Introduction

Tourism is a complex industry (Jakulin 2017; Ndou and Petti 2006) that generates a wide range of impacts, both positive and negative. On the one hand, it has been shown to contribute positively to economic growth, infrastructure development, strengthening of management capacities, improvement of job skills, and job creation (Scarlett 2021). Although these effects may vary between countries, in general terms, tourism tends to improve development conditions (Khan et al. 2020a). On the other hand, negative impacts such as vehicular congestion, inflation, pollution (Andereck et al. 2005), seasonality of employment (Zvaigzne et al. 2022), undesired behavior of tourists, high energy consumption (Zhao and Li 2018) and excessive dependence of small countries to the detriment of other industries (Bojanic and Lo 2016), among others, are evident.

Given the duality of the impacts generated by the tourism industry within the framework of well-being, it is necessary to reconsider its management in terms of its effects on the different stakeholders involved (e.g., tourists, employees, residents, governments) (Berbekova et al. 2024; Berbekova and Uysal 2021). Previous research has provided clues for designing tourism that intentionally maximizes well-being outcomes for stakeholders by applying principles of positive psychology (Coghlan 2015).

That said, there are multiple reviews that have been developed to bring together evidence on well-being and tourism in a multidisciplinary setting. For example, Kay Smith and Diekmann (2017) explored the philosophical aspects that derive from hedonistic, eudaimonic, and utilitarian tourist experiences, which led them to propose a conceptual model to integrate them. Vada et al. (2020) examined the relationship between well-being and positive psychology, suggesting strategies to improve marketing outcomes in tourism. Deery et al. (2012) focused on a critique of the quantitative literature on the social impacts of tourism on residents’ attitudes and proposed a new qualitative agenda. Chang et al. (2022) addressed gaps in the literature on the well-being of older people in tourism. Finally, Holm et al. (2017) proposed new lines of research that integrate risk tourism and subjective well-being.

Although the well-being of tourists and residents has been a growing area of research interest in the tourism industry in recent decades (Uysal et al. 2016), it is necessary to examine the link between tourism activities, their causes and effects, and the well-being of the different actors involved in the production or consumption of tourism goods and services, including workers and the government. In contrast to previous reviews focused on the well-being of a specific actor, this study proposes an integrative perspective that seeks the interdependence between key actors in the tourism ecosystem.

This review advances the knowledge gap by understanding well-being as a relational and multidimensional phenomenon, showing how the configuration of one actor directly and indirectly affects others within the well-being system in the tourism industry. Rather than a fragmented and linear phenomenon, the dynamics of well-being must recognize the cross-effects between visitor satisfaction, local quality of life, and workplace well-being. This exploration is essential to obtain a more comprehensive view of how tourism contributes positively and negatively to well-being, and from there, generate inputs to identify conflicts, synergies, and opportunities for intervention, bringing coherence to the debate on sustainability and equity in tourism (Dwyer 2022). Therefore, the questions that guided this review were:

  1. (1)

    How has the study of well-being in the tourism industry been approached methodologically by actor (tourist, resident, worker, and government)?

  2. (2)

    What theoretical approaches have been used in the study of well-being in the tourism industry based on the actors analyzed?

  3. (3)

    What effects does tourism have on the well-being of tourists, residents, workers and government?

The answers to these questions will provide useful input for the design and implementation of public policies aimed at the well-being of those involved in tourism, through appropriate evidence-based incentive planning. Likewise, the productive sector will have better information to develop tourism products aligned with the various supply and demand requirements related to well-being, also allowing for the identification of both positive impacts and externalities. Finally, future research will be able to integrate currently fragmented approaches in tourism studies, with the aim of harmonizing the interests of the different actors through a more robust proposal that considers the interconnections, emergencies, breaking points, and complexity inherent in a dynamic system oriented toward well-being.

To advance the discussion, the remainder of the paper is organized into five sections. The “Well-being: an ambiguous situation of the value judgment on life” section discusses the ambiguity of the well-being concept; the “Methods” proposes the methodology used; the “Results” shows the results of the scoping review in response to the proposed questions; the “Discussion” discusses methodological and theoretical implications and related future research; finally, the “Conclusion” section ends with conclusions and limitations.

Well-being: an ambiguous situation of the value judgment on life

The good life is a philosophical and anthropological notion that varies across cultures and relates to representations and values associated with well-being (Fischer 2014). Concepts such as the good life, happiness, and contentment are similar in everyday language (Carlquist et al. 2017). In studies on well-being, these categories are often used interchangeably (Diener et al. 1999). Moreover, within the tourism field, terms such as subjective well-being, psychological well-being, satisfaction, and quality of life are also used, which are sometimes difficult to differentiate (Kim et al. 2015).

Tourism studies have employed theories from positive psychology to understand how tourism contributes to well-being (Pearce 2009). Within academic agreement on tourist well-being, there is a distinction between hedonic (positive and negative emotions) and eudaimonic (a deeper state that gives meaning to life) happiness (Deci and Ryan 2008). However, there are those who propose (Filep 2014) that Diener’s (2009) model of subjective well-being is limited and should be complemented with theories that integrate hedonic and eudaimonic aspects, such as psychological well-being (Ryff and Keyes 1995), authentic happiness (Seligman 2002, 2011), and self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), among others. Currently, tourism studies integrate hedonic and eudaimonic measures to assess well-being states (Rahmani et al. 2018).

