Managing Spain’s Beaches · 2013. 6. 4. · Marketing Management, ESADE-Universitat Ramón Llull Josep Rucabado, Lecturer, Department of Information Systems, ESADE- Universitat

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




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


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


1 0,434 0,465


1 0,833

General Beach Quality Indicator (-

Dunes) 1

Number of Municipalities

Beach Sand Quality Indicator 147 142 146 147 80 147 147


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


81 81 81


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



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



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


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


Beach quality:

Efficient

Good governance practices: Low level of governance


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


Beach quality:

Very efficient

Good governance practices: High level of governance


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

http://www.eurosion.org/

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

Documents

Managing Spain’s Beaches · 2013. 6. 4. · Marketing Management, ESADE-Universitat Ramón Llull Josep Rucabado, Lecturer, Department of Information Systems, ESADE- Universitat