Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.

313–333, 2004
 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/$30.00
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.001

TOURISM PLANNING IN SPAIN

Evolution and Perspectives
Josep A. Ivars Baidal
University of Alicante, Spain

Abstract: Spain’s democratization and decentralization process during the late 70s opened
new ways for regional tourism planning, on a scale that had been neglected in the context of
Franco’s regime’s centralist policy. Twenty years after the transfer of powers to autonomous
communities started, the results obtained in regional planning matters are uneven and, in
general, scant. The consolidation of regional tourism policies shows its weakest point in the
field of planning. Among the causes of this situation is the difficulty of fitting the various
(sectorial, territorial, economic, sociocultural, or environmental) dimensions of tourism
within the present distribution of powers, this being a problem that requires coordinated
and truly operative political and technical solutions. Keywords: regional planning, policy,
planning approaches, coordination, regional development.  2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Résumé: La planification du tourisme en Espagne: évolution et perspectives. La démocratis-

ation et la décentralisation de l’Espagne pendant la seconde moitié des années soixante-dix
a ouvert de nouvelles possibilités pour la planification régionale du tourisme, une échelle
négligée dans la politique centraliste du régime de Franco. Plus de 20 ans après le début
de la cession des compétences en tourisme aux Communautés Autonomes, les résultats ob-
tenus en matière de planification régionale sont variables et, en général, limités. La consoli-
dation des politiques régionales du tourisme montre son point le plus faible en matière de
planification. Parmi les causes de cette situation, il convient de souligner la difficulté d’in-
tégrer les différentes dimensions du fait touristique (sectorielles, territoriales, économiques,
socioculturelles ou de l’environnement) dans l’actuelle distribution des compétences, pro-
blème qui réclame des solutions politiques et des techniques coordonnées et vraiment appli-
cables. Mots-clés: planification régionale, politique, approches à la planification, coordi-
nation, développement régional.  2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Regional tourism planning is differentiated by a particular geo-
graphical scale. However, the “region” as a concept applied to tourism
spaces is somehow ambiguous and imprecise. This problem is closely
linked with the need to better systematize spatial concepts (Vera,
Anton, López and Marchena 1997), whose deficiencies contrast with
the considerable progress experienced in planning methodology
(Dredge 1999). The planning scale used in this paper is defined by

Josep Ivars is Doctor in Geography. He is a researcher in the Tourism School at the

Alicante University (PO Box 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain. Email <josep.ivars@ua.es>) and
Associate Lecturer in the Geographical Analysis Department. His current research interests
focus on tourism planning, policy, and public management. He combines his teaching
activity with professional participation in tourism planning processes.

313
314 TOURISM PLANNING

Table 1. Tourism in Spain: Key Figures

International Tourist Arrivals, 2001 (million)
International Tourism Receipts, 2001 (billion)
Compensation of Spain’s commercial deficit
by tourism balance
Tourism Contribution to GDP, 1999
Percentage of tourism-based employment over
total working population, 1999
Hotel beds, 1999 (million)
Bed nights in hotel supply, 2001 (million)
Domestic Trips, 2001 (million)
49.5 7.1 % world market share
32.9 7.1 % world market share
81.5% (Balance: Income –
Expenses related to tourism)
12.1%
9.3% 1.5 million direct and
indirect jobs
1.28
222.7 61% of foreign origin
127.9 64% short trips to second
homes

Sources: World Tourism Organisation (2002); Instituto de Estudios Turı́sticos (2001).

the autonomous communities that form the Spanish state. Therefore,

a politico-administrative approach to the concept of region is put for-
ward: the a priori tourist region according to Smith’s definition (1989).
Consequently, the region is analyzed as a territorial decision and man-
agement level in which planning processes develop.
The new territorial organization of the state that resulted from the
1978 Spanish Constitution meant a new political context characterized
by decentralization. The transfer of tourism powers to autonomous
communities implied the introduction of a new level of decision and
intervention, which gave rise to interesting institutional changes and to
the progressive appearance of regional tourism policies (Aguiló 1998;
Pearce 1996, 1997). Regional planning cannot be separated from the
evolution of tourism policy in Spain, whose phases are basically defined
according to the relevant changes operated in the politico-administrat-
ive organization (democratization, decentralization, and entry into the
European Community in 1986 are the essential milestones) and the
adaptation to the evolution of the tourism market itself.
Spain’s tourism policy develops in a context of practically permanent
demand growth: from 4.1 within international arrivals in 1959 to 78.9
million in 2002; the world’s second highest tourism receiving country
in number of international arrivals as well as in international tourism
receipts. Favorable external aspects such as the emergence of mass
tourism in Europe, political stability in the continent, or transport
improvement have sponsored this positive evolution. These factors
made it possible to exploit Spain’s comparative advantages: the cli-
mate, outstanding natural resources, the proximity to important tour-
ism generating countries, and the relatively low price level and the
exoticism. However, the influence of traditional advantages is limited
by Spain’s socioeconomic evolution that led to a loss in price competi-
tiveness, above all after the introduction of the Euro, and exoticism.
On the other hand, the new international tourism environment pro-
vokes several imbalances when matching demand trends with the tra-
ditional offerings. These internal and external changes necessitate the
development of true competitive advantages, based on supply
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 315

Figure 1. Regional Distribution of Hotel Supply and Demand in Spain

diversification, improved quality, innovation, and destination sus-

tainability (López and Vera 2001; Monfort and Ivars 2001). The so-
called “Spanish tourism miracle” gradually is changing its nature after
having given rise to an industry that has become essential for Spain’s
economy (Table 1).
Although tourism is still concentrated in coastal areas, an aspect that
becomes visible in the regional distribution of the hotel supply and
overnight stays of international tourists (Figure 1), the 90s have wit-
nessed a strengthening of the tourism supply diversification and spatial
diffusion process. The percentages of tourism jobs in relation to the
whole labor market and the more homogeneous regional distribution
of domestic trips are interesting indicators of the progressive spatial
spread of tourism in Spain (Figure 2).Within this process, the inclusion
of the industry in the regional development strategy of every auton-
omous community meant an important qualitative jump in tourism
policy. While Mediterranean regions and the Canary Islands are work-
ing hard to restructure their mature destinations and on creating new
products, inland and Atlantic Spanish regions favor the view of tourism
as an economically expansive industry and as a tool for the rise in
value of their natural and cultural heritage (Vera and Marchena 1998).
Public policies designed to encourage the diffusion of the supply with
new alternatives as well as the growth of the demand have given a great
boost to such segments as nature, urban, rural, or cultural tourism.
Unlike what happened during the boom of coastal tourism in the
60s, the process of diversification and adaptation of mature desti-
nations is now taking place within a politico-administrative framework
316 TOURISM PLANNING

Figure 2. Regional Distribution of Domestic Trips and Employment in Spain

where the intervention of regional and local administrations prevails.

