SE-10: Tourist Attractions and Scenic Areas

ICO Std 2002 — Extension SE-10

This extension module specifies the requirements and methodologies for ranking and evaluating tourist attractions and scenic areas. Tourism destination evaluation presents distinctive methodological challenges: the diversity of attraction types — from pristine wilderness reserves to high-intensity theme parks — demands differentiated indicator systems and weighting schemes; the inherent tension between conservation and visitation requires balancing resource protection with visitor access; and the temporal variability of visitor experience across seasons and crowd conditions necessitates dynamic assessment approaches. This module extends the core-layer methodology (Chapters 4 through 10) by defining domain-specific indicators, data collection protocols, classification-based weighting, seasonal adjustment mechanisms, and scoring procedures for tourist attraction evaluation. It is applicable to rankings across all categories of tourist attractions and scenic areas.

SE-10.1 Scope and Applicable Objects

SE-10.1.1 Scope

This module applies to the design, execution, and publication of rankings that evaluate tourist attractions and scenic areas. It covers:

a) natural scenic areas, including national parks, geoparks, nature reserves, wetland parks, forest parks, and other protected natural landscapes;

b) cultural and historical scenic areas, including historical ruins, museums, cultural heritage sites, ancient towns and villages, religious sites, and memorial grounds;

c) theme parks and amusement facilities, including dedicated entertainment venues, water parks, wildlife parks, and immersive experience venues;

d) integrated tourism resort zones, including resort areas that combine accommodation, entertainment, natural scenery, and cultural programming within a defined boundary.

SE-10.1.2 Applicable Objects

This module shall apply to rankings of:

a) individual tourist attractions within a defined category or across categories;

b) groups of attractions within a geographic region (e.g., scenic area clusters, tourism circuits);

c) national or sub-national scenic area classification systems that adopt ranking methodology.

SE-10.1.3 Exclusions

This module does not apply to:

a) hotels, accommodation establishments, and hospitality services, which are covered by separate ranking frameworks;

b) travel agencies, tour operators, and transport service providers;

c) urban destinations evaluated as holistic entities (city-level tourism competitiveness), which may reference this module but require additional indicators beyond the scope of scenic area evaluation.

SE-10.1.4 Normative References

The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this module. For dated references, only the edition cited applies.

a) ISO 21100:2020 — Tourism and related services — Tourist destinations — General requirements and recommendations;

b) ISO 21101:2020 — Tourism and related services — Tourist destinations — Requirements and recommendations for a sustainable tourism management system;

c) UNWTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism (1999);

d) IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (2008 edition);

e) UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972);

f) UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003);

g) ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (Ename Charter, 2008).

SE-10.1.5 Relationship to Core Layer and Other Extensions

a) This module shall conform to the core layer (Chapters 4–10) as specified in the standard.

b) Chapter 4 (Principles): All core principles, including independence, transparency, fairness, and scientific rigour, shall apply. The principle of independence is especially critical for tourist attraction rankings, given the prevalence of commercial sponsorships and destination marketing partnerships.

c) Chapter 5 (Indicator Design): Indicators shall follow the selection criteria (relevance, measurability, data availability, independence, timeliness). The ranking entity shall justify the inclusion of indicators that require subjective assessment.

d) Chapter 8 (Scoring and Ranking): The scoring model shall be documented with weighting rationale, and classification-specific weighting shall be disclosed as specified in SE-10.4.

e) This module cross-references SE-05 (Cultural Heritage) for indicators related to the authenticity and integrity of cultural heritage within scenic areas. Where a scenic area contains cultural heritage elements, the ranking entity shall apply the relevant provisions of SE-05 in conjunction with this module.

f) This module cross-references SE-08 (Sustainability) for indicators related to environmental sustainability and ecological footprint. The ranking entity may adopt SE-08 environmental indicators where appropriate, adapting the interpretation to the scenic area context.

Note: Tourist attraction evaluation occupies a distinctive position at the intersection of environmental conservation, cultural preservation, and visitor experience. Ranking entities should recognise that the indicators and methods specified in this module are designed to balance these sometimes-competing objectives, and that no single-dimensional ranking can fully capture the multi-faceted value of a scenic area.

SE-10.2 Indicator System

SE-10.2.1 Indicator Hierarchy

The indicator system for tourist attraction evaluation shall comprise two tiers of indicators:

a) Core indicators (Tier 1): mandatory indicators that shall be included in all tourist attraction rankings;

b) Auxiliary indicators (Tier 2): indicators that may be included based on the ranking scope, attraction type, and data availability.

