1 s2.0 S1470160X12000295 Main PDF

Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations

Macarena Lozano-Oyola a, , Francisco Javier Blancas a , Mercedes Gonzlez b , Rafael Caballero b
a
b
Department of Economics, Quantitative Methods and Economic History, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain
Department of Applied Economics (Mathematics), Malaga University, Malaga, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 May 2011
Received in revised form 13 January 2012
Accepted 17 January 2012
Keywords:
Sustainable tourism
Composite indicators
Action plans
Goal programming
Best practice
Benchmarking
a b s t r a c t
Sustainable tourism is being consolidated at an international level as an approach that should be used
to make all types of tourism more environmentally, socially and economically benecial. A common
practice is to use an indicator system for designing and implementing tourism models that focuses on
the sustainability approach. Indicators are considered as useful tools that allow tourism managers to
diagnose the situation of the destination, and to identify and evaluate issues that require addressing to
improve the level of sustainability of the tourist activities. However, these indicator systems usually do
not provide a practical guide to establish how to interpret information and how to integrate it into the
decision-making. In this paper we present an indicator system to evaluate sustainable tourism at cultural
destinations. Likewise, we suggest a method based on goal programming to construct composite indicators. The denition of the indicator system and composite indicators is completed providing guidelines
that establish how to use these tools in tourism sector planning. Specically, we propose three basic
practical uses for these tools: the formulation of general action plans at a regional level, the denition
of short-term strategies for destinations and the establishment of destination benchmarking practices.
Each practical use is illustrated using the case of cultural tourism destinations in the Andalusia region
(Spain).
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Tourism is the third largest economy in the world (ICOM
and WFFM/FMAM, 2007). This industry is economically important
due to its generating activities and, hence, increased direct and
indirect employment opportunities (Coccossis, 2008; Constantin
and Mitrut, 2008). In addition, there are social benets to both
tourists and residents, and the movement of tourists contributes
to cultural exchange (Besculides et al., 2002; Craik, 1995). Furthermore, tourism has an important knock-on effect in other
socio-economic sectors, thus promoting the improvement of
infrastructure and public services (Fletcher, 2008; Gibson et al.,
2003). However, the effect of tourism on the environment remains
problematic. In fact, the carrying capacity of several tourist destinations has been exceeded in recent years (Castellani et al.,
2007; Jurincic, 2005; Trumbic, 2004). As a result, more emphasis has been placed on improving the sustainability of these destinations.
Sustainable tourism is as such not a specic form of tourism but
more an approach that can be used to make all types of tourism
more environmentally, socially and economically benecial. In
this manner, tourism activities should be focused on resource
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 954349061; fax: +34 954349339.

E-mail address: mlozoyo@upo.es (M. Lozano-Oyola).
1470-160X/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.014
management in which all economic, social and aesthetic requirements are fullled, while simultaneously respecting cultural
integrity, essential ecological processes, and biological diversity
(World Tourism Organization, 1993). This is why adequate planning is required to safeguard against potential negative impacts. For
this reason, recent tourism planning processes have aimed to reconcile the development of competitive tourism activities with the
protection of the natural and cultural resources that support this
activity (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2004; Neto,
2003; Zhenjia, 2008). In this regard, the World Tourism Organization (WTO) indicates that the sustainable development of tourism
should promote an optimal use of resources (WTO, 2004). For this
reason, tourism action plans are increasingly focusing on the territorial dimension of sustainability. Within this framework, both
public and private agents are expected to promote sustainable
tourism initiatives, with local agents requiring objective tools to
determine the degree to which activities are sustainable (Blancas
et al., 2010a; Camagni, 2002; Landford, 2009; Yunis, 2004). Furthermore, strong political leadership and the broad participation of
stakeholders are required for collaborations to be successful (Bryon
and Russo, 2003; Castellani and Sala, 2010; Coccossis, 2008), and
to achieve a high degree of tourist satisfaction. To develop a more
sustainable model for tourism, efcient management is required
in which existing and potential impacts are continuously monitored, allowing the necessary preventive or corrective measures to
be introduced (WTO, 2004).
660
M. Lozano-Oyola et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675
Objective 1
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
INDICATORS SYSTEM
DEFINITION
Aggregation and Analysis:

COMPOSITE INDICATORS
Objective 2
PRACTICAL USES
CASE STUDY:
CULTURAL TOURISM
DESTINATIONS
IN ANDALUSIA (SPAIN)
Fig. 1. Steps to dene analytical tools to plan sustainable tourism activities. This
gure shows the steps to achieve the practical aim of this study: how to use analytical
tools (such as indicator systems and composite indicators) that provide information
which can be integrated into the current tourism policymaking.
At present, methods that are widely accepted for measuring sustainability are limited (Hanley et al., 1999; OECD, 2000). A large
number of studies use indicators to determine the level of sustainable tourism at target destinations. However, these studies
remain primarily theoretical, due to the incomplete quantication
of indicators. This inhibits the provision of guidelines to integrate
the information into current policy making (Bell and Morse, 2001;
Bosh, 2002; Dahkal and Imura, 2003; Farsari and Prastacos, 2002;
Gudmundsson, 2003; Hezri, 2004; Innes and Booher, 2000). These
indicator systems are often converted to composite indicators or
indexes through the aggregation of initial indicators. This provides a
multidimensional assessment of sustainable tourism (Blancas et al.,
2010b; Castellani and Sala, 2010; Snchez and Pulido, 2008). Let us
note that there are many alternative methodologies for obtaining
composite indicators (Nardo et al., 2005a,b; OECD, 2008).
In this context, in the current study we show how to use analytical tools (such as indicator systems and composite indicators)
that provide information which can be integrated into the current
tourism policy making.
This study is divided into ve sections. Section 2 introduces the
methodological approach, including the procedure that is followed
to develop a system of sustainable tourism indicators and to construct composite sustainability indicators. Section 3 presents the
practical uses of sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools.
The results and discussion are gathered in the following section.
Finally, in Section 5 the main conclusions are shown.
2. Methodological approach
In order to full the practical aim of this study, we xed two
main objectives (Fig. 1).
First, develop an indicator system that is easy to implement,
measure, and interpret for application towards improving the
sustainability of tourism activities in established destinations.
Furthermore, the proposed system allows users to assess the sustainability of activities belonging to the cultural tourism segment.
To facilitate information use and interpretation by managers
and the general public, we construct composite indicators of sustainability by using the methodology of the composite indicator
of goal programming (Blancas et al., 2010a). Specically, we show
how to use this methodology to evaluate the sustainability aim in

