Tourism has experienced dynamic development in recent decades and has become one of the fastest growing industries (Jurkus et al., 2022; 2011; UNWTO, 2022a); however, in 2020 and 2021 there was a significant halt in the growth trend in connection with the spread of COVID-19 and the travel restrictions of various countries, (Anguera-Torrell et al., 2021; Harchandani and Shome, 2021; Lagos, Poulaki, Lambrou, 2021). During these two years, tourism experienced unprecedented changes that had an impact on the economic stability of a number of countries (Duro et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2021). There was a sharp drop in the number of international arrivals and revenues in countries; however, in 2021 international tourism grew by 4%, but still remained 72% below pre-pandemic levels (UNWTO, 2022b). Tourism is therefore a leading export item and an important job creator. The United Nation’s World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) promotes the great need for responsible tourism growth (UNWTO, 2022a) because the tourism industry is now the core of global development policies, especially in rural areas, where creating jobs and opportunities drive economic growth and preserve nature and culture heritage.

The current idea of economic growth and sustainable development in modern societies is strongly influenced by the current concept of bioeconomy (BE). This is a concept which is considered by many authors (De Besi and McCormick, 2015; Mougenot and Doussoulin, 2022) as an economic path leading to the achievement of an optimal relationship between sustainable development and economic profit which responds to current global challenges (climate change, lack of natural resources, post COVID-19 pandemia era, etc.). It is broadly defined as a transition from a traditional economy based on the use of non-renewable fossil resources (El-Chichakli et al., 2016; Böcher et al., 2020) with the aim of maximizing economic profit to an economy using renewable and biological resources leading to sustainable development in many areas of society (Ramcilovic-Suominen and Pülzl, 2018; Pyka et al., 2022). From this point of view, BE supports biological diversity, uses originally unprocessed residues (e.g. from forest biomass) (Moreira et al., 2021; Kumar Sarangi et al., 2022), ensures rural development and comprehensive sustainability (Wilke, Schlaile, Urmetzer, 2021). Some authors (e.g., Stegmann et al., 2020; Holden, 2022, etc.) also mention circular bioeconomy as an expanding concept and its relationship to the original BE concept (Viaggi and Zavalloni, 2021). According to Kershaw et al. (2021), circular bioeconomy gains importance by connecting circular economy with the concept of BE and thus contributes significantly to sustainability (by linking social, environmental, and economic aspects).

There is no unified definition of the concept of BE (Issa et al., 2019), although a large number of authors are devoted to this topic (e.g. Böcher et al., 2020; Toppinen, et al., 2020; D'Amato, et al., 2017; Bugge et al., 2016, etc.). However, there is expert consensus that BE includes all types of industry based on the use of natural resources (agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc.) and related industries such as the timber industry, construction sector, food industry, paper industry, chemical industry, biotechnology, and bioenergy. (Birner, 2017; D'Amato et al., 2017; EC, 2012; Kylkilahti et al., 2020; Ronzon et al., 2017; EC, 2018), including industries leading to sustainable rural development (Johnson and Altman, 2014; Halonen et al., 2022). At least from some countries’ perspective (e.g. Italy), an important aspect of BE is the emphasis on education and technological progress (Korhonen et al., 2021) and decision-making based on scientific knowledge (Borge and Bröring, 2020; Falcone et al., 2020). The European Union (EU) as a whole has taken a clear approach to the BE concept since 2012 (EC, 2012; Patermann and Aguilar, 2018) and, with the subsequent amendment in 2018, the relevant strategy including the tools for its implementation is part of EU policies (Ludvig, Zivojinovic, Hujala, 2019).

The field of tourism is sometimes considered as a part of the broad concepts of BE (Marin-Pantelescu et al., 2019; Fritsche et al., 2020). Although it never occupies a fundamental position in this concept, it has a potential to bring opportunities in the future (Luhas et al., 2021). According to Ronzon et al. (2022), the tourism sector can be considered a BE service called “output-based”. The appropriate affiliation to the BE services is not judged on the basis of input (as, for example, in agriculture), but on the basis of the outputs it brings to society (Iost et al., 2019). Regarding services within BE, according to Marsden (2013), these are economic activities that use natural resources in a more sustainable and ecologically efficient way.