Another prominent aspect is tourist satisfaction at different stages of their trip (Neal et al. 2007). Although there is no consensus on how to assess their satisfaction, different models are used to measure expectations, performance quality or disconfirmation after consumption (Saayman et al. 2018). This has improved the understanding of tourism supply and subjective meanings of service quality in customer experience (Palmer 2010), supported by theories such as experience economics (Pine and Gilmore 1999) and the strategic experience model (Schmitt 2014). However, tourism workers, who often face long hours and high levels of stress (Zopiatis et al. 2014), have been neglected in well-being studies (Han et al. 2022).

In assessing the well-being of residents affected by tourism development, the perspective has been broadened to include welfare, recognizing that long-term happiness is not only dependent on economic factors (Easterlin 2003), but also has negative impacts of tourism (Andereck et al. 2005). Social exchange theory has been used to assess residents’ attitudes about the benefits and costs of tourism (Ward and Berno 2011). Another related multidimensional concept that overlaps is that of quality of life (Camfield and Skevington 2008), which is understood as an individual’s perspective on their place in life, influenced by culture, centered on their expectations and affected in complex ways by physical and psychological health, society and the environment (WHOQOL Group 1995). Therefore, an ideal form of tourism development is one that creates maximum benefits without compromising the well-being of residents (Kay Smith and Diekmann 2017).

Concepts such as happiness, quality of life and satisfaction include affective, cognitive, and physical components, which contributes to a global dimension of well-being (Medvedev and Landhuis 2018). This may be the reason why tourism studies reflect the same conceptual polysemy, diversity of research approaches, and multiplicity of measurement instruments. Given the research questions and the different implications for the academic community and decision makers, it should be specified that a shared conceptualization has not been reached by tourism studies in terms of well-being. Although theoretical bases are shared from psychology (Vada et al. 2020), economics (Wang et al. 2023) or health (Schlemmer et al. 2019), the conceptualization of well-being in different areas of knowledge is a topic still under debate (Goodman et al. 2018).

Authors currently acknowledge that similar terms are used interchangeably when assessing well-being, choosing an objective, subjective, or mixed approach (Veenhoven 2007). Objective well-being focuses on measuring actual or reported levels of externally verifiable components. In contrast, subjective well-being assesses aspects such as temporary emotional states influenced by circumstances and sense of purpose in life. However, the lack of consensus in the academic community can hinder communication, theoretical advancement, and public policy formulation, especially when comparing different approaches (La Placa et al. 2013).

Methods

To achieve the proposed research questions, a scoping review was conducted (Arksey and O’Malley 2005), which consists of identifying the key concepts underlying a research area, the main sources, and kinds of evidence available in a complex field of study (Mays et al. 2001). The review report was advanced according to the PRISMA-ScR method standards (Tricco et al. 2018).

Protocol and registration

The protocol was developed following the criteria required by the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY), which included the completion of key fields to guide the development of the review. Among these fields are the title and objectives of the review, specifying the purpose and scope of the research; the eligibility criteria of the studies, defined by the design, the population of interest and the context of tourism and well-being; and the sources of information and search strategies, detailing databases and keywords for the identification of relevant literature. In addition, procedures were established for the selection of studies through peer review, and a data extraction plan was designed that covered variables of interest, methodologies, and key results. Finally, the protocol contemplated the evaluation of the quality of the studies and the risk of bias, guaranteeing a transparent and systematic process. The protocol is available under code INPLASY202580076.

Eligibility criteria

To establish a clear and rigorous framework, eligibility criteria were defined for the selection of studies included in this review. The papers had to assess or argue the effect of tourism activity on the well-being of key stakeholders (tourists, residents, workers, and governments). The selection of these key stakeholders was based on their central role within the tourism system and their direct influence on the well-being dynamics. Tourists represent the demand side and are immediate recipients of experiences that can impact their well-being. Residents, as members of the host community, experience economic, social, and environmental changes that can affect their level of well-being. Tourism workers are essential to the delivery of tourism services, and their well-being influences the quality of the tourism experience and the sustainability of the industry. Finally, governments play a regulatory and planning role, with the ability to influence tourism development and its effects on the overall well-being of society.

The review was limited to articles only, thus excluding books, conferences, working papers and gray literature in general, as these did not warrant rigorous and technical selection processes by an independent review board. Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2014 and 2024, in English or Spanish, were included. Studies with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed designs, as well as reviews and theoretical articles, were also considered to encompass different approaches in assessing the effect of tourism on well-being. Papers that did not focus on the well-being of stakeholders because of tourism, those where the intervention subjects did not belong to the tourism system, and those that did not use measures or categories to assess the well-being of key stakeholders were excluded.

Sources of information

To identify articles that met the eligibility criteria, a search was conducted in the following electronic databases from 2014 to February 2024: Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO (host) and ProQuest. The choice of these sources was based on their multidisciplinary nature and their recognition for hosting abstracts and peer-reviewed articles that met rigorous quality standards.

Scopus was selected because it is one of the largest databases of scientific literature globally, offering access to relevant research in the social sciences, economics, and tourism. Web of Science was considered because of its coverage of high-impact studies and the inclusion of multidisciplinary research addressing well-being from different theoretical perspectives and tourism contexts. EBSCO (host) was used to access multiple specialized databases covering a variety of disciplines, which allowed for a comprehensive search of studies on well-being and its relationship with tourism, including qualitative and quantitative approaches. For its part, ProQuest was chosen for its broad thematic coverage and its ability to include research in the humanities, social sciences, and health, offering a comprehensive and multidimensional view of well-being in the tourism context.

The combination of these databases ensured an exhaustive and diverse crawl of relevant literature, guaranteeing the inclusion of research with different methodological and theoretical approaches, coming from different fields of knowledge.