tourism destinations.
A second objective is to show how local agents can use indicator systems and composite indicators in current tourism policy
making.
To achieve these aims, we carry out an illustrative empirical analysis focused on cultural tourism in the Spanish region of
Andalusia. Cultural tourism may contribute to seasonally adjusted
tourism and to generating benets for the local community. However, the risk of exceeding the carrying capacity of the ecosystems
of the cultural destination, and the potential impacts of tourism on
the cultural heritage should be controlled. For example, the visiting
of certain buildings, historic sites and museums, may cause negative impacts, such as increased trafc, pollution, noise, wastewater
and water consumption. These impacts would affect the short-term
quality of life and living costs in the area affected. The intangible cultural heritage may also be threatened if the development of
tourism gives priority to the satisfaction of tourists but harms the
maintenance of traditional values in the municipality (Coccossis,
2008).
In this manner, by studying the cultural destinations we illustrate the potential of indicators to avoid unsustainable production
and consumption patterns encountered in other tourism segments.
2.1. Sustainable tourism indicator system for cultural
destinations
To measure the degree of cultural tourism sustainability in a
destination, we adopted an analytical approach (OECD, 2000) that
proposes the measuring of sustainability objectives using an indicator system. Within this framework, we selected a set of positive
and negative indicators relevant to sustainable tourism in the target region. Sustainable tourism indicators are dened as the set
of measures that provide the necessary information to better understand the links between the impact of tourism on the cultural and
natural setting in which this takes place and on which it is strongly
dependent (WTO, 1996). In this study, we delineated appropriate
indicators based on (1) the concept being measured (i.e., sustainable tourism) and (2) the characteristics of the destinations
analysed.
For the rst item, we use the institutional denition for a convergence position (Clarke, 1997; Hardy et al., 2002). Thus, we
dene sustainable tourism as the tourist activity that focuses on
resource management in such a way that all economic, social and
aesthetic necessities are satised, at the same time as respecting
cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and the life-support system (WTO, 1993).
Hence, touristic policies should be developed to ensure the
protection of natural, social and cultural resources that support
the activity and their capacity to satisfy the needs of tourists
and residents populations both present and future (ICOM and
WFFM/FMAM, 2007; Liu, 2003; Sharpley, 2000). To incorporate
these requirements into an operational framework we followed
established guidelines (Clarke, 1997; Hardy et al., 2002), including those of the World Tourism Organization (2004). Therefore, the
proposed system of indicators was delineated based on the sustainability issues that are required to attain sustainable tourism.
In this way, the concept of sustainable tourism is divided into
several quantiable components, to reduce ambiguity. Following previous studies (vila et al., 2002; Blackstock et al., 2006;
Blancas et al., 2010a,b; Dachary and Arniz, 2002; Fullana and
Ayuso, 2002; Lozano et al., 2009; Mauerhofer, 2008; Paracchini
et al., 2011; Tanguay et al., 2010), we selected three dimensions
of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. Other studies include the concept of an institutional dimension as a fourth
component (Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad: The Observatory for
Sustainability in Spain, 2008). This dimension refers to the capacity of institutions and governments to transform needs into policies
via coordinated and effective methods, in order to implement the
sustainable development of the tourism sector in a given community. The aim is to evaluate issues local agents deal with, such as
policy making, planning, coordination, and implementation with
other registered bodies. This paper presents an indicator system
as an analysis tool for managers to gain further knowledge on the
level of sustainability of a given situation and act accordingly. Given
that our aim is not to evaluate the institutional framework in which
these agents work, which tends to be similar for all the destinations
belonging to a single tourist region, we decided not to include this
dimension.
Sustainability issues were subsequently assigned to each
dimension using denitions obtained from existing studies. Baseline aspects were identied from the sustainability objectives and
associated indicators suggested by the World Tourism Organization
(2004). For each baseline aspect, a set of commonly used theoretical indicators and the variability which indicates an improvement
of the sustainability level are provided in the WTO guidebooks.
Also, the key or specic character of each indicator is given by this
institution. Key indicators show the basic information for the management of sustainable tourism at any destination. Furthermore,
specic indicators provide an evaluation of the sustainability issues
relevant to the particular characteristics (i.e., coastal areas, islands,
cultural sites) of a given tourist destination.
In this context, we dened our system by selecting from the
WTO guidebooks the baseline sustainability aspects and indicators that provided a sound basis for cultural tourism planning and
decision-making at established destinations.
Furthermore, we have included additional new aspects and indicators used in sustainability indicator systems at a local level, based
on existing research (Castro, 2004; Frausto et al., 2006; Gallego and
Moniche, 2005; Romagosa and Cutara, 2001; Sancho and Garca,
2006).
The selection of appropriate indicators for cultural tourism
destinations was based on the following criteria. The indicator facilitates progress towards a more sustainable scenario, via
scientic validity, representativeness, relevance, reliability, sensitivity, predictive character, being understandable, comparability,
cost-effectiveness, transparency and geographical coverage (Nardo
et al., 2005a,b; Romero et al., 2003). Also, these criteria allow the
carrying out of the planning and management of the tourist destination, considering that the level of spatial analysis infers the different
relevance of selected indicators in each destination. However, in
this selection we need available statistical resources to quantify
the indicators and conduct further analyses.
The essential list of issues and indicators that form our system is
a good way to begin to dene an indicator system in cultural zones.
Managers are encouraged to consult the indicator system proposed
and to choose the indicators that present the possibility of assessing
issues related to the environmental, economic and social conditions
at their destinations. In this task, a participative approach is needed
to take advantage of local knowledge.
Hence, Tables 13 represent the three dimensions of sustainability, with the 85 system indicators, and associated evaluation
issues, on which the system is built. It is to be noted that indicators may occur more than once if they impact on more than one
issue of sustainability (belonging to two dimensions) to avoid the
loss of any information. In these cases, the measures designed by
the local manager will have a different effect depending on the
dimension assessed. In this way, the tourism manager will make
decisions trying to achieve a balance between contradictory goals,
taking into account that an improvement of the indicator in one
dimension implies a worsening of the issue evaluated in another
dimension.
661
For each sustainability issue, a symbol is used to distinguish

between key (Ii ) and specic (i.e., to cultural tourism, ICUi ) indicators. Positive and negative indicators are used to indicate an
improvement or deterioration in the sustainability of the target
destination. In this sense, we consider that an indicator is positive
when a higher value represents an improvement in sustainability
in the area and negative for the contrary situation.
Baseline aspects of the social dimension and indicators identied by the WTO (2004), including the socio-cultural effects of
tourism, cultural heritage conservation, and public safety at the
destination, are shown in Table 1. We also included three additional
baseline aspects. The rst aspect included indicators facilitating the
analysis of tourism development in the local population structure,
such as tourist numbers registered by the municipality as excessive
or inappropriate and that cause an exploitation of the area or the
number of tourists attracted to reside permanently in the municipality. The second aspect included indicators related to the social
carrying capacity of the destination, facilitating the control of the
level of the tourist activity to avoid situations of rejection by the
local population. The third aspect included indicators that evaluate the indirect effects of tourism on the level of well-being of the
resident population.
Baseline aspects of the economic dimension and indicators
(Table 2) were all based on WTO (2004) criteria. The literature
analysis did not suggest additional local-scale aspects, although we
have identied new indicators for WTO economic issues.
Baseline aspects of the environmental dimension and related
indicators (Table 3) were primarily based on WTO (2004) criteria. Using the existing studies of local sustainable tourism (Sancho
et al., 2007), environmental management should be included in
this dimension to evaluate the administrative response of the
municipality towards safeguarding environmental issues against
impacts by proposed public activities. In addition, the literature
review supplemented information on new indicators to evaluate
existing sustainability issues, thus allowing new questions to be
addressed.
Subsequently, we selected the most appropriate variables or
quantiable measures for the practical application of the system, taking into account the existing statistical information. This
information was derived from specialised studies whose main
objective is the denition of sustainability indicators at a local level.
In addition, we have taken into account general guidelines and
research by public institutions that gather regional, national and
international experiences (Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente,
2008; EUROSTAT, 2006; Fundacin EOI de Andaluca y Observatorio
Ambiental de Andaluca, 2008; Hernndez, 2003; Ministerio de
Medio Ambiente, 2008; Observatorio de Sostenibilidad de Espana,

2008). The set of selected quantiable measures are made up
of indicators that provide both relative and absolute evaluations. This combination aims to avoid assessments that favour
large destinations compared to small municipalities or vice
versa.
The proposed indicator system is made up of a high number of
elements, making them difcult to use by managers in some cases.
Each indicator value separately shows the situation for each sustainability issue, and thus changes in their values are signicant of
the differences that occur in each dimension, but the alterations do
not always take place in the same direction or at the same time.
In order to overcome this limitation, we propose the obtaining
of composite indicators to facilitate the practical use of the previous system to guide sustainable tourism initiatives. Composite
indicators are useful tools for aiding public-policy decisions and
the dissemination of information to the general public. These synthetic measures have a practical utility in facilitating the access to
and interpretation by the user of a complex and multidimensional
phenomena, such as sustainable tourism.
662
Table 1
Sustainable tourism indicators for the social dimension.
Baseline aspects
Sustainability issues
Ij
Sign
Indicator
Formula/assessment
I1
Positive
Number of sports facilities

Total population of the municipality
I2
Positive
Sport facilities per

inhabitant
Health care equipment
I1 =
Socio-cultural
effects of tourism
on host
community
Capacity of sports
services activities
Capacity of health
services
Capacity of transport
services
I2 =
Number of health centers

I3
Positive
I3 =
Number of passenger transport vehicles

Capacity of nancial
services
I4
Positive
I4 =
Number of nancial institutions

Capacity of other
services
I5
Positive
I5 =
Number of establishments in the service sector

Capacity of
pharmaceutical
services
Tourist satisfaction
with the safety of the
destination
Protected cultural
heritage
Voluntary
contributions to
preservation of cultural
heritage
Heritage use intensity
I6
Positive
Number of passenger
transport vehicles per
inhabitant
Number of nancial
establishments per
inhabitant
Number of services
sector establishments
per inhabitant
Number of pharmacies
per inhabitant
I6 =
Number of pharmacies
I7
Positive
Safety assessment by tourist (provincial

approach)
I8
Positive
I9
Positive
Evaluation of
destination safety by
tourists
Number of protected
designated sites
Number of cultural
volunteers
I10
Negative
I10 =
Heritage interpretation
ICU3
Positive
Protection of cultural
traditions
ICU6
Positive
Pressure on cultural
heritage
Number of expert
guides in
interpretation
Number of festivals
and customs preserved
Sustaining population
levels
Increase in the young
population
Aging of the population
I11
Negative
I12
Positive
I13
Negative
Population density
I14
Negative
levels
levels
Imposition of foreign
culture (pressure on
host culture)
Social carrying capacity
I15
Negative
Variation of population
level
Percentage of young
population
Percentage of
non-active older
population
Number of individuals
per unit destination
area
Net migration rate
I16
Negative
Rate of natural increase
I16 = |Vegetative growth|
I17
Negative
Percentage of foreign
population
I17 =
Foreign population
100
I18
Negative
I18 =
Tourist population assisted