SE-10.2.2 Core Indicators

The following core indicators shall be included in every tourist attraction ranking:

SE-10.2.2.1 Resource Quality and Uniqueness

a) The ranking entity shall evaluate the quality and uniqueness of the natural and/or cultural resources that constitute the primary attraction value of the scenic area.

b) For natural scenic areas, the evaluation shall consider:

1) geological and geomorphological significance, including representativeness within a defined geographic or geological context;

2) biodiversity value, including species richness, endemism, and ecological integrity;

3) landscape aesthetic value, including scenic diversity, visual integrity, and rarity of landscape features;

4) natural process authenticity, including the degree to which natural ecological and geological processes remain unmodified by human intervention.

c) For cultural and historical scenic areas, the evaluation shall consider:

1) historical significance, including age, association with historically important events or persons, and contribution to civilisational narratives;

2) artistic and architectural value, including craftsmanship, design originality, and representativeness of a style or period;

3) cultural continuity, including evidence of continued use, ritual significance, and living traditions associated with the site;

4) authenticity and integrity, assessed in accordance with the provisions of SE-05 and the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994).

d) For theme parks and amusement facilities, the evaluation shall consider:

1) thematic coherence and creative originality of the park concept;

2) ride and attraction uniqueness, including proprietary or first-of-kind installations;

3) immersive quality of the guest experience, including theming depth and storytelling integration;

4) refresh and innovation rate, including the frequency of new attraction launches and experience updates.

e) For integrated tourism resort zones, the evaluation shall consider:

1) diversity and complementarity of the attraction portfolio;

2) integration quality between natural, cultural, and entertainment components;

3) destination-level coherence and brand identity.

SE-10.2.2.2 Conservation and Management Status

a) The ranking entity shall evaluate the effectiveness of conservation and management measures at the scenic area.

b) For ecological conservation, the evaluation shall include:

1) condition of key ecosystems and habitats relative to established baselines;

2) effectiveness of invasive species management;

3) status of threatened species populations within the scenic area;

4) evidence of environmental degradation, including soil erosion, water pollution, habitat fragmentation, and vegetation damage.

c) For cultural heritage conservation, the evaluation shall include:

1) physical condition of heritage structures and artefacts;

2) implementation of conservation management plans;

3) monitoring of heritage integrity indicators;

4) provisions for heritage impact assessment of new interventions, in line with ICOMOS guidance.

d) Carrying capacity management shall be evaluated as follows:

1) the ranking entity shall assess whether the scenic area has defined and published a carrying capacity threshold;

2) monitoring systems for real-time visitor flow shall be evaluated;

3) the effectiveness of visitor flow control measures, including reservation systems, timed entry, and flow diversion, shall be assessed;

4) the scenic area’s response to carrying capacity exceedance events shall be documented.

SE-10.2.2.3 Visitor Experience Quality

a) The ranking entity shall evaluate the quality of the visitor experience across the full visit lifecycle, from arrival to departure.

b) The evaluation of visitor experience shall include:

1) tour route design and wayfinding effectiveness, including logical flow, clear signage, and avoidance of bottleneck points;

2) queue and wait time management, including average and peak wait times for major attractions and services;

3) service facility adequacy, including restrooms, dining, rest areas, and first-aid stations, evaluated against visitor volume;

4) guiding and interpretation system quality, including guided tour availability, audio guide quality, multilingual support, and accessibility of interpretive content;

5) interaction quality with front-line staff, including professionalism, responsiveness, and communication effectiveness;

6) visitor satisfaction as measured through standardised post-visit surveys, with a minimum sample size and methodology specified by the ranking entity.

c) Visitor experience evaluation shall account for temporal variation. The ranking entity should collect or obtain experience data across different seasons, days of the week, and times of day to capture the full range of visitor experience conditions.

SE-10.2.2.4 Accessibility and Infrastructure

a) The ranking entity shall evaluate the accessibility of the scenic area and the quality of its supporting infrastructure.

b) Accessibility evaluation shall include:

1) transport connectivity, including proximity to major transport hubs (airports, railway stations, highway exits) and availability of public transit connections;

2) internal transport within the scenic area, including shuttle services, cable cars, boat services, and walking path quality;

3) parking and drop-off facilities, evaluated against peak demand;

4) barrier-free access and universal design, including compliance with accessibility standards (e.g., ISO 21542 or equivalent national standards), provision of accessible routes, adapted facilities, and assistive services for persons with disabilities and elderly visitors.

c) Infrastructure evaluation shall include:

1) visitor centre quality, including information provision, ticketing efficiency, and complaint handling capability;

2) accommodation and dining infrastructure availability within or adjacent to the scenic area;

3) telecommunication coverage, including mobile network availability and quality within the scenic area;

4) utility infrastructure reliability, including water supply, waste management, and power supply for essential services.

