [112]. In this study, we use co-citations and co-occurrence of keywords analyses. Note that shared citations or co-citations study the cited papers and occur when two papers receive a citation in a third paper that has been published. For the purposes of this analysis, the figure shows the two papers that have been cited by the article published in the journal. In the case of this research, the co-citation shows the most-cited SET studies in terms of their topics and connections [113].

To carry out the graphic mapping of this work, the co-citations of the most-cited journals in the SET topic are analyzed first. Figure 2 presents these results with a threshold of 60 for a source, and also the 100 strongest co-citation connections.

The figure highlights several journals in three different clusters. The colors represent the links or closeness between these knowledge sources. Likewise, the closeness between them within a cluster represents the relationship of the journals in terms of co-citations. Thus, in the upper right cluster, in the green color, there is a strong co-citation relationship between a group of journals, mainly in regard to tourism. These include Tourism Management, the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, and, to a lesser extent, the Journal of Travel Research and Current Issues in Tourism. These last two are not among the most productive journals according to Table 6, but they are journals with a lot of experience in the field (according to the EXP indicator), so they tend to be co-cited in SET research studies. In the lower cluster, which is brown in color, there is a strong co-citation between business journals, such as Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, the Journal of Business Venturing, Academy of Management Review, and the Strategic Management Journal. Finally, the upper left cluster, in blue, shows a strong relationship between journals from the two areas described above, i.e., tourism and business. These include the Journal of Business Re-search, International Journal of Hospitality Management, and the International Journal of Hospitality Management.

Another interesting aspect to analyze is the co-citation of authors, in other words, the consideration of the most-cited authors in the SET research area and the different connections they have with other researchers. Figure 3 presents the co-citations of authors with a threshold of 50 papers and also the 100 strongest co-citation connections.

According to the above Figure, it is clear that Hall, C.M. is the most-cited author in SET research. Moreover, he is the absolute leader in one of the clusters in the above Figure, in which authors such as Gössling and Scott also stand out. Note that these researchers are by far the most influential in SET research and have several co-authored papers among the top 50 most-cited papers in SET research. However, there are other authors who also stand out in the figure—such as in the case of Getz, Morrison, and Hjalager, in the green cluster, or Zahra and Miller in the blue cluster. It should be noted that in the same cluster, authors such as Hair—who is linked to the development of partial least squares methodologies, which is a type of methodology that is widely used in SET research—are also cited. In general, several of the authors appearing in the figure are among the most productive authors in Table 3 and, therefore, it can be concluded, in this sense, that the results obtained from the performance analysis and graph mapping are consistent among them.

Finally, we come to the analysis of the keywords most used by the authors who publish in the SET research area. Note that the focus of the co-occurrence of keywords is based on the list of keywords provided by the author. The graphic display of these words is accomplished through a network graphic. The size of the circles, which represent a keyword, are larger according to the relevance of this word in SET research. The network connections of these words are used to identify the most closely linked keywords. Figure 4 presents the results, considering a threshold of 5 occurrences and the 115 most frequent co-occurrences.

At first glance, it can be seen that the subject matter of the articles published in the SET area is very varied; however, this is with concepts that logically stand out because they are the ones that guide this study, i.e., entrepreneurship, tourism, and sustainability. However, other keywords, such as innovation and hospitality, also stand out as very close to the top keywords. The gray cluster highlights some themes that are related to rural tourism and sustainable tourism. For example, COVID-19 appears as a keyword that has taken on relative relevance in SET research. Obviously, other keywords with less relevance in the field are observed, but they do manage to appear in the SET research areas. These issues still have a great deal of potential and it is hoped, therefore, that SET researchers will be able to nurture these topics in a period of post-pandemic reactivation. Logically, it is expected that this period will be fruitful for SET researchers.

5. Discussions

The results of this study are obtained from the use of two bibliometric techniques—which, by complementing each other, provide studies of this type with greater robustness and consistency [8]—namely, the use of bibliometric performance analysis and a graphic mapping of science analysis.