100
I19
Positive
Ratio of tourists to
locals
Life expectancy
I20
Positive
I20 =
Declared income 2005Declared income 2004

Declared income 2004
I21
Positive
I21 =
School population (non-compulsory levels)

Effects on population
dependency
Effects on access to
housing
Renovation of buildings
I22
Negative
I22 =
Population under 15 and over 65 years

Population between 15 and 65 years
I26
Negative
I26 =
Taxable property value

ICU1
Positive
Renovation of
buildings (cost of
cultural protection)
Improvement of the
urban environment
ICU4
Positive
Variation of available
income
Percentage of
population enrolled in
non-compulsory
education
General demographic
dependency index
Property value of real
estate per inhabitant
Percentage of
renovated buildings
Funds for building
renovation
ICU5
Positive
Funds for the

improvement of the
physical urban
environment
ICU5 =
Local public safety
Conservation of
cultural heritage
Effect on local
population
structure
Social carrying
capacity of the
destination
Effects on level of
well-being in the
local population
Improvement of
the urban
landscape
Effect on social
conditions that affect
population longevity
Effects on available
income
Effects on educational
levels of population
I8 =
Number of cultural assests (heritage building)

Surface of the municipality
Number of volunteers in cultural voluntary

associations
Number of tourists/365
Number of cultural assests (heritage building)
Number of expert guides in interpretation

(provincial approach)
Number of local festivals and traditions of the
destination
Population (2006)
I11 = Population
100 100
(1996)
I12 =
Population under 20 years

100
I13 =
Population over 65 years

100
I14 =

Area of the municipality
I15 = |Inmigrants Emigrants|
Life expectancy at birth (provincial approach)
100
100
100
100
ICU1 =
Number of renovated buildings

Total number of homes in the municipality
ICU4 =
Amount of funds for building renovation

100
Public funds for the improvement of the physical urban environment

663
Table 2
Sustainable tourism indicators for the economic dimension.
Baseline aspects
Economic
benets of
tourism for the
host community
and destination
Sustaining tourist
satisfaction
Development control
Tourism facilities
on offer
provision of a
variety of
experiences
Seasonality of
tourism activity
Tourism
employment
Tourism-related
transport
Ij
Sign
Indicator
Volume of tourism demand
I23
Positive
Total number of tourist arrivals
Length of stay
Tourism revenues
Investment in real estate
I24
I25
I26
Positive
Positive
Positive
Average length of stay

Tourist expenditure
Property value of real estate
Employment generated by the

service sector
Level of unemployment at the
destination
Investment in service sector
I27
Positive
I27 =
I28
Negative
Proportion of employees in the

service sector
Unemployment rate
I29
Positive
I29 =
Investment in service sector (industrial registry ofce)

Number of establishments in service sector
Telephone communications
I30
Positive
I30 =
Number of telephone lines in service

Total population of the municipality/1000
Online communications
I31
Positive
I31 =
Number of RDSI lines in service

Total populationof the municipality/1000
Online communications
I32
Positive
I32 =
Number of ADSL lines in service

Total population of the municipality/1000
Available income per

inhabitant
Global tourist satisfaction
I33
Positive
I33 =
Declared net income

I34
Positive
Tourist satisfaction with

pricequality relationship
Tourist demand faithfulness
I35
Positive
I36
Positive
Volume of registered service

sector investment
Number of telephone lines in
service
Number of RDSI lines in service
per 1000 inhabitants
Number of ADSL lines in
service per 1000 inhabitants
Declared net income per
inhabitant
Global satisfaction level of
tourists
Evaluation of the pricequality
relationship by tourists
Percentage of return visitors
Satisfaction with the visit to

cultural sites of the destination
ICU8
Positive
Planning of the tourist area
I37
Positive
Ofcial tourism
accommodation on offer
I38
Positive
Quality of ofcial tourism

I39
Positive
Non-ofcial tourism
I40
Negative
Restaurant services on offer
I41
Positive
Promotion of activities for

tourists
Promotion of tourist
experiences
I42
Positive
I43
Positive
Seasonality of accommodation
on offer
I44
Positive
Seasonality of tourist demand
I45
Positive
Seasonality of tourism
employment
I46
Positive
Volume of tourism
employment
Relative contribution of
tourism employment to total
employment at the destination
Capacity of transport services
I47
Positive
I48
Positive
I3
Positive
I49
Positive
I50
Positive
I51
Positive
I52
Positive
I74
Positive
Access to the destination by

airport
highway
road
railway
Network of roads for public
transport
Level of satisfaction with the

visit to cultural sites of the
destination
Existence of land use planning,
including tourism
Vacancies in ofcial tourism
accommodation
establishments
High quality vacancies of
ofcial tourism
accommodation
establishments
Number of non-ofcial tourism
accommodation
establishments
Vacancies offered in
restaurants
Number of tourist information
ofces per tourist
Existence of a website that
provides information about the
destination
Percentage of ofcial tourism
accommodation
establishments that are open
all year
Ratio of low-season tourists to
peak-season tourists
Ratio of low-season tourism
employment to peak-season
tourism employment
Total number of individuals
employed in the tourism sector
Percentage of employees in the
tourism sector relative to total
employment
Number of passenger transport
vehicles per inhabitant
Access time from the closest
airport
highway
road
railway station
Density of roads
Total number of tourist arrivals to the

municipality
Average length of stay
daily expenditure (provincial)
I25 = OvernightsAverage1.000.000
Taxable property value
I26 = Total population
100
of the municipality
Population employed in the service sec tor
Population employed in the municipality
100
Total unemployment rate at the municipality
Global satisfaction level of tourists (provincial

approach)
Evaluation of the price-quality relationship by
tourists (provincial approach)
Percentage of return visitors (provincial zones
approach)
Level of satisfaction with the visit to cultural
sites of the destination (provincial approach)
Existence of land use planning of destination
I38 =
Ocial tourism accommodation on offer

100
I39 =
High quality vacancies of ofcial tourism accomodation establishments

Total number of places offered
I40 =
Unoccupied housing
Total number of housing
I41 =
Vacancies offered in restaurants

I42 =
Number of tourist information ofces per tourist

Total number of tourists in the municipality
100
100
Existence of a website that provides

information about the destination
I44 =
Accommodation establishments open in low season

Total number of ofcial tourism accommodation establishments
100
I45 =
Number of tourists in the month of lowest demand

Number of tourists in the month of greatest demand
I46 =
Lowseason tourism employees

Peakseason tourism employees
Number of employees in the hotel industry

I48 =
I3 =
Employees in hotel industry

Population employed in the municipality
100
Number of passenger transport vehicles

Estimated access time from the closest airport

Estimated access time from the closest
highway
Estimated access time from the closest road
Estimated access time from the closest railway
station
length of the road network
I74 = TotalArea
of the municipality
664
Table 2 (Continued)
Baseline aspects
Ij
Sign
Indicator
Destination competitiveness
Occupancy rates for ofcial

accommodation
establishments
I53
Positive
Average occupancy rate for ofcial tourism

accommodation establishments
Tourist routes created
ICU2
Positive
Exploitation routes
ICU3
Positive
Average occupancy rate for

ofcial tourism
accommodation
establishments
Number of tourist routes that
include the destination in their
itinerary
Number of expert tourist
guides
Cultural investment
Cost of cultural protection
ICU4
Positive
Funds for building renovation
ICU4 =
Agglomeration
Spatial distribution of sites that

may be visited at the
destination
ICU7
Positive
Number of routes and

itineraries within the
municipality
Number of routes and itineraries within the

municipality
Tourist routes
2.2. Composite indicators of sustainable tourism

According to the OCDE Glossary of Statistical Terms, composite
indicators are dened as mathematical combinations (or aggregations) of individual indicators that represent the components of
the concept that is being measured through the initial indicator
system, providing a multidimensional assessment of this concept
(Nardo et al., 2005a; Saisana and Tarantola, 2002). There is a wide
selection of methods for obtaining composite indicators. These vary
based on the degree of involvement of analysts in the decisionmaking process (OECD, 2008). The selected method should be based
on the intended application of the composite indicator and subject or concept being evaluated (Esty et al., 2005; Ginsberg et al.,
1986).
For the purposes of this study, the method for deriving composite indicators must (1) be easy to interpret, (2) have a low
degree of associated subjectivity, due to the smaller number of
decisions adopted by the analyst, and (3) allow the insertion
of information from the large number of indicators in the initial system, without associated statistical restrictions. Therefore,
we have aggregated the information from the initial system by
using a recently developed method based on goal programming,
termed Goal Programming Synthetic Indicator (GPSI; Blancas et al.,
2010a,c). Our aim in this section is to briey present the most relevant aspects of this methodology that will be used in the empirical
analysis of this study. This method derives composite indicators
from the information provided by deviation variables associated
with the goals dened for each indicator present in the initial system. Several composite indicators may be dened, depending on
the level of fullment of the aspiration levels xed for each goal.
For this study, information was aggregated by using the Net Goal
Programming Synthetic Indicator (GPSIN ). At the same time, we can
afrm that the composite indicator proposed veries the general
properties that, according to previous studies (Ivanova et al., 1999;
Pena, 1978; Zarzosa, 1996; Zarzosa et al., 2005; Zheng, 1993), an
appropriate composite indicator must full.
In order to present the formulation of GPSIN , we consider an initial system made up of m sustainable tourism indicators to assess a
set of n destinations. Also we let Iij+ denote the value that represents
the ith destination in the jth positive indicator and Iik