Search

The database search, based on Boolean operators and truncated symbols, used standardized keywords and search terms for the concepts of tourism, well-being, and evaluation. That said, for tourism or tourist, the terms “touris*” or “touris#” were used to capture different variations of the word, such as “tourism” and “tourist. ”; for well-being, the keywords “Well-being” or “Wellbeing,” were used, encompassing both common forms in the literature; finally, for evaluation, the keywords “model*,” “assessment,” “measurement,” “evaluation,” “appraisal,” “metrics,” “quantification,” “benchmarking,” “gauge,” “indicator,” “performance measurement,” “criteria,” “instrumentation,” “outcome,” “index,” and “validation” were used. The search equation used for each of the databases is described in Table 1.

Table 1 Search equations for each of the databases.
Full size table

Search filters were applied that limited the results to articles in English and Spanish published from 2014 onwards. These filters were adapted and applied specifically to each database to ensure the inclusion of relevant studies and guarantee consistency in the selection of literature.

Selection of evidence sources

In the first phase, the available abstracts of the initial results were randomly sorted into batches for selection from all search results. The titles, abstracts and keywords of each search result were randomly assigned for independent evaluation, according to the eligibility criteria, by two reviewers using the EPPI Reviewer software tool. When the results were inconclusive, additional members of the research team were asked to participate in making decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of papers. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus, with the aim of ensuring a rigorous and objective selection.

In the second phase, a complete reading of the randomly selected texts was carried out. Those papers that did not meet the eligibility criteria, and that had not been detected as inadequate in the first phase, were discarded. This process allowed us to refine the selection of studies and ensure that only relevant and quality research addressing the effect of tourism activity on the well-being of key stakeholders was included. The inclusion of this second review phase ensured greater completeness and precision in the application of the established criteria.

Data charting process

Two team members jointly constructed a form to define the variables or categories to be extracted from the studies, in accordance with the proposed objectives of the review. The extraction was carried out independently by the team for each eligible article, which allowed an objective and systematic approach to be maintained. The extraction results were discussed and updated through an iterative process, which facilitated continuous review and improvement of the quality of the information collected. Any discrepancies that arose during the extraction process were resolved by consensus between two reviewers, thus ensuring the consistency and accuracy of the data.

Finally, the storage of all the extracted information was done in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, allowing a structured organization and easy access for subsequent analysis. The spreadsheet stored relevant data from the articles related to code, title, year of publication, objective, context (type of tourism), key actor, methodological design, theory, approach to well-being, country (where the study was conducted), sample, variables, instruments, general results, implications and limitations.

Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence

Although a scoping review does not usually assess quality, it was decided to include this stage to characterize the methodologies and determine the overall robustness of the results in studies of well-being in the context of the tourism industry. It should be noted that quality was not considered an inclusion-exclusion criterion, nor was it considered in the interpretation of the results, as the review has an exploratory approach to mapping the evidence. The quality of the methodologies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool (MMAT), 2018 version (Hong et al. 2018).

The instrument allows the quality of five categories of empirical studies to be evaluated: qualitative research, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies. The overall score was not calculated from the scores for each criterion, since the aim was not to exclude studies of low methodological quality, but to characterize compliance with the criteria for each type of study, using a checklist (yes, no, can’t tell). Additionally, for non-empirical documents, such as reviews or theoretical articles, other questions were adapted according to the guidelines of Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) (Lewin et al. 2018) and the checklist options were maintained to make the data comparable.

Summary of results

They were derived using an inductive approach based on a systematic and comparative reading of the included studies. The methodological procedure consisted of open coding of the full texts, followed by thematic categorization by key actor (tourists, residents, workers, and governments), without imposing prior theoretical frameworks. This coding was iterative, allowing the categories to emerge directly from the findings reported in the reviewed studies.

Subsequently, the findings were grouped into provisional theoretical constructs, considering the frequency, thematic recurrence, and conceptual relevance of the relationships proposed in the literature. Each construct synthesizes the effects of tourism on well-being in terms of dependent, independent, and intervening variables, and reflects both the methodological diversity of the included studies and the multiple approaches to the concept of well-being. While these constructs do not imply a unified operationalization, they do offer an analytical representation of the emerging patterns in the reviewed evidence, contributing to a more integrated understanding by specifying the key actors in the tourism system of well-being.

Results

As shown in the PRISMA diagram in Fig. 1, after removing duplicates, a total of 160 records were obtained from the electronic database searches. Based on the title and abstract, 4 studies were excluded since they were not peer-reviewed articles. After a full reading of the 156 selected articles, 67 were excluded for the following reasons: 42 did not focus on well-being as a tourism product, 14 did not involve tourism system stakeholders, and 11 did not assess the well-being of the key stakeholders under study. The remaining 89 studies were considered eligible for this review.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA scoping review flowchart on the effect of tourism on the well-being of key stakeholders.

Full size image

Results of the critical evaluation of individual sources of evidence and methodological approaches used

The reviewed studies used multiple methodologies to determine the effects of tourism on well-being. The description of the studies is summarized in Table 2. Thus, of the 89 articles, 40% corresponded to descriptive quantitative studies, 26% non-randomized, 13% theoretical articles, 11% qualitative, 7% mixed and 2% literature reviews. A summary of the methodological approaches used by type of study is presented in Supplementary Material 1.

