1
Managing Spain’s
Beaches */**
Dr. Josep-Francesc Valls, Full Professor, Department of
Marketing Management, ESADE-Universitat Ramón Llull
Josep Rucabado, Lecturer, Department of Information Systems,
ESADE- Universitat Ramón Llull
Dr. Rafael Sardá, researcher, CSIC *Spain’s National Research
Council), Blanes; Lecturer at ESADE
Antoni Parera, Assistant Researcher, ESADE
Barcelona, June 2013
*This study forms part of the project ”Methodologies and Knowledge for Validating an Integrated Model for
Managing Beaches as a GIZC Objective”, which falls under Spain’s 2012 National R&D Plan, drawn up by The
Ministry for the Economy and Competitiveness, in what have participate CSIC of Blanes and Girona University.
**The fieldwork was carried out with the support of FEMP [Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces].
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Beaches are natural systems subject to considerable human and climatic pressures. In
with other coastal systems, there are three interrelated factors at work: (1) bio-
physical processes (which condition ecosystem productivity); (2) socio-economic
aspects; (3) beach management (Fernandez, Mtsuda and Subade, 2000). Socio-cultural
and economic factors have greatly changed Spain’s beaches over the last fifty years
and are reflected in a big shift towards coastal settlement. Seaside tourism has placed
enormous pressures on both beaches and the coastline, spawning residential/holiday
housing, hotels and industry. There has been considerable population and economic
growth in coastal areas, with fishing, agriculture, mining, and tourism and leisure
activities having major impacts (Wesley and Pforr, 2010).
Spanish coasts in the second half of the 20th Century saw the biggest seasonal
migratory movement in history as tourists and others flocked to the seaside. Apart
from summer tourists, many settled along the coastline to work in service industries or
simply to live in sunnier climes. The trend continued into the first decade of the 21st
Century, with globalisation of the tourism industry exerting ever greater pressure on
coastal systems worldwide — especially in The Mediterranean and The Caribbean. This
pressure began to spill over into other coastal areas too.
After over fifty years of intensive management, Mediterranean beaches continue to be
the key tourism asset for Spanish seaside municipalities. There was no beach
management in the beginning but the tourism boom driven by international tour
agencies forced municipalities to bite the bullet. Beach management has now
3
improved to the point where the decisions taken by municipalities are of key
importance in Local Authority, Regional and Central Government planning.
Like other coastal systems, beaches play various socio-ecological roles, of which the
three most important are: (1) providing a source of biodiversity; (2) coastal
protection; (3) meeting leisure needs (Sardá et al., 2012). Nevertheless, many
municipalities limit their beach management to merely meeting leisure needs
whilst ignoring both biodiversity and coastal protection aspects. This is often
the case when management is carried out far from the site. The end result is
beach erosion, which is worsened by the impact of global warming (Eurosion,
2004). Over the last two decades, there have been rising demands for a greater
public say in how beaches are managed (James, 2000; Ariza et al., 2008, 2012).
“We understand governance to be the most appropriate model for policy-making in
which all public and private players have a role to play in decision-making” (Wesley
and Pforr, 2010; Thomson and Pforr, 2005; Mayntz, 2003). The purpose of policy-
making is to draw up a sustainable strategy that links policies affecting leisure and bio-
physical functions on the one hand and stakeholders on the other. To achieve this, five
principles must be adhered to (Milligan and O’Riordan, (2007; and Duxbury and
Dickinson, 2007):
living within environmental limits (which means taking carrying capacity into
account in assessing the vulnerability of natural systems). The aim here its to
ensure environmental resilience;
seeking a fair share-out of seaside riches;
attaining a sustainable economy based on integrating ecological, social and
economic information;
fostering good relations among all holiday destination stakeholders;
acting in an environmentally responsible manner.
Following such principles should ensure sustainable planning within an integrated-
governance framework and enhance the attractiveness of seaside resorts. The aim is
not only to improve beaches during the summer season but also throughout the year,
4
broadening the resort portfolio. Some municipalities are already trying to lessen the
summer influx by getting visitors to come at other times of the year and change how
they use and see beaches. This should be seen as part of a strategy for adding more
innovative cultural, leisure, and social products to the tourism portfolio. Maintaining
and improving bio-physical resources and innovating leisure aspects could turn
beaches into singular experiences attracting a new breed of tourist. This would foster
greater understanding of beaches and thus make them more attractive (Suvantola,
2002). Fifty years ago, North European tourists went on seaside package holidays to
The Mediterranean lasting 2-3 weeks. Now these seaside resorts provide a much wider
range of options and tourists may choose shorter holidays.
The study on The Governance of Spanish Beaches was carried out by ESADE Business
School faculty with the support of Spain’s Science Research Council (CSIC). It was
conducted as part of the project “Methods and Approaches for Validating a New
Integrated Model for Beach Management as GIZC Objective”, within the framework of
the 2010-2012 National R&D Plan promoted by the Ministry for the Economy and
Competitiveness. The findings are based on fieldwork covering 150 Spanish seaside
municipalities. The study was conducted with the support of Spain’s Federation of
Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) between February and April 2012.
2. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
The study set out to analyse the governance model used for Spanish beaches and took
various factors into account: (1) the quality of beach facilities and services; (2) the
variety of tourism products offered by the municipality; (3) the level of beach and
tourism strategic planning; (4) the degree of co-operation with other public
administrations and the private sector; (5) good governance practices.
In pursuing these research objectives, we drew on a wide range of secondary sources
and carried out fieldwork in Spanish seaside municipalities. The list of 439 seaside
municipalities was provided by the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces
(FEMP). The project team drew up a survey with 57 questions, some covering matters
of fact, others seeking views. The questionnaire was digitalised and placed on an
5
external questionnaire service in the Internet. The whole universe of municipalities
was contacted by e-mail and — where this drew a blank — by telephone. The
municipalities were given the web page address to fill in the questionnaire.
Respondents finding it difficult to reply by Internet were sent the questionnaire in PDF
format so that they could fill it in manually and return the completed document by e-
mail or fax. The questionnaire was administered between May and June 2012. The
factual questions covered the whole of 2011. During the five-month data-gathering
stage, we obtained 150 valid replies. The regional distribution and percentage of valid
replies are shown in the following table:
Sample by Spanish region (‘Autonomous Community’)
Universe Responses %
Basque Country 27 7 26%
Cantabria 21 6 29%
Asturias 19 9 47%
Galicia 72 19 26%
Andalusia 60 21 35%
Murcia 8 4 50%
Valencia 55 22 40%
Catalonia 69 35 51%
The Balearic Islands 36 9 25%
The Canary Islands 72 18 25%
Total 439 150 34%
One should note that the number of valid questionnaires was over a third of the
universe —which is much better than the average response rate for postal surveys.
However, given that the number of questionnaires was fairly low in absolute terms,
the confidence margin was correspondingly large — a point that should be borne in
mind when statistically interpreting the results. If one assumes the sample is genuinely
random (something that is not entirely clear) and taking a sample error of 5%, the 50%
confidence interval limit is calculated at ±6,5%.
6
No less than 35% of the questionnaires were completed by technical staff —most of
them working in departments responsible for the environment, tourism or beaches.
This figure rose to 41% if one adds questionnaires completed by municipal architects
and engineers. Almost a quarter (23%) of the questionnaires were answered by the
mayor or by the councillors in charge of the aforementioned departments. One can
therefore say that those responding to the questionnaire generally had the kind of
political and technical clout we sought.
With regard to the size of municipalities, almost half (47%) had populations in the
range 10,000 - 50,000, while 36% were smaller (split fairly equally between
municipalities with under 5,000 inhabitants and those with between 5,000 and
10,000).
After analysing these data, a set of indicators was constructed on the governance of
Spanish beaches. Crossing the data shed light on the various management models
used and may help improve beach management for other seaside resorts elsewhere in
Europe and further afield.
