Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management Perspectives

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / tmp

The growth and spread of the concept of sustainable tourism: The contribution ofinstitutional initiatives to tourism policy

Anna Torres-Delgado ⁎, Francesc López PalomequeDepartment of Physical Geography and Regional Geographic Analysis, University of Barcelona. C/Montalegre 6, 08001 Barcelona, Spain

⁎ Corresponding author at: C/Montalegre 6, 08001 B403 78 95.

E-mail addresses: annatorres@ub.edu (A. Torres-Dellopez.palomeque@ub.edu (F. López Palomeque).

2211-9736/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Alldoi:10.1016/j.tmp.2012.05.001

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 April 2012Accepted 6 May 2012Available online xxxx

Keywords:SustainabilitySustainable tourismInstitutional initiativeTourism policyEuropeSpain

In the last two decades sustainability has emerged as a force in the tourism industry, offering new directionsand values for public policy, and inducing the creation of the concept of sustainable tourism. There have beena number of institutional initiatives in this respect, and they have shaped a framework for both theoretic andapplied development, and have helped extend the paradigm of sustainability as a general feature of contem-porary tourism.The content of this article sheds light on the process of creation and use of the concept of sustainable tourismthrough the analysis and evaluation of institutional initiatives in tourism policy in the last 20 years. The sys-tematic analysis of 55 institutional documents covering international, European and Spanish initiatives hasenabled us to demonstrate the importance of these in the adoption of sustainability by the tourist industry,and their contribution to the growth and spread of the concept of sustainable tourism.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A number of agents and factors can be identified in the process ofcreating, using and spreading sustainable tourism. The role of aca-demics and the scientific community in the creation of the discourseon sustainability and sustainable tourism seems obvious and unques-tionable. However, the agents of the tourism sector and their com-mercial considerations have given the terms sustainability andsustainable tourism meanings that do not always coincide. On theother hand, the public sector, in its broadest sense – the institutionsinvolved – have included these concepts when creating the differentpolicy tools for territory, development and tourism, and it is the in-tention and perspective they apply that shapes the meaning in eachcase. In the last two decades, there has been a progressive increasein institutional initiatives and policies that tackle, in one way or an-other, the concept of sustainable tourism, and which have shapedand defined the current notions of what sustainable tourism is. Itcould be seen as a process of institutionalizing the concept of sustain-able tourism.

The institutional initiatives arising from development and tourismpolicies have had a decisive role in the creation and acceptance of theconcept of sustainable tourism. Ever since the formal definition ofsustainable tourism in the Brundtland Report (World Commissionon Environment and Development, 1987), and the later consolidation

arcelona, Spain. Tel.: +34 93

gado),

rights reserved.

of its meaning in the United Nations Conference on The Environmentand Development (CNUMAD) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sustainabilityhas been a constant feature of tourism policy at all territorial levels(Torres-Delgado, 2010). Institutional policies and initiatives haveadvanced gradually from an initial acceptance of sustainability intourism associated almost exclusively with the conservation of theenvironment, to a more global concept which takes the balancebetween society, the environment and economy into account. It canbe seen in this evolution that the concept of sustainable tourism hasacquired sufficient weight to progress from being a tangential issuein a diverse range of papers, to generating its own documents.

However, ambiguity in its definition has led to an excess of theoryand strategic formulation that has limited its practical application.According to Garrod and Fyall (1998), a point has been reachedwhere the debate over the theory of sustainable tourism is delayingthe more important aspect of putting it into practice. To overcomethis challenge, setting clear limits to what is sustainable or not isurged. Bell and Morse (2003) proposed four possible approaches tosetting reference points for sustainability: 1) consider historicaltrends, 2) compare current data, 3) propose a reference based on con-ceptual principles, or 4) establish better and worse scenarios based onparticipative processes. Many other authors also stress the need todevelop methods for evaluating impacts, so that objective criteriacan be established to regulate sustainability (Castellani & Sala, 2010;Crabtree & Bayfield, 1998; European Commission, 2003; Gahin,Veleva, & Hart, 2003; Smeets &Weterings, 1999). But still the applica-tion of sustainability still depends on the attitude adopted (Hunter,1997; Naredo, 2004) and the relevant territorial and social context.On the other hand, while the paradigm of sustainable tourism is

2 A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

innovative, the expression it finds in institutional initiatives rarely is,as they rely too often on traditional ideas of sustainable developmentwhich are crudely grafted onto the tourism sector.

Based on the hypothesis described above, this article brings to-gether the results of a process of analysis and evaluation of institu-tional initiatives on tourism policy at international, European andnational levels, and aimed at revealing the contribution of these ini-tiatives to the growth, application and spread of the concept of sus-tainable tourism. The specific objectives of the research focused onidentifying the way that the principle of sustainability was definedand incorporated into the institutional documents studied, in theanalysis of the objectives of the initiatives and instruments proposedand, finally, in appraising the differences observed between the levels(international, European and Spanish) and the circumstances thatexplain them.

The method of this study was based on a systematic analysis of in-stitutional documents through a form for selective data collection(see Fig. 1). This form consists of four sections which structure the in-formation contained in the document in accordance with the objec-tive of the study: 1) initiative, 2) treatment of the term sustainabletourism, 3) principal dimension and 4) proposed measures. The“Initiative” section contains the general features of the document,including the title, year, responsible institution, area of application(international, European, Spanish), type (directive, agreement, actionetc.), and nature (advisory or binding). The other three sections areconcerned with the details of how the concept of sustainable tourismis incorporated. The section “Treatment of the term sustainabletourism” analyzes the importance of sustainable tourism in the docu-ment in question, whether it is the exclusive concern or only a tan-gential issue, and if the latter, the political context in which itappears (initiatives for sustainable development, tourism, the envi-ronment or others). The “Principal dimension” section identifies thedimension of sustainable tourism which is the principal concern ofthe document (social, economic or environmental dimension) andso gives an indirect evaluation of the balance between these. The“Proposed measures” section centers on how the document can beapplied, affirming whether there is strategic orientation and/or spe-cific instruments or actions in this sense. The organization of this in-formation by the form enables the documents to be evaluated usingthe same criteria, and to prepare simple comparative analyses andstatistics.

This method was applied to 55 institutional documents at interna-tional (24), European (20) and Spanish (11) levels, selected becauseof their importance and/or contribution to the incorporation of sus-tainability to the tourism sector, and more specifically, to the growthand spread of the concept of sustainable tourism. The time periodfrom which the documents were selected stretches from the early90s, when the concept of sustainable development was established

Initiative

TitleYearPromoterAreaTypeNature

Treatment of the termSustainable Tourism

ExclusiveAs part of sustainAs part of tourismAs part of the enOthers

Principal aspectSocialEconomicEnvironmental

Proposed measuresStrategic orientatSpecific actions/None (approach

Fig. 1. Form for the systematic anal

as part of general economic policy, and specifically in tourism, untilthe present day.