Table 2 Description of the included studies according to type of design, key actor (Tourist, Resident, Worker, Government) and methodological quality.
Full size table

The descriptive quantitative studies analyzed, in general terms, sought to examine the influence of tourism experiences on well-being. It is clarified that, in this category, following the MMAT selection algorithm, studies that did not compare results between interventions or exposures were included. They total 36 cases, of which 26 met all the quality criteria and 10 did not meet at least one criterion or could not be evidenced. Thus, 10 failed to meet population representativeness (Gupta et al. 2023; Gupta and Priyanka 2023; Han et al. 2022; Hwang et al. 2020; Lee 2024; Li et al. 2021; Su et al. 2015; Vada et al. 2022; Yi et al. 2022; Yu et al. 2020), 9 had risk of bias due to nonresponse or cannot be inferred (Al-okaily et al. 2023; Chen et al., 2016, 2020, 2021; Dekhili and Hallem 2020; Lee 2024; Li et al. 2021; Mathew and Nimmi 2021; Yi et al. 2022) and, 2 showed sampling strategies not relevant to drive the research question (Gupta et al. 2023; Gupta and Priyanka 2023).

The non-randomized studies analyzed mostly sought to estimate the effect of tourism development on well-being, with a total of 23 articles detected, of which 9 met all quality criteria and 14 failed at least one criterion. Thus, 10 did not perform detailed factor identification (Chen et al. 2013; Cohen et al. 2017; Frleta et al. 2020; Garcês et al. 2020; Godovykh et al. 2023; He et al. 2020; Jiménez et al. 2021; Koh et al. 2022; Lee et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2023a), 4 failed to be representative of participants (Chen et al. 2013; Cohen et al. 2017; He et al. 2020; Munanura et al. 2021) and 1 failed to have complete outcome data (Cohen et al. 2017). Furthermore, in 14 cases it was not possible to determine whether changes in exposure status occurred among participants.

The qualitative studies, primarily, attempted to capture the emotional responses and personal meanings of well-being that individuals experienced as a product of tourism. The total number of such studies were 10, of which all met the quality criteria (Alrawadieh et al. 2021; Hao and Xiao 2021; Vada et al. 2023; Knobloch et al. 2017; Ritpanitchajchaval et al. 2023; Xiang and Qiao 2023; Buzinde 2020; Mayer et al. 2020; Pyke et al. 2016; Lee 2021).

The mixed studies analyzed focused on determining the contribution of tourism to well-being, primarily in aspects linked to health. They total 6 studies, which fully met the quality criteria (Baldwin et al. 2021; Lin et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023a; Naidoo and Sharpley 2016; Sumalrot et al. 2023; Koh et al. 2022).

The theoretical studies explore various types of concepts that are present in tourism development and their effects on the well-being of multiple stakeholders. They total 12 cases, of which 11 met all quality criteria (Coghlan 2015; Dwyer 2022, 2023d, 2023c, 2023b; Filep et al. 2024; Giampiccoli et al. 2022; Houge Mackenzie et al. 2023; Jiménez et al. 2021; Kay Smith and Diekmann 2017; Lindell et al. 2022) and 1 fails to introduce novel perspectives to the field (Dluzewska and Rodzos 2018). Additionally, 2 other cases are reviews that synthesize existing literature on the impact of tourism on quality of life and well-being; which meet all quality criteria (Magano et al. 2023; Uysal et al. 2016).

Analysis of the effects of well-being from the perspective of key stakeholders

After describing the main methodologies and assessing their quality, we proceeded to organize the studies by each of the key tourism stakeholders to describe the findings, theories, models, and concepts (see Supplementary Material 2) through which the effect of tourism on well-being has been addressed.

Of the 89 articles reviewed, the distribution of studies among key stakeholders corresponded to 57.3% for tourists, 21.3% for residents, 16.8% for government and 4.5% for workers. In general, of the issues addressed by the researchers: first, there was an overriding interest in understanding the well-being of tourists as a means of designing satisfying tourism experiences that influenced loyalty, recommendations and repeat visits to a destination; second, there was a willingness to identify how the impacts of tourism development affected the quality of life of resident communities in order to elicit their support for the tourism industry; third, it was examined what aspects should be considered in public policies that lead to sustainable tourism, beyond economic growth; finally, few articles were concerned with the labor conditions that affect the well-being of employees in order to provide quality service. Such issues, in turn, can be subdivided with respect to the particular interest to be explained by researchers for each key actor, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Distribution of articles according to type of stakeholder and dependent variable.
Full size table

The following is a synthesis of the findings by stakeholder in relation to well-being.

Tourists

About the subjective well-being of tourists, four aspects are highlighted. First, it is associated with the frequency (Mitas and Kroesen 2020), duration (Schlemmer et al. 2019), and completion (Chen et al. 2013) of vacations (Chen et al. 2016). Second, it fluctuates during the trip depending on the management and support received during stressful events (Mayer et al. 2020), for example, service quality (He et al. 2020), participation (Gupta et al. 2023), storytelling (Su et al. 2023) and esthetic innovation (Zhang and Deng 2022) improve it. Thirdly, the type of tourist activity can produce hedonic well-being, such as gastronomy (Kesgin et al. 2022), wellness (Liu et al. 2023), adventure (Ritpanitchajchaval et al. 2023), events (Zhang et al. 2023b), and also eudaimonic, such as nature (Asan et al. 2024), spiritual (Buzinde 2020), charitable (Coghlan 2015), and residential (Hao and Xiao 2021). It should be noted that dark tourism (Magano et al. 2023) has both positive and negative effects on well-being, and that virtual tourism (Li et al. 2021) can also improve well-being. Fourth, the same tourism activities produce different levels of well-being depending on who participates in them (Knobloch et al. 2017), with higher levels reported by young people, older adults, rural residents, religious believers, people with low levels of education, and those with moderate incomes (Zheng et al. 2022).