Assessing the role played by regional planning in this process is the
main objective of this paper. With this aim, the evolution and current
situation of the legislation on tourism planning instruments has been
analyzed, after which documents and plans in all autonomous com-
munities were examined. Finally a stage of direct consultation with
these regions started seeking three objectives: to compile the docu-
ments that have not been made public conventionally, to properly con-
textualize the plans analyzed, and to assess the role assigned to plan-
ning in each autonomous community’s tourism policy.

REGIONAL PLANNING EVOLUTION AND PERSPECTIVES

The changing evolution of tourism, its different political and socioe-
conomic development environments, and the diverse scientific and
technical contributions in the field’s related disciplines (urban,
regional, environmental planning, etc.), shape different approaches to
planning. Such approaches have been the object of interesting system-
atizations, especially the critical perspectives of Getz (1987), and Tosun
and Jenkins (1998) for Third World Countries.

Tourism Planning Approaches

Focusing on Getz’s contributions, four approaches can be dis-
tinguished, which are neither mutually exclusive nor a reflection of
a chronological evolution: boosterism, economic, physical-spatial, and
community-oriented approaches. To these four could be added two
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 317

more that are omnipresent in today’s literature: a strategic approach

and planning for sustainable tourism.
Boosterism has been the dominant tradition ever since the emerg-
ence of mass tourism. It is based on a favorable, uncritical assessment
of tourism that identifies it as intrinsically positive and ignores its
potential negative effects on economic, sociocultural, and environmen-
tal levels. Hall (2000) expresses his doubts about its consideration as
a way of planning, since it is precisely characterized by being a tourism
implementation and development method that reveals lack of plan-
ning.
The economic approach conceives tourism as an instrument that
can help achieve certain economic aims. It reinforces tourism’s charac-
ter as an export industry and its potential contribution to growth,
regional development, and economic restructuring. Public inter-
vention, in its regulating and promoting role, gives priority to econ-
omic purposes over environmental and social ones, although it also
attends to all the factors that can jeopardize its economic efficiency:
development opportunity costs, selection of the most profitable market
segments, control over demand satisfaction, estimate of its economic
impacts, etc. However, this approach does not usually analyze how the
benefits derived from tourism are distributed socially (Burns 1999).
The physical-spatial approach incorporates the territorial dimension
with the aim of adequately distributing economic activities, and
specifically tourism activities, in space, while also ensuring a rational
land use. It is an approach in which both town and country planning
and tourism planning converge as a result of the recognition that its
development has an environmental basis. This approach mainly
focuses on the preservation of the natural resources that make the
industry possible and on the management of the environmental
impacts it causes. Among the examples of the physical-spatial
approach, Hall (2000) mentions the works by Gunn in the late 70s
(Gunn 1994) or Instep’s integrated approach (Inskeep 1991).
The community oriented approach originated in the late 70s with
the numerous works that criticized tourism’s negative sociocultural
effects (de Kadt 1979; Smith 1977). It is not exclusively confined to
the aim of solving and preventing those effects. In fact, it promotes a
local tourism development control scheme so that residents are the
ones who benefit the most from that development, thus avoiding con-
flict situations that could put the industry’s future viability in danger.
Murphy’s work (1985) undoubtedly constitutes a basic reference point
of an approach revitalized by the need to achieve greater social involve-
ment in planning processes. This circumstance has provided the
momentum to undertake, from public instances, bottom-top planning
schemes, among them the European initiative LEADER for rural devel-
opment.
Strategic planning moved from the business context to regional and
urban planning in the 80s, and it has a strong influence on economic
restructuring schemes for declining places and sectors (Borja and Cas-
tells 1997; Vázquez Barquero 1993). This approach has been progress-
ively incorporated into tourism planning and essentially focuses on the
318 TOURISM PLANNING

search for competitiveness of firms and destinations in a changing,

complex environment. In short, it contributes to or reinforces the fol-
lowing distinguishing elements of tourism planning: analysis of the
competitive environment as a fundamental element in the definition
of the firm’s or destination’s strategy; definition of a wide time scope
for planning on the basis of foresight and prospective techniques;
stress on social participation and the creation of coordination and
cooperation channels among stakeholders; and the rise in value of
planning as a process that is permanent, flexible and integrated into
management (Ansoff 1988; Borja and Castells 1997; Hall 2000; Ivars
2001; Porter 1982).
Planning for sustainable tourism is related to the great deal of inter-
est aroused by the development paradigm ever since the celebration
of the Rio Summit in 1992. The application of its principles to tourism
is especially relevant due to its ambivalence, for it can help to preserve
and improve the environment but can also transform it in a negative
way. Hence the preparation of international documents among which
can be highlighted the Charter for Sustainable Tourism, Lanzarote
(WTO 1995b), and the Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry
(WTO 1995a), and the appearance of multiple scientific works which
deal with the concept’s definition and the ways to make it operative,
this being an objective in which planning has an essential role.
Sustainable tourism still shows some conceptual ambiguity which
allows the rhetorical (Naredo 1996) and at times inappropriate use of
this term when it is applied to very diverse, even antagonistic, develop-
ment patterns. So much so that Diamantis and Ladkin (2000) see it
as a concept in crisis due to its lack of precision and to the absence
of a clear identification of its principles. Nevertheless, this is an undeni-
ably valid paradigm which inspires planning schemes on the basis of
an essential principle that is the common denominator of different
research works in this field: the balance between economic growth,
environmental preservation, and social justice (Butler 1993; Coccossis
1996; Hall 2000). Its principles are not radically new, since they can
be recognized in other planning approaches (the physical-spatial and
community oriented schemes). The concept is formulated from a
coherent holistic perspective, while at the same time it is disseminated
in a context of growing environmental sensitization which makes poss-
ible a profound effect both on the society and on the scientific com-
munity.
Without disorientation in the rich and complex conceptual frame-
work of sustainable tourism, a set of criteria typical of the sustainable
approach has been established (Ivars 2001): the recognition of its holis-
tic nature that entails the consideration of all the interrelated levels—
economic, environmental, social, cultural, political, or technological—
affecting development and, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach to
planning; the balance between the political and scientific-technical
components of planning, with a fundamental reinforcement of social
participation; the need for adaptation to the political and socioecon-
omic context, the territorial scale and the type of geographical environ-
ment; the rise in value of the local scale, where development problems
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 319

are best diagnosed and where it is easier to make sustainability prin-

ciples operative (the local Agendas 21 promoted by the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives are a good example); the
long term as the inescapable time horizon including the need to show
solidarity with future generations; and the new role of the planner,
more aware of and committed to the process, with the ability to identify
the stakeholders, reconcile interests, and favor social consensus.