The article is structured in seven parts, beginning with this onewhich sets out the objectives, hypothesis and study method, leadingon to the second part which details the emergence of sustainable de-velopment in the tourism industry and its incorporation into tourismpolicy. This is followed by an account of how institutional agencieshave contributed to the growth, application and spread of the conceptof sustainable tourism through different international, European andSpanish initiatives. These are systematically analyzed and comparedin the next part, which will enable us to reach the final conclusionsthat, together with the bibliography, finish the article.

2. Tourism, sustainable development and tourism policy

In order to determine their influence in the process of creating theconcept of sustainable tourism, the appearance, presence and mean-ing of the concept in institutional tourism policy documents are stud-ied in the context of the interaction of three structural components.These are the characteristics of tourism itself, the role of the stateand the shaping of tourism policy and, finally, the paradigm of sus-tainability. The creation of the concept of sustainable tourism owesmuch to the growth of each of these components (the growth of tour-ism, the intentions behind political discourse and the meaning of theprinciples of sustainability) and especially to their interaction andtheir use of the term sustainable tourism which adds – or could add– new meanings, and the promotion of processes for the sustainabledevelopment of tourism. Sustainable tourism, and the transformationof the role played by government policy, is a subject of constant inter-est (Bramwell & Lane, 2010), especially when viewed over time, sothat changes and trends can be traced. The changeable nature of thereference framework and, on the other hand, the permanent debategenerated by its scientific interpretation make it advisable to includea brief discussion on the value of tourism, the role of the state, thecreation of tourism policies and the paradigm of sustainability. Thediscourse and actions of tourism policy make reference to the termsustainable tourism, leading to the final formal institutional accep-tance of the concept of sustainable tourism.

The term “tourism” is part of the conceptual framework of the so-cial sciences and is common in normal speech, at all levels of societyand in the media, without forgetting its use in political and technicalareas of public administration. Even so, the meaning of the term is notwithout vagueness, despite being universally known, although thiscould actually be a result of its general, indiscriminate use. There isno one single definitive definition of the term “tourism” (VeraRebollo, López Palomeque, Marchena, & Antón, 1997).

If we look at tourism globally, regardless of its formal acceptance,this social phenomenon has at least three inherent properties: 1) its

able development

vironment

ion instrumentspaper)

ysis of institutional documents.

3A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

present-day development, 2) a diverse nature and 3) a complexstructure. What stand out are its dynamic capacity for change, its dif-ferent aspects and effects (spatial, economic and social) and the inter-action of its many components – its complex structure – which maybe seen as a system (the tourism system) (López Palomeque,2001a). The status of the so-called “agents” as components of thetourist system has been a constant issue in the many proposals putforward for identifying the components of tourism. The role of thestate, of public authorities among these agents has always beenstressed. In tourism, an agent is defined as a person or organization(institution) which, through its activity, has a direct or indirect effecton tourism in a specified territorial area.

The state and public sector have a large presence in democraticcapitalist economies, which reaches into nearly every area of dailylife, depending on its responsibilities. The first justification for thestate's intervention in tourism is the reason why public administra-tion exists at all: the exploitation and profitable use of the country'sresources to create wealth, distribute it and pursue the wellbeing ofits citizens. There are, however, other reasons for state interventionin tourism policy at different levels, such as: 1) the nature of touristattractions, which are often public, 2) the strategic value of tourism,which affects the economic, territorial and political situation in differ-ent ways, 3) the significance of locations and space as tourist com-modities, and the fact that only the public authorities conceive of“tourist attractions” as managed units and areas for action, and4) the presence of market imperfections and the need to correctthem. The last point is due to the presence of imperfect competitionin the market, the presence of public property and of negative exter-nalities (Sancho, 1998:161).

The public authorities take active part in tourism through what isknown as tourism policy, which is present at different levels of orga-nization (international, national, regional and local), and in accor-dance with the functions and powers defined for each by law. Publicadministration is defined as all of the public bodies and organswhich are included in the executive branch of government. Politicalpower, therefore, has organized structures for exercising its relevantpowers, in accordance with the level of administration involved.

These are the arguments behind the fact that public administrationand tourism policy are part of the phenomenon of tourism, althoughthey have changed in response to the changes in tourism, and haveadapted to the conditions and needs of the sector. This view accountsfor the appearance of “new” tourism policies at different times in re-cent decades. On the other hand, the 21st century, the age of globaliza-tion, has revealed changes in the leadership and actions of the statewhich clearly reflect the cycles of economic crises, the expansion ofeconomic and political neo-liberalism and the intensification of dereg-ulation processes (López Palomeque, 2001b). Even so, despite thediminishing of the state, the intervention of the public administrationin tourism is justified for the reasons given above, and others relatedto new developments (promotion of competitiveness, quality ofhuman resources, know-how, tourism governance, etc.) (Fayos-Solá,2004), which have become more relevant due to the unique natureof tourism when compared with other business activities.

Changes in tourism and the model of tourism, in varying economicand political situations, have led to the appearance of new directionsin tourism policy, which affect the entire sector. This process reveals aseries of concepts and paradigms which have formed the basis of themodels, objectives and means for realizing tourism policy. Countrieswhich have been tourist destinations during the last 30 yearshave observed the underlying conditions to progress throughdevelopment to adaptation, competition, quality and sustainability(Velasco González, 2008). Through the same logic, it can be affirmedthat governance can be added to the succession of “ideas” indicated inrecent years.

This evolutionary perspective registers the appearance of new, es-pecially environmental and socio-cultural elements in tourism, and

the emergence of new problems and conflicts which have requiredthe agents to rethink their activities (public administration, participa-tory model, etc.). With the emergence of the paradigm of sustainabil-ity, its principles became one of the cornerstones for the maintenanceand growth of tourist destinations. This was possible because of theparticipation of all the agents in the community, not just the publicadministration and tourist industry, who are involved, either directlyor indirectly, in tourism (Yasarata, Altinay, Burns, & Okumus, 2010).In fact, Hall (2000) argues that the long-term integration of social, en-vironmental and economic dimensions, alongside the cultural andpolitical aspects, can only be guaranteed if all the parties affectedare involved.