In relation to tourist behavior intentions (e.g., loyalty, repeat visits, WoM), the findings of the studies established that these are affected by travel motivations (Al-okaily et al. 2023), the tourist experience (Bagheri et al. 2023), the memorability of the experience (Vada et al. 2022), tourist touchpoints (Chen et al. 2021), co-creation (Dekhili and Hallem 2020), brand prestige (Hwang et al. 2020), destination attributes (Reitsamer and Brunner-Sperdin 2017), image and perceived sacredness (Rohman et al. 2023), service equity (Su et al. 2015), fascination with the destination (Lee 2024), and an increase in family tourism spending (Xu and Liu 2023).

Regarding health dimensions in tourists, studies found a positive influence. Some showed significant improvements in health, both immediately and 6 weeks after the wellness retreat experience (Cohen et al. 2017). They also highlight the role of sensory interaction and continuity in improving psychological health in older tourists (Xiang and Qiao 2023). Others simulated the tourist experience in a laboratory and found psychological improvements in stress and mood (Baldwin et al. 2021).

Residents

Regarding residents’ quality of life, the literature revealed some trends, positive and negative impacts, as well as proposals to improve quality of life. Among the statistical trends, a stable relationship was found between tourism development, income, education, health, social security, and the environment of residents (Wang et al. 2023). In addition, a positive association was established between cultural tourism and the objective well-being of residents (Pu et al. 2022). Similarly, positive impacts include economic benefits (Koh et al. 2022) and activities such as agrotourism, as it improves community life while supporting entrepreneurship (Naidoo and Sharpley 2016). On the contrary, it was established that enclave tourism harms the environment and favors local elites (Naidoo and Sharpley 2016). Hence, other theoretical articles advocated for a change in tourism research to prioritize sustainable practices that maintain capital stocks across generations (Dwyer 2023b), proposed that community-based tourism leads to the redistribution of wealth, grants local control, and preserves heritage (Giampiccoli et al. 2022), and recommended that standardized indicators of the impact of tourism on the lives of residents be generated (Dwyer 2023c).

With respect to the subjective well-being of residents, studies have determined that it increases if the community is involved (Riyanto et al. 2023), participates in the co-creation of value (Mathew and Nimmi 2021), and there is high quality in the tourism offering (Lipovčan et al. 2014). Finally, another article concluded that volunteer tourism programs, if properly managed, can contribute to the well-being of host communities (Lee 2021).

In consideration of tourism development support, descriptive quantitative studies confirmed that it is associated with emotional solidarity (Munanura et al. 2023), perception of impacts (Tam et al. 2023), and positive economic performance in the case of medical tourism (Suess et al. 2018). Additionally, a non-randomized study mentions that economic participation in tourism predicts higher support (Frleta et al. 2020).

Workers

With respect to the psychological well-being of workers, quantitative studies relate it to organizational support, accessibility to work-family reconciliation policies (Medina-Garrido et al. 2023), and continuous training (Moliner 2005). In addition, positive effects were attributed to internal, unstable and specific reasons, while negative events were attributed to external, stable, and global factors (Han et al. 2022), within the theory of explanatory styles (Cheng and Furnham 2003). Finally, a mixed study reports that a psychological capital intervention through a website improved the mental well-being of workers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic (Sumalrot et al. 2023).

Governments

In terms of well-being outcomes for multiple stakeholders, studies show conclusions associated with the impacts of tourism and its public policy failures, providing comprehensive models and some indicators to improve the measurement of a complex phenomenon. A theoretical article argues that the long-term success, sustainability, and competitiveness of tourism depend on its contribution to improving the quality of life of all stakeholders (Uysal et al. 2016). In this sense, it was quantitatively determined that tourism contributes to human development (Jiménez et al. 2021), reduces terrorism (Khan et al. 2020a), and positively impacts social, economic, environmental, and health well-being (Firza et al. 2023). However, other authors argue that policies are still needed to translate tourism growth into well-being for the poorest (Kyara et al. 2023). In addition, a better balance between tourism specialization and economic diversification is required to achieve sustainable well-being in Small Island Developing States (Puig-Cabrera et al. 2023).

Therefore, holistic conceptual models that benefit all stakeholders are presented (Lindell et al. 2022), methodologies such as the Tourism Human Development Index are developed (Jiménez et al. 2021), a conceptual framework for assessing SDG compliance is suggested (Dwyer 2022) and the use of comprehensive indicators beyond economic aspects is recommended (Dwyer 2023a). It follows that the effectiveness of public tourism policies varies widely among key stakeholders (Dluzewska and Rodzos 2018) and that there is a need for equitable distribution of their benefits to increase quality of life (Khan et al. 2021).

Discussion

A scoping review has been elaborated with 89 articles published in the last decade, which examined the link between tourism activities, their cause-effects and the well-being of the different actors involved in the production or consumption of tourism goods and services. Previously Uysal et al. (2016) made progress in reviewing the literature with similar objectives, this review updates and deepens the findings in the period 2014–2024. By way of thematic synthesis of the set of articles, to analyze the well-being of key stakeholders, it was established that for the case of tourists the authors seek to explain subjective well-being (37%), behavioral intentions (13.4%) and health dimensions (6.7%). In the case of residents, they inquire about community well-being (8.9%), subjective well-being (7.8%) and community support for tourism development (4.4%). In the case of workers, psychological well-being is analyzed (4.5%). Finally, for the case of the government, the results of well-being for different key actors as a product of tourism activities are examined (16.8%).

In this direction, subjective well-being—particularly of tourists—is the gravitational force of the reviewed studies, used as a means for the competitiveness of the tourism industry: designing customized products, quality service, having better recommendations, more visits and the support of the host community. These results are consistent with the review by Vada et al. (2020) who examined the relationship between well-being and positive psychology, suggesting strategies to improve marketing results in tourism.