denote the
value that provides the kth negative indicator for the ith destination
considered.
The analyst must then make two decisions prior to obtaining the
composite indicator, to (1) weight the relative importance of each
indicator of the initial system (where wj denotes the weight xed
to the jth indicator) and (2) dene an aspiration level for each indicator (where u+
and u
refer to the aspiration levels of the positive
j
k
and negative indicators, respectively). For positive indicators, the
aspiration level is interpreted as the minimum level at which a destination shows a suitable situation with respect to the sustainability
Number of tourist routes that include the

destination in their itinerary
Number of expert tourist guides (provincial
approach)
Funds for building renovation
issue under evaluation for a particular indicator. For negative indicators, the aspiration level reects the maximum level at which
a destination presents a favourable situation with respect to the
aspect being assessed.
The value that each destination presents for each indicator is
then compared with the aspiration levels. This is achieved by dening a goal for each indicator using deviation variables that assess
the differences between the two values (in which deviation variables are denoted by n and p). Based on Blancas et al. (2010a), if the
indicator Ij is positive, the goal for the jth indicator is dened as:
Iij+ + n+
p+
= u+
with n+
, p+
0 n+
p+
=0
ij
ij
j
ij
ij
ij
ij
where n+
is the under-achievement or negative deviation variable,
ij
and p+
is the over-achievement or positive deviation variable assoij
ciated with the positive indicator.
If the indicator Ik is negative, the goal for the jth indicator is
dened as:
Iik
+ n
p
= u
with n
, p
0 n
p
=0
ik
ik
k
ik
ik
ik
ik
where n
is the under-achievement or negative deviation variik
able and p
is the over-achievement or positive deviation variable
ik
associated with the negative indicator.
Thus, when the status of a destination is evaluated, deviation
variables equal to zero or unwanted are of interest. In the case of
positive indicators, an unwanted variable is the negative deviation
variable, while destinations that reach the aspiration level or above
present a better situation. For negative indicators, the unwanted
variable is the positive deviation variable, while destinations with
a lower value indicate a better situation.
Using the information provided by the previous deviation variables, we dene the GPSIN composite indicator. This measure
assesses the relative position of each destination without all aspiration levels needing to be lled. The composite indicator allows
for compensation between the indicators of the system. Thus,
better-positioned destinations indicate important decits in certain aspects that are being evaluated, as long as these weaknesses
have been compensated for with better values in other indicators.
The GPSIN composite indicator is divided into its components,
and these components can be used to analyse the status of each
destination. The rst component (GPSI+ ) quanties the strengths
of each destination in the concept evaluated, indicating to what
extent the destination fulls the aspiration levels that have been
set. The denition of the rst component is based on the aggregation of deviation variables, whereby a higher value indicates a
better relative position, with a positive deviation variable for positive indicators (p+
) and a negative deviation variable for negative
ij
indicators (n
). This aggregation is computed using the weight of
ik
each indicator and by normalising the deviation variables with
the corresponding aspiration levels, in order to obtain a correct
665
Table 3
Sustainable tourism indicators for the environmental dimension.
Baseline aspects
Ij
Sign
Indicator
Protection of the
natural
ecosystems
Protection of valuable
natural assets
I54
Positive
Percentage of the
destination considered
to be a protected
natural area
Energy consumption
Energy
management
Water
availability and
management
Wastewater
treatment
Management of
solid urban waste
Atmospheric
pollution
Management of
the visual impact
of facilities and
infrastructure
Intensity of use
Environmental
management
Energy
I55
Negative
Renewable energy
I56
Positive
Water use
I57
Negative
Water saving
I58
Positive
Treatment
I59
Positive
Treatment installations
I60
Positive
Waste production
I61
Negative
Recycled waste (glass)
I62
Positive
Tourist satisfaction
with cleaning services
I63
Positive
Treatment installations
I64
Positive
Separate collection of
waste (paper and
cardboard)
Recycled waste (paper
and cardboard)
Separate collection of
glass
I65
Positive
I66
Positive
I67
Positive
Noise pollution
Noise pollution
Pollutant emissions
I68
I69
I70
Negative
Negative
Negative
Impact of construction
I71
Negative
Erosion
I72
Negative
Landscape
conservation
Impact of the road
network
Intensity of tourist use
I73
Positive
I74
Negative
I75
Negative
Land-use
I76
Negative
Environmental
managers
I77
Positive
Percentage of energy
consumption from
renewable resources
Total volume
consumed per day
Volume of reused
water attributed to
tourism
I56 =
Energy consumption
Overnights
365
Population((36530)/365)+(Overnights/365)
Renewable energy consumption attributable to tourism (Ktep)
Electricity consumption (Mwh)(0.086/1000)
I57 =
Average water consumption

Volume of treated
wastewater
Existence of
wastewater treatment
plans
Volume of waste
produced at the
destination
Volume of recycled
waste compared to
total volume of waste
Evaluation of the
cleaning services by
tourists
Existence of
solid-waste treatment
installations
Number of paper and
cardboard recycling
bins per unit area
Volume of collected
paper and cardboard
Number of glass
recycling bins per
inhabitant
Daytime noise levels
Night-time noise levels
Pollutant emission
levels
Construction density
per unit area
Total surface area with
erosion problems
Total area of natural
landscape
Road network density
Volume of treated wastewater (equivalent load approach)
wj p+ij
jJ
u+
j
wk n
kK
u
k
ik
I55 =
where J is the set of positive indicators and K is the set of negative

indicators included in the initial system.
To sum up, the rst component of the composite indicator allows
the making of a comparative analysis of the destinations based on
their strengths without taking their weaknesses into account.
The second component (GPSI ) allows the weaknesses of each
destination to be evaluated in relation to the indicator system,
Overnights
365
Volume of reused water in Andalusia

Total population in Andalusia((36530)/365)+(Overnights in Andalusia/365)
Overnights
365
Existence of wastewater treatment plans in the

municipality
I61 =
Volume of waste
I62 =
Volume of recycled glass

Overnights
365
Evaluation of the cleaning services by tourists (provincial

approach)
Existence of solid-waste treatment installations (or other
treatment facilities)
I65 =
Number of paper and cardboard reycling bins

Volume of collected paper and cardboard per inhabitant

I67 =
Number of glass recycling bins

Daytime noise levels

Night-time noise levels
Annual emissions in tons
I70 = Resident
population+Tourists
I71 =
Number of constructions
Percentage of surface with erosion problems (provincial

approach)
Percentage of municipalitys surface of natural landscape
Existence of an
environmental
administrative unit
i {1, 2, . . . , n}
100
I58 =
Total tourists per unit

area
Unoccupied buildings
non-dimensional measure. In this way, the formulation of this component for a destination i is as follows:
GPSIi+ =
Percentage of the destinations surface considered to be a

protected natural area
I74 =
Total length of the road network

I75 =
Number of tourists received in the month of maximum inux

I76 =
Number of unoccupied housing

Total number of housing
100
Existence of an environmental administrative unit
quantifying the degree to which the destinations do not full the

aspiration levels that have been set. Like the rst component, the
second component is determined by adding the unwanted deviation variables (which are normalised and weighted) for each type
of indicator. This component is formulated for a destination i as
follows:
GPSIi =
wj n+ij
jJ
u+
j
wk p
kK
u
k
ik
i {1, 2, . . . , n}
Thus, the second component is an instrument for the evaluation

of the weakness shown by each destination without taking into
account its strengths.
666
Based on these two components, the GPSIN indicator for destination i is determined by the following weighted difference:
GPSIiN = GPSIi+ GPSIi
where and are relative weights assigned to the strengths and
the weaknesses of the destinations.
The denition of the GPSIN composite indicator is completed by
providing a stability analysis of the position attained by each destination when the aspiration levels for each indicator are changed.
For this analysis, the aspiration levels are multiplied by a parameter for the indicators that show the same direction of improvement.
Let be the parameter for the positive indicators, in which case the
new aspiration level is indicated by u+
; while is the parameter
j
for negative indicators, for which the aspiration level is u