The connection between governance and sustainability can also beobserved indirectly in other situations. The principles of governancesupport the focus on sustainable planning for tourism, the need to in-tegrate the stakeholders in the development process (Gunn, 1993)and a return to the two vital aspects of strategic planning: forecastingand the use of local agents to adapt to changes. These considerationslead us to consider tourism governance as a new expression, a newterm, but whose meaning is implicit in the concept of sustainability.

Governance implies active citizen participation with government,which in turn reinforces the transverse conception of government in-stead of the vertical. Another feature of governance is its associationwith sustainable development to the point where it can be seen toprovide a framework which balances the three dimensions of sustain-ability, with reliance on the cooperation and coordination of all theagents involved. Governance has been interpreted as the fourth com-ponent of sustainability, or as its missing link. Seen in broader andmore progressive light, the term governance is replacing sustainabil-ity in discourse on development and processes in territorial manage-ment (governance as the new mid-scale paradigm) (Vera Rebollo,López Palomeque, Marchena, & Antón, 2011).

The principles of sustainability must be considered when tacklingthe subject of tourism policy and territorial planning for tourism. Sus-tainable development must involve – in generally accepted terms –

financial viability, social justice and respect the environment. With-out calling for radical innovations, the paradigm of sustainabilityhas led to a reassessment and, in a sense, a reorientation of tourismpolicy. A process of convergence toward the principles of sustainabil-ity can be seen in the different approaches to planning, including stra-tegic planning (Ivars Baidal, 2001). As regards tourism policy andplanning, sustainable tourism development is a process of qualitativechange driven by political decision, but always with local support, toadapt the constitutional and legal framework, and the planning andpolicy instruments, to the development of tourism based on a balancebetween the conservation of natural and cultural resources, financialviability and social justice (Ivars Baidal, 2001:9).

3. The institutional use of the concept of sustainable tourism

Institutional agents have played a vital role in the creation and useof the concept of sustainable tourism. The many institutional initia-tives and policies developed at different territorial levels have createda general consensus on its meaning and application, in the academicand the real world. This section analyzes the growth and evolutionof the concept from an institutional point of view, considering thatit is precisely this view that has shaped and determined our currentconcept of sustainable tourism.

3.1. International

Any discussion of the international dimension of the concept ofsustainable tourism must mention the World Summit of Rio deJaneiro, where the concept of sustainable development was consoli-dated, and which was a springboard for several initiatives in sustain-able tourism. Since 1992, therefore, a broad institutional framework

4 A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

for sustainable tourism has been in development, and there havebeen many papers on the subject, and the most important of theseare given chronologically in Table 1.

One of the key moments in the development of the concept of sus-tainable tourism was the 1st World Conference for Sustainable Tour-ism held in Lanzarote (Spain) in 1995, which concluded with theCharter for Sustainable Tourism. This document established a broadframework for local-scale sustainable development of tourism by list-ing several objectives related to the social, economic and environ-mental sustainability of the phenomenon. The same year saw workbegin on the application of the concept and the United NationsProgramme for the Environment (UNEP) published the Guide forEnvironmentally Responsible Tourism. Efforts were also made to guar-antee the application of Agenda 21 to the sector. The most importantof these was the declaration of the World Travel and Tourism Council(WTTC) and Earth Council titled Agenda 21 for the Travel and TourismIndustry, a document that was the first action plan for the sector forthe integration of tourism with the environment. This was followedby a series of declarations by various institutions at different levelsby which laid out directives for the sustainable development of tour-ism, such as the Malé Declaration on Sustainable Development, theCalvià Declaration on Tourism and Sustainable Development in theMediterranean, or the Manila Declaration on the Social Impact ofTourism. The non-governmental sector of the Mediterranean addedits weight to this movement under the guidance of the MED-Forumnetwork with the Ulixes 21 project to raise awareness of the valueof the Mediterranean coastline and the environmental threat posedby unsustainable tourism models.

1999 was a significant year for coordination and political consen-sus with regard to sustainable tourism. The United Nations (UN) cre-ated the Committee for Sustainable Tourism (CST) to generate dialogbetween governments and representatives of the tourism sector andto define policy lines that support the sustainability of tourism. Andthe United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) drew upits Global Ethical Code for Tourism, a document that set out an ethicalcode for a sector that had no formal code, despite long running dis-cussions on this subject over last years.

The discourse which had been circulating in these institutions nowbegan to circulate in the private sector, and the first actions began toappear there. Among these was the Tour Operators Initiative (TOI)which aimed to achieve a commitment from its members to adoptthe philosophy of sustainable development, and to coordinate effortsto promote and spread sustainable methods and practices in tourism.

Despite advances in previous years, the Economic and SocialCouncil of United Nations (ECOSOC) considered that it had to intensi-fy efforts to achieve sustainability in tourism development and toavoid social and environmental impacts. It is necessary to “develop in-tegrated, culturally and environmentally aware tourism planning”(Economic and Social Council of United Nations, 2001:5), as statedin the preparatory document for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002). It was this Summitwhich saw the creation of an Action Plan where the importance oftourism and sustainability was given an epigraph of its own, in recog-nition of the growing acceptance of the relation between tourism andsustainable development, especially when compared with the previ-ous Summit (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992) where there were fewmen-tions of tourism. The growing concern with the phenomenon ofclimate change has also been echoed in the sector, and in 2003 theUNWTO convened the 1st International Conference on ClimateChange and Tourism in Djerba (Tunisia), and the 2nd in Davos(Switzerland) in 2007. Both conferences resulted in declarations ofagreements to offset the effects of tourism in the process of climatechange and, at the same time reduce the negative impact of the activ-ity in tourist destinations.

2008 was the year in which the first symptoms of a world eco-nomic crisis appeared, and the UNWTO responded by creating the

Tourism Reactivation Committee (CRT) which met four times in2009 to analyze the economic situation at the time. These meetingsresulted in the Route Map for Recovery which was a group of strategicdirectives which used sustainable criteria to enable tourism to con-tribute to tackle the economic crisis on three related fronts: capacityfor recovery, stimulus and the green economy.

3.2. Europe

The earliest actions in tourism by the European Community al-ready mentioned the need to protect the environment, recognizingits contamination and deterioration to be one of the biggest obstaclesto tourism, and focusing on the concentration of supply and demandin limited times and locations as the main structural problem of thesector (Antón Clavé, 1992). The environmental dimension of sustain-ability was already a factor in tourism in the 1990s, and graduallygrew in importance in parallel with international concern, as institu-tions adopted other aspects into their discourse. Table 2 contains achronological list of the most important European contributions tothe development of the concept of sustainable tourism.