7
3. RESULTS
3.1. Beach facilities and services
Beach facilities were considered highly satisfactory by the overwhelming majority
(84%) of Spanish seaside municipalities (Table 1). The average scores given for beach
facilities and services were generally high, particularly with regard to:
Paper bins (4.41 on a scale of 1 to 5)
Showers and footbaths (4.38)
Red Cross First Aid services (4.35)
The following were given middling to high scores:
Information panels on beach uses (4.15)
Recycling containers (4.11)
Wooden boardwalks (4.08)
Restaurants and bars (3.96)
Facilities for the handicapped (3.95)
Benches (3.85)
8
Table 1: Municipal satisfaction with beach services
Table 2: Scores for the quality of facilities and services
Average
Paper bins 4.41
Showers and footbaths 4.38
Red Cross or other First Aid service 4.35
Information panels (for finding services, indicating
protected areas, etc.) 4.15
Recycling containers 4.11
Wooden boardwalks 4.08
Public toilets 4.05
Kiosks, beach bars 4.00
Restaurants, bars 3.96
Facilities for the handicapped (access and bathing
support: ‘ducking stool’ systems, P.A. systems, etc.) 3.95
Benches 3.85
Marquees, parasols, hammocks 3.66
Sports areas (beach volleyball, etc.) 3.59
Children’s play area 3.55
84%
12%
4%
Yes
No
N/A
9
Drinking fountains 3.43
Windsurf, jet ski, ‘pedalos’, kayaks, canoes, etc. 3.41
Portacabin toilets 3.38
Palm trees/shade 3.14
Telephones 3.06
Changing rooms 2.98
Area for rod fishing 2.86
Floating platforms 1.94
Similar results were found for security and beach-watch services. Flag warnings on sea
state scored 4.47. ). Life-saving posts and First Aid were scored 4.44, followed by buoy
markings for bathing areas (4.43) and beach watch towers (4.20). Lowest-scoring items
were: jetty buoys (3.31); P.A. warning systems (3,42); warnings of rough seas, jellyfish,
etc. (3.91); and beach ambulance (3.67) (Table 3)
Table 3: Scoring of beach watch and security
Average
Sea state signs (green flags, etc.) 4.47
Rescue and First Aid post 4.44
Buoy markings for bathing areas 4.43
Beach watch tower 4.20
Rescue launch 4.18
Signs indicating zones, and forbidden, restricted and
dangerous activities 4.06
Observation tower 4.01
Emergency planning 4.00
Signs regulating leisure craft and water sports 3.98
Warning signs (heavy seas, jellyfish, etc.) 3.91
Police services 3.84
Information board warning of permanent hazards (at each 3.71
10
beach access)
Ambulance 3.67
Emergency warning (P.A.) 3.42
Jetty buoy markings 3.31
With the exception of public transport (3.48), most aspects covering beach access and
car parks were rated very highly: pedestrian access to beaches (4.51); road access
(4.27); signs showing beach access routes (4.17); beach access for the handicapped
(4.14); car parks (4.05). (Table 4)
Table 4: Scoring of beach access and car parks
Average
Pedestrian access to beaches 4.51
Road access 4.27
Signs indicating how to get to beaches 4.17
Access for the handicapped (ramps) 4.14
Car parks 4.05
Public transport 3.48
Bicycle parks/racks 3.43
Nature protection got one of the lowest average scores. Municipalities with sand
dunes placed greater importance on removing rubbish from dunes (3.87) and on good
boardwalks (3.80), among other conservation measures. These municipalities were less
impressed by the measures taken to keep dunes tidy, cordon them off and to control
invasive species (scores of 3.87, 3.53 and 3.39, respectively). The same occurs with
those municipalities with ‘Places of Public Interest’ (LIC) — oyster beds, coral reefs,
small nature reserves and the like. One can say that much more effort is put into
grooming beaches for holidaymakers than into these other coastal resources. (Table 5)
Table 5: Scoring of nature conservation measures
11
Average
Cleaning dunes of rubbish 3.87
Boardwalks/paths for users 3.80
Cordoning off of dunes 3.53
Other aspects 3.50
Information boards setting out the importance of dune
conservation
3.41
Control of invasive species in dune areas 3.39
Dune restoration work 3.34
No less than 69.6% of Spanish seaside municipalities stated that their beaches are
losing sand. Of these, 46.0% have carried out regeneration work on top beaches over
the last twenty years; there has been less regeneration work on the remaining beaches
(39,0%). Municipalities were concerned that too little was being done to halt erosion
— clearly evidenced by the low score given (3.83 on a scale of 1 – 5), compared with
health-microbiological quality (4.76), landscape (4.64), the environmental quality of
the sand (4.56) and recycling containers (4.11). The dearth of interest in replacing
beach sand bears out the initial finding that recreational uses are given much higher
priority than either bio-diversity conservation or coastal protection.
With the exception of beach regeneration (3.83), items bearing on water quality were
given high scores (Table 6):
Microbiology (4.76)
Visual (4.64)
Environmental quality of sand (4.56)
Cleanness of sand, rubbish collection (4.50)
Beach improvement work (4.30)
12
Table 6: Scoring of beaches
Average
Health-microbiological water quality in bathing areas 4.76
Water clarity 4.64
Environmental quality of sand 4.56
Cleanness of sand, rubbish collection 4.50
Beach cleaning and improvement works 4.30
Beach regeneration 3.83
The high scores given for beach facilities were not based on quality certification
schemes. With the exception of the EU ‘Blue Flag’ scheme (68.7% of respondents said
their beaches had a ‘Blue Flag’), other major certificate were very thin on the ground
(Table 7):
ISO 14001 (32.0%)
Local Agency 21 (29.3%)
Q Tourism Quality (28.0%)
ISO 9001 (16.7%)
EMAS (12.7%)
After the EU ‘Blue Flag’ (held by most municipalities), there was a block with ISO
14001, Agenda 21 and Q for Quality (held by between 28 and 32% of surveyed
municipalities). Trailing a long way behind these were those with ISO 9011, EMAS and
others with much tougher standards (12.7 to 16.7% of surveyed municipalities).
Among the latter kind, one should mention the Ecoplayas [Eco-beaches Award]; the
SICTED integrated management system; the Qualitur award (Valencian region); and
the UNE 187001 and UNE 170001 norms.
Only 8% of municipalities held 5 certifications; 10%, 4; 9.3%, 3; and 28.0%, just 2.
13
Table 7: Quality certifications held by Spanish beaches
% Holding
certificate
EU ‘Blue Flag’ 68.7
ISO 14001 32.0
Agenda 21 29.3
Q Quality Tourism Certificate 28.0
ISO 9001 16.7
Other certifications 15.3
EMAS certification 12.7
Only 12% of municipalities were not proud of their beach facilities. Here, it is worth
noting the reasons given by this group of municipalities for not exploiting their beach
and coastal resources to the full. They were dissatisfied with the lack of financial
resources for doing so (4.45). The current economic crisis has severely cut the funding
many municipalities receive. Other reasons for their dissatisfaction were:
The scattering of powers among authorities (2.94)
Lack of information (2.05)
Poor internal organisation (1.78). (Table 8)
These four factors (financial resources, scattering of powers, lack of training and
organisational shortcomings) are reflecting in the sample results.
Table 8: Reasons why beach and coastal resources have not been exploited
Average
Lack of financial resources 4.45
Scattering of powers among public administrations 2.94
Lack of information 2.05
14
Other causes 1.88
Internal organisational shortcomings 1.78
15
3.2. Development of municipal beach management
Who carries out beach management in Spanish seaside municipalities? In some cases,
it falls to the Mayor’s Office (8.74% of the municipalities surveyed). The brunt of the
work is borne by departments for the Environment and Sustainability, Tourism,
Beaches and Coasts. However, other bodies also playing major roles include: The
Police; Governance; Civil Protection and Security; Services; Infrastructure; Public
Works and Services; Cleaning and Maintenance; Sports and Culture; Urban Planning.
The first part of the Table shows the main municipal departments responsible for
beach management. (Table 9)
Environment (30.7%)
Tourism (21.3%)
Beach/Coast (15.7%)
Mayor’s Office (8.7%)
Police, Governance, Civil Protection and Security (6.3%)
The second part of the Table shows the departments directly or indirectly involved in
each of the fields managing Spanish beaches:
Environment and Sustainability (55.9%)
Tourism (48.0%)
Police, Governance, Civil Protection and Security (38.4%)
Infrastructure, Works and Services (24.4%)
Beaches and Coasts (20.5%).