. The
k
greater the value of the parameter that is xed, the greater the aspiration level required for the units being tested. Thus, we establish a
range of variation for these parameters by xing the minimum ( )
and maximum (+ ) values of parameter , for example [ , + ].
In a similar manner, we may have an interval for the parameter .
Nevertheless, in some situations, this parameter may be indicated
by = 1/, due to the reciprocal meaning of these two parameters.
Next, we divide the interval into 10 equal parts to obtain the value
of the aspiration levels for the 11 values derived from this process.
For each aspiration level, we obtain the values of the GPSIN composite indicator and the ranking of destinations associated with these
values. Studying variations in the position attained by each destination allow us to identify the destinations with more stability,
regardless of the and values. The most unstable destinations
may also be identied as destinations that have a better or worse
position in the ranking depending on the aspiration level values.
The indicator system proposed is made up of a large number
of indicators. Hence, we aggregate system information into two
phases. In the rst phase, we constructed a GPSIN indicator for
each dimension of sustainability (i.e., social, economic and environmental). These are termed dimensional composite indicators.
These indicators are suitable tools for the implementation of the
analysis and the decision making in which it is not necessary to
simultaneously use all the information of the system. In the second
phase, we obtained a global composite indicator that provides a
multidimensional measure of sustainable tourism in which all the
indicators of all the three dimensions are combined.
Once the methodology has been presented, in the following
section we show how to use the indicator system and composite
indicators in practice.
3. Practical uses of sustainable tourism indicators as
planning tools
Sustainable tourism indicators may have multiple uses as practical planning tools, the application of which should be decided by
local managers based on the issues that require addressing. In this
context, we propose three basic functions for sustainable tourism
indicators, (1) the formulation of general action plans at a regional
level, (2) the denition of short-term strategies for destinations and
(3) the establishment of destination benchmarking practices. In this
section, we determine the practical utility of the indicator system
and associated composite indicators in guiding policy makers on
these functions.
Regarding the rst basic function, sustainable tourism indicators can be used to formulate general actions plans at a regional
level. The regional government regulates the extent to which local
municipality action plans may improve the sustainability of the
tourist activity. These plans delineate the main action lines that
local tourism managers must follow and/or adjust to at the respective destinations. Thus, grant subventions are provided regularly
by regional governments to nance projects carried out by local

municipalities to address specic sustainability issues. Managers
must therefore have analytical instruments at their disposal to facilitate the diagnosis of the status of each destination and objectively
dene priority action lines for the region.
To identify these action lines required, we propose to use the
composite indicator values to rank destinations, and conduct a
comparative analysis between the destinations located at the top
and the bottom of the ranking. These comparisons should be made
by using information provided by the ratios between deviation variables and aspiration levels from which composite indicators are
derived, thus determining the strengths and weaknesses of each
destination.
In this study, we propose to use the comparative analysis based
on the dimensional composite indicators to identify the weakest
sustainability issues of the destinations with a worse sustainability
situation. In theory, these weak issues should be the main targets
of tourism managers, from which appropriate and specic strategies may be delineated for improvement. To accomplish this, we
suggest to using the indicator system to quantify a target value for
each sustainablity issue. These target values are obtained using the
mean indicator value for the best 10 destinations that are analysed
as a reference. Target values may be used to formulate management
control measures for the implementation of the regional tourism
plans in each destination and to redesign tourism plans. In practical
terms, specic strategies dened from this dimensional comparative analysis aim to promote sustainable activities in order to
reduce differences and to increase the convergence between destinations.
From a comparative analysis of the highest and lowest ranked
tourist destinations based on global composite indicator values, we
identied the sustainability issues in which destinations have the
greatest strengths. Logically, future tourism plans should further
enhance strong issues, to avoid the deterioration of destinations
that are already strong. In this sense, the information obtained
from this comparative analysis can be used to dene complementary actions to provide continuity to the positive results of previous
tourism plans.
A second basic function of sustainable tourism indicators in
planning processes is the formulation of short-term action strategies to improve sustainability. Within the framework of regional
plans, local tourism managers ought to formulate specic strategies aimed at improving the sustainability of tourist activities.
In this sense, composite indicators provide relevant information to support the design of short-term strategies that would
improve sustainability issues where destinations show unconsolidated strengths. These short-term strategies can be formulated
from the stability analysis of the position reached by the destination analysed when different elements of the composite indicator
are changed.
In the case of the procedure proposed, we dene these shortterm strategies as follows. Managers should use the graph produced
by the stability analysis to analyse the variation in the positioning of
the destination considered in the ranking associated with different
aspiration levels xed to obtain composite indicators. To evaluate the variation in the positioning of the destination, we suggest
analysing the values of the ratios between the deviation variables
and the aspiration levels of each indicator, thus breaking down the
composite indicator values. In this way, an increase in the parameter reects a decline in destination strength (because the values
of the p+
and n
variables are reduced) and an increased weakness
ij
ik
(since the p
and n+
variables values are increased). A variation
ij
ik
in the intensity of these variable values (i.e., the changes shown
by the ratio between the deviation variables and aspiration levels)
determines the relative positioning of the destination in the sustainability rankings. The variation value of the two components of
the composite indicator can be used to quantify the effects that

altered parameter values have on the ratio between the deviation variables and aspiration levels, with the number of indicators
in which the strength changes (positive versus negative) being
recorded. Based on these results, we propose the dening of shortterm actions to address the issues specically relating to indicators
which recorded a loss of strengths and thus improve sustainability.
In addition, the comprehensive analysis of on-going weaknesses
(which are identied when the exigency level of the composite indicator is increased) would facilitate the formulation of long-term
action plans to counteract such weaknesses.
Finally, a third basic function of indicators proposed is the definition of benchmarking practices of sustainable tourism among
destinations. The benchmarking of tourism destinations may be
dened as a continuous and systematic process that comprises
the identication, learning and implementation of the most effective practices and capacities from other destinations, in order to
improve the performance of the destination that introduces these
practices (Luque-Martnez and Munoz-Leiva,

2005). During this
continuous-learning process, tourism managers should (1) be clear
about what they are comparing and which destination is selected
to be used as a reference in the learning process (i.e., benchmark),
and (2) compare the actions of the destination considered to the
reference destination.
For the rst requirement, it is necessary to identify which questions and topics are included in the benchmarking practice. In this
sense, the indicator system proposed allows managers to visualise
the aspects that they must consider to evaluate the level of tourist
sustainability. Also, composite indicator values can be broken down
to identify the weaknesses of the destination. In this manner, these
two instruments can be used together to decide which issues are
compared in the learning process.
Tourism managers should select reference destinations taking
into account the general characteristics of the destinations being
analysed and the possibilities of adapting the reference destination practices. The combination of the indicator system and the
composite indicators proposed allows tourism managers to select
one or more destinations that act as a benchmark. Theoretically,
we consider as a benchmark the destination that obtains the best
result in the indicators being evaluated. As a result, managers may
identify more efcient practices that are already in use in other destinations. However, external advice should be sought to optimally
adapt these practices based on the actual situation in the respective
destinations to obtain similar results.
For the second requirement, managers should compare their
actions with those of the reference destination. To do this, different procedures are presumed to exist (Kozak, 2002). In the current
study, the quantitative information of the indicators can be used as
the initial level from which managers should adopt a performancegaps approach to identify all differences between the actions of
destinations. In this approach, the absolute differences between the
value of each indicator for the destination evaluated and the values
corresponding to the benchmarks are obtained. Positive differences
indicate that an action is appropriate and hence may be sustainable
in the long term by using the same type of policy actions. In contrast, negative differences indicate that an action is inefcient and
may be improved by adapting policy actions similar to those used
by the benchmark destinations.
At this point, we provide a case study to illustrate how the indicator system and sustainability composite indicators proposed can
be used to full the three functions presented. For this task, we
analyse sustainability in cultural tourist destinations in Andalusia (Spain). Andalusia is an important tourist destination in Spain,
where tourism accounts for 12.5% of the Andalusian GDP and provides employment for 13% of the workforce (Consejera de Turismo,
Comercio y Deporte, 2009). This region has the legacy of the
667
Fig. 2. The municipalities that fullled the criteria for cultural tourism in Andalusia.
different cultures and civilisations that settled here. Until a few