Phases of Tourism Planning

Planning as a function of policy (Hall 1994) must be understood
within the framework of tourism demand and supply growth that has
gone on uninterruptedly in Spain, with few recession periods and, logi-
cally, with variable and decreasing growth rates, ever since the 60s tour-
ism boom. The lack of planning often attributed to the national devel-
opment process undoubtedly becomes a paradox considering the
significant role played by the industry in the modernization of Spain’s
economic structure: contributions to production and employment, as
well as to balance of payments equilibrium (Bote 1994); along with
the consolidation of its leading position among the international desti-
nation countries. However, this reasoning is clearly biased, since the
perversion of the scale game offers an enviable national macroecon-
omic panorama, which is also projected in the economic growth of
tourism areas, but also hides regional and local socioeconomic and
environmental imbalances that, apart from other negative effects, can
jeopardize the viability of the industry in the future. The evolution of
tourism policy and planning in Spain may be divided into five distinct
phases (Table 2), taking into account the changes operating in the
political and socioeconomic context, in the evolution of the industry,
in the policy objectives and in the planning approaches.
Indicative Planning (1959–1974). It is closely associated with the end
of the Franco regime’s economic autarchy and the progressive open-
ing-up to international markets, which materialize in the 1959 Stabiliz-
ation Plan. Three successive four-year Planes de Desarrollo Económico y
Social (Economic and Social Development Plans) were implemented
between 1964 and 1975 with clearly macroeconomic and sectorial aims
in search of higher effectiveness and productivity of the economic sys-
tem (Richardson 1976), to the detriment of a better growth distri-
bution. The policy of industrial development poles, based on the
theory of cumulative polarization, favored rural exodus and created
regional imbalances in Spain. It was an authoritarian, centralized kind
of scheme with an expectable democratic deficit and insufficient
decentralization, an aspect that might have helped to improve plan-
ning effectiveness. Another basic deficiency lay in its technocratic nat-
ure and the subsequent “lack of discussion of the great alternatives
from really representative sectorial and regional instances” (Tamames
1978:485). The same as in other economic sectors, what indicative
planning had to achieve was the maximum possible growth of the tour-
ism industry within a framework characterized by speculation and
a high degree of administrative permissiveness (Cals 1974). The
320 TOURISM PLANNING

Table 2. Phases of Tourism Planning in Spain

1959–1974: Indicative Integration of tourism into State indicative planning. Lack

planning in a centralized of regional- and local-scale planning. The growth of supply
State is favored despite serious infrastructure deficits and high
environmental costs. Land use and Town planning is
subordinated to tourism growth (Boosterism approach).
1975–1982: Guiding An unsuccessful attempt is made to link land use and
plans in the transition tourism planning. Non-compulsory tourism planning.
towards a decentralized Guiding plans contained recommendations not
system implemented. Provincial-scale plans are prepared that can
be methodologically attributed to the physical approach,
but without a real application.
1982–1989: State’s Central Administration-promoted plans are replaced with
withdrawal and first specific studies (statistics, marketing, etc.). White Books
regional Plans are developed in Catalonia and the Balearics that help
design the first regional tourist policy. Urban growth
under local control thanks to municipal autonomy laws.
1989–1993: Reaction Reactive plans in which the loss of competitiveness drives
plans and structural the strategic planning approach. The Mediterranean
adjustment policies regions with a greater specialization in tourism develop
strategic plans with a sectorial approach. The legal basis to
link tourism and territorial planning in the regional scale
is created but not implemented. Start of planning within
the European regional policy (1989–1993 EC Support
Framework).
From 1994: Regional Regional and subregional planning instruments are
Planning formalized in regulated in tourism laws, but their elaboration takes
Autonomous Tourism considerably long. Tourism plans are differently linked to
Laws land use and town planning depending on the
Autonomous Communities, but few planning initiatives
have been developed. Rise in value of the local scale with
interadministrative cooperation (Excellence and
Dynamization Plans). On the theoretical level,
reinterpretation of the physical approach with the
incorporation of sustainable development principles.

existence of both enormous environmental costs and clear deficiencies

in terms of public infrastructures was assumed.
The planning developed during this period would form part of the
boosterism approach. The industry became an instrument at the ser-
vice of the state’s economic interests and of the new opening-up image
the regime intended to transmit. Tourism policy was conditioned by
the emphasis laid on promotion and by a contradictory intervention
(Bote and Marchena 1996) which, for instance, resulted in a detailed
administrative regulation of the supply, the level of application of
which was quite low. The financial resources allocated to tourism in
state budgets and the development plans were very limited, a circum-
stance made even worse in the latter, with a level of public investment
scheme execution that only reached about 50% in the II and III Planes
de Desarrollo (Figuerola 1999).
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 321