The connection between tourism and BE has not yet been published in the scientific literature in detail and in depth. Baicu et al. (2019) mention the example of sustainable hospitality industry. According to them it can be closely linked with bioeconomy concept by applying practices such as: minimizing water and energy consumption, reducing pollution, using renewable and local resources and products, reducing solid waste, etc. They argue that corporate social responsibility practices of tourism companies could play an important role in achieving the goals of sustainable development and bioeconomy. Also Baros and Dávid (2007) claim, that especially large hotels tend to be encouraging to support bioeconomy concepts more than small ones due to market pressure to adopt green approach. The majority of authors include tourism among other concepts, e.g. the concept of forest-based BE (Hurmekoski et al., 2019; Lovrić et al., 2021; Luhas et al., 2021) while some national concepts of tourism connect this industry with rural development (e.g. Czech or Romanian). Some authors mention this area separately (e.g. Ngammuangtueng et al., 2020), but there are very few. The field of tourism also appears in the literature in connection with the regional concept of BE (e.g. Maugeri et al., 2017; Przezbórska-Skobiej, 2017), i.e. the development of a specific regional area. In this context, it becomes more important as the opportunities for tourism are based on the assumptions of the given region. There are also some authors (e.g. Cingiz et al., 2021) who do not include services like tourism into BE as it is not directly linked via the use of biomass.

During the COVID pandemic, the tourism sector was one of the most affected (Nicola et al., 2020; Galanakis et al., 2022). During this period, traditional tourism was banned to varying degrees, so people looked for other permitted ways of spending their free time and getting to know nature and their surroundings (Rousseau and Deschacht, 2020; Jarský et al., 2022). In addition, during the pandemic, thanks to the outflow of people from the cities, the issue of rural development became very widespread. This period brings with it a great opportunity to transform the entire tourism sector into a model supporting BE (Prideaux et al., 2020).

Analysing tourism, it is worth mentioning that over the last few years a number of specific forms of tourism have emerged. As the number of participants in the tourism industry grew, so did the need for its diversification. New forms of tourism and their characteristics are still appearing; however, a clear definition is not always possible to use, so the characteristics often intertwine and are not uniformly grasped across countries (Frechtling and Hara, 2016; Korstanje, 2021).

In relation to nature and its resources, the four basic approaches of tourism are the most used, namely: sustainable tourism; ecotourism; natural tourism; and rural tourism. The big phenomenon in particular in recent years is sustainable tourism, which is occurring in many strategies of organizations (Sadiki, 2012; UNWTO, 2022c; FAO, 2022). According to Dávid, 2011, sustainable tourism is characterized by ecological endurance, is economically beneficial, and ethically and socially acceptable in relation to the local inhabitants. Sustainable tourism should provide possibilities for natural resource restoration and the local population should benefit from tourism. Sustainable tourism is the way tourism should be developed and, under certain conditions, can include most forms of tourism. So, it is a kind of concept and an umbrella term. There is also an effort to unify the approach to sustainable tourism development. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) serves as the global organization to set standards for sustainability in tourism. Four main pillars are considered: sustainable management; socioeconomic impact; cultural impact; and environmental impact (e.g., reduction of pollution and consumption of natural resources as well as efforts to conserve biodiversity and landscape) (GSTC, 2022).

Another umbrella term for tourism activities which take place in countryside and are connected with nature is rural tourism. Rural tourism has appeared in literature since the end of the 19th century (Perales, 2002); however, its characteristics and definitions also vary. According to UNWTO, rural tourism is considered as a special type of tourism in which the tourist´s main purpose for travelling is related to nature-based activities, rural lifestyle or culture, agriculture, angling, or sightseeing. Nature-based activities take place in a rural area which is characterized by three main factors: low population density; landscape and land-use dominated by forestry and agriculture; and traditional social structure and lifestyle (UNWTO, 2022d).