In 1993, The European Commission included tourism for the firsttime as one of the five decisive economic sectors (besides industry,agriculture, energy and transport) in sustainable development. Thiswas part of the 5th Community Programme of Policy and Action in Rela-tion to the Environment and Sustainable Development (1992–2000),which aimed to transform the model of community growth by pro-moting sustainability. This was achieved in the tourism sectorthrough improvements in the handling of mass tourism and qualityof services, as well as promoting alternative forms of tourism and in-formation and awareness campaigns (European Commission, 1993).These measures were later complemented by the Green Paper of theCommission. The Role of the European Union in the Field of Tourism,which repeated the message that tourism must be diversified.

The actions being carried out soon gave rise to conferences, whichproduced conclusions that supported the idea of promoting the de-velopment of sustainable tourism. In this spirit, the Europarc Federa-tion published the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism inProtected Areas, which provided a method and voluntary commitmentto apply the principles of sustainable tourism in protected areas. TheEuropean Commission published Sustainable Tourism and the Natura2000 Network in 2001, which was intended to support previous initia-tives by expanding their application to the areas of the Natura2000 network, and issued the communique A Framework for Coopera-tion for the Future of European Tourism, which set out a series of mea-sures for different agents to increase their awareness of the tourismsector, the competitiveness of their businesses, the development ofsustainable tourism and the creation of employment (EuropeanCommission, 2001). It was this last document which recognized theneed to establish a strategy for sustainable tourism development asa global action plan, or Agenda 21. It therefore aimed to put forwardand apply an Agenda 21 for Europe in the tourist sector, which wassupported in later resolutions of the European Parliament and Councilof Ministers.

Finally, in December 2002, the 1st European Tourism Forum (ETF)was held in Brussels, where the document Agenda 21—Sustainabilityof the Tourism Sector in Europe was discussed. This paper was to bethe starting point for a future political document by the Commissionon the development of sustainable tourism in Europe. Shortly after-wards, the European Commission released a document titled BasicOrientations for the Sustainability of European Tourism, which focusedon the practice of sustainable tourism by defining specific actions tobe taken by the different agents, to be coordinated and assessed bya new Group for Sustainable Tourism (GST). At the same time, the Eu-ropean Environmental Agency (EEA) recognized the importance oftourism as a conditioning factor for European sustainability anddrew up a report on the current situation of tourism and future

Table 1Institutional initiatives at international level incorporating the concept of sustainable tourism.

Year Principal references

1992 Earth Summit CNUMAD, Rio de Janeiro (UN):− Agenda 21− Declaration on the Environment and Development− Agreement on Biological Diversity− Framework Convention on Climate Change− Declaration of Principles for ForestryFounding of the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) of the UN

1993 1st Ministerial Conference on Tourism and Sustainable Development, Hyeres-les-PalmiersUNWTO:− Tourism for 2000 and Beyond: Qualitative Aspects

1995 1st World Conference for Sustainable Tourism, Lanzarote (UNWTO, UNEP, UNESCO and EU):− Charter for Sustainable TourismUNEP:− Guide for Environmentally Responsible Tourism2nd Ministerial Conference on Mediterranean Tourism and Sustainable Development, Casablanca:− Charter for Mediterranean Tourism− Founding of the Mediterranean Commission for Sustainable Development

1996 UNWTO, World Travel Tourism Council (WTTC) and Earth Council:− Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry

1997 Asia and Pacific Ministerial Conference on Tourism and the Environment, Malé (UNWTO):− Malé Declaration on Sustainable DevelopmentInternational Conference of Environmental Ministries on Biodiversity and Tourism, Berlin (UN)− Berlin Declaration on Biological Diversity and Sustainable TourismInternational Conference on Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean, Calvià:− Calvià Declaration on Tourism and Sustainable Development in the MediterraneanWorld Tourism Leaders Meeting on the Social Effects of Tourism (UNWTO):− Manila Declaration on the Social Impact of Tourism

1998 International Congress on Sustainable Tourism in the Mediterranean. The Participation ofCivil Society, St. Feliu de Guíxols (Ulixes 21 project, MED-Forum):− Declaration of Mediterranean NGOs on Sustainable Tourism and the Participation of Civil Society5th Mediterranean Environment Forum, Barcelona (MED-Forum):− Mediterranean NGO Programmes for Sustainable Development

1999 Founding of the Sustainable Tourism Committee (STC) of the UN7th Session of the Commission for Sustainable Development, New York (UN):− The Global Significance of Tourism− Sustainable Tourism: A local Perspective− Sustainable Tourism: a Non-Governmental Perspective− Workers and Union in the Tourist Network− Decision 7/3 on Tourism and Sustainable Development13th General Assembly of the UNWTO, Santiago, Chile:− Global Ethical Tourism Code

2000 International Conference of Sustainable Hotels for Sustainable Destinations (UNESCO and UNWTO)Founding of the Tour Operator Initiative for the Sustainable Development of Tourism, Maspalomas(UNWTO, UNEP and UNESCO)

2001 World Summit on Sustainable development (UNWTO):− Sustainable Tourism in Tourism (preparatory document)International Conference on Sustainable Tourism, Rimini (UNEP):− Rimini Charter− Network of Cities for Sustainable Development

2002 World Ecotourism Summit, Quebec (UNWTO and UNEP):− Quebec Declaration on EcotourismWorld Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg (UN):− ST-EP Initiative− Application Plan for Summit Decisions

2003 1st International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism, Djerba (UNWTO):− Djerba Declaration on Tourism and Climate Change5th World Parks Congress, Durban (International Union for Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources, IUCN):− Recommendations of the 5th World Parks Congress

2004 Universal Culture Forum (UCF), Barcelona:− Tourism for All

2005 UNWTO Meeting (prior to the special session of the UN General Assembly), New York (UNWTO):− Declaration of Tourism in the Service of Millennium ObjectivesUNEP and UNWTO:− Towards more Sustainable Tourism Guide for Tourism Officers

2007 2nd International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism, Davos (UNWTO):− Davos Declaration

2008 Founding of the Tourism Reactivation Committee (TRC) of the UNWTO2009 1st Meeting of the TRC, Madrid (UNWTO)

2nd Meeting of the TRC, Berlin (UNWTO)3rd Meeting of the TRC, Astana (UNWTO)18th General Assembly of the UNWTO, Astana (UNWTO):− Route Map for Recovery4th Meeting of the TRC, Berlin (UNWTO)

5A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

Table 2Institutional initiatives in Europe incorporating the concept of sustainable tourism.