Land-use and town-planning regulations were never a priority in the

described context. The Ley Sobre Régimen del Suelo y Ordenación Urbana
(Law governing Land-Use and Urban Town-Planning) of 1956 came
to be seen as a hindrance to the longed for economic growth, and at
destinations it was practically impossible to reconcile the rationality of
town-planning with an unstoppable, spectacular process of urban and
tourism development. The local society, which generally depended on
a weak economic structure based on the primary sector, perceived the
urban growth associated with tourism as a source of wealth and pros-
perity.
The Ley de Centros o Zonas de Interés Turı́stico Nacional (Law of Centers
and Areas of National Tourist Interest) of 1963 subordinated town-
planning to tourism-related interests. Although the preamble of the
Law Act refers to the existence of such problems as saturation and
infrastructure shortages, its enforcement did not help to palliate those
very early structural imbalances. Just the opposite, it meant a sectorial
interference in town-planning that encouraged the growth in the
building sector without paying any attention whatsoever to its spatial
repercussions (De Terán 1982).
Unlike what happened in regional spaces planned ex novo along the
coastlines of the Black Sea or the Languedoc-Roussillon (Cazes, Lan-
quar and Raynouard 1980), a small-scale laissez-faire strategy was
developed in Spain, adapted to the economic exploitation of tourism
by the central state, to the above-mentioned contradictory inter-
ventionism, to the expansive context of the demand, to the lack of
financial resources for great investment and to the development of a
system where speculation was of paramount importance. Thus, growth
processes were generated that became clearly profitable for the most
experienced agents, who did not have to internalize the environmental
and socioeconomic costs of their real estate-tourism operations, and
for Public Administrations, which postponed sine die the creation of
those infrastructures and services not seen as strictly necessary to
attract a demand (these still have a low level of exigency).
Guiding Plans in the Transition Period (1975–1982). The process of
political transition to democracy after Franco’s death in 1975, along
with the delayed effects of the 1973 oil crisis on the reduction of the
number of international tourists, provoked uncertainty at the begin-
ning of this period. But this perception disappeared when it was
noticed that tourism was growing within a context of recession and that
it was far from being an ephemeral fad (Bote and Marchena 1996).
Nevertheless, planning was still relegated to the background in tourism
policy and public management. During this period of transition
towards a higher degree of decentralization, plans were study docu-
ments rather than instruments for direct implementation.
The Tourist Administration created two kinds of plans, both on a
provincial scale: The Plan de Aprovechamiento de Recursos Turı́sticos (Plan
for the Exploitation of Tourist Resources), in which the most relevant
aspects are the inventory and assessment of resources, and which is
specially designed for inland provinces with limited tourism develop-
ment; and the Plan de Ordenación de la Oferta Turı́stica (Plan for the
322 TOURISM PLANNING

Regulation of the Tourism Supply), designed for coastal provinces with

a long tradition in this industry. Being aware that structural problems
required solutions deriving from land-use and town-planning policies,
both plans had, in addition to their sectorial character, a clear terri-
torial dimension (the needs in terms of basic infrastructures, the pro-
tection of areas of natural interest, the identification of saturated areas
and those with a potential for tourism development, etc.).These instru-
ments were in fact conceived as a link between tourism and town-plan-
ning policies, although this link was more theoretical than real. The
regulations in tourism plans were not incorporated into town-planning
schemes; they were merely recommendatory and thus never became
binding.
The methodological approach behind both plans is comparable to
the physical approach. There was a recognition of the environmental
basis and of the need to rationalize land uses through a suitable spatial
distribution of economic activities. However, the distribution of powers
and the lack of trust between tourism and town-planning authorities,
especially after the Ley de Centros of 1963, was implemented as a mech-
anism of exceptionality to territorial legislation, and led to a lack of
understanding as a result of which tourism plans were nothing but
mere theoretical exercises. The real planning must be found in the
statutory town-planning schemes that had to be approved by the town
councils and were still at the service of a disproportionate growth of
the real estate-tourist supply in the stretches of coast most coveted by
international demand.
The Emergence of the First Regional Plans (1982–1989). Institutional with-
drawal resulted both from the transfer of powers and from the prin-
ciples that were going to guide the socialist government’s tourism pol-
icy during this period. That policy materialized in a reorganization
of the State Tourism Administration, which reduced its administrative
relevance, in the privatization of public enterprises (ENTURSA or
Viajes Marsans), and in the reduction of the budget allocation (Bote
and Marchena 1996; Figuerola 1993). The functions that could be
assimilated to planning confined themselves to specific studies about
certain segments (golf tourism, snow tourism, etc.) or contexts that
apply to more than one autonomous community (Pilgrims’ Road to
Santiago de Compostela) (Costa and Jiménez 1999).
In the exercise of their newly assumed powers, autonomous com-
munities developed the first planning processes on a regional scale.
In 1983, Catalonia prepared a Libro Blanco (White Book) (Miguelsanz
1983) that contained a definition of the guidelines for the earliest
regional tourism policy. In 1987, the Balearic Islands autonomous com-
munity undertook the task of preparing a Libro Blanco (Aguiló 1987)
which also helped in the design of the policy to be applied by the
newly created Consejerı́a de Turismo de Baleares (Tourism Department of
the Balearics), the only Spanish region until then that had a depart-
ment exclusively dedicated to tourism. These were analysis documents
which aimed at leaving behind the ignorance of impacts the industry
has on the regional system and which logically appeared in two com-
munities with a clear specialization in tourism and a marked regional
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 323

identity. Both Libros Blancos present a comprehensive, multidisciplinary

approach that provides important contributions both to the knowledge
of tourism from a regional perspective and to the definition of a spe-
cific policy adapted to the needs of each autonomous community.
From the 80s onwards, the assumption of powers by autonomous
communities in the fields of town-planning and land use gave rise to
regional laws which created new planning instruments of great interest
for tourism. The regulations derived from the consolidation of a
decentralized politico-administrative system provided new interesting
possibilities for a type of planning which could help solve the structural
problems of tourism in Spain in mature areas and foster a diversifi-
cation of products and spaces. However, directive planning showed an
evident weakness due to the delay in its elaboration and execution and
the still unclear distribution of powers among the central state, the
autonomous communities, and the municipalities.
In the late 80s, municipal autonomy was recognized within a wide
range of powers including tourism and town-planning. At the same
time, the principles were laid down for local administrations’ economic
self-sufficiency. In accordance with the municipal level’s historical
importance in the creation of the Spanish urban regulations, local
schemes became the key link in the whole town-planning system
(Ezquiaga 1994). Local plans could be approved even if no directive
regional planning existed, but urban development required the exist-
ence of a previous local-scale plan. Furthermore, municipal autonomy
has been very zealously applied, above all in those tourism munici-
palities that have experienced higher urban growth levels. This means
that the functions of the control of local authorities in town-planning
matters which can legally be exerted by regional governments are far
from relevant. Only on very few occasions do they contravene the fun-
damental elements in local policies, which generally favor urban
growth.
Reaction Plans (1989–1993). During the late 80s, the reflection of a
certain stagnation of the tourism indicators that had traditionally
shown an uninterrupted growth (international tourists, overnight stays
in hotels, and tourism-related revenues) caused a reaction by the Admi-
nistración Turı́stica del Estado (State Tourism Administration) that
materialized in the drawing-up of the Libro Blanco del Turismo Español
(White Book of Spanish Tourism) (Secretarı́a General de Turismo
1990). This document explicitly recognized the existence of a new pol-
icy framework after the creation of the Estado de las Autonomı́as (State
of the Autonomous Communities) and was the immediate precedent
for the 1992 Plan Marco de Competitividad del Turismo Español or
FUTURES (Master Competitiveness Plan for Spanish Tourism)
(Ministerio de Comercio y Turismo 1994). This plan opened a new
stage of tourism policy in which the state redefined its role within an
institutional discourse that intended to consolidate a system of coordi-
nation and cooperation between the different administrations. The
FUTURES plan became the catalyst of this change encouraging the
design of specific plans for the 1992–1995 period, favoring cooperation
through actions financed jointly by the different administrations and
324 TOURISM PLANNING