The bibliometric performance analysis shows that the SET research field has seen a significant increase in the number of studies, especially during the last decade. An interesting milestone to note is that articles published in the last decade are very influential compared to those generated in previous years. It is likely that this last decade has seen the development of those articles that will be the trendsetters for the further development of this subject of study. Beyond this, the performance analysis shows that the SET field is being led mainly by English-speaking countries. The USA is the country showing the highest productivity. This country generally leads the rankings of scientific productivity in most disciplines [11,14]. Regarding impact or influence, however, this study shows that New Zealand is the most influential country for this field of study, showing the highest number of citations and the highest h-index. This is consistent with the historical importance of the tourism industry in New Zealand’s economic development. This result is also striking to us because they are different from similar studies analyzing the field intersecting tourism and sustainability (e.g., [114,115]), which show the USA as the absolute leader in that field (both in productivity and influence), demonstrating the consistency of our analysis and the projection of SET research. It is also important to mention that although SET research is concentrated in English-speaking countries, many other countries have also been publishing and influencing the development of this topic in recent years, such as Scandinavian and other European countries. However, the analysis also shows the absence of less-developed countries such as those in Latin America (except for Brazil), and it is therefore expected that these countries, which have great potential to sustainably develop their tourism industries, could encourage SET research. Despite the above, the analysis shows, in general terms, a growing concern for the sustainable development of entrepreneurship in the tourism sector.

Although the USA leads with productivity in the SET field, this is not similarly and clearly reflected in the list of the most productive and influential institutions. In fact, only 5 of the 30 institutions presented in our analysis are of North American origin, which shows an interesting dispersion of institutions that have been making efforts to continue developing this line of research. Thus, several universities from different countries have an interesting presence and influence in the list, such as universities in Oceania, including the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, or universities in the Nordic countries, with Linnaeus University in Sweden or the Western Norway Research Institute in Norway. At the European level, these results should also be considered, since countries such as the United Kingdom tend to lead research in this region. Finally, analysis by institutions/universities in related fields, such as tourism–sustainability, are not common. As such, the information provided by this study is valuable for policy makers and the scientific community focused on SET.

Taking onboard the analysis of the researchers, our results follow a similar trend to those shown above, with those from New Zealand and Scandinavian countries leading the SET field. Thus, Hall, C.M. from the University of Canterbury is, without a doubt, the absolute leader in this field of study in terms of both productivity and influence. The scientific mapping, and in particular, the analysis of author co-citations, corroborates the results of the researcher analysis. In this way, researchers such as Gössling and Scott, affiliated with Scandinavian universities, but who have a strong collaboration with Hall, C.M., should also be highlighted. Other studies focused on the field of tourism–sustainability, such as that of Garrigos-Simon and others [114], also highlight the collaboration between these authors, and their strong orientation to publish in the SET research field. In general, the analyses performed with both bibliometric techniques show that a large number of researchers are associated with this field. It is likely that several of them have applied their main line of research to this field, for example, Zahra, S., a well-known and influential researcher in the field of entrepreneurship, who has developed some ideas in SET research. Finally, our analysis did not include researchers from developing countries.

Given the particular field of research addressed by this study, it was expected that the most productive and influential journals would have a clear focus on the field of sustainability, but also on tourism and entrepreneurship. According to our bibliometric performance analysis, the most productive and influential journal in SET research is the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (JST). This journal is the seventh best positioned in the Journal Citation Reports’ (JCR) ranking in the area of hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism. In addition, other journals in this area stand out in our results, such as Tourism Management (TM) or the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM), both of which have good indicators of productivity and influence. The importance of these journals is also corroborated in the graphic mapping conducted in this study. This same analysis is complemented by the analysis of bibliometric performance and shows how clusters of journals, mainly focused on entrepreneurship and tourism, form the structure of SET research. However, our results, especially those from the performance analysis, also show that journals in the areas of business and entrepreneurship have weak leadership in this field, which is considered an interesting opportunity to exploit. Finally, it is important to note that the general results of both bibliometric techniques are similar to those found by Niñerola and others [115], who focus only on tourism and sustainability.

SET research has a great potential for projection given the efforts of the tourism sector to position sustainability as a value/stamp among the different actors involved in it. The graphic mapping presented in this study shows how SET research has been structured. In general, this analysis corroborates and complements the findings of the bibliometric performance analysis of this study. However, it also shows, from the analysis of the co-citation of keywords, the various topics that are being worked on and others that appear with less importance in the field, which suggests an opportunity to explore research opportunities in this field. Therefore, in SET research, several topics that appear in the visualization can make an important contribution to this field, such as business models, adaptation, bricolage, or the institutional environment.