Comparing the percentages in the first and second sections, one should note the
leading role played by Police, Governance, Civil Protection and Security. Here, one can
say that beaches are treated as a Public Order issue because of the number of people
using them and the variety of uses to which they are put.
16
Table 9: Departments responsible for beach management
In addition to councillors’ offices and municipal departments, one should also note
that judicial bodies and municipal federations — as is the case in The Basque Country
— also assume management functions.
We have split the people involved in beach management into five categories: three are
permanent staff (Civil Servants, other employees and volunteers; two are seasonal
(other employees and volunteers). This is shown in Table 10:
Civil Servants: 17.3% of municipalities have no civil servants working on beach
management; 43.7% have just 1 or 2 civil servants performing this task; 26.4%,
between 3 and 5; and 12.3%, over 6.
Full-time staff: 14.6% have no permanent staff doing this job ; 35.9%, have
between 1 and 2; 26.8%, between 3 and 5; and 22.3%, over 6.
Full-time volunteers: 84.2% of municipalities have no full-time volunteers
working in this capacity; 5.2% have from 6 to 10.
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
Main Councillors’ office All Councillor offices
17
Additional labour: 17,2% of municipalities do not take on any extra labour;
41,3% have between 6 and 25 people.
Additional volunteers: 75.4% have no additional volunteers for the summer
season; only 6.5% have between 11 and 25; and 8.2% have over 25 seasonal
volunteers.
18
Table 10: Human Resources used in beach management
Percentages Civil Servants Full-time
staff
Full-time
volunteers
Seasonal
staff
Seasonal
volunteers
0 people 17.35% 14.61% 84.21% 17.24% 75.41%
1 person 29.59% 19.10% 1.75% 3.45% 0.00%
2 people 14.29% 16.85% 1.75% 8.05% 1.64%
3 people 8.16% 8.99% 1.75% 4.60% 0.00%
4 people 12.24% 10.11% 1.75% 4.60% 1.64%
5 people 6.12% 7.87% 0.00% 9.20% 3.28%
From 6 to 10 people 6.12% 17.98% 5.26% 22.99% 3.28%
From 11 to 25 people 5.10% 3.37% 1.75% 18.39% 6.56%
Over 25 people 1.02% 1.12% 1.75% 11.49% 8.20%
Whatever the size of the municipality, seaside councils’ average score for the training
level of those working on beach management is slightly over 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, with
72.1%, of respondents considering their staff to be well-trained or very well trained.
19
3.3. Beach strategic planning
It seems that Spanish coastal municipalities greatly prize their beaches as resources
and assets (4.52 out of 5). However, when it comes to distinguishing between various
strategic factors, the following scores tell a different story. Here, beaches scored 3.81
as a profitable attraction; 3.77 as just another attraction; 3.64 as a key tool for
economic development; 2.98 as an important attraction but not as a priority; 2.58 as
an attraction that was too dear; 1.86 as an attraction that would become less
important over the medium to long term. Thus respondents see beaches as vital for
economic development but not as particularly profitable. Even so, beaches need to be
combined with the other resources in the municipality in pursuit of an overall ‘mix’. A
smaller group of municipalities considered maintenance costs too high and that
beaches would lose the value they have acquired over the last fifty years. (Table 11)
Table 11: Nature of beaches’ attraction
Average
A profitable attraction 3.81
Another municipal attraction 3.77
The key to the municipality’s economic development 3.64
Beaches are an important attraction but a lot of money
needs to be invested in other projects 2.98
An attraction that costs too much money 2.58
An attraction that will become less important over the
medium to long-term 1.86
Most municipalities demanded sweeping powers to manage beaches (3.53). They also
opined that this function should be carried out by a council department or a
centralised body (3.18), without interference from the Regional Government (2.17) or
Central Government (1.61). Municipalities also opposed a tourism tax whether at the
local level (2.19), regional level (2.01) or national level (1.89). They are similarly
opposed to privatisation (1.28) as a way of dealing with beach management costs
20
(Table 12). They are very unwilling to consider privatisation as a way of maintaining
and improving beaches (1.19).
Table 12: Who should manage beaches?
Average
The municipality should exercise all management powers 3.53
A department or public body should manage beaches in a centralised
fashion 3.18
A municipal tourism tax would solve the problem of funding beach
management 2.19
The Regional Government should exercise all management powers 2.17
Too many municipal departments are involved 2.09
Central Government should exercise all management powers 1.61
Beaches should be privatised, managed and funded by the tourism
industry 1.28
The relationship with the private sector is a little odd. Over half the respondents said
that local councils should work with the private sector in managing beaches. Stances
on such co-operation were:
The municipal public sector should act alone (53.9% in favour compared with
46.1%).
Private agents should play a role but should not manage beaches (55.1% in
favour compared with 44.9% against).
Private agents should co-manage beaches (84.9% against and 15.1% in favour).
The council should provide subsidies to the private sector for co-ordinating
work (92.9% against and 7.1% in favour).
+++The slight balance in favour of sole management of beaches (53.9 compared with
46.1%) does not hide the lack of interest (84.9% compared with 15.1%) in working with
private agents to jointly manage beaches. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of
21
respondents rule out subsidising the private sector to manage beaches (92.9 compared
with 7.1%). The municipal vision of managing beaches solely for tourism purposes has
hardly changed from previous surveys: the degree of co-operation with other public
administrations is low (2.90 on a scale of 1 to 5) and public-private partnership at the
municipal level is making no headway in Spain despite the economic crisis and deep
cuts in public spending.
Only a quarter of the municipalities surveyed said they had a strategic plan for beaches
(23.0%, compared with 68.0% which said they had no plan) (Table 13). Moreover,
almost half (45.5%) of those that had plans said they were annual ones (and which
therefore cannot be considered strategic because they are too short). Contrast this low
level of planning with the importance given to beaches and the satisfaction with beach
facilities and one begins to grasp why municipalities hold so few quality certifications.
Regardless of whether municipalities have plans or not, most councils consulted
considered that municipal beach management policy was fairly effective (3.84).
Table 13: Municipalities with a strategic plan for managing beaches
+++This low level of planning reveals a negative aspect of the system; 66.7 % of the
municipalities surveyed said they had not set a ceiling on tourist numbers with a view
to conserving nature. Moreover, over two thirds of municipalities took the attitude of
60%
28%
12%
Yes
No
N/A
22
“the more, the merrier” whatever the season. Of the 23.0% that do plan, 10.7% (16
municipalities) said they set a ceiling, six quantify this ceiling and two said they had
carried out studies on beach carrying capacity.
This vision of beaches and the management model and level of planning is mirrored in
the following budgetary aspects: on average, Spanish seaside municipalities spend
1.3% of their budgets on tourism and a further 1.3% on beaches (Table 14). This
budget breaks down as follow (Table 15):
44%, Section 1 — staff
42%, Section 2 — material
14% Section 6 — investment
Table 14: Budget for beaches and tourism
1% 1%
98%
Tourism
Beaches
Other
23
Table 15: Breakdown of the budget for beaches
Breaking down the tourism budgets of the various municipalities reveals the following
(Table 16):
Over a third (35.9%) had a tourism budget of under 0.5% of the council’s total
budget.
Over 40% (42.3%) had a tourism budget of between 0.5 and 2% of the council’s
total budget.
Over a fifth (21.9%) had a tourism budget over 2% of the council’s total
budget.
Table 16 below compares the proportions of the total budget spent on tourism and on
beaches. Municipalities spending either under 1% or over 3% of the total budget on
tourism spend a lower proportion on beaches. Those spending between 1 and 2% on
tourism spend proportionately more on beaches. Those spending between 2 to 3% on
tourism are the most parsimonious in their budget provisions for beaches. relative
amounts spent by municipalities on tourism Beach budgets in relation to tourism
budgets show the following pattern: (1) beach budgets were proportionately smaller in
those municipalities spending under 1% or over 3% on tourism; (2) beach budgets
were proportionately bigger larger in municipalities spending between 1 and 2% on
44%
42%
14%
Personnel
Material
Investments
24
tourism; (3) beach budgets fell n the middle range in municipalities spending between
2 and 3% on tourism.