It is relevant to note that economic growth is not the only objective of tourism activity, hence well-being must be understood beyond do no harm, perceptions, the market, the present, and create value for all key stakeholders (Dwyer 2023b). Thus, classified by key actors, it was found that more than half of the articles focus on tourists (53.7%), followed by residents (21.3%), then by governments (16.8%) and few on workers (4.5%). This shows that research focuses on the well-being of tourists, leaving other key tourism stakeholders uncovered, which prevents a comprehensive understanding of the different perspectives and their interrelationships.

In this regard, previous literature reviews have focused on tourist well-being (Kay Smith and Diekmann 2017; Vada et al. 2020), but also some authors have proposed that tourism development should integrate both competitiveness and well-being of the different stakeholders (Uysal and Sirgy 2019). Other authors highlight that the pressure to maintain the prosperity of the industry has led to overtourism, which requires implementing sustainable practices that balance the needs of key stakeholders (Alsharif et al. 2025). For this, it has been suggested to complement the well-being perspective with the quality of life in a destination, which can be implemented through public policies that integrate subjective and objective measures (Berbekova et al. 2024). Thus, performance indicators oriented by the concept of quality of life have been proposed that capture the well-being of tourists, residents, and tourism employees (Uysal et al. 2016; Uysal and Sirgy 2019).

On the other hand, the present review showed the most recent developments in well-being studies organized by actors, methodologies, variables, theories, and measures, as detailed below. In this section, in addition to discussing the results, methodological and theoretical complements are proposed to better organize future research that attempts to contribute to the study on the effects of tourism on the well-being of key actors.

Methodologies

With respect to methodologies, 40% of the studies were quantitative descriptive, 26% non-randomized, 13% theoretical articles, 11% qualitative, 7% mixed and 2% literature reviews. This shows a greater predilection for conducting quantitative analyses to determine variables that expose the effects of tourism on well-being, which can be explained by the positivist tendency associated with positive psychology (Vada et al. 2020), the main theoretical trend behind the studies reviewed. Hence, structural equation modeling (SEM or PLS SEM) is primarily used to explore the relationships between the described variables.

Efforts are needed to understand more deeply, through qualitative designs, the values, norms, attitudes, and meanings observed in individuals as a product of the impacts—or experience—of tourism on the well-being of key stakeholders (Deery et al. 2012). Hence, mixed studies contribute with their convergent (Baldwin et al. 2021; Lin et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023b) and sequential (Koh et al. 2022) designs to integrate quantitative and qualitative techniques in the analysis of the phenomenon.

On the other hand, non-randomized studies make novel contributions to longitudinally observe changes in the well-being of key actors associated with different tourism modalities, a necessary methodological complement to understand the temporal dimension of well-being (Khan et al. 2020b, 2021; Kyara et al. 2023; Lee et al. 2014; Li et al. 2023; Schlemmer et al. 2019). Finally, theoretical articles and reviews criticize the need to complement purely economistic visions of tourism with others that address sustainable (Dwyer 2023b) and human (Jiménez et al. 2021) development from public policies that affect the well-being of different key stakeholders (Lindell et al. 2022).

Regarding the quality assessment performed, 72% of the articles meet the NMAT (Hong et al. 2018) and GRADE-CERQual (Lewin et al. 2018) criteria, while 28% present some qualification in at least 1 of the 5 aspects of each type of design evaluated. Within nonrandomized studies the most common error is lacking a detailed description of potential confounding variables that may influence the observed results. Within the descriptive quantitative studies, drawbacks related to the representativeness of the samples are observed due to the difficulty in making a random selection. Likewise, there is no detailed discussion of the strategies for mitigating nonresponse bias, which can affect the generalization of the results. Finally, in the theoretical articles some analyses do not introduce novel concepts that enrich previous theories on well-being and fail to contribute to the advancement of the field.

Constructs on the effect of tourism on well-being

As a result of this review, various dependent, independent, and intervening variables have been identified and associated that can serve as input for constructing more robust theories that integrate the well-being of key actors as an effect of tourism activities in a destination. It is important to note that the constructs compiled do not present standardized measures, as each author frames them theoretically in a different way and uses indicators from multiple sources, which makes it difficult to compare studies (Dwyer 2023c). This diversity of cases, theories, and instruments highlights the lack of a systemic understanding of the phenomenon that would allow for an analysis of its dynamics among the different actors involved. Nevertheless, these constructs are presented below in a general way, as part of a synthesis exercise derived from a variety of objectives and methodological approaches, so that the reader can identify common patterns and situate themselves within the debate on well-being in tourism studies from the perspective of key actors.

Tourists

Within the group of studies on tourists, three constructs stand out. The first considers that travel expectations, self-determined motivations, vacation activities, connection with nature, experience design, satisfaction with service, perceived performance, frequency of travel, among others, affect subjective well-being (hedonic and eudaimonic) or other related concepts such as psychological well-being, life satisfaction and flourishing. Other aspects such as psychological needs, duration of effects, positive and negative feelings, physical activity and memorable experiences may also play a role in this relationship. The second construct examines that trip motivation, tourism experience, degree of co-creation, tourism touch points, quality and fairness of service, brand prestige, memorable experiences, image and fascination with the destination, among others, influence tourist behavioral intentions, i.e., customer loyalty, intention to return, word of mouth, expenditures and trip duration. Additionally, hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, perceived value, empowerment, satisfaction and travel company may mediate this relationship. The third construct refers to two dependent variables. Thus, it infers that the tourism experience, restorative qualities of the destination, self-determination and existential authenticity influence dimensions of health or environmentally responsible behavior. This relationship is mediated by mind-body interaction before, during and after the trip, perceived crowding, repeat visits and well-being.