SE-10.2.2.5 Safety and Emergency Management

a) The ranking entity shall evaluate the safety infrastructure and emergency management capabilities of the scenic area.

b) Safety evaluation shall include:

1) safety facility adequacy, including guardrails, warning signs, emergency call points, and surveillance coverage in high-risk areas;

2) emergency response plan quality and comprehensiveness, including coverage of natural disasters (landslides, floods, earthquakes), medical emergencies, fire, and security incidents;

3) rescue capability, including trained rescue personnel availability, rescue equipment provision, and medical evacuation procedures;

4) historical safety record, including incident rates, severity distribution, and corrective actions taken;

5) insurance coverage, including availability and scope of visitor accident insurance and scenic area liability insurance.

c) For scenic areas with specific hazard profiles (e.g., mountainous areas with altitude risk, coastal areas with tide risk, forest areas with wildfire risk), the ranking entity shall evaluate the adequacy of hazard-specific safety measures.

SE-10.2.3 Auxiliary Indicators

The following auxiliary indicators may be included based on the ranking scope and data availability:

SE-10.2.3.1 Sustainability

a) Where sustainability indicators are included, they shall address:

1) carbon footprint of scenic area operations, including energy consumption, transportation within the area, and visitor travel emissions attribution;

2) waste management performance, including waste generation per visitor, recycling rates, and zero-waste initiatives;

3) water resource management, including water consumption efficiency and wastewater treatment;

4) community benefit sharing, including local employment rates, procurement from local suppliers, revenue-sharing mechanisms, and community development contributions;

5) biodiversity monitoring and ecological restoration efforts.

b) Sustainability indicators may be aligned with the provisions of SE-08 (Sustainability) where applicable.

SE-10.2.3.2 Digitalisation Level

a) Where digitalisation indicators are included, they shall address:

1) online ticketing and reservation system availability, functionality, and user experience;

2) smart guiding system, including real-time navigation, augmented reality interpretation, and personalised recommendation;

3) virtual experience offerings, including virtual tours, digital exhibitions, and remote engagement platforms;

4) data-driven management capability, including real-time visitor flow monitoring, predictive analytics for capacity management, and digital twin applications.

SE-10.2.3.3 Value for Money

a) Where value-for-money indicators are included, they shall address:

1) ticket pricing reasonableness, assessed relative to comparable attractions and the quality of the experience provided;

2) transparency of fee structures, including disclosure of all mandatory and optional charges;

3) comprehensive spending level, including average total expenditure per visitor beyond the entrance fee;

4) perceived value as reported by visitors through satisfaction surveys.

Note: The distinction between core and auxiliary indicators reflects the principle that certain evaluation dimensions (resource quality, conservation, visitor experience, accessibility, and safety) are fundamental to all scenic area assessments, while others (sustainability, digitalisation, value for money) may be prioritised differently depending on the ranking purpose and audience. Ranking entities shall document the rationale for including or excluding auxiliary indicators.

SE-10.3 Data Collection

SE-10.3.1 Data Source Classification

Data sources for tourist attraction evaluation shall be classified into three tiers:

a) Tier 1 — Primary data (

b) Tier 2 — Official monitoring data (

c) Tier 3 — Visitor feedback data (

SE-10.3.2 Mystery Visitor Protocol

a) The ranking entity shall establish and maintain a mystery visitor programme for Tier 1 data collection.

b) Mystery visitors shall:

1) visit the scenic area without disclosing their evaluation purpose;

2) follow a standardised evaluation protocol that covers all applicable core indicators;

3) document their observations using structured evaluation forms with quantitative rating scales and qualitative narrative fields;

4) submit evaluation reports within a specified timeframe following the visit.

c) The ranking entity shall ensure that:

1) each scenic area in the ranking is visited by a minimum of two mystery visitors, with visits scheduled across different time periods (e.g., peak and off-peak, weekday and weekend);

2) mystery visitors are recruited and trained according to documented criteria that ensure evaluative competence and minimise individual bias;

3) the identity of mystery visitors is protected to prevent identification by scenic area management;

4) mystery visitor assignments are rotated to prevent the same evaluator from assessing the same scenic area in consecutive ranking cycles.

d) The ranking entity should, where feasible, conduct mystery visits in different seasons to capture seasonal variation in visitor experience.

SE-10.3.3 Official Data Verification

a) When using Tier 2 data, the ranking entity shall:

1) specify the data items requested from each scenic area and the format in which they shall be provided;

2) establish a verification protocol that includes cross-referencing official data against independent sources (e.g., government statistics, satellite imagery for ecological indicators, third-party visitor volume estimates);

3) flag data discrepancies exceeding defined thresholds and conduct follow-up inquiries;

4) document the verification process and outcomes.

b) Where scenic areas decline to provide requested data, the ranking entity shall document the non-response and may assign conservative estimates or penalty adjustments as specified in the scoring methodology.