Table 16: Municipalities beach budgets
% Spent on TOURISM % Spent on BEACHES
> 3% 11.1 7.8
Between 2% to 3% 14.3 14.1
Between 1% to 2% 20.6 29.7
Between 0,5% to 1% 15.9 12.5
< 0,5% 38.1 35.9
3.4. Inter-municipal, Inter-administration and private co-ordination
No less than 68.2% of Spanish seaside municipalities said they carry out some kind of
co-ordination with the various public agents dealing with seaside tourism, compared
with 31.8% that said they did not. (Table 17) Regional governments are the ones that
co-operated most with municipalities (3.65 on a scale of 1 to 5); followed by provincial
governments and regional boards [Diputaciónes] (3.59); neighbouring municipalities in
various groupings (3.54). Next came County Councils [Consejos Comarcales] (3.27) and
Central Government (3.18) (Table 18).
25
Table 17: Municipal co-ordination with various agents
Table 18: Degree of supra-municipal co-ordination
Average
Regional Government 3.65
Provinces etc. 3.59
Neighbouring municipalities 3.54
County Council 3.27
Central Government 3.18
The low level of co-operation between local councils and the public sector with regard
to beaches had a broader impact: 61.1% of municipalities said they had no plans for
creating new tourism products or for repositioning existing beach-related ones. This
compares with 38.9% that said they did have such plans. Even so, respondents stated
that co-operation with firms in the tourism sector was good. They highlight (Table 19):
sports centres (4.10); hotels and holiday accommodation in general, and restaurants
(3.98); cultural associations and centres (3.95); shops (3.96); bars (3.85); coach firms
(3.51); and discotheques (3.47).
60%
28%
12%
Yes
No
N/A
26
Areas where they were less satisfied were: summer camps (2.79); car-hire companies
(3.04); flat rentals and Estate Agents (3.18); and co-ops (3.19).
Table 19: Level of municipal co-operation with firms in the tourism sector
Average
Sports Centres 4.10
Cultural Associations 4.02
Restaurants 3.98
Hotels/hostels/Inns 3.98
Shops 3.96
Cultural and Leisure Centres 3.89
Bars 3.85
Coaches 3.51
Discotheques 3.47
Travel Agencies 3.39
Builders 3.23
Co-ops 3.19
Flat-rental agencies 3.18
Car-hire companies 3.04
Summer Camps 2.79
Some non-tourism groups co-operated less: farmers (2.62; forest-owners (2.64);
fishermen (2.95); industries (3.00). However, some groups co-operated more: builders
(3.27); tradesmen (3.55); the local population in general (3.48); the local media (3.45)
(Table 20)
Table 20: The attitude of agents in connection with beach management
Average
Tradesmen 3.55
The local population in general 3.48
27
Local media communication 3.45
Builders 3.27
The Professions 3.21
Transport firms 3.16
Industries 3.00
Fishermen 2.95
Forest-owners 2.64
Farmers 2.62
28
3.5. Tourist municipal and beach sustainability in 2020
Tourism quality indicators for Spanish seaside municipalities appeared high and were
similar to those for beaches. The items given the lowest scores were municipal public
transport (3.58) — which bears on access to beaches — and non-food shops (3.79).
Other indicators all scored above 4. Those that stood out were: the environment
(4.40); public safety (4.39); access to the municipality (4.31); roads (4.17); cultural
offerings (4.14); food shopping and health facilities, (4.10). (Table 21)
Table 21: Scoring of the quality of the municipality’s tourism offerings
Average
Environment 4.40
Public Safety 4.39
Access to the municipality 4.31
Roads 4.17
Cultural offerings 4.14
Food shopping 4.10
Health facilities 4.10
Telecommunications 4.09
Non-food shopping 3.79
Municipal public transport 3.58
We asked respondents to give us their long-term vision of their municipalities and their
tourism resources. These data were crossed with the current vision. The resources that
were seen as gaining in importance in 2020 were (Table 22):
Culture and heritage (rise from 4.22 to 4.67)
Seaside (rise from 4.43 to 4.61)
Gastronomy (rise from 4.23 to 4.58)
Shopping (rise from 3.52 to 4.10)
29
Events (rise from 3.84 to 4.36)
Eco-tourism (rise from 3.31 to 4.01)
Those showing the greatest increases (even though they were not among the highest-
scored items) were:
Health and spas (a difference of 1.26)
Business and trade meetings (1.17)
Congress Centres (1.06)
Trade Fairs (0.94)
Adventure Sports (0.93)
Detailed analysis revealed:
A common resource core in the tourism offerings of Spanish seaside
municipalities. The resources making up this core were: culture and heritage;
sunny beaches; gastronomy. All three can be found in most seaside
municipalities and were much more highly-prized than all the other resources.
That is because they are indispensable for any coastal resort now and for the
foreseeable future.
The second group comprised: events; water sports; shopping; eco-tourism.
These resources were considered necessary to round off tourist offerings and
would play a greater role in the long term.
A third group comprised agro-tourists; health; spas; business meetings; trade
fairs; congresses; golf; hiking. These resources contributed a degree of
diversification or specialisation to the resort’s offerings. The forecast to 2020
highlights agro-tourism, health and spas, business meetings and adventure
sports within this group.
Last, there was a fourth group comprising: universities; theme parks; river
sports; hunting and casinos. Most municipalities surveyed show little interest
30
in these resources, given that they include theme parks and casinos. It is
forecast that these resources will continue to play a secondary role in 2020.
Table 22: The tourism resources sought for 2020
4,43
4,23
4,22
3,84
3,77
3,52
3,31
3,08
2,95
2,68
2,64
2,61
2,58
2,44
2,40
2,33
2,17
2,07
1,94
1,73
1,71
1,64
4,61
4,58
4,67
4,36
4,30
4,10
4,08
3,51
3,77
3,15
3,28
3,54
3,52
3,61
3,67
3,39
2,36
2,68
2,45
2,50
2,48
2,00
1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
Seaside
Gastronomy
Culture and Heritage
Events
Water Sports
Shopping
Eco-tourism
Fishing
Agro-tourism, Rural Tourism
Hiking
Golf
Adventure Sports
Trade Fairs
Business and Trade Meetings
Health and Spas
Congress Centres
Hunting
Universities
River Sports
Theme Parks
Other
Casinos
Current Desired
31
Spanish and other European tourists visiting the country’s seaside resorts spend eight
or more days (4.28 on a scale of 1 to 5); stay in a second home (4.13); spend short 3 or
4-night holidays (3.98); and city breaks or weekends (average, one and a half nights)
(3.89). Day trips (3.61) and long stays (3.50) are less common. (Table 23)
Survey respondents would like to change holiday-makers’ habits. There was a strong
wish to reduce the number of long stays by 2020 (rise from 3.50 to 4.50). Survey
results over the last fifteen years show that most of the coastal municipalities that not
thriven share this aim (3.50 on a scale of 1 to 5)). While they expressed this wish, their
preference for summer holidays lasting eight or more days strengthened (a rise from
4.28 to 4.73); followed by short three or four-day holidays (a rise from 3.98 to 4.60); 1-
2 day city breaks or weekends (a rise from 3.89 to 4.46). Compared with these kinds of
visitors, the importance of casual visitors and excursionists is steadily waning. Although
package holidays were originally for longer than present offerings, survey respondents
believe that 8-day seaside holidays will remain the norm. This is the model that has
long been flogged by tour operators and it is the one that springs to mind when
municipalities think about the future.
32
Table 23: Visitors and tourists — now and in 2020
The number of square metres of beach per bather on the busiest days of the year is
taken as a yardstick of a resort’s success by municipal planners. We crossed this area
with that desired by each municipality. The following picture emerged:
Over half of the municipalities (57.1%) stated that each bather had under 5
square metres of beach. This percentage fell to 42.1% for 2020.
25.4% of respondents said bathers had between 6 and 10 square metres. The
percentage for 2020 rose slightly to 29.8.
6.3% made 11 - 15 square metres available per bather. This percentage almost
doubles to 12.3% for 2020.