However, in scientific literature a universal definition of rural tourism also does not exist (Pina and Delfa, 2005; de Sousa and Kastenholz, 2015); rural tourism is therefore a complex term which embraces multifaced activities and its definition differs across countries and regions (Pina and Delfa, 2005; Rosalina et al., 2021). Rural tourism is rather a set of categories and types of tourism and is not a concrete form of tourism (Dávid, 2011). Overall it satisfies tourists who seek recovery in the nature environment (Özdemir and Yildiz, 2020) or for psychological and physical wellbeing activities (Zhu and Deng, 2020; Wen et al., 2021).

Sometimes the term nature (based) tourism also appears separately without rural tourism. Nature tourism is among the fastest growing kinds of tourism (Dávid et al., 2007) and involves excursions to national parks and wilderness areas where high biodiversity is concentrated (Christ et al., 2003, Kuenzi and McNeely, 2008). Nature tourism has arisen in the tourism industry as a result of mass tourism becoming unsustainable in some locations. Destination managements realized that models of responsibility and sustainability have to be adopted (Quintana, 2017). Stakeholders are not only landowners, managers of rural areas or nature protection organizations, but also resource users (forestry, agriculture, fisheries, hunting) (Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010). Nature tourism includes tourists whose main purpose for travelling is to stay in a natural environment. Ecotourism, sailing, nature photography, cross-country skiing, hiking, climbing, animal and plant watching are also components of nature tourism (Dávid, 2011) as well as fishing and hunting tourism (Dávid et al., 2007). Nature tourism may also include adventure tourism, which is additionally characterized by physical risks. Some authors (Abraham et al., 2010; Korpela et al., 2014; Oh et al., 2017) within adventure or outdoor tourism focus on the positive effects of forests and green areas on the health and wellbeing of humans during their recreation. Calina et al. (2018) deals with ecological principles of nature tourism which should be stimulated by forestry funds to contribute to the rural tourism sector, as well as encourage biodiversity conservation via sustainable forms of nature-based tourism. In connection with the development of nature (based) tourism, it is necessary to consider the rights of landowners (Øian and Skogen, 2015). Hence, support for tourism from forest owners is a very important factor to be considered while preparing tourism strategies.

Ecotourism arose as a strategy for reconciling wildlife conservation within sustainable development (Meletis and Campbell, 2007) and many definitions of ecotourism exist in the literature (Weaver, 1998; Kiss, 2004; Lee and Jan, 2018). Dávid, (2011) consider ecotourism as form with four main features: small number of visitors; sustainable control; based on nature values; and an educational part. Responsible tourism is another term used in sustainable tourism (Spenceley, 2008), where tourists must act non-destructively regarding nature. According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN), ecotourism is characterized as environmentally responsible travel and visits to natural areas with the aim of enjoying nature and promoting conservation (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996). The promotion of ecotourism has mainly occurred in developing countries (Weaver, 1998; Campbell 1999); however, it has become a trend in many developed countries as well (Moons et al., 2020). Participants in ecotourism should have low visitor impact on the natural environment and local population. The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) refers to ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the wellbeing of local people” (TIES, 2022). Alongside the name ecotourism, so-called green tourism also appears. Green tourism (Law, Delacy, McGrath, 2017) refers to small-scale tourism that involves travelling into natural areas with minimal impact on the environment. Green tourism is used interchangeably with concepts such as nature tourism, ecotourism, responsible tourism, and rural tourism. Additionally, international governments and organizations have defined the concept in line with the notion of sustainable tourism, which covers dimensions other than only environmental protection.

Next to these main concepts, a number of special forms of tourism, which are determined by the main motivation for travel, can be included into the ones mentioned above (e.g., agritourism, hunting and fishing tourism, sport, medical and health tourism, but also urban, spa, cultural, and shopping tourism). In order to fulfil the concept of tourism sustainability, it is necessary to consider the specific tourism services provided (Vargova et al., 2021). The main services include accommodation, catering, and transport (Chun, 2017). These specific services and their means of provision must be incorporated into accepted tourism concepts to achieve the result.

Several methodological approaches were used in this article. For the purposes of this research, we have identified the concept of BE in selected member states of the EU as the main area of investigation (Table 1). The reason for focusing on the EU is that the European Commission came up with a clear vision of BE as one of the main trends of its own development. Each of the member states also adopted the given concept to a certain extent and adapted it to their conditions based on the geography of the given country (Issa et al., 2019).