6. Conclusions

Sustainability is a concept widely used by various actors around the world, especially by policy makers and the scientific community, who consider it a priority for companies, nations, and for society as a whole [116]. Given its importance, some of the world’s leading organizations, such as the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), have declared the sustainable development of their industry as a relevant aspect, despite the fact that, globally, the industry is considered less sustainable than ever [64]. In this context, entrepreneurship in the tourism sector has become especially relevant for the industry to assume responsibility for reducing its impact on the environment and thus contribute to sustainability. In the last decade, the scientific community has paid special attention to sustainable entrepreneurship in the tourism sector, which is reflected in the significant growth of knowledge focused on this phenomenon. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to present an overview of the research developed to date in the field of research that arises from the intersection of three important fields of study, namely tourism, entrepreneurship, and sustainability—which, in this study, we refer to as SET research.

To meet this objective, bibliometric techniques widely recognized in the scientific literature were used, such as bibliometric performance analysis and scientific mapping [7]. These allow for quantitative and qualitative analyses of the structure of knowledge generated in SET research. Our findings help to organize and structure the literature and show the performance and relationships of the main scientific actors involved in SET research, such as authors, universities, and countries. In this sense, our study shows that a broad scientific community, from different parts of the world, has been contributing new knowledge, which demonstrates the growing international interest in sustainability in entrepreneurship in the tourism industry. Even so, and as is generally the case, the most advanced countries, which also base their economies on tourism, are the ones with the best bibliometric performance in SET research. Such is the case of the USA, England, New Zealand, and Australia, in which the main institutions/universities and the most productive and influential authors are concentrated.

6.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric study that focuses on the field of SET research. Therefore, the information contained in this study may be important for various stakeholders, considering that the sustainable development of business and tourism is more relevant than ever to our society.

For example, for the SET scientific community, this study offers a visualization with several interdisciplinary themes that are important to foster the sustainability of tourism ventures. Thus, solutions to address this phenomenon should include issues such as destination development, integration of public–private actions, institutional environment, the implementation of incentives for sustainable development considering the geographic space, the community, and entrepreneurial behavior, among other aspects. With this in mind, future research questions should explore the antecedents that drive sustainability-based tourism ventures. Some examples of these questions are as follows:

• How is the behavior of tourism entrepreneurs in geographical areas exposed to conflicts, adversities, or crises?
• How do the institutional environment or tourism policies influence the promotion of sustainable entrepreneurship in the sector?
• What factors influence the adaptation of traditional business models to orient them towards the creation of sustainable value?

In summary, these questions and several other topics associated with entrepreneurship, such as gender, motivation, or bricolage, may be very interesting to explore in association with SET research.

On the other hand, public policy advisors could find relevant information on contingent SET issues or on the main scientific actors that are contributing to this important field of study. Having this information would serve to strengthen and expand science through the creation of research networks with the identified scientific actors. Policy advisors could use this information to take note of the relevance of the field and, in the case of developing countries, for example, use it when deciding to give greater emphasis and priority to funding projects that contribute to the field.

6.2. Limitations

Finally, our study presents several limitations that we would like to make transparent. First, the changing dynamics of science must be considered; if we add the increasing relevance of SET-related topics, this implies that part of the data and indicators presented in this study may vary over time. However, this study is purely informative and is intended to provide a general guide to the main actors in SET research, which may also be updated from time to time. Second, this study analyzed particular references according to the Web of Science (WoS) database, such as articles, reviews, letters, and notes, which may exclude important references in this field. In addition, other databases are of similar relevance and using them can solve the endemic problems of reference exclusion. Therefore, future updates of this study may incorporate references from databases such as EBSCO, ProQuest, or Scopus in their analysis. Another limitation derived from the use of the WoS database is that the complete count system used by this database gives more relevance to references with more than one author. For this purpose, the scientific mapping is performed with VOSviewer since it neutralizes this limitation by using a fractional counting system [6,15]. Despite these limitations, we believe that this study succeeds in highlighting the various scientific actors who are contributing to this important field of research.