Almost a third of those surveyed (29.8%) wanted 6 - 10 square metres of beach per
bather at the busiest times. The percentage of those offering less than 5 square metres
of beach per bather shrank (from 57.1 to 42.1%). Despite the gap between dream and
reality, the percentage of respondents desiring over 10 square metres per bather rose
from 17.4 to 28.4%, reflecting a wish to reduce the summer overcrowding that
currently typifies Spanish beaches. Just 1.6% of the municipalities surveyed had
4,28
4,13
3,98
3,89
3,61
3,50
2,82
4,73
4,34
4,60
4,46
3,93
4,50
2,97
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0
summer holidays (8 days or more)
second home
short holidays (3-4 days)
city break / weekend (1-2 days)
day trip
long stays (over 1 month)
casual visitors
Current Desired
33
beaches offering over 25 square metres per bather — this more than triples to 5.3%
for 2020). (Table 24)
Table 24: Square metres per bather
Actual percentage Desired
percentage
Under 5 m2 per bather 57.1 42.1
6 - 10 m2 per bather 25.4 29.8
11 - 15 m2 per bather 6.3 12.3
16 - 20 m2 per bather 7.9 8.8
21 - 25 m2 per bather 1.6 1.8
Over 25 m2 per bather 1.6 5.3
Average monthly tourist occupation shows a strong seasonal pattern. It peaks in July
and August (over 75%), drops a little in June and September (50 – 60%), falls to
between 30 and 40% in April, May and October, and is under 23% for the rest of the
year. When one looks at the seasonal peaks and troughs more closely, it is clear that
the overall occupation rate is low. This is because 65% of municipalities have under
25% occupation for six months of the year. Occupation rates of over 90% are found in
very few municipalities and mostly arise in July and August, create grave service and
infrastructural problems (Tables 25 and 26):
34
Table 25: Average monthly occupation
Table 26: Average occupation by months
The economic crisis has not only hit the coastal real estate sector hard but also all
tourism business in general. In this context, it is not surprising that respondents’
expectations for 2020 are fairly low:
Tourism will remain strongly seasonal (1.81)
15,0% 17,1% 22,1%
38,3%
31,0%
52,4%
75,6%
85,4%
61,3%
33,9%
17,6% 16,9%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
80,0%
90,0%
100,0%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
80,0%
90,0%
100,0%
More than 90%
Between 50% and 90%
Between 25% and 50%
35
The vast majority of tourists will continue to book package holidays through
Tour Operators or Travel Agencies (2.16) and the number of independently-
organised visits will grow slightly.
Daily spending per tourist will stay at near current levels (2.47) and this is
unlikely to change. This means the chances of repositioning resorts to quality
tourism are slim.
This scenario for shows little change from the present. The data bear this out,
revealing: little interest in: greater quality (2.67); the environment (2.66); a wider
range of tourism activities (2.66). (Table 27)
Table 27: 2020 Scenario
Average
Demand for quality 2.67
Concern for the environment 2.66
Variety of activities 2.66
Number of visitors 2.64
Visitor loyalty 2.53
Daily spending per tourist 2.47
Independent travel arrangements 2.36
Travel arrangements trough Travel Agencies
or Tour Operators 2.16
Seasonal variations 1.81
There was a general belief (95% affirmative responses) that — as over the last fifty
years — beaches will continue to be a key attraction for seaside municipalities. There
appears to be nothing on the horizon that could replace beaches as the major
attraction. However, there was a rather feeble conviction that they can remain
attractive (3.76 on a scale of 1 to 5). The conditions for this were (Table 28):
More State investment (4.55)
36
More regional government investment (4.45)
More municipal investment (3.95)
To a lesser extent, more private investment (3.78).
There was general opposition to any kind of tourism tax, whether by municipal (2.18);
regional (2.01); or Central Government (1.89). Municipalities also find privatising
beaches anathema (1.19)
Table 28: Conditions required for beach sustainability
Average
More Central Government investment 4.55
More regional government investment 4.45
More municipal investment 3.95
More private investment 3.78
’Business as usual’ scenario 2.60
Municipal tourism tax 2.18
Regional government tourism tax 2.01
Central Government tourism tax 1.89
Privatise beaches 1.19
Beaches continue to be seaside municipalities’ main attraction. If beaches were to
become unusable for any reason, it would be a disaster for 53% of the municipalities
surveyed, given that they would lose over 60% of their tourist trade. However, 17% of
respondents said they would lose under 20% of their tourist trade; and 11,7%, said
they would lose between 20 and 40%. (Table 29)
37
Table 29: What would happen if the beaches were to be lost?
Loss in Tourist Trade Percentage
Under 20% of tourists 17.0
21 to 40% of tourists 11.7
41 to 60% of tourists 17.0
61 to 80% of tourists 33.0
81 to 100% of tourists 21.3
Various factors need to be taken into account when comparing the present population
size with that wanted in 2020. The general context is one of growth and few strategic
moves are being taken to reach the population size and breakdown desired for 2020
(Table 30):
Municipalities with under 5,000 inhabitants show strong growth in both the
permanent population and the influx of summer tourists (17.9 to 22.7% and
35.1 to 47.1% , respectively), compared with gentle growth in the ‘second
home’ population (45.1 to 47.1%)
Municipalities of between 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants show a rise in the
permanent population (17.9 to 19.7%), but not in the ‘second home’ and
summer influx populations (18.3 to 15.7% and 18.9 to 15,7%, respectively)
In municipalities of between 10,000 to 50,000, the permanent population will
fall (47.3 to 43.9%, while the ‘second home’ population will rise (29.6 to 33.3%)
and the summer influx will remain more or less the same.
In municipalities of 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, the permanent population
will almost double (5.4 to 9.1%). By contrast, the ‘second home’ and summer
influx populations will fall to under half their present figures (5.6 to 2.0%, and
5.4 to 2.0, respectively),
In municipalities of over 100,000 inhabitants, the permanent and summer
influx populations will drop markedly (11.6 to 4.5%, and 6.8 to 2.0%,
38
respectively) whereas there will be a slight rise in the ‘second home’ population
(1.4 to 2.0).
Table 30: Present and desired populations
población actual deseada actual deseada actual deseada
menos de 5.000 personas 17,9 22,7 45,1 47,1 35,1 47,1
de 5.001 a 10.000 personas 17,9 19,7 18,3 15,7 18,9 15,7
de 10.001 a 50.000 personas 47,3 43,9 29,6 33,3 33,8 33,3
de 50.001 a 100.000 personas 5,4 9,1 5,6 2,0 5,4 2,0
más de 100.000 personas 11,6 4,5 1,4 2,0 6,8 2,0
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
pobl.permanente pobl.2ª residen. pobl.adic.verano
39
3.6. Municipalities — features, practices and management
In addition to the description and graphs of the survey results, one of the aims of this
study is to reveal any relationships there may be between the features, practices and
management of municipalities and identify whether these fall into well-differentiated
groups.
Four indices were drawn up in relation to the variables analysed. The aim was to give a
clearer vision of the management of Spanish beaches. Each of these indices
incorporates questions that were applied to the same concept and that facilitate
analysis of the links between variables.
3.6.1. Beach Quality Index (BQI) [IGCP]
The BQI was drawn up from the following primary indicators:
Beach Sand Quality Indicator
Water Quality Indicator
Facilities and Services Quality Indicator
Security and Safety Services Indicator
Dune Protection Indicator
Beach Access and Car Park Indicator
These indicators were constructed using the average values of survey responses to
relating questions. Accordingly, each municipality was scored on a scale running from 1
to 5.
Given the high correlation between these indicators — with the exception of the Dune
Protection Indicator (probably because few municipalities have sand dunes), we
defined the BQI as the average of all the foregoing indicators save that for dunes
(given the lack of data).
The linear correlation coefficients are show in Table 32. Here, one can see a high
degree of association (always above r=0.66) between the BQI and each of the
indicators it comprises.