The selection of countries was chosen in such a way that every geographic region of the EU (according to WorldAtlas) is always represented by at least one country. In geographic regions, countries have similar conditions and prerequisites (mainly geographical shape, similar structure of industry, etc.) for grasping BE. Table 1 provides an overview of the states included in the analysis.

In the first phase, we analysed in detail strategic documents related to the field of BE in selected countries. The selection of suitable documents was made with respect to the principles of systematic sampling (Krippendorf, 2019). The analysed documents represent official documents related to the studied topic and were listed on the official governmental sources of specific states. For this reason, it is possible to understand all the strategies and documents mentioned as a source of data for assessing the understanding of the field of tourism in the concept of BE. EU member states have approached this concept in different ways (EC, 2022a)—some have adopted their own strategy (e.g., Spain, Italy, Germany), others have not yet done so (Czechia, Poland, Croatia, Belgium, etc.). Such states have the topic of BE mentioned in several documents of different strategic importance (see Table 1). Due to the absence of a separate strategy in some states, a qualitative content analysis was used which identifies and searches latent concepts and topics related to BE (Mayring, 2014; Tight, 2017).

For countries in which a BE strategy is being developed, these documents were considered essential. For countries where such a strategy has not been developed, the official documents closest to this topic were evaluated. Figure 1 shows the approach to the bioeconomy in our selected countries. Specifically, the analysis was based on the following documents listed in Table 1 below.

In the analysis the share of tourism in GDP was compared for each country. Data were obtained from Statista for the year of 2021. Also, overall scores from the Competitive Travel and Tourism Index (TTCI) from 2021 were also considered. This report includes 117 countries from all over the world and countries are compared according to 17 main pillars. Overall scores range from 1 to 7 where 1 = worst and 7 = best. Specifically, the tourism prioritization indicator was also compared for countries. Prioritization of Travel and Tourism measures the extent to which the government and investors actively promote and invest in the development of the travel and tourism sector. The extent to which the government prioritizes the travel and tourism sector has an important impact on travel and tourism development. This pillar also includes measures of government spending and country branding (WEF, 2021).

This analysis was therefore carried out for a total of 12 states and the EU as a whole (13 entities). In the context of the identified areas of tourism mentioned in the strategies, an analysis of these terminologically different concepts was carried out. According to the level of emphasis on the field of tourism in the examined documents, we divided the states into three categories. Using the synthesis, we identified the parameters that tourism must meet in order to be part of BE.

Qualitative content analysis of above-mentioned documents (Babbie, 2020) was suitable to answer our first research question–if the field of tourism is anchored in the concept of BE in the EU states. Most of the above-mentioned documents were analysed in English. It was always an official translation of the document. The exceptions were the documents of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, whose importance the authors of the article could assess in their original languages. The analysis was conducted according to the principles of structured coding (Gibbs, 2008). The essence of the analysis was the search for the key words “tourism” (“cestovní ruch, turismus” in Czech and “cestovný ruch, turismus” in Slovak), “recreation” (“rekreace” in Czech and “rekreácia” in Slovak). In the case of the occurrence of these formulations, the text was subjected to a detailed assessment from the point of view of the exact meaning.

We used the results from the analysis of policy documents on bioeconomy from a tourism perspective for the next part. Based on the formulations regarding tourism in the strategies, we confronted the results with the definitions of the four most used forms of tourism–sustainable tourism, rural tourism, ecotourism, and nature tourism. In this way, we obtained mutually comparable information with generally accepted concepts.

The obtained results serve to answer RQ1 and RQ2.

To obtain answers to RQ3, it is necessary to consider the concept of service as a BE. Ronzon et al. (2022) deals with the measurement of services related to BE. It is primarily based on the NACE categories and further divides the relevant services into four categories according to the approach to BE. Tourism can be included in the category “Natural environment-related services of BE” (accommodation in the countryside, activities of travel agencies, activities in the field of landscaping, cultural, sports and recreational activities, and ecosystem services). These are services that, due to their intangible nature, cannot be measured and related to BE from the point of view of the use of biomass. Ronzon et al. (2022) mentions an “output-based” approach in the sense that the bio-economic nature of a service is evaluated based on the characteristics of the outputs, not on the basis of the inputs it uses (similarly as LUKE, 2020).

