Evaluate Sustainable Tourism Developer candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so check what destinations or products they actually launched: visitor management plans, community homestay networks, GSTC or Green Key certification achieved, carrying capacity limits. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
public sector communitycommunity stakeholdersdestination managementecotourismgstc criteria
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names specific destinations developed, with visitor numbers, local income share, or certification awarded and the year it landed. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate describes running multi-party consultations, naming dissenting groups and the concrete concession that got a benefit-sharing agreement signed.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Check what destinations or products they actually launched: visitor management plans, community homestay networks, GSTC or Green Key certification achieved, carrying capacity limits set, seasonality spread numbers.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names specific destinations developed, with visitor numbers, local income share, or certification awarded and the year it landed.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they handled hostile rooms: landowners, tour operators, indigenous councils, hoteliers, national park wardens. Ask about a benefit-sharing agreement they negotiated and who objected.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes running multi-party consultations, naming dissenting groups and the concrete concession that got a benefit-sharing agreement signed.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test working knowledge of protected area rules, EIA requirements, UNWTO and GSTC destination criteria, concession licensing, and whichever national tourism act governs their market.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites specific statutes, permit pathways, and certification criteria, and explains where projects usually get blocked.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Assess how they measured impact: visitor surveys, resident sentiment tracking, carbon per visitor night, leakage rates, and reporting to donors or ministry funders.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Uses baseline versus post-intervention indicators, admits where data was weak, and links reporting to continued funding.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Sustainable Tourism Developer
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you give examples of sustainable tourism projects you have managed?
02
How do you assess the long-term sustainability of a tourism project?
03
What methods do you use to ensure local communities benefit economically from tourism development?
04
Can you discuss a time you had to overcome resistance to sustainable practices from partners or stakeholders?
05
Describe a situation where you had to balance the needs of a local community against tourism development.