SE-10.3.4 Visitor Feedback Processing

a) Tier 3 data from OTA platforms and social media shall be processed as follows:

1) Data extraction: The ranking entity shall define the platforms, time period, and extraction criteria for visitor feedback data. Data shall be collected in compliance with platform terms of service and applicable data protection regulations.

2) Noise reduction: The following noise reduction procedures shall be applied:

i) duplicate and near-duplicate review detection and removal;

ii) identification and filtering of reviews exhibiting characteristics of artificial manipulation (e.g., bulk posting, template similarity, reviewer account anomaly);

iii) temporal anomaly detection, including unusual spikes in review volume or rating distributions that correlate with marketing campaigns or ranking publication events;

iv) language and content quality filtering to exclude reviews lacking substantive evaluation content.

3) Bias correction: The ranking entity shall apply bias correction methods to address:

i) selection bias arising from the non-random nature of online reviews (visitors who post reviews may systematically differ from the general visitor population);

ii) platform bias arising from differences in user demographics and review norms across platforms;

iii) temporal bias arising from changes in visitor composition or attraction conditions over the data collection period.

4) Sentiment analysis: Where automated sentiment analysis is used, the ranking entity shall document the methodology, including the model or lexicon used, language coverage, and validation accuracy.

b) The ranking entity shall disclose the noise reduction and bias correction methods applied to Tier 3 data in the ranking methodology documentation.

SE-10.3.5 Data Integration

a) The ranking entity shall establish a data integration framework that specifies:

1) the weighting of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 data sources in the overall evaluation;

2) the procedures for reconciling contradictory evidence from different data tiers;

3) the handling of missing data, including imputation rules and the impact on scoring.

b) Tier 1 data shall take precedence over Tier 2 and Tier 3 data when evidence conflicts, unless the ranking entity documents a justified reason for departing from this principle.

Note: Data quality is the foundation of credible scenic area rankings. The three-tier data source classification recognises the inherent trade-offs between independence (Tier 1), comprehensiveness (Tier 2), and representativeness (Tier 3). Ranking entities should invest in robust Tier 1 data collection as the primary safeguard against data manipulation and should treat Tier 3 data as supplementary rather than primary evidence.

SE-10.4 Scoring Methodology

SE-10.4.1 Classification-Based Weighting

a) Recognising the fundamental differences between scenic area types, the ranking entity shall apply differentiated indicator weighting schemes for each category of scenic area.

b) The following default weight ranges shall apply unless the ranking entity documents and justifies alternative weights:

Indicator	Natural	Cultural/Historical	Theme Park	Integrated Resort
Resource Quality and Uniqueness	25–35 %	25–35 %	15–25 %	15–25 %
Conservation and Management	25–35 %	20–30 %	5–15 %	10–20 %
Visitor Experience Quality	15–25 %	15–25 %	30–40 %	25–35 %
Accessibility and Infrastructure	10–15 %	10–15 %	15–20 %	15–20 %
Safety and Emergency Management	10–15 %	10–15 %	10–15 %	10–15 %


25–35 %	25–35 %	15–25 %	15–25 %
25–35 %	20–30 %	5–15 %	10–20 %
15–25 %	15–25 %	30–40 %	25–35 %
10–15 %	10–15 %	15–20 %	15–20 %
10–15 %	10–15 %	10–15 %	10–15 %

c) The ranking entity shall document the specific weights selected within these ranges and the rationale for the selection.

d) When auxiliary indicators are included, the ranking entity shall specify the weight allocation between core and auxiliary indicators, ensuring that core indicators collectively account for not less than 70 % of the total weight.

SE-10.4.2 Seasonal Adjustment

a) The ranking entity shall account for seasonal variation in scenic area evaluation.

b) Seasonal adjustment shall be implemented as follows:

1) The ranking entity shall define the seasonal classification applicable to the scenic area (e.g., peak season, shoulder season, off-season) based on documented visitor volume patterns and climatic conditions.

2) Data collection for Tier 1 (mystery visits) should cover at least two distinct seasonal periods, one of which shall be the peak season.

3) Where data is available for only one seasonal period, the ranking entity shall disclose this limitation and apply a seasonal uncertainty factor that widens the confidence interval of the score.