To better understand tourist well-being in future research, it should be understood as a multidimensional concept that comes from various sources (Voukelatou et al. 2021). Thus, according to Veenhoven (2007), it is useful to distinguish three classic approaches in the social sciences: objective approaches, rooted in statistics and economics; subjective approaches, linked to questionnaires and psychology; and mixed approaches, when it is not possible to place oneself in the above dichotomy.

Residents

Within the group of studies on residents, three constructs stand out. The first proposes that tourism economic development, perceptions of its impacts and economic, human, social and natural capital affect community well-being, objective well-being, intra- and inter-generational well-being, and residents’ overall satisfaction with their lives. These interactions can be mediated by improved services, income promotion, life enrichment, spatial differentiation, tourism policies, local control, sustainable practices and equitable distribution of benefits. The second construct indicates that livelihoods, perceived benefits and costs, community participation, quality of tourism destinations, responsible tourism and tourist arrivals affect the well-being, happiness, and life satisfaction of communities. This relationship involves co-creation with residents, perceived impact, income, and support for tourism development. The third construct suggests that tourism development, impact on perceptions and satisfaction with service affect support for tourism. Resident well-being, perceived improvements to community well-being, and emotional solidarity with tourists are intermediate in this relationship.

In addition, future research addressing the well-being of residents because of tourism development, according to Dwyer (2023d), should consider not only current well-being, but also the distribution of well-being that may exist in the future. The same author (Dwyer 2023b) argues that the Better Life well-being framework (OECD 2020) can be useful in tourism studies to measure current well-being (material, health, educational, social connections, environmental quality, and subjective well-being) and future well-being (economic, social human and natural capitals). Consequently, it proposes that sustainable development is determined by the quantity and quality of economic, human, social and natural stocks, which are transmitted between generations and generate welfare for residents.

Workers

Within the group of studies on workers, the construct that stands out establishes that organizational support, family-workplace ties, psychological capital, and optimistic and pessimistic styles have effects on psychological and mental well-being, as well as on employee commitment. Such relationships are mediated by stress, burnout, and organizational commitment.

Supplementary, future research on job satisfaction of tourism workers, according to Uysal and Sirgy (2019), could use the Quality of Work Life construct. This analyzes the effect of the workplace on job, non-job and life satisfaction in general, based on the need’s theory. Thus, the conditions and employees’ judgments about how the workplace serves their needs related to health and safety, finances and family obligations, relationships with others, self-esteem, self-actualization, education, creativity, and esthetics should be observed.

Governments

Within the group of studies related to governments the construct elaborated shows that tourism development, types of tourism, tourism planning, tourism economics, tourism specialization and policy sustainability influence quality of life, well-being of hosts and guests, territorial well-being, human development, inequity, public health and sustainable development goals. Such interactions can be mediated by barriers and facilitators, economic and population growth, and political stability.

On the other hand, future research seeking to address the complexity of tourism must understand that its exponential growth diminishes the quality of life of local communities, the quality of the visitor experience, and the job satisfaction of workers. According to the Global Wellness Institute (2024), public policies that seek well-being, place creation, and local development must integrate the individual behaviors of tourists (micro-level), the living environments of communities (meso-level), and the factors that affect the economy (macro-level). In this sense, public policies are expected to promote a broad understanding of the impacts of well-being on tourism, include the local economy, improve the well-being of the workforce, integrate sustainability into their management, support evidence-based decision-making, and use technology wisely.

Proposed classification of the diversity of concepts of well-being for future research

The above results were organized according to methodological approaches and the analysis of the effects of tourism on well-being from the perspective of key actors, drawing findings from the various articles included in this review. Although some theoretical relationships are suggested around the dependent variables proposed by multiple studies, it is not yet possible to draw solid conclusions about well-being as a product of tourism, given that there is a lack of consensus in the academic community around the concept of well-being (Goodman et al. 2018, La Placa et al. 2013).

Two analytical dimensions of well-being can help clarify the debate: the individual and the social. Thus, future research needs to understand well-being and quality of life as umbrella terms for a continuum that encompasses different attributes associated with evaluative judgments about the whole or parts of the life of a person, group, or society (Gasper 2010). As an example, based on the studies included in this scoping review, the following tables categorize various approaches to well-being that help to guide the discussion.

On the one hand, well-being can be interpreted individually. According to Veenhoven (2007), well-being can be classified around two axes: the first is the difference between the opportunities (means) and the results (ends) of a good life; the second is the divergence between a person’s internal and external states. This gives rise to four meanings of well-being seen subjectively: enjoying life, having a meaning beyond oneself, having the abilities to face life, and living in a good environment. By redistributing the total number of studies included in the review, attempting a guiding definition, and providing the contexts in which the articles were written, we arrive at the following table.

On the other hand, well-being can be understood in social terms. Phillips (2006) integrates multiple disciplines and proposes six lines of research to approach the meanings of quality of life, on a continuum ranging from the individual to the social: 1, subjective well-being (happiness, pain, and satisfaction) that comes from psychology, economics, and sociology; 2, quality of life associated with health sciences (physical, mental, and social health); 3a, utilitarianism (desires, decisions, and prudential values) related to economics; 3b, needs and capabilities (actual or potential human values); 4, studies on poverty and social exclusion (deprivation, social determinants, access, inclusion), linked to sociology, politics, and economics; 5, community studies (social capital and social cohesion) in relation to sociology and public health; 6, aggregate social constructs of quality of life (comprehensive, not partial view of quality of life), from a collective and social approach to public policy. Again, by redistributing the total number of studies included in the review, testing a guiding definition, and providing the contexts in which the articles were written, we arrive at the following table.