decades ago, tourism in Andalusia was primarily targeted at certain
coastal areas, with a secondary development of cultural tourism in
the most charismatic cities. This led to the overuse of certain destinations, and this impacted negatively on the environment through
problems of overcrowding and saturation, resulting in the loss of
the original attractions in these areas. In comparison, this region
contains cultural resources that have been inadequately exploited.
One of the priority action processes of the regional tourism planning is the expansion of cultural tourism to new areas of the
large and medium-sized cities (Consejera de Turismo, Comercio
y Deporte, 2007). Hence, regional and local managers should plan
to turn potential tourist resources into tourism products by taking
into account the activitys sustainability.
We focused on cultural tourism activities in tourist areas that
account for almost 56% of the total demand in the region. Geographically, these tourism areas primarily correspond to municipalities
with important cultural tourist activities. Municipalities were
selected based on the following criteria (1) the existence of
monuments, historic gardens, historic areas, historic sites, and
archaeological and ethnological sites in the municipality catalogued as protected designated sites, and (2) the inclusion of the
destination in at least two cultural routes/itineraries endorsed
by the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Sports of the Andalusian
Regional Government. These two criteria must be fullled by all
the destinations selected. Also, we x as a complementary criterion the selecting of municipalities with resident populations of
>20,000 inhabitants. Based on these criteria, 181 municipalities
were included in the analysis (Fig. 2).
4. Results and discussion
In order to conduct the empirical analysis proposed, our rst
task was to quantify the indicator system using a self-dened
database. This database was dened including three types of information: (1) direct information, provided from available statistical
databases of the relevant institutions, (2) indirect information,
obtained from internally available data (i.e., not accessible to the
public) of relevant institutions, and (3) supplementary eld data
collected by the study researchers.
In this regard, we generated new statistical information at a
municipal level not available at this time, so it is one of the main
contributions of this study, since other studies only dene an
indicator system (Farsari and Prastacos, 2002; Nader et al., 2008)
without completely quantifying it.
668
Fig. 3. The different levels of sustainability based on the social dimension at the studied cultural tourist destinations of the Andalusian region.
Specically, the methodology used to produce new statistical

information is as follows. Qualitative information was rst quantied for each destination by using complementary sources, such
as the Directory of Companies and Entities Related to the Environment or roadmaps. Second, telephone surveys were conducted
to quantify indicators, such as membership in associations of cultural volunteers. Third, information was compiled and quantied
from the City Councils, the tourist information websites, the Touristic Observatories, the Provincial Councils, the Provincial Board of
Tourism, and the Tourism Consortium.
The indicator system includes a diverse range of aspects, hence
it was necessary to access to multiple resources developed by different institutions. However, we aimed to use a single source to
measure the same indicator at all the target destinations to ensure
uniformity in the results obtained.
Once the indicator system was quantied for all destinations,
we conducted a descriptive statistics analysis of each indicator. The
results obtained in this analysis, using Cronbachs alpha coefcient
allow us to conclude that the indicators measure the same underlying concept in each dimension. Also, the indicators proposed show
a high variability among the destinations analysed. Practically all
the indicators presented a variation coefcient above 80%, conrming a high degree of heterogeneity among the destinations, even
those presenting similar population sizes. This high heterogeneity
illustrates the suitability of analysing sustainable tourism via the
overview offered by composite indicators.
In this way, in this empirical analysis we obtain composite
indicators of sustainable tourism in two phases, following the procedure described in Section 3, evaluating the utility of the GPSI
method for tourism planning by using it as follows. We start from
the initial values of the indicator system to determine the improvement direction and the aspiration levels for each indicator. Due
to the complexity and limited information available on the study
topic, we were unable to use an external source as a reference to
x aspiration levels objectively. Instead, we followed the practical
rule proposed by Blancas et al. (2010a), by selecting a level based on
the mean of each indicator. This practical rule is very useful when
there is an insufcient knowledge about the concept evaluated to
determine the characteristics of a reference situation clearly. Thus,
the aspiration levels of the positive indicators were xed at 80% of
their mean values. For the aspiration levels of the negative indicators, the reciprocal percentage of the mean values was used.
Regarding weights, we assign the same importance to each indicator and component of the composite indicator. In practice, the
aspiration levels and the weights values must be xed taking into
account the situation of each destination and the additional information that tourism managers can obtain from expert panels or
local knowledge (Garca-Meln et al., 2012; Miller, 2001).
As we have commented, a large number of destinations are analysed in this empirical study, so we do not present and describe the
results in detail. In contrast, we present the analysis of these results
in order to show how the indicator system and composite indicators obtained can be used in practice to conduct the three basic
functions dened in the previous section.
Regarding the formulation of general actions plans at a regional
level, we have obtained four destinations rankings based on composite indicator values. Then a comparison of destinations with a
high and low economic sustainability (gathered in Figs. 36) was
carried out, focusing our attention on the values of ratios between
deviation variables and aspiration levels. These comparisons allow
us to identify the weaknesses of the worst destinations. The results
of these analysis are shown in Tables 47. These tables show the
mean value, units of measurement and target values for each indicator that is a weakness at destinations of low sustainability. The
differences existing between the mean value of each indicator and
the target values highlight the sustainability issues that need to
be addressed with a greater immediacy. In this manner, the strategy for sustainable tourism in the region arising from results of a
previous quantitative analysis that denes the main areas of intervention and the priorities for the future. This result constitutes an
added value in contrast to other studies that dene sustainable
tourism according to stakeholders or policy makers consultation
and the SWOT analysis of the area (Castellani and Sala, 2010). Furthermore, this result shows how indicators can be used to dene
tourism policies unlike other studies that use indicators to control
developed tourism plans (Liu et al., 2012; Vila et al., 2010).
With respect to the social dimension, the destinations taking the
rst and last positions are shown in Fig. 3. From comparative analysis, six core weaknesses were indicated by the composite indicator
with respect to the sustainability of the social dimension (Table 4).
669
Fig. 4. The different levels of sustainability based on the economic dimension at the studied cultural tourist destinations of the Andalusian region.
Fig. 5. The different levels of sustainability based on the environmental dimension at the studied cultural tourist destinations of the Andalusian region.
First, the need to improve the capacity of social services available to

visitors, including equipment related to health and pharmaceutical
services. New resources should be assigned to invest in projects
that nance destinations to improve current capacities to provide
basic services to visitors and residents. With respect to the services
in decit, the resources of the nancial services and sports facilities
are currently scarce.
Second, it was identied that managers should reduce the intensity of visitor use at the regions cultural heritage to relieve congestion.
The regional government ought to set aside resources to develop
projects focused on redistributing tourism demand and improving
how the cultural tourism complements what is on offer at each
destination.
Third, the need to reduce the foreign population/resident ratio to

reach a more balanced social carrying capacity of each destination was
identied. An analysis of destinations with low sustainability shows
that the proportion of foreign population to residents in these zones
is high. Tourism managers should improve protection measures
regarding the cultural traditions in the tourism zones, and foster
the integration of the foreign population into the local population
to safeguard cultural traditions in the long term.
Fourth, the effectiveness of the security services at destinations
ought to be improved to increase the visitors feeling of safety.
Fifth, the need to improve the urban environment of tourist
destinations was identied, such as providing more resources to
renovate or restore cultural buildings.
670
Fig. 6. Destinations of high and low sustainability using the global composite indicator.
Table 4
Priority actions to improve social sustainability.
Indicators
Measurement unit
Mean value
Target value
I1
I2
I4
I6
I7
I10
I11
I14
I15
I16
I17
I18
I20
I26
ICU1
ICU4
Sports facilities per inhabitant