Year Principal references

1990 European Parliament:− Resolution on the Resources Necessary to Protect the Environment from Potential Damage Caused by mass Tourism

1992 Council of the European Union:− European Action Plan to Assist Tourism (1993–1995)

1993 European Commission:− 5th Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to the Environment and Sustainable

Development (1993–2000)1995 European Commission:

− Green Paper. The Role of the Union in the Field of Tourism1997 Conference on Employment and Tourism, Luxembourg (EC):

− Creation of a High Level Group on Tourism and Employment1st European Conference on Sustainable Development on Islands, Menorca (UNESCO-INSULA-Council of Menorca):− European Island Agenda

1999 Europarc Federation:− European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas

2001 European Commission:− Sustainable Tourism and the Natura 2000 networkEuropean Commission:− A Framework for Cooperation for the Future of European Tourism− Creation of the European Tourism Forum

2002 European Parliament:− Resolution for a Framework for Cooperation for the Future of European TourismCouncil of the European Union:− Resolution on the Future of European Tourism1st European Tourism Forum, Brussels (EC):− Agenda 21—Sustainability of the Tourist Sector in Europe

2003 European Commission:− Basic Orientations for the Sustainability of European TourismEuropean Environment Agency (EEA) Report 3/2003 Global Environment Outlook:− European Environment: The Third Evaluation

2004 Founding of the Group for Sustainable Tourism (GST)2005 European Parliament:

− Resolution on Tourism and Development− Resolution on New Perspectives and New Challenges for Sustainable European Tourism

2006 European Commission:− A New Tourism Policy for the EU: Towards Greater Collaboration in European Tourism

2007 GST Report:− Action for More Sustainable and Competitive European TourismEuropean Commission:− Action for More Sustainable and Competitive European Tourism5th Euromeeting Conference, Florence:− Towards a European Network of Sustainable and Competitive Tourism− Founding of the European Region Network for Sustainable and Competitive Tourism (NECSTour)

2009 8th European Tourism Forum, Brussels (EC):− Tourism in the European Union and Economic Recession New opportunities for a Sustainable and Prosperous Future?

6 A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

trends, evaluating the impact they would have. The report concludedthat the shift towardmore sustainable tourismwas being mademost-ly at the destination, through voluntary agreements and programs forecological branding.

The following years saw a series of proposals to address the failingsdetected and the challenges of a changing scenario. The European Par-liament issued two resolutions, the first of whichwas addressedmainlyto the importance of tourism as a motor of economic growth and socialbenefit, but also of environmental protection and conservation in thirdworld countries (European Parliament, 2005a). The second laid out itsposition and requirements for different aspects of a European tourismpolicy (European Parliament, 2005b). The European Commission con-tributed the communique A New Tourism Policy for the EU: TowardsGreater Collaboration in European Tourism, which explored the chal-lenges facing the sector and declared the intention of setting up a ren-ewed European tourism policy based on previous papers, but whichadded new elements related with the optimal use of financial instru-ments, review of the current legal regulations, promotion of sustain-ability in tourism and greater awareness and visibility of the activity.

In 2007, the GST set out its proposals and recommendations in areport titled Action for More Sustainable and Competitive EuropeanTourism, containing the firm decision to stimulate more sustainableEuropean tourism through a range of objectives, challenges and initia-tives for different agents at different levels. The GST report, together

with the results of the public consultation, featured in the Agenda forSustainable and Competitive European Tourism, which was the launchof a medium and long term agenda to enable sustainable practicesto make Europe compete as a more attractive tourist destination. Itwas this report that inspired the creation of the European RegionalNetwork for Sustainable and Competitive Tourism (NECSTouR),consisting of Tuscany, Catalonia and Provence-Alps-Cote d'Azur.

In 2009, in the midst of a financial crisis, the 8th European TourismForum was held in Brussels on the theme of EU Tourism and the Eco-nomic Downturn: New Opportunities for a Sustainable Prosperous Fu-ture? The final conclusion from the Forum accepted the financialuncertainty of the time, together with the reduction in the numberof European tourists in recent years, and called for flexibility, dyna-mism and creativity in creating products and promoting tourism. Itwas therefore a good time to rethink the future of European tourismand ensure that, as well as being economically viable, it also contrib-utes to the conservation of the environment andwelfare of the people.

3.3. Spain

The appearance and use of the concept of sustainable tourism arerelatively recent in Spain, and first appears in an institutional contextas one of the instruments for responding to the crisis of the sector atthe end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s. Public tourism policy

7A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

changed so that structural, physical planning was seen as less inter-esting and functional than new adaptable, flexible and negotiatedplanning strategies. The environmental planning and managementof tourist development was a feature of these new stances and ap-proaches, and the environmental element became accepted as a fac-tor in the financial benefits (López Palomeque, 1999). Institutionalpapers began to appear with the concept of sustainable tourismafter 1992, and the principal references are chronologically orderedin Table 3.

It was the environmental dimension of sustainable tourism whichwas first addressed in Spain. Before there were plans which men-tioned it explicitly, several studies had already stressed the need fortourism policy to adopt environmental aspects into its programsand initiatives. The White Paper for Spanish Tourism, which was astudy document on the situation, perspectives and strategies for tour-ism in Spain, called for the development of tourism to include objec-tives for the environment and quality of life. These were of course,merely recommendations, and their effectiveness depended on thecommitment of the public and private agents involved, and the legaland financial tools at their disposal. In this sense, the Framework forthe Competitiveness of Spanish Tourism (1992–1995) (Plan FUTURES I)was the first move in the establishment of procedures as functionalinstruments for tourist and environmental policy (Antón Clavé,1992). The objective of the Plan was to seek competitiveness throughquality in the tourist destinations, and was the first specific instru-ment of its kind for tourism developed in Spain which made refer-ences, albeit vague, to sustainability. Its approval made it possiblefor the tourism sector to become aware of the need to apply newcriteria based on innovation, quality and diversity of products.

The Framework Plan for Competitiveness of Spanish Tourism(1996–1999) (Plan FUTURES II) was created as a result of the successin recovering competitiveness in Spanish tourism, and it kept to thesame line as its predecessor, considering sustainability as an insepa-rable component of competitiveness. The competitive strategy ofthese FUTURES plans included the environment as one more qualityelement with which to distinguish Spanish tourist destinationsabroad. This approach aimed to alter the model of unsustainable tour-ism through the environmental regeneration of traditional touristdestinations, while promoting new destinations and alternativeforms of tourism in order to diversify and reduce the seasonality ofdemand (Sánchez Rivero & Pulido Fernández, 2008), as set out inthe Plans for Excellence in Tourism (PET) and Plans for Dynamism in

Table 3Institutional initiatives in Spain incorporating the concept of sustainable tourism.