To identify the parameters according to which it is possible to consider tourism as part of BE, we used the character of these outputs and their relationship to BE. The basis was also a conceptual analysis of the concept of tourism in BE-related documents of the countries researched. Last but not least, we also used the literary research of the aforementioned areas of tourism for our outputs (sustainable tourism, ecotourism, natural tourism, rural tourism).

A certain limit for interpretation of the above results can be the selected qualitative analysis of the documents which were selected on the basis of their connection to the topic of BE (Kleinschmit et al., 2016; Heslinga et al., 2018). For countries that have their own BE strategy, it was a qualitative analysis of these documents, similar to the concept of De Besi and McCormick (2015). For states that do not have their own strategy, BE-related documents were considered (similarly to Lovrić et al., 2021). These were official policy documents in which a connection with the concept of BE was noted (both explicitly and implicitly). Table 2 shows that, for states that do not have their own BE strategy, it was possible to identify a greater number of connections with tourism in general.

The presented approach reflecting qualitative analysis of strategic documents could be supplemented with semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from individual countries (similar to Stone and Nyaupane, 2016) who are in charge of strategic development of tourism and/or BE, or use the Delphi methodology for example (as D'Amato et al., 2020). The research would also be enriched by the perception of individual actors. In the future, it is also possible to use software support for the analysis of professional articles related to the topic of tourism and the BE of selected countries (similar to Loulanski and Loulanski, 2011), or the PRISMA technique, similar to Menon et al., 2022. However, the condition for this is a sufficient number of publications devoted to this topic (Bielański et al., 2022). Another possible investigation aspect could be a quantitative analysis dealing with the provision of public funds in the field of tourism with the aim of supporting BE (similar to Whitelaw et al., 2014). This would complement the mosaic of declared support from the state level with real financial resources flowing into the sector.

Finland, the leader identified above, confirms its emphasis on tourism by already identifying the financial impact of tourism linked to BE (LUKE, 2020). The Finnish concept of BE perceives tourism as nature tourism and recreation activities and recreational hunting and fishing (Ronzon et al., 2022); through this concept they are able to identify financial benefits for the state. A similar method could also be used by other countries, especially Italy, Slovenia, and Slovakia.

The above conclusions reflect the situation in EU countries. A selected set of states always considers tourism in the BE concept at least partially. More detailed conclusions could be drawn if we considered all EU states. However, this selection was sufficient for our analysis, which consists in finding out whether tourism appears in BE strategies.

Another possibility for the development of research could be to grasp tourism in the concept of BE for the whole world. For an overview, in Table 4 below we present selected countries from individual continents with their own BE strategy. Countries such as Canada, South Africa, Japan, and India have their own BE strategy, but tourism is not included at all. Thailand, Australia, Columbia, and Costa Rica mention tourism in the concept, and often very significant. Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands have a common BE strategy. In their strategy, tourism is an essential pillar of BE development. This information suggests that different concepts of tourism in non-EU countries can be further explored across other continents.

Sustainability should be the main concept which is considered with the concept of BE. Prioritizing the economic pillar usually causes overloading of land use, an increase in the volume of waste, and transport problems–e.g. excessive development of tourist areas can lead to their deterioration and subsequent collapse. Prioritizing the social pillar can jeopardize competitiveness if there is fierce economic competition between regions. The prioritization of environmental aspects, e.g. excessively protective approach to the territory, can cause economic hardship, associated with depopulation and stagnation of the region (Huttmanova and Valentiny, 2019). In the short term, it is possible to take operational measures, prioritizing any of the factors for solving urgent economic, social, or ecological problems. But it is always necessary to consider the long-term consequences of these measures and find an appropriate balance.

Many countries experienced local overtourism before the COVID-19 pandemic (Capocchi et al., 2020; Seraphin et al., 2020). The increased numbers of tourists to a destination meant increased income, but were nevertheless associated with negative impacts on the environment and the social sphere. Regulation of the number of tourists should also be part of a BE strategy, not only from the point of view of the long-term use of natural resources, but also of the natural environment of local residents, whether in rural or urban areas. Tourism must help to reduce climate change impact and must not be a burden on nature or the environment.