Health care equipment per inhabitant
Financial establishments per inhabitant
Pharmacies per inhabitant
Evaluation scale (010)
Daily number of tourists per asset of cultural interest
Variation of population levels in percentage
Inhabitants per square kilometre
Net migration rate (persons in absolute terms)
Rate of natural increase (persons in absolute terms)
Percentage of foreign population
Tourist population assisted per inhabitant
Variation of available income (as a percentage)
Property value of real estate per inhabitant
Percentage of renovated houses
Euros per inhabitant
0.002256562
0.000260822
0.000947496
0.000239533
7.38
201.5021961
49.8541029
1060.675938
797.4666667
445.7333333
23.1525077
15.91653465
11.14242953
48500.71131
0.500041257
1.014851391
0.008149537
0.006474819
0.002136291
0.00169812
8.4
0.019512394
0.195591844
6.46543242
2.181818182
1.2
0.959088123
0.32556561
20.13198935
5442.418625
5.883615851
240.9076218
Table 5
Priority actions to improve economic sustainability.
Indicators
Measurement unit
Mean value
Target value
I23
I24
I25
I26
I28
I29
I31
I32
I39
I42
I44
I45
I47
I50
I51
I52
ICU2
ICU4
ICU7
Tourists
Days
Euros per million
Euros
Percentage
Euros invested per establishment
Number of ISDN lines in service per thousand inhabitants
Number of ADSL lines in service per thousand inhabitants
Percentage of high quality vacancies of ofcial tourism accommodation establishments
Number of tourist information ofces per tourist
Percentage of ofcial tourism accommodation establishments that are open in the low season
Number of low-season tourists per peak-season tourist
Number of employees in the hotel industry
Access in minutes from the closest highway
Access in minutes from the closest road
Access in minutes from the closest railway station
Number of transport routes
Euros per inhabitant
Number of tourist itineraries
349185.9813
5.923106389
68.43788748
48500.71131
18.82
255.459515
19.88145015
122.8689732
60.90745859
0.00001620
26.32689765
0.192764863
2161.066667
6.4
7.533333333
20.13333333
7.6
1.014851391
4.133333333
905373.033
10.90070042
138.3014965
73297.872
7.25
3733.992188
27.57701184
173.4448333
100
0.002737942
100
0.666629726
6909.222222
0
0
0
31.09090909
240.9076218
12.8
671
Table 6
Priority actions to improve environmental sustainability.
Indicators
Measurement unit
Mean value
Target value
I54
I55
I57
I61
I64
I70
I71
I72
I73
I74
I75
I76
I77
Percentage of surface
Megawatts per hour and day
Cubic meters of water per day
Tons of waste per year
Annual emissions in tons per person (local inhabitant + visitor)
Number of buildings per square kilometre
Percentage of surface with signicant erosion problems
Percentage of area dedicated to landscape
Kilometres of road network per square kilometre
Number of peak month tourists per square kilometre
Percentage of unoccupied constructions
11.71666667
20801.37815
35989121.03
6663489.875
0.733333333
0.495925183
758.6962387
36.73974218
66.76053605
4.970201776
1362.945755
15.9098295
0.933333333
99.993
2.711349156
2.040216057
0.379935008
1
0.053081299
4.540943188
0
100
0.232434271
0.557658067
2.153640951
1
Sixth, the envisaging of complementary management measures to

control tourist activity effects was determined. On the one hand,
managers need to control tourism effects on the variation of the
population in order to allow the maintenance of its levels and structure. On the other hand, complementary measures should aim at
controlling the tourism effects on the social determinants of the
populations levels of well-being.
In the case of the economic dimension (Fig. 4), a comparison of
destinations with a high and low sustainability highlighted six core
weaknesses that need to be addressed (Table 5).
First, resources to nance projects that improve economic benets from tourist activities for the local community should be
provided, such as increasing the level of the tourism demand,
attracting more tourists from important nearby urban centres
and promoting the connections of their tourism on offer. Managers ought to diversify the tourism on offer to increase the
average length of stay and daily spending levels of visitors.
Furthermore, projects at destinations should also be promoted
to increase the resources invested in the services sector and
decrease local community unemployment rates. Hence, projects
with a positive impact on infrastructure related to online communication services would be a priority, due to the high tourist
demand.
Second, managers should improve the quality of the tourist
offer available at the destination. This action line aims to dene
an accommodation offer where high quality vacancies of ofcial
tourism accommodation establishments make up almost the whole

destination offer.
Third, the reduction of the seasonality of tourism activities that
is on offer at destinations was identied. Managers should set
aside resources to nance projects that allow the year-round use
of tourism accommodation and develop new tourism products that
attract low season visitors.
Fourth, managers ought to promote investment in projects that
generate new permanent and high quality employment at accommodation establishments to enhance local community employment
levels.
Fifth, visitor accessibility should be improved, specically transport infrastructure to reduce travel time to destinations and access
time to tourist resources. Hence, managers should invest in projects
that improve routing (i.e., road quality) radiating out from major
urban centres to alternative less intense destinations to increase
use.
Sixth, investments ought to be boosted to improve the tourism
exploitation of resources in each zone. This requires (1) the integration of the tourist destination into regional tourism tours to
secure a constant volume of visitors, (2) the denition of new
tourism itineraries within each destination, encouraging visitors to
visit more tourist sites in the local area (not only the main tourist
attractions), (3) the investment in projects that improve urban
environments through the renovation and restoration of signicant
buildings to preserve the cultural identity.
Table 7
Benchmarking of the cultural tourism destination of Jaen.
Jaen
Benchmarks
Weaknesses
Indicator value
Destination
Value
Gap
I1
I2
I15
I16
I20
I24
I29
I36
I38
I41
I42
I48
I54
I56
I62
I66
I67
I72
I74
ICU1
ICU3
0.001019106
0.000162714
842
502
6.393341071
1.490373333
109.2455557
40.24
1.053361766
6.821159726
0.00001427
4.134860051
5.43
0.352952205
4.253697471
0.000770753
0.000770753
63.82065728
1.441690141
0.940803383
16
Fuenteheridos
Macharaviaya
Frigiliana
Gaucin
Los Barrios
Alhama de Almeria
Archidona
San Roque
Hornos
Capileira
Moclinejo
La Iruela
Pampaneira
La Iruela
Benalmadena
Hornos
Hornos
Cadiz
Camas
Ardales
Malaga
0.01320132
0.01038961
0
0
26.16413089
18.64775667
16326.07407
85.1
96.07843137
101.7730496
0.01204819
25.44987147
99.95
10.51348802
27.35516323
0.018099548
0.018099548
0
17.66666667
8.948194662
382
0.012182214
0.010226896
842
502
19.77078981
17.15738333
16216.82852
44.86
95.02506961
94.95188992
0.012033924
21.31501141
94.52
10.16053582
23.10146576
0.017328795
0.017328795
63.82065728
16.22497653
8.00739128
366
672
A comparison of destinations with high and low environmental sustainability (Fig. 5) highlighted the weaknesses of the worst
destinations in this dimension (Table 6). Six main actions were
delineated.
First, the maintenance and expansion of natural areas in the destinations are required. Managers should provide resources to nance
projects in which the natural wealth, the conservation status and
the potential to establish protected natural areas of a specic destination are analysed. Whether protected or not, these zones should
be equipped for public use to minimise the impacts of human activities on the ecosystems.
Second, the reduction of energy and the consumption of water
resources attributable to tourism are advisable. This action line
requires resources to be set aside to nance projects that promote
more efcient consumption practices at tourist establishments. It
would also be necessary for managers to promote the preferential
use of renewable energy sources and to increase the sensitivity of
tourists and local inhabitants to this matter.
Third, urban solid waste management and the reduction of pollutant emissions require improvement. This could be done by reducing
the volume of solid wastes attributable to the tourist activity and
promoting the separate collection of wastes and recycling. In addition, new solid waste treatment installations should be constructed
to cover existing decits.
Fourth, the visual pollution of facilities and infrastructure of the
environment of the destination could be reduced. Managers should
regulate the density of construction at each destination and control the length of the road network. In addition, managers should
make an effort to preserve or regenerate the natural environments
of the destination. This would be possible by limiting erosion and
maintaining the natural landscapes.
Fifth, environmental pressure caused by the intensity of use of
destination resources by tourists could be reduced. For example,
pressure levels may be improved by reducing the seasonality of
tourist activity and maintaining the carrying capacity levels in peak
seasons. Land-use should also be controlled. Thus, managers ought
to reduce the number of unoccupied buildings by providing owners
with incentives to renovate, inhabit and integrate these buildings
into the urban environment.
Sixth, local administrative units should be promoted to channel all
actions related to environmental and sustainability management at
the tourism destinations.
In addition, an analysis of the destinations with a high and low
sustainability, obtained by using the global composite indicator
(Fig. 6), indicated that sustainability issues require complementary
actions to provide continuity to the positive results of previous plans and to ensure current strengths are maintained in the
future.
First, existing assets of cultural interest per square kilometre in
municipalities need to be preserved and improved, thus promoting the participation of local agents in the conservation of cultural
sites. Second, tourist information services should evolve to full
the visitors needs by improving the professional training of the
workers. Third, a non-decreasing number of vacancies in the ofcial tourism accommodation establishments of each municipality
ought to be promoted to reduce the importance of non-ofcial
tourism accommodation on offer. Furthermore, congestion problems may be avoided by the creation of new tourist itineraries that
reduce the pressure on the cultural heritage of the main tourist
attractions.
Fourth, with respect to the tourism demand, regional plans
should promote actions that guarantee a non-decreasing number of
tourists received by the tourist zones of higher sustainability. This
can be done by developing the activities on offer through greater
tertiary sector investments. Such actions would increase the daily
average tourist spending of visitors.
Fifth, regional plans should guarantee the maintenance and

