Sustainable tourism has gained widespread acceptance to reconcile and balance various aspects of heritage tourism, tourism management, social pressures, and economic development [28]. Noting the link between tourism development and environmental quality [29,30], Adriana [31] found that public pressures can promote green supply chains, but organizational factors and strategic myopia hinders the implementation of sustainable tourism. Chan et al. [32] found that environmental knowledge, environmental awareness, and environmental concern are positively associated with tourists’ ecological behaviour in a survey of 438 hotel employees in Hong Kong. Chen and Tung [33], Dunk et al. [34], and Suriñach and Wöber [35] indicated that the tourism industry uses many disposable products, which may lead to soil and water pollution.

In a study by Movono et al. [36], respondents of a Fijian village revealed that the first 20 years of tourism brought much social and economic change in the community that was both good and bad. The women of Votualailai village in Fiji were the first to receive full-time employment when the Naviti resort opened. More people left farming and fishing to focus on paid work which changed livelihood activities [37]. Movono et al. [38] also found that tourism involvement has driven a wedge between traditional human-ecology relationships. Villages now recognise these changes and find ways to rescue what all has been lost and adapt to challenges. The effects on stakeholders need to be considered in sustainable tourism planning [39].

SIDS perceive tourism as an invaluable tool that helps them realize their national and development aspirations [40,41,42,43]. Perceptions of the various social impacts of tourism have been extensively studied since the 1970s [44]. Tosun [44] stated that studies have focused on how segments of the host communities react to tourism impacts. However, further investigations in other geographical locations are required to help develop theories on the perceptions of the social impacts of tourism [44]. Various models of perceptions of the impacts of tourism have been developed [45,46,47].

SIDS depend on tourism for exports and contribution to GDP [48]. SIDS depend on imports of food, water, and raw materials [49]. This dependence can cause island destinations to focus on economic gains and ignore social and environmental issues that tourism can potentially have [50,51,52,53]. Negative issues facing SIDS include habitat destruction, natural resource depletion, erosion, inflation, increasing crime, and loss of local identity [49,50,54]. In addition to these, the growing population of SIDS put pressure on limited resources, and sustainable alternatives are difficult to implement due to cost, location, lack of technical expertise, and infrastructure issues. Due to these reasons and limited size, marginalization, and resource limitations, SIDS will face significant challenges in the sustainable development of tourism [55].

Indigenous communities have taken advantage of the socio-economic and environmental potential. They have created new businesses, created natural protected areas, gained formal employment, and adapted to tourism as a means of creating a living [36,56]. Studies on the perceptions of sustainability in tourism are essential to small island economies because they rely extensively on tourism for growth and development [57] and are vulnerable to environmental degradation, exploitation, and rising sea levels. Mainstream tourism has been found to entail unsustainable practices relating to environmental and societal impacts [28].

Nunkoo and Ramkissoon [21] used a sample of 230 residents to examine the resident attitudes towards tourism in Port Louis, Mauritius. The authors found that while residents recognize the positive impact of tourism, they are also concerned with some negative influences of the industry. Rughoobur-Seetah [22] also conducted a similar study in Mauritius with a sample of 178 residents. The results of this study indicated that residents agree that tourism has economic value to the island while they also believe that the environment should not be harmed, and more community participation should be initiated. Ribeiro et al. [23] studied a sample of 418 residents from Cape Verde. They found that economic factors had a direct influence on the pro-tourism development behaviour. The study also found that both attitudes to positive impacts and negative impacts have a direct influence on residents’ pro-tourism development behaviour. The authors also recommended that it is important for policymakers to guarantee that tourism developments will have more benefits than costs. In SIDS, residents’ perspectives are not considered and frequently excluded from decision making related to tourism. Therefore, there is a need to include residents in the process of development as it allows for greater transparency, equity, and sustainability of tourism resources [54].

Rahman and Reynolds [58] established a comprehensive model of consumers’ behavior decisions and examined the interaction among consumers’ biospheric value, willingness to sacrifice for the environment, and behavioural intentions. They conclude that the biospheric value influences consumers’ willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Torres-Delgado and Saarinen [59] and Blancas et al. [60] introduced composite indicators to measure and quantify socio-economic dimensions of sustainable tourism for decision making. Sustainable tourism can defend environmental protection, improve community’s health and education, and reduce poverty in destinations [48,61].

Padin [24,25] proposed a sustainable tourism planning model based on the triple bottom line (TBL) dimensions, viz., ecological, social, and economic planning. “Triangle Nijkamp” initiated the model of this study which arises in Hall [62]. Padin’s TBL approach has been applied by numerous scholars such as Svensson and Wagner [63,64], Hunter [65], Høgevold [66], Cambra-Fierro and Ruiz-Benı’tez [67], Dos Santos [68], Høgevold and Svensson [69], Pilgram [70], Padin et al. [25], Ferro et al. [71], and Grah et al. [72]. The TBL approach asserts that stakeholders show concern towards tourism activities’ economic, ecological, and social aspects. These conflicting relationships are referred to as the TBL approach [73].

The literature treats the three dimensions as independent and uncoordinated. Thus, it is crucial to ascertain relationships between these dimensions. The stakeholders or the so-called social capital are of utmost importance to the model since it represents the same population for whom and why this process exists. Many authors have stated the importance of participation of the stakeholders in any sustainable process or planning in tourism [74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. However, this is problematic in practice [83]. Studies that have tested the TBL elements separately include those by van Beurden and Gössling [84], Dixon-Fowler et al. [85], Albertini [86], Javed et al. [87], Esteban-Sanchez et al. [88], Liao et al. [89], Wang and Sarkis [90], and Theodoulidis et al. [91].

References to sustainability in TBL is based on theory [63,64,65,70] and in case studies [63,64,66,67,68,69]. These works raise three dimensions, socio-cultural, economic, and environmental, and finding the right balance between them ensures long-term sustainability [24]. Sustainable tourism is a balance between tourism development and the sustainability of the environment. Public pressures ensure that sustainability happens while organizational factors hinder it. For sustainable tourism to occur, all stakeholders of the tourism industry must work together. The TBL model suggests that there needs to be a balance between economic, social, and environmental factors for sustainability to occur. Researchers have also studied the TBL elements separately. It is vital to understand whether the relevant populace is aware of the negative impacts of tourism. An absence of awareness of the negative issues will not lead to any public pressure to resolve the issues.