40
Table 31: Beach Quality Index (BQI)
Beach Sand
Quality
Indicator
Water
Quality
Indicator
Facilities
and
Services
Quality
Indicator
Security
and Safety
Services
Indicator
Dune
Protection
Indicator
Beach
Access and
Car Park
Indicator
General
Beach
Quality
Indicator (-
Dunes)
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
Beach Sand Quality Indicator 1 0,564 0,551 0,509 0,419 0,568 0,761
Water Quality Indicator
1 0,419 0,464 0,252 0,426 0,665
Facilities and Services Quality
Indicator 1 0,823 0,420 0,716 0,891
Security and Safety Services
Indicator 1 0,322 0,617 0,869
Dune Protection Indicator
1 0,434 0,465
Beach Access and Car Park Indicator
1 0,833
General Beach Quality Indicator (-
Dunes) 1
Number of Municipalities
Beach Sand Quality Indicator 147 142 146 147 80 147 147
Water Quality Indicator
142 141 142 75 142 142
Facilities and Services Quality
Indicator 147 147 81 147 147
Security and Safety Services
Indicator 148 81 148 148
Dune Protection Indicator
81 81 81
Beach Access and Car Park Indicator
149 148
General Beach Quality Indicator (-
Dunes) 148
*The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
**The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
The BQI distribution follows an asymmetric curve that gives high values greater weight
(Table 32), unlike in a normal distribution.
41
Table 32: BQI Distribution
3.6.2. Good Governance Practices Indicator (GGPI) [IBPG]
There are numerous items in the questionnaire there might be conceptually linked to
good management practices. These include: a strategic plan for beaches; inclusion of
beach quality in the Urban Development Plan [PGOU]; the degree of co-ordination
with other public administrations; quality certifications; staff training and others. The
data was sifted by correlation level and number of valid responses and then a Good
Governance Practices Indicator (GGPI) [IBPG] was drawn up. The value for each
municipality ranged between 1 and 4.55, and was the average of the following items
making it up:
Nº of quality certifications
The importance given to beaches in formulating Municipal Policy
The period covered by the Strategic Plan
Meeting targets
Active co-ordination among the agents involved in beach management
Plan for creating new tourism products
Urban Development Plan [PGOU]: consideration of the impact of quality on tourism
Degree of co-operation with neighbouring municipalities
Degree of public-private co-operation
Correlations between these indicators and the GGPI are shown in Table 33.
42
Table 33: Good Practices Management Indicator (GGPI)
Number of
certifications
Importance
of the
municipal
beach
management
policy
Period
covered by
the strategic
plan
Meeting
targets
Co-ordination
among the
agents
involved in
beach
management
Plan for
creating new
tourism
products
PGOU impact
on the quality
of tourism
Co-operation
with
neighbouring
municipalities
Public-private
co-operation
Good
Governance
Practices
Indicator
Number of certifications 1 0,187 0,233 0,285 0,225 0,204 0,199 -0,110 0,119 0,514
Importance of the municipal beach
management policy
1 0,730 0,422 0,248 0,066 0,126 0,219 0,133 0,464
Period covered by the strategic plan
1 0,229 0,107 0,287 0,154 0,015 0,145 0,538
Meeting targets
1 0,099 0,061 0,271 0,219 0,194 0,582
Co-ordination among the agents involved in
beach management
1 0,291 0,187 0,130 0,151 0,514
Plan for creating new tourism products
1 0,156 0,024 -0,003 0,493
PGOU impact on the quality of tourism
1 0,252 0,379 0,601
Co-operation with neighbouring municipalities
1 0,213 0,404
Public-private co-operation
1 0,557
Good Governance Practices Indicator
1
*The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
**The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
43
There is a relatively low correlation among the original items and a high correlation between the GGPI with each one. This reveals that good
practices comprise a host of measures, each of which is of little importance by itself but when taken with the rest, yields a small number of
highly significant practices.
Unlike the previous indicator, the GGPI follows a curve that approximates closely to the normal distribution. (Table 34)
44
Table 34: GGPI Distribution
3.6.3. Beach Management Proximity Indicator [BMPI) [IVPG]
This third indicator reflects the extent to which respondents saw municipal
management as something within the local ambit. The indicator was calculated from
the answers to the following statements:
1. The municipality should have sole power over beach management. 2. The regional government exercise should have sole power over beach
management. 3. Central Government should have sole power over beach management.
A formula was drawn up for measuring the ‘distance’ between the answers. In order to
homogenise the remaining variables, the BMPI was given a scale ranging from 1 to 5;
where 1 represents the least efficiency and 5 the most. The indicator’s distribution is
shown in Table 35.
45
Table 35: BMPI Distribution
3.6.4. Tourism Resources Expectations Indicator (TREI) [IERT]
A fourth indicator was constructed to capture municipal managers’ views on the long-
range outlook for local Tourism Resources. The indicator was obtained by comparing
the answers to the following two consecutive questions: “Assessment of present
tourism resources” and “Assessment of the tourism resources desired in 2020”. Its
theoretical range is from -4 to +4 but in practice, long-term expectations tend to have
a strong skew towards optimism, which explains why the range of real values lay
between -1 y +2,25.
In this case, given the sign (negative/positive), the indicator shows whether the
outlook for the future is better or worse than the present. That is why the original
value was kept rather than converting it the usual five-point scale. This makes it easier
to see the dividing line between forecasts of recession or of growth in the municipality
(Table 36).
46
Table 36: TREI Distribution
3.6.6. Comparison by Regions and Provinces
The highest-scoring Spanish regions with beaches for the four indicators were, in this
order: Andalusia; Valencia and The Balearic Islands. The lowest-scoring ones were:
Galicia, Murcia and The Basque Country (Table 37).
Table 37: Comparison of indicator averages, by region
Autonomous Community BQI GGPI BMPI TREI
Andalusia 4,32 3,20 4,17 0,67
Valencia 4,37 3,34 4,06 0,53
Balearic Islands 4,08 2,72 4,41 0,66
Canary Islands 3,83 2,63 4,15 0,80
Catalonia 4,03 2,89 3,90 0,45
Cantabria 4,10 3,13 2,94 0,93
Asturias 4,30 2,95 3,22 0,56
Galicia 4,22 2,83 3,28 0,70
Murcia 4,14 2,73 3,25 0,80
Basque Country 4,25 2,59 3,13 0,52
47
At the regional level, the highest-scorers were: Valencia; Cadiz and Alicante. The worst-
scorers were; Pontevedra, Guipúzcoa, and Vizcaya (Table 38).
Table 38: Comparison of indicator averages by provinces
Provinces BQI GGPI BMPI TREI
Valencia 4,82 3,13 4,19 0,96
Cádiz 4,53 3,38 4,17 0,97
Alicante 4,52 3,43 4,25 0,35
Málaga 4,54 3,54 4,10 0,04
Almeria 4,20 2,95 4,19 0,79
Huelva 3,94 2,81 4,25 1,07
Balearic Islands 4,08 2,72 4,41 0,66
Castellón 3,87 3,34 3,75 0,50
Tenerife 3,86 2,72 4,13 0,78
Girona 4,19 3,16 3,88 Gran Canaria 3,80 2,53 4,18 0,82
Barcelona 4,15 2,84 3,81 0,49
Lugo 4,29 2,54 3,44 1,00
Cantabria 4,18 3,13 2,94 0,93
A Coruña 4,34 2,95 3,25 0,56
Tarragona 3,68 2,63 4,06 0,68
Asturias 4,30 2,95 3,22 0,56
Murcia 4,14 2,73 3,25 0,80
Pontevedra 4,05 2,93 3,21 0,62
Guipuscoa 4,11 2,48 3,58 0,45
Biscay 4,43 2,74 2,67 0,62
3.6.7. Conceptual Model
As mentioned earlier, each of the indicators measures various aspects of beach
management and tourism activity in the municipality. The BQI measures how
municipal managers’ see the quality of results. By contrast, the Good Governance
Practices Indicator (GGPI) does not measure results but rather how procedures and
measures are used to deliver quality tourism and beaches. The Best Management
Practices Indicator takes into account the values in the municipal team regarding the
difference in efficacy between municipal and Central Government management.
Finally, the Tourism Resources Expectation Index (TREI) takes into account the outlook
for tourism development in the municipality for 2020. These last two indicators reflect
48
specific aspects of values or attitudes arising from the management team’s
organisational culture.
These indicators make it worth considering drawing up a conceptual model. Its
purpose is to: (1) identify the extent to which objectives are met (Beach Quality) are
based on Good Management Practices; (2) the outlook for the tourism sector’s long-
term growth; (3) assess management efficacy and proximity, as well as the
municipality’s main traits (for example, population, coastline length and other vital
statistics). This can be expressed in symbolic fashion thus:
BQI = function (GGPI, BMPI, TREI, population, coastline length, etc.)