4) For scenic areas where the quality of the visitor experience varies substantially across seasons (e.g., due to weather-dependent accessibility, seasonal closures of facilities, or dramatic visitor density changes), the ranking entity shall calculate and report both a peak-season score and an annual weighted average score, with the weighting reflecting the proportional visitor volume in each seasonal period.

c) The ranking entity should develop and disclose a seasonal adjustment model that allows meaningful comparison of scenic areas with different seasonal patterns.

SE-10.4.3 Carrying Capacity Constraint

a) The ranking entity shall apply a carrying capacity constraint to the scoring of scenic areas.

b) The carrying capacity constraint shall operate as follows:

1) The ranking entity shall determine the carrying capacity reference value for each scenic area, based on published carrying capacity assessments, official capacity limits, or, where these are unavailable, scientifically derived estimates.

2) Where a scenic area’s actual visitor volume exceeds its carrying capacity reference value for a cumulative period exceeding a defined threshold (e.g., more than 30 days in the evaluation period or more than 20 % of operating days), a carrying capacity penalty shall be applied.

3) The carrying capacity penalty shall reduce the overall score by a factor determined by the severity and duration of the exceedance. The minimum penalty shall be 5 % reduction for marginal exceedance, escalating to a maximum of 20 % reduction for sustained and severe exceedance.

4) The penalty shall apply regardless of whether the scenic area management has implemented visitor flow control measures. However, the ranking entity may reduce the penalty by up to 50 % if the scenic area can demonstrate effective flow control interventions that have measurably reduced peak overcrowding.

c) The carrying capacity constraint reflects the principle that scenic areas operating beyond their sustainable capacity are providing a degraded experience and contributing to resource degradation, and shall not be rewarded with high scores regardless of other quality dimensions.

SE-10.4.4 Rating Classification

a) The ranking entity shall assign scenic areas to rating levels based on their composite scores.

b) The following five-level rating classification shall apply:

Rating Level	Label	Score Range	Description
Level 5	Exceptional /	≥ 90	Internationally outstanding, exemplary in all dimensions
Level 4	Excellent /	75–89	Excelling in most dimensions, with minor improvement areas
Level 3	Good /	60–74	Meeting expectations, with identifiable improvement areas
Level 2	Adequate /	45–59	Meeting minimum standards, with significant improvement needs
Level 1	Below Standard /	< 45	Failing to meet minimum standards in multiple dimensions


		≥ 90
		75–89
		60–74
		45–59
		< 45

c) The ranking entity may add a sub-level designation (e.g., Level 4+, Level 3-) to provide additional differentiation within a level, provided that the sub-level criteria are documented and applied consistently.

d) Rating levels shall be reported alongside the composite score and shall be interpreted in conjunction with the classification-based weighting scheme used, so that a Level 4 rating for a natural scenic area and a Level 4 rating for a theme park reflect comparable overall quality within their respective domains, rather than identical indicator profiles.

SE-10.4.5 Scoring Procedures

a) The scoring procedure shall follow these steps:

1) Raw data collection and validation across all applicable data tiers;

2) Indicator-level scoring, applying the measurement methods specified for each indicator;

3) Classification-based weighting, applying the weights determined under SE-10.4.1;

4) Seasonal adjustment, applying the model determined under SE-10.4.2;

5) Carrying capacity constraint, applying the penalty determined under SE-10.4.3;

6) Composite score calculation and rating level assignment under SE-10.4.4.

b) The ranking entity shall document each step of the scoring procedure with sufficient detail to enable independent replication.

Note: The scoring methodology for tourist attractions is deliberately more complex than for many other ranking domains because of the need to accommodate classification-based weighting, seasonal adjustment, and carrying capacity constraints. Ranking entities should invest in clear documentation of these mechanisms to ensure that stakeholders can understand and scrutinise the scoring outcomes.

SE-10.5 Special Provisions

SE-10.5.1 Ecologically Sensitive Scenic Areas

a) For scenic areas that include ecologically sensitive zones (e.g., primary forests, wetlands of international importance, habitats of critically endangered species, pristine alpine environments), the ranking entity shall apply the principle of minimum disturbance.

b) Minimum disturbance principle implementation shall include:

1) Tier 1 (mystery visitor) inspections in ecologically sensitive zones shall be limited to designated visitor routes and facilities. Evaluators shall not venture off-trail or into restricted areas for assessment purposes.

2) Where on-site inspection is not feasible without causing ecological disturbance, the ranking entity shall rely on Tier 2 data (monitoring reports, environmental assessments) and Tier 3 data (permitted visitor feedback), with a documented justification for the reduced Tier 1 coverage.