fostering the participation of public and private agents. The plan was
a reflection of the third generation of tourism policies, according to
Fayos’ classification (1996), where competitiveness turned out to be a
key element for tourism management.
The FUTURES plan formed part of the structural adjustment theory
(Bote and Marchena 1996) which focused on the adaptation of Spain’s
supply to the structural changes caused by the market that jeopardized
the competitiveness of the country’s tourism industry. However, this
objective seems to have been far-fetched considering the scant econ-
omic funds allocated and the way those funds were mainly oriented to
promotional activities. Despite this circumstance, the state apparently
capitalized the reaction before the situation of recession creating
national schemes that ensured it a starring role in tourism policy and
consolidating an administrative action structure that was later main-
tained in the FUTURES II plan (1996–1999) and the Plan Integral de
Calidad del Turismo Español (2000–2006) (PICTE) (Comprehensive
Spanish Tourism Quality Plan) (Dirección General de Turismo 2000).
The recession period not surprisingly affected regions specializing in
coastal tourism. The economic dependence of island areas on tourism,
along with their environmental fragility, justified the decision taken by
the Balearic and Canary Islands to link tourism planning with land-
use regulations, with instruments that, except for the island of Lanzar-
ote, were not going to be used until the second half of the 90s and
even then only on certain islands. The three main Mediterranean com-
munities in the Iberian Peninsula embarked upon planning processes
characterized by a sectorial orientation that aimed to adapt to the
structural changes operating in the market, despite the fact that their
respective legislations allowed them to link tourism with territorial
planning. This latter possibility was in fact widely believed to be the
best way to solve problems related to infrastructures and space conges-
tion and to control the often disproportionate growth of tourism
municipalities.
Finally, this period witnessed the start of the planning model derived
from Spain’s entry into the European Union with the preparation of
the 1989–1993 Plan de Desarrollo Regional (Regional Development Plan)
for Objective-1 regions and the 1989–1993 Plan Regional de Reconversión
Regional y Social (Regional Plan for Regional and Social Restructuring)
for Objective-2 regions. These plans made possible the application of
European Structural Funds to tourism in Spain and implied the defi-
nition of a regional development strategy where special attention was
paid to tourism, both in those autonomous communities in which it
had a strategic role and in others where it was perceived as an emerg-
ent industry (Ivars 2001). Essential objectives included taking advan-
tage of tourism growth expectations, the valuation of non-exploited
resources, the contribution made by new products to territorial rebal-
ance and finally, the incorporation of tourism into local development
strategies both in rural and urban milieus.
Planning in Autonomous Communities’s Laws (from 1994). Once the
recession context was left behind, tourism clearly recovered in the 90s
(3.9% average annual growth in arrivals all through this decade). This,
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 325

among other factors, was due to the renewed dynamism of inter-

national markets, the growth of domestic demand, and the devaluation
of the peseta in 1993. The return of a situation of expansion was fol-
lowed by a progressive diversification and spatial spread of tourism in
Spain that strengthened its role in regional development strategies. It
is illustrative that growth rates in the creation of hotel beds reached
their most positive variations in inland communities like Castilla-La
Mancha and Extremadura, above 80%, in the 1985–1998 period. All
autonomous communities reinforced the position of tourism in their
administrative structure and increased budget allocations dedicated to
it, while at the same time autonomous laws of tourism were approved
that revised, updated, and adapted the state (national) regulations in
accordance with their own needs. The regional level consolidated as
the fundamental context for Spanish tourism policy as far as policy
design and execution are concerned, within a general framework of
collaboration and cooperation with the central state and the munici-
palities. The powers assumed by the latter also turned them into
extremely important decision and management bodies, whose auto-
nomy even allowed them to condition regional policies and define
their own strategic orientation.
After the passing of the first law of tourism in the Basque Country
in 1994, all autonomous communities currently have their own laws.
Among their basic contents is the creation of tourism planning instru-
ments on a regional and subregional scale. This new legal corpus
undoubtedly means a boost to regional planning, although its rel-
evance must be judged with caution, taking into account the delay in
the preparation of the plans (more than five years in some
communities) or the mimetic reproduction of some instruments in
different laws, in which no real interest is taken in their development.
In general, these laws defend plans of a sectorial nature but do not
renounce the intervention in the territorial side of tourism, an aspect
that is beyond their context of powers. An attempt was made to solve
this problem by connecting the industry with territorial planning
instruments, but this was done in a vague, unconvincing way and with-
out creating the required coordination mechanisms between adminis-
trations with powers in tourism and land-use matters. The legal corpus
unanimously recognizes the territorial dimension of tourism and the
need to include it in planning processes. Nevertheless, the relationship
between it and territorial plans can be summarized in three models.
The first one integrates tourism into territorial planning, in such a
way that regional instruments become binding for local plans. It
includes mainland regions like Catalonia, the two island autonomous
communities (the Balearics and the Canaries), where environmental
fragility, the existence of mature destination areas and economic
dependence on tourism, justify the adoption of policies designed to
achieve a greater environmental preservation level. In the Balearics,
regional plans are oriented toward supply quality and the limitation
of urban-tourism growth, increasing the surface of protected natural
areas, reducing pressure on the countryside with stricter conditions for
building initiatives, and developing programs for the restructuring of
326 TOURISM PLANNING