2 x 2 results (bilateral)
The first hypothesis is whether the Good Governance Practices Indicator (GGPI) has a
positive impact on the quality of beaches (as measured by the BQI). The calculation of
the association between both indicators confirms the hypothesis: r=0,51 in the linear
regression model and r=0,53 in the quadratic regression model (Table 39).
Table 39: The impact of Good Management Practices on beach quality
49
A second hypothesis one might posit is whether the other independent variables are
bilaterally linked to beach quality (BQI). The table of linear correlations reveals that the
Beach Quality Indicator is not significantly correlated with any of them save for a slight
association with population size (r= 0,19 — in this case, an association of under 4%).
Something similar occurs in the quadratic regression model. Table 40 shows an
association between the size of the population and the Management Proximity
indicator, although it is a fairly weak one (r=0,35). This suggests that the bigger the
population size, the more management proximity is appreciated.
Table 40: The influence of population size on management proximity
BQI GGPI BMPI TREI
Population
(longitudinal
scale)
Coastline
(Km)
Beach Quality Index (BQI) 1 0,510 0,065 0,044 0,188 0,910
Good Governance Practices Indicator (GGPI)
1 0,120 -0,067 0,125 0,007
Beach Management Proximity Indicator (BMPI)
1 -0,011 0,347 0,174
Tourism Resources Expectations Indicator (TREI)
1 -0,022 0,049
Population (longitudinal scale)
1 0,235
Coastline (Km)
1
*The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
**The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
Multilateral results
We applied step-by-step multi-variable linear regression analysis to the conceptual
model, establishing a joint correlation coefficient of r=0,59 for the function:
BQI = 2,44 + 0,56 * GGPI + 0,17 * TREI
This means that Good Management Practices are the best indicators of the selected
variables and are positively correlated (that is, the greater the value of the GGPI, the
greater beach quality). The Growth Expectations of municipal managers also add
quality, albeit to a lesser degree.
50
3.6.8. Types of Municipalities
The statistical techniques used for classification purposes revealed well-differentiated
groups of municipalities. The set of 150 municipalities in the survey were studied using
a two-stage algorithm following the Adaike Information Classification (AIC) scheme.
The model identified four groups of municipalities (Table 41). In each of the variables
considered, the minimum value is indicated in italics and the maximum value in bold
type to show the features of each group more clearly. Here, it is worth noting a
surprising finding: the average population of each group is roughly double that of the
preceding group.
The size of the population helps one see the make-up of groups. Even so, one should
bear the following considerations in mind :
a) These are average values thus the size of a given municipality does not determine its classification in the group with the closest average value. In other words, classification is probabilistic in nature. From a geometric standpoint, the sets of municipalities are not disjunctions but rather overlap.
b) Statistical techniques merely establish associations and cannot be used to confirm or refute hypotheses concerning causation.
The numeric values for the four groups have been translated into verbal categories.
(Table 42)
Table 41: Types of municipalities
Groups Municipalities GGPI
Beach
Quality Ind.
(BQI)
Good
Governance
Practices
Ind. (GGPI)
Tourism
Resources
Expectations
Ind. (TREI)
Beach
Managemen
t Proximity
Ind. [BMPI)
Population
(Inhabitants)
Number % Average Average Average Average Average
A 30 26,8%
4,328 2,771 0,774 2,741 6.446
B 11
9,8% 2,803 2,375 0,644 3,340 11.470
C 36 32,1%
4,137 2,672 0,610 4,423 24.457
D 35
31,3% 4,522 3,531 0,634 4,185 40.017
Combined 112 100,0% 4,177 2,938 0,665 3,792
51
52
Table 42: Types of municipalities
Groups
Beach
Quality
Index (BQI)
Good Governance
Practices Ind.
(GGPI)
Tourism Resources
Expectations Ind.
(TREI)
Beach Management
Proximity Ind. [BMPI)
Population Size
(Inhabitants)
A EFFICIENT
OPTIMISTIC in favour. CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT Management SMALL
B INEFFICIENT LOW LEVEL OF
GOVERNANCE MEDIUM - SMALL
C EFFICIENT
PESSIMISTIC in favour. MUNICIPAL
Management MEDIUM - LARGE
D INEFFICIENT GOOD
GOVERNANCE LARGE
We have shown the four types of seaside municipality (Table 43a, 43b, 43c and 43d)
and given them iconic labels to make it easier to see how well each municipality fits in
a given type:
The “Schooner” model is Type A
The “Caravel” model is Type B
The “Seagull” model is Type C
The “Cruise Liner” model is Type D.
53
Table 43A: ‘Schooner’ model
Representativeness 26.8% of the sample
Beach quality:
Quite efficient
Good governance practices: Average level of governance
Population Average: 6,446 inhabitants
Optimistic tourism resources expectations, well over the average levelNotes
Schooner
Indicators
Tourism resources expectations: Very optimistic
Management proximity: Prefer Central Government management
They have a clear preference for the Central Government having the power over beach management
0
54
Table 43B: ‘Caravel’ Model
Representativeness 9.8 % of the sample
Beach quality:
Very inefficient
Good governance practices: Very low level of governance
Population Average: 11,470 inhabitants
Notes
Caravel
Indicators
Tourism resources expectations: Optimistic
Management proximity: Between municipal and Central Government
Outstandingly efficient in beach quality, facilities, accesses, etc.
Obtains low values for governance practices, co-ordination and collaboration
1
55
Table 43C: The ‘Seagull’ Model
Representativeness 32.1% of the sample
Beach quality:
Efficient
Good governance practices: Low level of governance
Population Average: 24,457 inhabitants
Notes
Seagull
Indicators
Tourism resources expectations: Not very optimistic
Management proximity: Prefer municipal management
They are the group with the lowest level of optimism, although it is not too far
below the average levelThey have a clear preference for the municipality having power over beach management
2
56
Model 43D: The ‘Cruise Liner’ Model
Representativeness 31.3% of the sample
Beach quality:
Very efficient
Good governance practices: High level of governance
Population Average: 40,017 inhabitants
Notes
CruiseLiner
Indicators
Tourism resources expectations: Somewhat optimistic
Management proximity: Prefer municipal management
Outstandingly efficient in beach quality, facilities, accesses, etc.
Very high values for governance practices, co-ordination and collaboration
3
57
4. Conclusions and improvement proposals Spanish seaside municipalities are generally very happy with their beaches and their
facilities and services, safety and security, access and water quality. This is particularly
so for: paper bins; The Red Cross; information panels; recycling containers; indications
of sea state; buoy markings for bathing areas; pedestrian access to beaches; access for
the handicapped; microbiological quality of the water; visual quality; cleanness of sand
and rubbish collection. The minimum score given was 4.10 (on a scale of 1 to 5) except
in the following cases: floating platforms; rod fishing areas; changing rooms. By
contrast, scores for environmental protection were clearly lower — between 3.34 and
3.87. Less satisfactory aspects were: (1) beach erosion (over two thirds of respondents
say their beaches are losing sand and only 46% take measures to prevent this); (2) the
metres of beach per bather (almost 60% of municipalities have under 5 square metres
per bather); (3) quality certification — with the exception of the EU ‘Blue Flag’, few
other certificates were held. Beach management focuses more on leisure aspects than
bio-physical ones (i.e. the need to maintain biodiversity and protect coastlines).
The reasons for municipalities’ dissatisfaction with beach facilities basically boiled
down to financial reasons (4.45 on a scale of 1 to 5). Very few municipalities blamed
problems on scattering of powers among public administrations (2.94), lack of
information (2.05) or lack of internal organisation (1.78).
Beach management tasks are mainly carried out by Beach Municipal Services (41% of
cases), Environmental Services (38%) and Tourism Services (19%). Management
responsibilities are shared by these three services. In a very few cases, the Mayor’s
Office discharges these functions. In all cases, other departments also provide
services: Police; Governance; Civil Protection and Public Safety; Infrastructure and
Public Works; Cleaning and Maintenance; Sports and Culture; Urban Planning.
Respondents considered the workforce carrying out beach management to be of the
right size and well-qualified for the task.