Year Principal references

1992 Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism:− Framework for the Competitiveness of Spanish Tourism (Plan FUTURES I)

(1992–1995)1996 Ministry of Commerce and Industry:

− Framework for the Competitiveness of Spanish Tourism (Plan FUTURES II)(1996–1999)

1997 National Tourism Congress, Madrid (Ministry of Economy and the Treasury)− Strategy and Action Plan for the Administration in the Field of Tourism

1998 Ministry of the Environment, Economy and the Treasury:− Plan for Sustainable Tourism

1999 General Assembly EUROPARC-Spain:− Action Plan for the Protected Natural Spaces of Spain

2000 Ministry of Economy General Secretary for Tourism:− Integral Plan for Quality in Spanish Tourism. PICTE 2000/2006

2003 Ministry of the Environment:− Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Development

2005 Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce, Royal Decree 721/2005:− Initiative for the Modernization of Mature Tourist Destinations

2007 Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce:− Horizon 2020 Plan for Spanish Tourism− Plan for Spanish Tourism 2008–2012

2009 Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce:− Plan for the Renovation of Tourist Facilities (Plan Renove Tourism)

Tourism (PDT). PETs were concerned with environmental regenera-tion and the recovery of quality in mature tourist destinations,while PDTs were intended to activate the economy of emerging tour-ist destinations, preferably in the rural areas of the interior, promot-ing tourism based on nature and cultural attractions (BrunetEstarellas, Almeida García, Coll López, & Monteserín Abella, 2005).

The Strategy and Action Plan for the Administration in the Field ofTourism was presented in 1997 as part of the National Tourism Con-gress. It argued for the Spanish tourism sector to incorporate environ-mental conservation as an essential condition for durable touristbusiness and destinations. This called for work to improve the envi-ronmental quality of the tourist industry and destinations, as well astraining and awareness for the agents of the sector. One year later,the spirit of the congress found continuation in the Plan for Sustain-able Tourism, which aimed to protect natural areas and raise the com-petitiveness of the sector while reducing seasonality. However, themost notable element of this Plan was the Green Towns Project,which stressed the importance of ensuring optimal quality tourismat the local level and respect for the environment, urging touristtowns to set up and run environmental management systems. Therewas a growing concern from the administration to advance towardmore sustainable tourism, which was evident in the publication ofSpain: sustainable tourism which promoted Spain as a sustainabletourist destination for the first time. Other organizations madecontributions, such as EUROPARC-Spain, with the Action Plan forProtected Natural Areas in Spain, which made recommendationsfor making leisure activities in protected areas compatible withenvironmental protection.

The Integral Plan for Quality in Spanish Tourism (PICTE) started in2000, to update the approach of the FUTURES Plans for the2000–2006 period, with greater emphasis on quality rather thancompetitiveness without changing the instruments that were cur-rently available: PTE, PTD and the Sustainable Tourist DestinationProject (the new title of the Green Towns Project). PICTE was extend-ed until 2007 while the Spanish Tourism Council drew up a paper tostudy the prognosis of the Spanish model of tourism up to 2020.The Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Development was published atthe same time and, while it was not strictly concerned with tour-ism, it saw the sector as one of the productive activities with an im-pact on sustainability and so called for integrated management ofthe tourist areas of the coast and ordering of the industry(Spanish Ministry for the Environment, 2003). The Royal Decree721/2005 shared this approach, as it regulated the Initiative for theModernization of Mature tourist Destinations, which set up a nationalfund (FOMIT) to pay for the renovation of mature tourist destina-tions in Spain.

Once the period of PICTE came to an end, the Plan for Spanish Tour-ism 2020 Horizon took its place, seeking to establish a tourist sector inwhich knowledge, innovation and talent were fundamental ingredi-ents. It would be based on strategies to provide customer value, a sus-tainable model, a competitive sector and a shared leadership, to be setin motion under the Spanish Tourism Plan 2008–2012. This plan in-cludes the development of the Plan for the Renovation of Tourist Facil-ities (Plan Renove Tourism) to bring tourist facilities up to date andimprove quality and sustainability.

3.4. Key institutional initiatives in the growth and spread of the conceptof sustainable tourism

The identification and analysis of institutional initiatives in the last20 years which have adopted the concept of sustainable tourism re-veal the close link between tourism policies and sustainability, andthe vital role that institutions have played in the growth and spreadof the concept. Fig. 2 is a first assessment of the role of different insti-tutional initiatives, a selection of the most influential initiatives in thegrowth and spread of the concept of sustainable tourism.

Table 4Summary of the analysis of institutional initiatives incorporating the concept of sus-tainable tourism (1990–2009).

Initiatives Documents %

By period1990–1994 5 9.091995–1999 19 34.552000–2004 16 29.092005–2009 15 27.27

By promoterInternational 25 45.45European 19 34.55Spanish 10 18.18Local 1 1.82

By area of applicationInternational 24 43.64European 20 36.36Spanish 11 20.00

By type of documentAgreements 4 7.27Commitment 2 3.64Commitments/action plans 1 1.82Conclusions 5 9.09Conclusions/recommendations 2 3.64Decree 1 1.82Directive 14 25.45Approach paper 3 5.45Guide 2 3.64Financing facility 1 1.82Action plans 11 20.00Recommendations 7 12.73Recommendations/action plans 2 3.64

By handling of the term Sustainable Tourism a

Exclusive 14 22.22As part of sustainable development 8 12.70As part of tourism 31 49.21As part of the environment 9 14.29Others 1 1.59

By the preferential aspect of sustainability a

Social 29 29.59Economic 24 24.49Environmental 45 45.92

By the type of measure proposedStrategic orientation 33 60.00Specific actions/instruments 18 32.73None (approach paper) 4 7.27Total documents analyzed 55 100.00

a The documents may combine different treatments.

1992

2010

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

1994

1996: Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry

1999: Global Ethical Codefor Tourism

2002: World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johanesburg)

2003: 1st International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism (Djerba)

1993: 5th Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development

1999: European Charter on Sustainable Tourism in Protected Natural Areas

2002: 1st European Tourism Forum (EFT)

2007: Agenda for Sustainable and Competitive European Tourism

2009: 8th EFT “EU Tourism and the Economic Downturn: New Opportunities for a Sustainable Prosperous Future?”

1992-1995:Plan FUTURES I

1996-1999:Plan FUTURES II

2000-2007:PICTE (2000-2006)

2008: Plan for Spanish Tourism 2020 Horizon

1992: Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit

1995: Charter for Sustainable Tourism

(Lanzarote)

Fig. 2. Key institutional initiatives in the development of sustainable tourism.