3) The evaluation of ecological indicators shall prioritise non-invasive assessment methods, including remote sensing analysis, camera trap data, and acoustic monitoring where available.

c) Ecologically sensitive scenic areas shall be evaluated with an enhanced conservation and management weight. The ranking entity shall increase the weight of the Conservation and Management indicator (SE-10.2.2.2) by a minimum of 5 percentage points above the category default, reducing other indicator weights proportionally.

d) Scenic areas that have experienced documented ecological damage from tourism activities (e.g., habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance, water contamination attributable to visitor activities) shall have their conservation scores reduced proportionally to the severity of the damage, regardless of other positive evaluations.

SE-10.5.2 Cultural Heritage Authenticity and Integrity

a) For scenic areas containing cultural heritage elements, the ranking entity shall assess the authenticity and integrity of the heritage in accordance with the provisions of SE-05 (Cultural Heritage).

b) The authenticity assessment shall consider the following dimensions, in alignment with the Nara Document on Authenticity:

1) form and design;

2) materials and substance;

3) use and function;

4) traditions, techniques, and management systems;

5) location and setting;

6) language and other forms of intangible heritage;

7) spirit and feeling;

8) other internal and external factors.

c) The integrity assessment shall consider:

1) the wholeness and intactness of the heritage and its attributes;

2) the extent to which the scenic area development has encroached upon or fragmented the heritage;

3) the adequacy of the buffer zone in protecting the heritage from external threats.

d) Where a scenic area has undergone reconstruction or renovation of heritage elements, the ranking entity shall:

1) distinguish between conservation-compliant restoration (using original materials and techniques) and incompatible reconstruction;

2) assess the impact of reconstruction on the authenticity and integrity scores;

3) apply a reconstruction penalty where reconstruction has materially compromised the authenticity of the heritage, reducing the Resource Quality and Uniqueness score for the cultural dimension.

SE-10.5.3 Anti-Overtourism Provisions

a) The ranking entity shall not award high scores to scenic areas that chronically exceed their carrying capacity, regardless of their intrinsic resource quality or management efforts.

b) Anti-overtourism provisions shall include:

1) the carrying capacity constraint specified in SE-10.4.3, which applies as a mandatory score reduction mechanism;

2) an overtourism flag that shall be attached to the rating of any scenic area where:

i) the annual visitor volume exceeds the carrying capacity reference value by more than 50 %;

ii) visitor density in peak periods exceeds 3 persons per square metre in any designated viewing area;

iii) visitor complaint rates related to overcrowding exceed a defined threshold (e.g., more than 15 % of visitor feedback mentions overcrowding).

3) The overtourism flag shall be disclosed in the ranking publication and shall be accompanied by a statement recommending that visitors consider alternative destinations or off-peak visitation periods.

c) Scenic areas that implement effective demand management measures (e.g., dynamic pricing, reservation-only systems, visitor caps with enforcement, temporal flow diversion) may have their overtourism flag conditionally waived, provided that:

1) the measures have been in operation for at least one full peak season;

2) there is measurable evidence of reduced overcrowding;

3) the measures are documented and disclosed in the ranking publication.

a) For scenic areas located in or adjacent to communities (villages, towns, indigenous territories), the ranking entity should include an assessment of community benefit sharing as part of the sustainability auxiliary indicator.

b) Community benefit sharing assessment shall consider:

1) local employment: the proportion of scenic area employees who are residents of the local community, and the quality of employment (wages, working conditions, training opportunities);

2) local procurement: the proportion of goods and services procured from local suppliers;

3) revenue sharing: the existence and operation of mechanisms that channel a proportion of scenic area revenue to community development (e.g., community development funds, revenue-sharing agreements, infrastructure contributions);

4) consultation and participation: the extent to which local communities are consulted on and participate in scenic area planning and management decisions;

5) cultural respect: the degree to which scenic area operations respect local cultural practices, sacred sites, and traditional livelihoods.

c) Where community benefit sharing assessment reveals significant deficiencies (e.g., displacement without adequate compensation, exclusion of local communities from decision-making, degradation of community livelihoods attributable to scenic area operations), the ranking entity shall flag the deficiency in the ranking publication and may apply a score adjustment.

SE-10.5.5 Seasonal Scoring and Temporal Consistency

a) The ranking entity shall evaluate the consistency of the visitor experience across different temporal contexts:

1) seasonal consistency: the degree to which the quality of visitor experience, service availability, and infrastructure functionality are maintained across different seasons;

2) peak vs. off-peak consistency: the degree to which the scenic area maintains acceptable service levels during high-visitor-volume periods;

3) temporal disclosure: the ranking entity shall disclose the temporal periods covered by its data collection and shall explicitly state whether the rating reflects conditions during peak season, off-peak season, or an annual average.

b) Where significant temporal inconsistency exists (e.g., a scenic area rated Level 4 in peak season but only Level 2 in off-peak season due to facility closures or service reductions), the ranking entity shall:

1) report the rating as a range (e.g., Level 2–4) with the temporal context for each boundary;

2) assign the official rating based on the lower boundary, reflecting the principle that a scenic area’s quality is defined by its worst typical condition, not its best;

3) provide a temporal consistency score as supplementary information.