saturated coastal spaces. The Balearics have been at the forefront of

protectionist policies, the most significant example of which is the
application of an environmental tax on tourists’ overnight stays. The
government of the Canary Islands, despite interesting planning experi-
ences like that developed in Lanzarote’s Biosphere Reserve (Prats
1995), has not reacted so quickly. In 2003, and with the consensus of
all political groups, the Guidelines for General and Tourism Planning
for the Canaries have been approved. Among other measures, these
guidelines envisage a moratorium on the creation of tourism places.
The policies adopted in both archipelagos tend to converge in their
conservationist orientation. There is still significant margin for growth,
though, as is reported by Rullan (1999) for the Balearic Islands, and
inferred from the application rules for the Canary Islands’ guidelines.
The second model partially integrates territorial with tourism plan-
ning. It is the case of Andalusia, where the autonomous community
can declare Preferential Tourist Action Areas with a specific land use
and town planning, and an adapted investment scheme. In the third
model, tourism and territorial planning are independent. Plans only
have a guiding value for regional- and local-scale territorial schemes,
an insufficient link considering the huge importance of tourism’s terri-
torial dimension. This option has been chosen by Mediterranean
autonomous communities like Valencia and Murcia, inland regions
(Madrid, Castilla y León, or Navarre) and Atlantic communities
(Cantabria).

General Overview of Regional Tourism Planning

Regional plans do not form a logical, continuous sequence, within
the autonomous policy. There is not a clear, well-thought succession
of plans, with the exception of the specific marketing strategies that
guide the promotional side of autonomous tourism policy, which is still
the most important in regional tourism administrations. Therefore, the
policies of autonomous communities are not systematically based on
regional plans. Besides, the recovery of the expansive situation leads
to a certain relaxation in the regional planning of Mediterranean pen-
insular Communities, which again clearly contrasts with the application
of interesting initiatives that relate tourism and land-use regulations in
the islands, and with the multiplication of plans in emergent inland
peninsular regions as well as those located on the Atlantic coast.
Progressive Integration of Planning into Management. The proliferation
of planning initiatives does not necessarily lead to improved manage-
ment. There exists the problem of lack of execution of the plans, which
had already been detected on an international scale by Pearce (1989),
to which must be added the discontinuity of regional planning in
Spain, closely linked with political swings that have serious effects on
the preparation and execution of the plans, and with the very concep-
tion of the role planning has in tourism public management. However,
the contribution made by planning to this qualitative improvement
is undeniable.
The lack of a theoretical basis in this area has been largely made up
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 327

for with the guidelines resulting from the plans, some of which have
represented a real reference point for public management at all
administrative levels. The progressive consolidation of a relatively
advanced management culture owes much to documents such as the
Libro Blanco del Turismo Español (1990), the FUTURES plan (1992), the
DIA (1993) or the PICTE (2000). On the other hand, regional planning
is a powerful instrument to guide and qualify the tourism policy of
other administrations, among which stand out, for their permanent
relevance, local administrations.
Methodological Progress and Problems. The deficiencies attributed to
planning in Spain cannot be due to a deficit in scientific-technical
knowledge. Since the 70s, satisfactory methodologies have existed like
that proposed by Hiriart (1978) that can be compared with the best-
known and valued ones on an international basis like the PASOLP
(Product’s Analysis Sequence for Outdoor Leisure Planning) model
by Baud-Bovy and Lawson (1998). The causes have to be found more
in the political dimension of planning and in the failure to fit the plans
within the current politico-administrative framework in order to make
them really operative.
Suffering from a limited application capacity, plans could be assimi-
lated to the physical-spatial approach, until in the 90s, when strategic
planning, and gradually that for a sustainable tourism, became consoli-
dated. However, the adjectives “strategic” and “sustainable” correspond
to the form rather than to the content, since they are not always
accompanied by the criteria and methods typical of these approaches.
The strategic approach is clearly oriented towards the field of mar-
keting, but is also commonly used in destination planning. The basic
principles of the strategic approach can be improved in regional plans,
especially in aspects like the analysis of the competitive environment,
which is generally too generic and little adapted to regional needs;
the use of foresight and prospective techniques, which is practically
anecdotal; or the need for a greater emphasis on social participation,
still symbolic and too selective.
The paradigm of sustainability has settled vigorously in the political
discourse. It is a hackneyed reference but hardly leads to specific
achievements. The principles of this approach are better recognized
in local plans associated with Agendas 21, the most outstanding
example of which is the experience carried out at the municipality of
Calvià in Majorca. On a regional scale, the initiatives that can be assimi-
lated to this paradigm have to be found in the convergence of land-
use regulations and tourism planning in certain islands of the Balearics
and the Canaries.
Among the most outstanding methodological breakthroughs is the
improvement in the analysis of tourism competitiveness following M.
Porter’s postulates. This becomes obvious in the Libro Blanco del Tur-
ismo Español (1990) or the study carried out by Monitor Company for
Catalonia (1992); the growing social participation and the encourage-
ment of agreed plans, the most significant example of which is the
Andalusian DIA Plan; or the progress made in the field of research on
tourism products and markets. Similarly, the improvements introduced
328 TOURISM PLANNING

in statistical information systems, both on a national and a regional

scale, offer a fundamental support for new possibilities in the analysis
of the industry. The collaboration between universities and regional
departments has been particularly fruitful in some autonomous com-
munities like the Balearics or Asturias. However, although there is a
rapprochement between research and planning activity, this is not
widespread and still nowhere near to becoming the systemic model
put forward by Getz (1986), in which both processes generate synergies
that feed back to each other.
Limited Development of Legal Instruments. The passing of autonomous
laws has represented an important boost to regional planning. All the
laws contain instruments with different approaches, the only exception
being the Castilla-La Mancha law. Nevertheless, even if one accepts the
long maturation period required by a regional planning process, the
reality is very far from the possibilities offered by the legal framework.
In general, the autonomous communities show a clear sluggishness, if
not lack of interest, in the preparation and implementation of plan-
ning instruments, and in the actual juridical development of tourism
laws, often necessary for the materialization of some specific planning
figures. This situation generates reasonable doubts about the real will
to undertake planning processes or, at least, to give them a boost in
a relatively short time.
On the other hand, the legislating effort seems to lead to a type of
planning which requires a complex administrative process, as becomes
evident in the figures created for a subregional scale. A very clearly
administration-oriented perspective is adopted, not agile enough in
consolidated or emergent destinations. Before an administration
declares an area saturated or due for preferential tourism use in order
to start the planning process through a legally pre-established mech-
anism, there is an urgent need for flexible, participative planning pro-
cesses that can help channel the endogenous potential of coastal,
urban, or rural districts. Some examples seem to verify the need to
apply a type of planning where the commitment of parties concerned
is more important than the legal imperative: the organization of rural
tourism in Navarre through consortia that include the different stake-
holders committed to local development; the strategic planning in
large cities like Barcelona, associated with a very significant event like
the 1992 Olympic Games and important urban renewal and redesign
operations; or the implementation of the Agenda 21 in Calvià, a
mature destination in Mallorca that was awarded the European
Environmental Prize in 1997.
Progress in Planning Scale Articulation. The willingness to achieve a
coordinated policy in a decentralized context is put to the test in the
degree of articulation between plans with different scales. The refram-
ing of the role played by the central state in tourism after the recession
period of the late 80s and early 90s entailed the design of national
plans with contents in which the government still participates, in coor-
dination with the autonomous communities, and with funds coming,
in part, from the European Union. These are plans that mainly focus
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 329