There is much less satisfaction regarding strategy. Four aspects reveal the lack of a
clearly-defined strategy. The first is that beaches are considered more as a profitable
58
asset than as the key to the municipality’s economic development (3.81 versus 3.64).
The second is that over half of respondents (53.9%) favour the municipality acting on
its own: “municipalities should exercise all powers” (3.53). The third is that only a
quarter of municipalities have an ongoing strategy and only six councils say that they
have conducted studies on the beaches’ tourism carrying capacity. Fourth, funding for
the task is woefully inadequate. A third of municipalities have a beach management
budget of under 0.5% of the council’s total budget and 40% of respondents one of
between 0.5 and 2%. There are clear contradictions in these four strategic aspects
when it comes to forging alliances to get enough funding to ensure beaches’ future
profitability. Municipalities largely reject involvement by: regional government (2.17);
Central Government (1;61). They also shun private sector involvement in beach
management whether directly (55.1%) or through joint ventures (84.9%). Last but not
least, they are lukewarm about introducing a tourism tax (2.19).
The drawing up of the four indicators (Beach Quality Indicator –BQI; Good Governance
Practices Indicator – GGPI; Beach Management Proximity Indicator – BMPI; Tourism
Resources Expectations Indicator – TREI) enabled us to establish a set of associations,
two of which were particularly noteworthy. The first is that Best Practices,
Management Proximity and high growth expectations strongly influence the
achievement of Quality objectives. The second is that the bigger the population, the
more management proximity is prized.
Crossing these indicators revealed four types of Spanish seaside municipality:
The ’Schooner’ model characterises municipalities with small populations, efficiency in
beach quality, middling governance and optimism about future tourism resources.
They prefer Central Government management of beaches to municipal management.
The ’Caravel” characterises municipalities with small to medium-sized populations, low
efficiency with regard to quality and governance, middling optimism regarding tourism
resources, management split between Central Government and municipality.
The ’Seagull’ model characterises municipalities with medium to large populations,
middling efficiency, a low level of governance, less.
59
The ‘Cruise Liner’ model characterises municipalities with large populations, quality
beaches, greater governance, moderate optimism regarding tourism resources, a
preference for municipal beach management.
There are several question marks hanging over the sustainability of tourism-based
municipalities over the medium to long term:
There are no big changes in the wind regarding the length of tourist stays.
Municipalities continue to believe that holidays of 8 days or more will
predominate (4.73); followed by second homes (4.34). Respondents thought
that long stays will show big growth (4.50) as will city breaks (4.60). In general,
municipalities do not consider an alternative model.
The highly seasonal nature of tourism shows no signs of changing (1,81). There
continue to be peaks in tourist numbers in July and August and — except for
slight rises here and there — business drops off for in the rest of the year.
The number of tourists travellers independently will rise slightly (2.36)
compared with those taking package holidays (2,16). Municipalities do not
envisage Internet marketing of their resorts, even though major Spanish tourist
destinations and much of the private sector sees this as the future.
The daily amount spent by tourists will not increase (2.47). A few municipalities
are planning to become quality resorts and push prices up. However, the great
majority continue with the ‘bargain basement’ model.
Municipalities admit they would be unable to hold on to visitors and tourists if
beaches were to disappear tomorrow. In such circumstances, they say they
would lose over 60% of tourists. At present, municipalities have little to offer
other than sunny beaches. They lack attractive, complementary products.
The balance between the permanent population and tourists will shift, with the
former growing in relation to the latter. Respondents considered that beaches
would drive growth in the permanent population over the medium to long
term. Except in municipalities with populations ranging between 10,000 and
50,000, and in those of over 100,000, all municipalities expected a rise in the
60
permanent population, although a few expected the number of ‘second homes’
to drop.
With regard to leading tourism products in 2020, two will be almost on a par
with beaches: culture and heritage, and gastronomy. The old paradigm of up-
market beach tourism will acquire a broader cultural dimension over the
medium to long term. A second group of products will become more
important; water sports, shopping and eco-tourism and will become part and
parcel of the first group. A third group of products, comprising agro-tourism,
health, business, trade fairs and congresses, golf and hiking will be offered as
complements, facilitating differentiation from competing resorts.
61
Table 44: DAFO Spanish Beaches
62
Improvement proposals
If municipalities want their beaches to retain their economic performance and boost
their profitability from leisure activities, they should improve governance in the
following areas:
1. The provision of services, nature conservation, quality certification, brand
value, and strategic planning.
2. There is a need for vertical co-operation with other tiers of public
administration. There are too many gaps between the various tiers of public
administration, hindering analysis, funding and specific solutions.
3. Partnerships with the private sector with joint management and funding to
ensure a sustainable future for beaches and tourist municipalities. In the
present economic crisis, municipalities cannot go it alone in managing
beaches. Close co-operation with all tiers of public administration is needed
and much more private involvement is required.
4. Management costs need to be rationalised and pooled with neighbouring
municipalities, and clusters of seaside councils need to be formed.
5. A Central Government tax on tourists would boost seaside municipalities’
resources. This injection of cash would facilitate municipalities’ strategic
planning of their beaches.
6. Beaches and other tourism products in each municipality need to be seen
as part of an all-embracing holiday experience. It is a question of coming up
with value propositions for each season, with a range of carefully-
differentiated products, each targeting a different group and having
beaches as their common feature. This non-seasonal vision of tourism
would help consolidate employment in the industry and create new jobs.
7. The profitability of both public and private services needs to boosted
through rigorous analysis of income and expenses. The present
management approach should not lead to losses one or two years down the
line. If such losses do arise, the municipality should reconsider its
commitment to tourism.
63
8. Innovation is needed in leisure, tourism, recreation, health and body care
products with a view to creating new kinds of holidays and ways of
satisfying visitors’ needs. The beaches and coastline should be presented as
a natural area offering a wide range of singular services.
9. Strategic planning is required to foster harmonious, sustainable
development of the municipality.
64
References
Ariza, E., Sardá, R., Jimenez, J.A., Mora, J. & C. Avila. (2008). Beyond performance
assessment measures for beach management: applications to Spanish Mediterranean
beaches. Coastal Management, 36: 47-66.
Ariza, E. Jimenez J.A. & R. Sardá (2012) An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Beach
Management in the Catalan Coast (North-Western Mediterranean). Coastal
Management. 40: 442-459
Dexbury, J., Dickinson, S. (2007). “Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal
zone: In the context of coastal disasters” Ecological Economics, 63: 319-330
Eurosion (2004). Living with coastal erosion in Europe: sediment and space for
sustainability. Eurosion consortium (www.eurosion.org). 54
Fernández, P.R., Matsuda, Y., and Subade, R.F. (2000). “Coastal Area Governance
system in the Philippines”. Journal of Environment & Development, vol 9, no 4,
December 2000: 341-369
James, R.J. (2000). From beaches to beach environments: linking the ecology, human-
use and management of beaches in Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43:
495.514.
Maintz, R (2003). “From government to governance: Political steering in modern
societies”. http://www.ioew.de/gov../suA2Mayntz,pdf
Milligan, J., O’riordan, T. (2007). “Governance for sustainable Coastal Futures”, Coastal
Management, 35: 499-509
Sardá, R., Ariza, E. & J.A. Jimenez. (2012). Buscando el uso sostenible de las playas. En:
(Rodriguez-Perez, A, Roig, X., Pons, G.X. and J.A. Marín, eds.) La gestión integrada de
playas y dunas: experiencias en Latinoamérica, Norte de Africa y Europa. Mon. Soc.
Hist. Nat. Balears., 18: 13-21.
Suvantola, J., (2002) “Tourist’s experience of place”. Aldershot, Ashgate
65
Thomson, G., Pforr, C. (2005). “Policy networks and good governance – a discussion.
SOM Worrking Paper Series, Vol. 01/2005, Curtin University
Wesley, A., Pforr, C. (2010). “The governance of coastal tourism:unraveling the layers
of complexity at Smiths Beach, Western Australia”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18,
6: 773-792
White, A., Deguit, E., Jatulan, W. (2006) “Integrated Coastal Management in Philippine
local governance: Evolution and benefits”, Coastal Management, Vol. 34, pp 287-302
Top Related