Note: The special provisions in this section reflect the recognition that scenic area evaluation cannot rely solely on aggregate metrics. Ecological sensitivity, cultural heritage authenticity, overtourism, community impact, and temporal consistency represent dimensions where standard scoring approaches may be insufficient or misleading. Ranking entities should treat these provisions as essential safeguards rather than optional enhancements.

SE-10.6 Alignment with International Frameworks

SE-10.6.1 Alignment with UNWTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism

a) The ranking methodology shall be consistent with the principles of the UNWTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism, including:

1) Article 1: Tourism as a vehicle for individual and collective fulfilment — the ranking should recognise scenic areas that contribute to visitor enrichment and cultural understanding;

2) Article 3: Tourism as a factor of sustainable development — the ranking should reward scenic areas that demonstrate sustainable practices;

3) Article 4: Tourism as a user of the cultural heritage of mankind — the ranking should assess the contribution of scenic areas to the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage;

4) Article 5: Tourism as a beneficial activity for host countries and communities — the ranking should incorporate community benefit sharing as specified in SE-10.5.4;

5) Article 6: Obligations of stakeholders in tourism development — the ranking should hold scenic area operators accountable for responsible management.

b) The ranking entity shall document the specific alignment measures taken for each applicable article of the Code.

SE-10.6.2 Coordination with IUCN Protected Area Categories

a) For natural scenic areas that fall within the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories, the ranking methodology shall respect the management objectives of the respective category:

1) Category Ia (Strict Nature Reserve) and Ib (Wilderness Area): The ranking shall prioritise conservation indicators and shall apply the minimum disturbance principle specified in SE-10.5.1. Visitor experience indicators shall be evaluated in the context of the restricted-access management intent of these categories.

2) Category II (National Park): The ranking shall balance conservation and visitor experience indicators, reflecting the dual mandate of national parks to protect ecosystems and provide for public enjoyment.

3) Category III (Natural Monument or Feature): The ranking shall emphasise the uniqueness and conservation of the specific natural feature, with visitor access evaluated relative to the fragility of the feature.

4) Category IV (Habitat/Species Management Area), V (Protected Landscape/Seascape), and VI (Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources): The ranking shall incorporate sustainability and community benefit indicators as specified in SE-10.2.3.1 and SE-10.5.4, reflecting the integration of human activity with conservation in these categories.

b) The ranking entity shall disclose the IUCN category of each natural scenic area evaluated and the corresponding indicator weight adjustments applied.

SE-10.6.3 Differentiation from National A-Level Scenic Area Rating System

a) This standard differs from the national A-level scenic area rating system (commonly used in China and similar administrative rating systems in other jurisdictions) in several fundamental respects:

1) Evaluation orientation: The A-level system primarily evaluates administrative compliance, infrastructure standards, and resource grade according to government-set criteria. This standard prioritises visitor experience quality, sustainability performance, and evidence-based conservation outcomes.

2) Data methodology: The A-level system relies predominantly on self-assessment by scenic area management followed by official inspection. This standard mandates independent mystery visitor evaluation (Tier 1 data) as the primary evidence source and requires multi-tier data triangulation.

3) Temporal dynamics: The A-level system assigns a static grade that remains valid for multiple years. This standard requires periodic re-evaluation with seasonal adjustment and carrying capacity constraints, ensuring that the rating reflects current conditions rather than historical achievements.

4) Overtourism stance: The A-level system does not systematically penalise scenic areas for exceeding carrying capacity. This standard applies mandatory carrying capacity penalties (SE-10.4.3) and anti-overtourism provisions (SE-10.5.3).

5) Community focus: The A-level system has limited provisions for community benefit assessment. This standard incorporates community benefit sharing assessment (SE-10.5.4) as a significant evaluation dimension.

6) Classification differentiation: The A-level system applies a single set of criteria across all scenic area types. This standard applies classification-based weighting (SE-10.4.1) that recognises the fundamental differences between natural, cultural, theme park, and resort scenic areas.

b) Ranking entities shall not present ratings under this standard as equivalent to or interchangeable with A-level ratings. Where both systems are referenced, the ranking entity shall disclose the methodological differences listed above.