on assignations, in which economic incentives are given to actions

based on certain program.
The PICTE, like the FUTURES plans preceding it, has meant a
revaluation of the local planning scale through the Planes de Excelencia
y Dinamización (Excellence and dynamization plans). The former are
addressed to mature coastal or urban destinations. They have as their
main objectives to qualify and diversify the products in the destination
in order to avoid problems of overcrowding and seasonality. In turn,
dynamization plans are applied to emergent areas with the purpose
of creating competitive products within the parameters of sustainable
development. In both plans, the funding is divided into three equal
parts, corresponding to the state, the autonomous community, and the
municipality or municipalities benefiting from the plan.
Both initiatives have fostered the application of planning instru-
ments that guide the restructuring processes affecting mature desti-
nations and the development of emergent areas; they have encouraged
public-and-private-sector collaboration in the local context and have
boosted the co-responsibility principle in the intervention of the differ-
ent administrative levels and that of “additionality” in the allocation
and use of economic resources. But the scope of these plans has been
limited by the uneven application of their guiding principles (in many
cases, sustainability has been nothing but a rhetorical artifice), and by
the insufficient economic resources that make it difficult to undertake
initiatives providing structural solutions.
Integrated, Sectorial or Coordinated Tourism Planning? The transversality
of tourism and the significance of its territorial dimension justify the
application of an integrated approach to destination planning. How-
ever this logical approach does not fit the current distribution of pow-
ers and the real administrative practice, which is zealously compart-
mentalized in the different competency areas.
Theoretical approaches must not be far from the current politico-
administrative framework. An integrated approach to the planning
dependent on the tourism administration is now only possible as a
voluntarist exercise. The determinations of plans around the need to
boost land use planning and to give a new orientation to town-planning
are legitimate but do not fit within their powers. Thus, for example,
tourism plans often contain proposals that are hardly viable because
they involve various administration departments which, on many
occasions, have not even participated in the preparation of the plan.
A comprehensive approach to planning also entails proposals of great
importance, including building basic infrastructures or town-planning
compensations, which are far beyond the possibilities of the budgets
available to tourism administrations. It is surprising to see that regional
plans contain measures that have not been contrasted with the current
politico-administrative framework and the possibilities they offer or
that, depending on other sectorial areas, no coordination mechanisms
are envisaged for their implementation.
330 TOURISM PLANNING

CONCLUSION
Regional tourism planning in Spain plays an essential role in estab-
lishing the basis for a progressive spatial spread of the industry and
the diversification of the national model. Other factors that have
helped this process are the market’s evolution itself, which favors the
appearance of new products in geographical environments other than
coastal areas; the consolidation of regional and local policies in the
context of administrative decentralization, in which tourism has been
considered a prime industry in economic restructuring processes; the
growth of domestic demand; the rise in value of underused tourism
resources; the improvement of communications infrastructures; or the
contributions of the EU structural policies.
However, greater contributions from planning can be foreseen. To
achieve this aim, it is necessary to make more agile the processes of
preparation and passing of tourism and land-use plans; to design effec-
tive coordination mechanisms among the different administrations so
that their actions or initiatives can follow with the integrated, multidi-
mensional and sustainable approach required by the industry; to
improve the plan scale articulation, above all at subregional and local
levels, with the aim of rationalizing the actions undertaken by munici-
palities sharing the same tourism district; and above all, to consolidate,
once and for all, the importance of planning in tourism policy and
public management, going beyond the rhetorical institutional declar-
ations and the proliferation of legal instruments with few chances of
real implementation.왎 A

Acknowledgements—This contribution is an adapted, revised part of the author’s doctoral

thesis, grant-aided by the Spanish government (Secretarı́a General de Turismo), inte-
grated into the Research Project “Planning and Management of Sustainable Tourism.
Methodological Proposal and Application of a Tourist Information System” (1FD97-
0403), co-funded by the Interdepartmental Commission of Science and Technology
(Spain) and the European Commission (ERDF).

REFERENCES
Aguiló, E.
1987 Llibre Blanc del Turisme a les Balears. Palma de Mallorca: Govern. Bale-
ar.
1998 Polı́tica turı́stica. In Economı́a y polı́tica regional en España ante la Eur-
opa del siglo XXI, J. Mella, ed., pp. 445–460. Barcelona: Akal.
Ansoff, H.
1988 The New Corporate Strategy. New York: Wiley.
Baud-Bovy, M., and F. Lawson
1998 Tourism and Recreation. Handbook of Planning and Design. (2nd ed).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Borja, J., and M. Castells
1997 Local y global. La gestión de las ciudades en la era de la información.
Madrid: Taurus.
Bote, V.
1994 Turismo y Desarrollo Económico en España: del Insuficiente Reconocim-
iento a la Revalorización de su Función Estratégica. Papers de Turisme 6(14-
15):117–129.
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 331