8 A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

4. Characteristics of institutional initiatives and their contributionto the development of the concept of sustainable tourism

To complete the analysis of the previous section and to advance inthe assessment of the contribution of the documents studied – 55 inall – to the growth and spread of the concept of sustainable tourism,the results of the analysis of the documents studied are givenbelow. This analysis has been carried out using the method describedin Section 1, through the use of the corresponding form with each ofthe documents. The variables included in the form are given inTable 4, which has a summary of the analysis. The data enables usto analyze and assess the nature of the promoter of the initiative, itsfield of application, the nature of the document (agreement, commit-ment, decree, directive, etc.), the handling of the term sustainabletourism, the dimension of sustainability which is uppermost, and fi-nally, the type of measures proposed.

There have been a large number of institutional initiativesdealing exclusively with sustainable tourism in the last 20 years.Even so, sustainable tourism has predominantly figured in genericplanning and/or management documents (49% of the documentsanalyzed), which indicates that there is a tendency for the conceptto be integrated within general tourism policy. Other orthodoxsustainability papers discussing environmental issues or sustain-able development, but which do not deal specifically with tourism,have begun to recognize the importance of tourism as a key eco-nomic factor in sustainability. It is precisely this recognitionwhich is shown in such important environmental papers as the5th Community Programme of Policy and Action in relation to theEnvironment and Sustainable Development (1993–2000), which iswhere tourism was first identified as an expanding sector capableof damaging the environment, and therefore in need of sustain-ability criteria in its management. Another example is the reportThe Environment in Europe Third Evaluation (2003) by the EEA,which has a whole epigraph analyzing the current situation oftourism and looking into the near future and the most significantenvironmental issues.

The connection between tourism and sustainability has not beenunchanged over time, but has evolved from a more conservationistview to one which favors a dynamic balance between society, econo-my and the environment. However, while it is true that most of theinitiatives consider the three dimensions of sustainability in theory,referring to the need for economic growth which contributes to envi-ronmental protection and improves the quality of life of the local pop-ulation, the three dimensions rarely receive equal considerationwhen proposing strategic orientations or specific tools for application.There has been a clear tendency to relate sustainable tourism to

environmental matters (46% of the documents analyzed), which isclear proof of the ecological origins of the term “sustainability” andexplains why most of the initiatives offer directives for improving orconserving the environment. The Berlin Declaration on Biological

9A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

Diversity and Sustainable Tourism (1997) or the Djerba Decalaration onTourism and Climate Change (2003) are two examples of this partialsustainability applied to tourism. The social dimension is also favoredin many papers (30% of the documents analyzed), despite the specificactions proposed being more generic than the environmental ones.The economic dimension of sustainability is often assumed to be anintrinsic part of the tourist business. The proposals for practicalapplication of sustainable tourism often skirt the necessary equilibri-um between society–economy–environment.

This deficiency in the adequate practical formulation of the bal-ance between the three dimensions of sustainable tourism is a resultof an ambiguity in its definition that has also led to excessive theoryand strategic formulation. Many of the initiatives analyzed areexpressed as good intentions which are too utopian and generic forpractical application. A document for international reference, suchas the Charter for Sustainable Tourism of Lanzarote (1995), which pro-poses a broad framework for the sustainable development of tourismat the local scale, is so imprecise in its content that any practical ap-plication is entirely subjective and reliant on the attitude with whichit is treated.

The wide geographical scale of some initiatives and their volun-tary nature contribute to this imprecision, as they give themselves awide margin for the creation of directives which will eventually es-tablish the laws and regulations for the sector. There have been alarge number of approach papers, agreements, conclusions, recom-mendations and directives at international and European scale. Thismeans that the documents do not consider specific actions for thepractical application of sustainable tourism, but strategic guidelineson how the sector should be and how it should evolve. In Spain, incontrast, the close presence of a real area of application means thatthe initiatives have put forward more specific actions and instru-ments. This is the case, for example, of the Initiative for the Moderniza-tion of Mature Tourist Destination which was the response in 2005 tothe need for the renovation of mature tourist destinations in Spain,by creating the FOMIT fund, and the new line of credit for the samepurpose set up in 2009 under the Renove Tourism Plan. TheFUTURES plans (1992–2000) introduced the criteria of sustainabilitythrough the Plans for Excellence in Tourism and Plans for Dynamismin Tourism, which were aimed at environmental regeneration andthe recovery of quality and economic development by promotingtourism based on natural and cultural resources.

It can be seen that the proliferation of documents on sustainabletourism has not led to a proportional theoretical or practical advanceof the concept. The participation and coordination of the agents, theproblems of tourist mobility and seasonality, the need for indicatorsand tools for management and decision making, or the importanceof the local scale are some of the ideas that recur in the initiativesstudied, ideas which are found in both early and late initiatives(from Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry in 1996 to theDeclaration of Tourism in the Service of Millennium Objectives of 2005)and in different territorial applications (Agenda 21—Sustainability ofthe Tourism Sector in Europe of 2002, or the Plan for Sustainable Tourismin Spain of 1997). After two decades of work on the concept and defini-tion of sustainable tourism, we still see the same ideas as the 1990s de-rived from the concept of sustainable development applied to tourism,and relatively little has been done to advance in the results of practicalapplication.

5. Conclusions

The analysis of institutional initiatives on international, Europeanand Spanish tourism policy has allowed us to assess the contributionof these papers to the creation, use and spread of the concept of sustain-able tourism, especially to the definition and application of the principleof sustainability to the tourism sector, but also to the instruments andcircumstances behind their application. The careful analysis of these

documents has confirmed the initial hypothesis, showing that the ap-pearance of new, mainly environmental, social and cultural elementsin the field of tourism has forced a rethink of tourist planning andmanagement.

Sustainability has emerged in the last two decades to reassess andreorient tourism policy, and its presence has been institutionalized inthe concept of sustainable tourism. The initiatives and policies whichrefer to it have grown considerably, developing a framework for de-velopment of the concept at both the theoretical and practical levels.Obviously, this change has been closely related to the establishmentof the concept of sustainable development and the changes in the pat-terns and motivation behind tourism in the 1990s. The convergenceof these two factors is the key to the progressive adoption of the par-adigm of sustainability by the tourism industry.

The understanding of sustainable tourism has progressed fromthe early conservationist or environmental conceptions to more ho-listic approaches which see it as a tool for economic development,population welfare and environmental conservation. This change ofmentality has affected tourism policies and institutional initiativesat all territorial levels, spreading the concept and giving it meaningand value.