Note: The alignment with international frameworks and the differentiation from national administrative rating systems are essential for establishing the distinctive value proposition of rankings conducted under this standard. Ranking entities should explicitly communicate these alignments and differences in their publications to prevent misinterpretation and to position their rankings within the global methodological landscape.

SE-10.7 Publication and Transparency

SE-10.7.1 Publication Requirements

a) In addition to the requirements specified in Chapter 9 of the core layer, tourist attraction ranking publications shall include:

1) the classification category and corresponding weighting scheme for each ranked scenic area;

2) the seasonal periods covered by data collection and the seasonal adjustment model applied;

3) the carrying capacity reference value used and whether a carrying capacity penalty was applied;

4) the IUCN category (for natural scenic areas) and any special provisions applied under SE-10.5;

5) a statement of alignment with the UNWTO Global Code of Ethics as specified in SE-10.6.1;

6) where applicable, the overtourism flag status and the demand management measures documented under SE-10.5.3;

7) where cultural heritage is present, a cross-reference to the SE-05 assessment of authenticity and integrity.

SE-10.7.2 Stakeholder Notification

a) Before publishing a tourist attraction ranking, the ranking entity shall:

1) notify each ranked scenic area of its intended rating and provide a summary of the evidence basis;

2) provide a reasonable period (not less than 15 calendar days) for the scenic area management to review and submit factual corrections;

3) for scenic areas located in or adjacent to communities, notify the relevant community representatives of the intended publication and provide an opportunity for feedback;

4) document all factual corrections received and the ranking entity’s response to each correction.

b) The notification period is intended for factual verification, not for negotiation of ratings. The ranking entity shall not alter a rating based on stakeholder pressure unless a factual error is identified.

SE-10.7.3 Data Disclosure

a) The ranking entity shall disclose the following data for each ranked scenic area:

1) the composite score and rating level;

2) the scores for each core indicator category;

3) the scores for any auxiliary indicators included;

4) the carrying capacity status (reference value, actual utilisation, penalty applied);

5) the data tier composition (proportion of evidence from Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 sources).

b) The ranking entity should make the underlying indicator-level data available for independent verification, subject to confidentiality constraints for mystery visitor identity and commercially sensitive scenic area data.

Note: Transparency in tourist attraction rankings is essential for maintaining public trust, given the economic significance of rankings for destination marketing, visitor choice, and government tourism policy. The publication and transparency requirements in this section are designed to ensure that ranking outcomes can be scrutinised, validated, and used responsibly by all stakeholders.

SE-10.8 Audit and Quality Assurance

SE-10.8.1 Audit Requirements

a) In addition to the audit requirements specified in Chapter 10 of the core layer, tourist attraction ranking audits shall verify:

1) compliance with the classification-based weighting scheme specified in SE-10.4.1;

2) the adequacy of seasonal adjustment as specified in SE-10.4.2;

3) the correct application of carrying capacity constraints as specified in SE-10.4.3;

4) compliance with the special provisions of SE-10.5;

5) the adequacy of mystery visitor protocols as specified in SE-10.3.2;

6) the appropriateness of noise reduction and bias correction applied to Tier 3 data.

SE-10.8.2 Quality Assurance Measures

a) The ranking entity shall implement the following quality assurance measures:

1) inter-rater reliability testing for mystery visitor evaluations, with a minimum agreement threshold (e.g., Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.70 for quantitative ratings); Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.70

2) periodic calibration exercises to ensure consistency of evaluation standards across different evaluators and ranking cycles;

3) comparison of mystery visitor scores with Tier 3 visitor feedback scores to identify systematic discrepancies;

4) independent spot-check audits of a random sample of evaluated scenic areas (minimum 10 % of the ranked set).

b) Quality assurance results shall be documented and made available for external audit upon request.

Note: The audit and quality assurance provisions for tourist attraction rankings address the particular risks of this domain, including the potential for commercial influence on evaluation outcomes, the subjectivity inherent in visitor experience assessment, and the complexity of multi-tier data integration. Rigorous quality assurance is essential to maintain the credibility of scenic area rankings.

Note: This extension module is part of ICO Std 2002 (Tianji Ranking Methodology Standard). Tourist attraction evaluation presents unique methodological challenges arising from the diversity of scenic area types, the tension between conservation and visitation, the variability of visitor experience across seasons and crowd conditions, and the need to balance intrinsic resource value with management quality and sustainability. Ranking entities should approach scenic area evaluation with an awareness that rankings influence visitor flows, investment decisions, and conservation priorities, and should therefore exercise particular care in the design and application of ranking methodologies. The indicators and methods specified in this module are intended to provide a structured, transparent, and ethically informed framework for scenic area assessment, not to reduce the multifaceted value of scenic areas to numerical scores alone.