Bote, V., and M. Marchena

1996 Polı́tica turı́stica. In Introducción a la Economı́a del Turismo en España,
A. Pedreño, ed., pp. 295–326. Madrid: Editorial Civitas.
Burns, P.
1999 Paradoxes in Planning. Tourism Elitism or Brutalism?. Annals of Tourism
Research 26:329–348.
Butler, R.
1993 An Evolutionary Perspective. In Tourism and Sustainable Development:
Monitoring, Planning, Managing, J. Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall, eds., pp.
27–43. Waterloo: University of Waterloo.
Cals, J.
1974 Turismo y polı́tica turı́stica en España. Una aproximación. Barcelona:
Ariel.
Cazes, G., R. Lanquar, and Y. Raynouard
1980 L’aménagement touristique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Coccossis, H.
1996 Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implications. In Sustainable
Tourism? European Experiencies, G. Priestley, J. Edwards and H. Coccossis,
eds., pp. 1–21. Wallingford: CAB International.
Costa, A., and J. Jiménez
1999 Turismo y urbanismo. In 50 años del turismo español. Un análisis his-
tórico y estructural, F. Bayón, ed., pp. 465–486. Madrid: Editorial Centro de
Estudios Ramón Areces S.A. & Escuela Oficial de Turismo.
de Kadt, E., ed.
1979 Tourism: Passport to Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Terán, M.
1982 Planeamiento urbano en la España contemporánea (1900/1980). Mad-
rid: Alianza Universidad.
Diamantis, D., and A. Ladkin
2000 The Links between Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism: A Definitional
and Operational Perspective. The Journal of Tourism Studies 10:35–46.
Dirección General de Turismo
2000 Plan Integral de Calidad del Turismo Español (PICTE, 2000).
<www.mcx.es/turismo/>
Dredge, D.
1999 Planificación y diseño de destinos turı́sticos. Annals of Tourism Research
en Español 1:394–414.
Ezquiaga, J.
1994 El planeamiento municipal. In La práctica del planeamiento urbanı́stico,
L. Moya, ed., pp. 69–137. Madrid: Ed. Sı́ntesis.
Figuerola, M.
1993 Polı́tica de turismo. In Polı́tica económica de España, L. Gámir, ed., pp.
405–422. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
1999 La transformación del turismo en un fenómeno de masas. La planifica-
ción indicativa (1950–1974). In Historia de la Economı́a del Turismo en
España, C. Pellejero, ed., pp. 77–134. Madrid: Civitas Ediciones.
Fayos, E.
1996 La nueva polı́tica turı́stica. In Arquitectura y turismo: planes y proyectos,
R. Barba and R. Pié, eds., pp. 59–70. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Cat-
alunya.
Getz, D.
1986 Models in Tourism Planning. Towards Integration of Theory and Prac-
tice. Tourism Management 7:21–32.
1987 Tourism Planning and Research: Traditions, Models and Futures. Paper
presented at the Australian Travel Research Workshop, Bunbury, November.
Gunn, C.
1994 Tourism Planning. Washington DC: Taylor & Francis.
Hall, C.
1994 Tourism and Politics. Chichester: Wiley.
2000 Tourism Planning. Policies, Processes and Relationships. Essex: Pren-
tice Hall.
332 TOURISM PLANNING

Hiriart, R.
1978 Guı́a metodológica para la planificación turı́stica integrada a escala
regional. Estudios Turı́sticos 59-60:203–224.
Inskeep, E.
1991 Tourism Planning. An Integrated and Sustainable Development
Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Instituto de Estudios Turı́sticos
2001 El turismo español en cifras. Año 2000. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios
Turı́sticos.
Ivars, J.
2001 La planificación turı́stica de los espacios regionales en España. PhD the-
sis, University of Alicante.
López, F., and F. Vera
2001 Espacios y destinos turı́sticos. In Geografı́a de España, A. Gil and J.
Gómez, eds., pp. 545–571. Barcelona: Ariel.
Miguelsanz, A.
1983 Llibre Blanc del Turisme a Catalunya. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalun-
ya.
Ministerio de Comercio y Turismo
1994 Plan Marco de Competitividad del Turismo Español (Plan FUTURES).
Madrid: Ministerio de Comercio y Turismo.
Monitor Company
1992 Reforzamiento de la ventaja competitiva del sector turı́stico en Cataluña:
Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Consum, Comerç i Tur-
isme.
Monfort, V., and J. Ivars
2001 Towards a Sustained Competitiveness of Spanish Tourism. In Mediter-
ranean Tourism. Facets of Socioeconomic Development and Cultural Change,
Y. Apostolopoulos, Ph. Loukissas and L. Leontidu, eds., pp. 17–38. London:
Routledge.
Murphy, P.
1985 Tourism. A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.
Naredo, J.
1996 Sobre el origen, el uso y el contenido del término sostenible. Documenta-
ción Social 102:129–147.
Pearce, D.
1989 Tourist Development. (2nd ed.) London: Longman.
1996 Regional Tourist Organizations in Spain: Emergence, Policies and Conse-
quences. Tourism Economics 2:119–136.
1997 Tourism and the Autonomous Communities in Spain. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:156–177.
Porter, M.
1982 Estrategia competitiva. México: CECSA.
Prats, F.
1995 Turismo, Territorio y Medioambiente: El caso del Plan Insular de Lanzar-
ote. In Conferencia Mundial de Turismo Sostenible: Cabildo de Lanzarote.
Richardson, H.
1976 Polı́tica y planificación del desarrollo regional en España. Madrid: Ali-
anza Editorial.
Rullan, O.
1999 Crecimiento y polı́tica territorial en las Islas Baleares (1955–2000). Estu-
dios Geográficos 236:403–442.
Secretarı́a General de Turismo
1990 Secretarı́a General de Turismo Libro Blanco del Turismo Español. Mad-
rid: Secretarı́a General de Turismo.
Smith, S.
1989 Tourism Analysis. A Handbook. Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Smith, V.
1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Pennsylvania: Univer-
sity of Philadelphia.
 JOSEP IVARS BAIDAL 333

Tamames, R.
1978 Introducción a la economı́a española. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Tosun, C., and C. Jenkins
1998 The Evolution of Tourism Planning in Third-World Countries: A Cri-
tique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4:101–114.
Vázquez, A.
1993 Polı́tica económica local. Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide.
Vera, F., and M. Marchena
1998 Efectos del turismo en las estructuras regionales periféricas. Una aproxi-
mación analı́tica. Millars 21:109–144.
Vera, F., S. Anton, F. López, and M. Marchena
1997 Análisis territorial del turismo. Barcelona: Ariel.
WTO
1995a Agenda 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry. Madrid: World Tour-
ism Organization.
1995b The Charter for Sustainable Tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organi-
zation.
2002 Tourism Highlights. <www.world-tourism.org>

Submitted 18 October 2002. Resubmitted 19 June 2003. Accepted 5 September 2003. Final
version 16 September 2003. Coordinating Editor: Douglas G. Pearce