The concept has been widely researched and discussed in manyinstitutional documents, and a consensus has been reached on its def-inition, drawn fundamentally from the classic concept of sustainabledevelopment applied to tourism. As a result, sustainable tourism suf-fers from the same limitations as sustainable development, derivedfrom the ambiguity in its definition. The imprecise character of sus-tainability dominates the concept of sustainable tourism and con-demns it to excessively rhetorical use which leads to multipleinterpretations and consequently to applications with varying inten-sity and aims.

The strategic tourist policies and initiatives that arise from theabove are not binding, and rarely contain specific actions for the prac-tical application of the concept, and when they do, they stress the en-vironmental dimension in detriment of the balance with social andeconomic dimensions. They are all too often repetitive, and overlapeach other in their eagerness to adapt to the conditions of eachcase. The greatest challenge therefore facing sustainable tourism isits appropriate application to changing conditions and times.

In spite of these limitations, what is undeniable is that sustain-ability is widely accepted as a feature of tourism, to the extent thatit is now inseparable from the notion of contemporary tourism.Any initiative that aims to influence tourism in the present contextmust consider sustainability as a factor in achieving the kind of tour-ism desired. This is the main achievement of recent years, and it cer-tainly represents a qualitative difference in the way that the activityis considered.

Acknowledgment

This research was financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science andInnovation (project CSO2011-27230, “New tourisms and territorialdevelopment in a changing context. Experiences and opportunitiesof inner tourism spaces in Spain”), and developed in the ResearchGroup of Territorial Analysis and Regional Development (ANTERRIT),2009SGR 253, Government of Catalonia.

References

Antón Clavé, S. (1992). Medio ambiente y política turística. Medidas comunitarias yestrategias de competitividad del turismo español. Estudios turísticos, 116, 5–25.

Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2003). Measuring sustainability: Learning from doing. London:Earthscan Publications.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2010). Sustainable tourism and the evolving roles of govern-ment planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 1–5.

Brunet Estarellas, P. J., Almeida García, F., Coll López, M., & Monteserín Abella, O.(2005). Los planes de excelencia y dinamización turística (PEDT): Un instrumento

10 A. Torres-Delgado, F. López Palomeque / Tourism Management Perspectives 4 (2012) 1–10

de cooperación a favor del desarrollo turístico. Boletín de la Asociación de GeógrafosEspañoles (AGE), 39, 201–226.

Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2010). Sustainable performance index for tourism policy de-velopment. Tourism Management, 31, 871–880.

Crabtree, R., & Bayfield, N. (1998). Developing sustainability indicators for mountainecosystems: A study of the Cairngorms, Scotland. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 52, 1–14.

Economic and Social Council of UnitedNations (2001). SustainableDevelopment of Tour-ism E/CN.17/2001/PC/21. [www page]. URL. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_docucsd_10.shtml

European Commission (1993). Fifth community programme for action on the environment:Towards sustainability [www page]. URL. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/l28062_en.htm

European Commission (2001). Working together for the future of European tourism.[www page]. URL. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/other/n26036_en.htm

European Commission (2003). Basic orientations for the sustainability of Europeantourism. (Brussels, 21.12.2003, COM (2003) 716 final). [www page]. URL.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0716:FIN:en:PDF

European Parliament (2005). European Parliament resolution on tourism and develop-ment (2004/2212(INI)). [www page]. URL. www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2005-0337&language=EN

European Parliament (2005). European Parliament resolution on new prospects and newchallenges for sustainable European tourism (2004/2229(INI)). [www page]. URLhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0335+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

Fayos-Solá, E. (2004). Política turística en la era de la globalización. In Instituto deEstudios Económicos de Cajamar (Ed.), Colección Mediterráneo Económico: Lasnuevas formas del turismo,5, (215–232). Almería, Spain: Cajamar.

Gahin, R., Veleva, V., & Hart, M. (2003). Do indicators help create sustainable commu-nities? Local Environment, 8(6), 661–666.

Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism? Tourism Man-agement, 19(3), 199–212.

Gunn, C. A. (1993). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, cases (3rd ed.). Bristol, UnitedKingdom: Routledge. Taylor & Francis group.

Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow, UnitedKingdom: Pearson Education Ltd.

Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 24(4), 850–867.

Ivars Baidal, J. A. (2001). Planificación y gestión del desarrollo turístico sostenible:propuestas para la creación de un sistema de indicadores. [www page]. URL.http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/20506/1/Planificacion_gestion_sostenible_desarrollo_turistico_sostenible.pdf

López Palomeque, F. (1999). Política turística y territorio en el escenario de cambioturístico. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles (AGE), 28, 23–38.

López Palomeque, F. (2001). El turismo en el desarrollo local y regional: aportacionesconceptuales. In J. L. Luzón, & N. Dantaslé (Eds.), Desarrollo Regional (pp. 109–140).Barcelona, Spain: Xarxa Temática Medamérica.

López Palomeque, F. (2001). Deregulation and marginality. New public policies andnew approaches the planning of tourism. In H. Jussila, & R. Majoral (Eds.), Global-isation and marginalisation in geographical space (pp. 159–171). Aldershot, UnitedKingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

Naredo, J. M. (2004). Sobre el origen, el uso y el contenido del término sostenible.Cuadernos de investigación urbanística, 41, 7–18.

Sánchez Rivero, M., & Pulido Fernández, J. I. (2008).Medida de la sostenibilidad turística.Propuesta de un índice sintético.Madrid, Spain: Editorial universitaria RamónAreces.

Sancho, A. (1998). Introducción al Turismo. Madrid, Spain: Organización Mundial delTurismo.

Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview.Technical report, 25, Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.

Spanish Ministry for the Environment (2003). Sistema español de indicadoresambientales de turismo. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.

Torres-Delgado, A. (2010). Sostenibilitat i modalitats turístiques: una anàlisi de casos aCatalunya. Documents d'Anàlisi Geogràfica, 56(3), 479–502.

Velasco González, M. (2008). Gestión de destinos: ¿gobernabilidad del turismo ogobernaza del turismo? [www page]. URL. www.esade.edu/cedit/pdfs/papers/pdf5.pdf

Vera Rebollo, J. F., López Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Antón, S. (1997). Análisisterritorial del turismo. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.

Vera Rebollo, J. F., López Palomeque, F., Marchena, M., & Antón, S. (2011). Análisisterritorial del turismo y planificación de destinos turísticos. Valencia, Spain: TirantLo Blanch.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future.Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Yasarata, M., Altinay, L., Burns, P., & Okumus, F. (2010). Politics and sustainable tourismdevelopment: Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus. Tourism Management,31, 345–356.