The concept of BE-based tourism is part of sustainable tourism. However, it primarily focuses on the effective use of natural resources with the aim of maximizing their conservation or supporting their renewal. From the point of view of character, it thus most touches the economic and environmental pillar of sustainable tourism. Although nature-based tourism can also be part of BE-based tourism, if it meets the parameters of BE-based tourism, its main characteristics fall under the environmental pillar within the framework of sustainable tourism. Rural tourism covers all three pillars, but the environmental one occupies the main position (Özdemir and Yildiz, 2020). The last of those considered, i.e. ecotourism, based on its characteristics, extends into the social pillar because, in addition to trying to minimize the negative impact on the environment, it also addresses the impact on the local population. For this reason, the overlap of the mentioned forms and concepts of tourism is evident and mutually complementary.

Baicu et al. (2019) mention the link between BE and sustainable hospitality. In particular, they mention accommodation facilities that have various initiatives to protect the environment and increase tourists’ awareness of environmental issues. However, if the bioeconomy concept is only on a voluntary level and is not financially supported by external funds, most small and medium-sized enterprises will not be able to follow the strategically given goals. With the growing emphasis on the bioeconomy, it can be expected that, especially in developed countries, there will be an increasing emphasis on the reporting of resources associated with the bioeconomy. Many governments support the bioeconomy financially through direct and indirect investments (Wesseler and von Braun, 2017). Currently, the resources provided to the BE area are incomparable between states for many reasons (Rinn et al., 2023). However, if there is any harmonization of this view, it will be appropriate to study more the relationships between the financial impacts of tourism and other economic indicators. The identified characteristics for BE-based tourism are valid, of course, only if the participants of this tourism play a positive role towards nature, rural areas, and other participants. However, according to Capasso (2021), they can also contribute to the degradation of the natural (and rural) areas on which their business depends.

From the above results, it is clear that the concept of accentuation of forms of tourism differs in individual EU states but does not differ significantly in individual EU regions. States within one geographical region prefer similar forms of tourism suitable for similar natural conditions.

RA1 (research answer): The aim of our work was to outline the link between tourism and BE in these regions through selected countries from all geographical regions of the EU. Based on the results we found it follows that in all the examined states, tourism is at least to some extent included in the concept of the BE of these states. However, this concept has a different degree of emphasis on this sector–see the breakdown of analysed countries into three groups.

RA2: Although the selected and analysed countries include tourism into the concept of BE, they do it with different emphasis. It follows from Table No. 2 and 3, and subsequent interpretation, that common conclusions cannot be drawn from the data analysed by us for the individual regions of the EU chosen by us, nor for the EU as a whole. The degree of integration of tourism into BE differs across regions in which the given state is located. Although it could be expected that countries where tourism has a larger share in GDP and tourism is considered as a priority would focus more on setting a tourism strategy in relation with the bioeconomy, this has not been confirmed.

RA3: Common characteristics of individual forms and concepts of tourism can be combined under the term sustainability. When creating BE strategies, states should first consider the concept of sustainability, then select specific forms of tourism with potential for future development suitable for their conditions.

Tourism can be part of the BE strategy of states. In particular, those with a higher share of tourism in GDP should perceive the potential for development in the connection of BE and tourism. Current travel and tourism strategies within the concept of BE should be created under sustainable pillars to ensure development which ensure maximum benefits for the current generation, but at the same time preserve these benefits for future generations as well. Bioeconomy-based tourism is a concept that considers the approach of BE in the field of tourism. It focuses above all on a sustainable level of tourism in the connection of economic and environmental pillars, where the main emphasis is placed on the effective use of natural resources and a maximum effort not to waste these resources, as well as to ensure their subsequent renewal.

This article can help to establish a coordinated approach, facilitating sustainable development throughout the tourism industry’s system of actors. If the tourism strategy is in line with the concept of economic and environmental pillars of sustainable tourism, then it can be deduced that it is also in line with the concept of BE. For further research, it is proposed to analyse specific parameters of individual forms of tourism leading to inclusion in BE for individual states. Another interesting area of research could be the analysis of the financial support of individual states for tourism fulfilling the essence of BE.