All in all, to improve communication, decrease conceptual stretching, and reduce knowledge gaps, future research can focus on the debate about the effects of tourism on well-being, considering an individual or social approach, or focusing on one of its dimensions. The organization of the studies reviewed in this scoping review shows, in the individual approach (Table 4), a relatively balanced distribution among the categories, although the eudaimonic type requires greater attention (17%). In the social approach (Table 5), the concentration on the individual type stands out (39%), with more attention needed to be paid to categories of quality of life associated with a complex vision (6%), health (6%), communities (11%), and poverty (13%).

Table 4 Distribution of articles and approaches to well-being according to individual categorization.
Full size table
Table 5 Distribution of articles and approaches to quality of life according to social categorization.
Full size table

Conclusion

This literature review examined the link between tourism activities, their effects and the well-being of the different actors involved in the production or consumption of tourism goods and services. The studies were classified into 6 types of designs, with quantitative descriptive—non-comparative—and non-randomized designs being the most used. Likewise, the latter present some quality problems with the representativeness of the sample and confounding factors. Other authors have found similar shortcomings, such as adherence to good practices and theoretical rigor with the results, particularly in the use of partial structural equations (SEM and PLS-SEM) in tourism studies (Do Valle and Assaker 2016; Nunkoo et al. 2013).

Additionally, organized from key stakeholders, the contribution of tourism to well-being was synthesized by identifying methodologies, constructs, theories and results. It is known what effects tourism has on the hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being of tourists, the positive and negative impacts of tourism development on residents are recognized, and the satisfaction of tourism workers with their work environment is unknown. In general terms, well-being is mainly studied subjectively, theoretically anchored in positive psychology (Vada et al. 2020), as a factor that can influence behaviors associated with the consumption of tourism goods and services, or the endorsement of tourism development by communities.

Unfortunately, most studies analyze key stakeholders in isolation, without establishing how the well-being of tourists, employees and residents may be interrelated. Moreover, different theoretical frameworks are used from which variables are extracted and related in hypotheses to be confirmed through questionnaires or secondary sources. As shown in the constructs emerging from the review, although trajectories between dependent, independent and intervening variables can be sketched for each type of actor, it is difficult to draw comparisons in the absence of shared criteria and instruments (Dwyer 2023d). In this sense, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the case study where each research is conducted, which prevents the formulation of coordinated strategies based on evidence.

On the other hand, this review recovers the proposals of different authors to better organize the debate on well-being and to be able to find some kind of communication between future studies. Initially, well-being is an attribute of both individuals and society, so it should be understood as a continuum towards quality of life (Gasper 2010). In the field of tourism, well-being can be understood as the result of the supply and demand of goods and services in a destination. Viewed systemically, workers produce the tourism activity, tourists experience the trip, and residents are affected by the impacts of tourism development. The role of each key stakeholder shapes a particular relationship with their well-being that is in interaction with that of others. It is a particular responsibility of governments to promote, coordinate and regulate the well-being of key stakeholders to achieve sustainable tourism development through tourism public policy (Berbekova et al. 2024; Dwyer 2022). These measures are urgent since efforts to solve overtourism have failed due to a lack of willingness to accept the problem of the number of tourists and manage them effectively (Butler and Dodds 2022).

Preliminary public policy recommendations for tourism were identified within a multi-stakeholder wellness framework. For example, governments are encouraged to promote a broad understanding of the impacts of wellness on tourism, include the local economy, improve the well-being of the workforce, integrate sustainability into management, support evidence-based decision-making, and use technology wisely (Global Wellness Institute 2024). Well-being and quality of life indicators should be used with both objective and subjective measures for each key actor, allowing for comparison of a destination’s performance at the national, regional, and local levels (Uysal et al. 2016). For example, indicators for quality of life constructs as measures of tourism performance: for tourists, associated with satisfaction with service, experience, leisure, and life; for the community, related to economic, consumer, environmental, and social well-being; and for workers, linked to satisfaction with health, safety, social, esteem, actualization, knowledge, and esthetic needs (Uysal and Sirgy 2019).

Several limitations can be attributed to this review. Achieving a reasonable number of articles prevented the inclusion of the terms quality of life, wellness, and welfare in the search algorithm, which limited the identification of research that could enrich the discussion on the effects of well-being on tourism. For the same reason, gray literature was excluded, leaving other potentially relevant documents that address well-being from social, public, and private organizations unanalyzed. In addition, the wide heterogeneity in theories, methodologies, and results made it difficult to develop a comparison that would reveal differentiated trends beyond the classification by key actors, dependent variables, and methodological designs. It should be noted that the quality assessment using MMAT and GRADE-CERQual tools did not influence either the selection of articles or the interpretation of results, given that the focus of the review was narrative and exploratory. Therefore, although the thematic patterns reveal a gap in the lack of studies that analyze well-being as a systemic result of the interaction between key tourism actors, further development is still needed to generate solid recommendations to guide public policies and practices in the sector.

As final comments, future studies can advance in creating a dynamic model capable of representing the interactions, feedbacks, trade-offs and breakpoints of well-being among key stakeholders because of tourism. Some authors have advanced in this direction, in methodological terms by considering computational models of dynamic systems in tourism (Zanker and Štekerová 2020) and, in theoretical terms by proposing a perspective beyond Gross Domestic Product (Dwyer 2023b) or, a balance between quality of life and individual experience (Lindell et al. 2022).