improvement of the number of tourism employees directly generated by the ofcial tourism accommodation establishments on
offer. This objective requires destinations to progressively rene
the volume of tourism demand, thus avoiding the negative effects
associated with the typical seasonal tourist activity based on the
traditional and intensive tourism model.
Environmental complementary actions ought to focus on the
improvement of the quality of the separate cleaning services for
urban solid waste collection. This objective requires an increase in
the number of solid waste containers in the tourist zones of each
destination and the maximum collaboration of the tourism establishments in this task. The destinations should also increase the
volume of treated wastewater. Sources of renewable energy should
also be preferentially used.
The overall aim of the complementary actions is to encourage
further improvement in zones that already have a high sustainability. The managers of these zones need to maintain efforts to
continue improving urban environments, such as urban infrastructure and the conservation and restoration of important cultural
buildings.
In order to illustrate how the formulation of short-term action
strategies to improve sustainability can be carried out, we use as a
reference the stability analysis obtained from the economic dimensional composite indicator. We establish an interval of [0.8, 1.5]
for the parameter variation. The interval is then divided into 10
equal segments to obtain the GPSIN composite indicator ranking. A
variation in the positioning of each destination allows the identication of (1) the most stable sustainability scenarios, regardless
of aspiration level values and (2) destinations with the least stable
sustainability. In this latter case, destinations are positioned based
on the aspiration level that is set to obtain the composite indicator.
Specically, we use the most and least stable destinations to show
how an action strategy may be formulated according to different
levels of ranking. The stability rankings, which are derived from
the economic sustainability indicators, for the all destinations are
shown in Fig. 7.
The positive indicator parameter values (i.e., ) are shown on
the abscissa axis and the position of each destination is shown on
the ordinate axis. A limited variation was found between the rankings of the destinations (i.e., 30% of the destinations presented in
Fig. 7 are always located in the same position in the ranking). Seville
was the most stable cultural destination, always located in the rst
position. In comparison, Hornos was the least stable destination.
The municipality of Seville had the highest ranking for all the
economic sustainability indicators obtained. In the initial ranking
this destination it is located at the top because of the high strength
level (GPSI+ of 126.75) and relatively low weaknesses level (GPSI of
3.24). A modication of aspiration levels caused a decline of about
53% in strength and an increase of almost 137% in weakness for
this destination. Despite the high percentage increase in the weaknesses of the destinations, the favourable starting point enables
Seville to maintain the rst position in all the rankings. However,
an increase in the exigency level (i.e., aspiration levels) of the composite indicator, results in the loss of strengths in about 34% of
the economic sustainability indicators. This decline indicates that
short-term actions are required to address the issues specically
relating to these indicators to improve sustainability. Based on our
results, we recommend two key issues that need to be addressed.
Specically, (1) the satisfaction levels of the tourism demand and
(2) the quality and quantity of tourism employment opportunities. The former may be achieved by adapting the tourism activities
being offered in order to reect the visitors needs. These would, in
turn, improve the faithfulness of the tourist demand and lead to
a better pricequality relationship. The latter would require the
generation of year-round tourism activities. This would increase
673
200
180
Position of each destination
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0,8
0,87
0,94
1,01
1,08
1,15
1,22
1,29
1,36
1,43
1,5
Seville
Torremolinos
Granada
Archidona
Marbella
Moclinejo
Benalmadena
Malaga
Fuengirola
Pampaneira
Cordoba
Baos de la Encina
Almeria
Nerja
Estepona
Maria
Albanchez de Magina
Purullena
Jimena de la Frontera
Villamartin
Siles
Alajar
Valor
Torvizcon
Belmez
Moclin
Benaojan
Algodonales
Ugijar
Castril
Hornos
Paremeter values
Fig. 7. The stability ranking of economic sustainability for cultural tourism destinations in the Andalusian region of Spain.
the number of permanent contracts (versus temporary contracts).

These actions would contribute towards maintaining and improving the high levels of competitiveness shown by the destination of
Seville.
In the case of the Hornos municipality, the modication of
aspiration levels (by increasing the parameter value) caused
a progressive decline in its sustainability ranking. The highest
strength level was GPSI+ 24.37 versus a high weakness level of GPSI
17.98. Changing the aspiration levels values, the strengths of this
destination decline by about 64%, while the weaknesses increase
by about 96%. As a result, the overall ranking of this destination
declines in relation to the other destinations, reaching one of the
last positions. Hence, the higher exigency level of the composite
indicator causes a loss of strengths in about 39% of the evaluated
economic indicators, with a favourable position being maintained
for just about 10% of the indicators. The short-term action plans
required should address (1) the satisfaction levels of the tourism
demand, (2) the quality and quantity of the tourism employment
opportunities, and (3) the diversity of the cultural activities being
offered. These actions would increase the average stay of visitors and thus the generation of economic income. These actions
would require the creation of new tourism itineraries for the destination, thus spreading the distribution of the tourism demand
among the available cultural resources. In addition, as Hornos is
an inland destination, situated 91 km and 1.37 h travel time from
the nearest major city, an improved access to tourism resources
is required. Hence, it is necessary to address the transport infrastructure requires by increasing the number of public passenger
transport vehicles per inhabitant and the road network area.
These results show that the stability analysis may be used to
formulate short-term action strategies to improve the sustainable
tourism in destinations.
Finally, the indicators proposed can be used to conduct a third
basic function: to implement benchmarking practices among destinations. To illustrate how these benchmarking practices work, we
consider the case of Jaen. This destination is the provincial capital
that obtained the lowest global composite indicator value and thus
is the urban centre with the lowest sustainability in the region. For
this destination, we set out to dene a benchmarking practice from
which actions are developed to improve the destinations global
weaknesses. The destinations weaknesses are identied by determining each indicators net contribution (by analysing the values
of the ratio between the deviation variables and aspiration levels of the global composite indicator). Indicators with net negative
contributions represent the destinations main global weaknesses.
We select the benchmarks for each weak issue identied. Then, we
compare the situation of Jaen with regard to the benchmarks identied for each issue, analysing the performance gaps in each case.
Positive and negative indicators are differentiated by the values of
the latter being shown with a negative sign. The results obtained
are shown in Table 7.
For the municipality of Jaen, the resulting benchmarking differences or gaps of all issues evaluated fell short of the reference
benchmark for best management practices. The benchmarks that
were identied are located mainly in municipalities of a reduced
dimension in the inland zones of the region. The comparative analysis of the actions that are implemented in reference destinations
provides tourism managers with vital information to formulate
new measures aimed at reducing gaps or differences shown in the
results. A detailed analysis of the conclusions obtained from the
benchmarking practices corresponding to Jaen are not presented
here, as the purpose of this section was to provide an illustrative
example of how benchmarks may be selected and performance
gaps calculated.
5. Conclusions
In this paper we analyse one of the most important sectors
worldwide, which can generate signicant impacts on the environment in which it is developed: the tourism sector. In recent
decades, governments have created tourism models that mitigate
the negative effects of this activity and increase the competitiveness of destinations by improving sustainability. To accomplish
these objectives, the action strategies of tourism plans are increasingly focusing on the territorial dimension. According to this new
approach, the design and implementation of policy measures for
tourism plans require the knowledge of local agents about the specic needs of their destination.
In this context, tools such as sustainable tourism indicators
are necessary to objectively measure the degree of sustainability.
674
We consider that the indicator system (and composite indicators

derived from it) dened in this paper cover the current shortage
of indicators related to the sustainability of tourism in social, economic and environmental terms. Also, these tools could facilitate
(1) the identication and prevention of problems, (2) the decisionmaking processes of the planning sector, and (3) the establishment
of corrective measures when they are necessary.
In practical terms, the indicator system proposed in this study
is made up of an essential list of sustainability issues that can be a
good starting point for the denition of practical systems adapted
to the characteristics of each destination. To carry out this denition, tourism managers are encouraged to consult the indicator
system proposed and select the indicators that enable the evaluation of issues related to the social, economic and environmental
conditions in their destinations. In this selection, a participative
approach is required to take advantage of local knowledge. Also,
the opinion of the local agents or the information obtained from an
expert panel may be considered to assess the sustainable tourism in
each destination through the introduction of subjective indicators
in the system.
Likewise, we suggest the construction of composite indicators
to facilitate the practical use of the previous system. Composite
indicators are useful tools for aiding public-policy decisions and
the dissemination of information to the general public. Specically,
we propose to obtain indexes by using the GPSI indicator method.
This methodology is considered as meeting the requirements of the
current study for several reasons. First, the aggregation procedure
does not require a previous normalisation method, and presents
the values of the composite indicator in a non-dimensional scale
based on the value of the aspiration levels. Second, this method has
a practical utility, as it may be applied when the number of units
exceeds the number of indicators of the initial system, in contrast
to other statistical methods such as Principal Components Analysis. Third, the GPSI indicator is based on goal programming and
may be used to aggregate the information of an initial system in
several phases, allowing a global indicator to be obtained by using
all of the elements within the system simultaneously. However,
methodological limitations include the requirement to make additional decision making, such as the setting of the weights and the
aspiration levels for each indicator. Yet, any difculty or subjectivity associated with this limitation was compensated for by the
inherent ease of application and interpretation of results.
The empirical analysis presented shows the potential role of
sustainable tourism indicators and indexes derived for tourism
planning. Compared to other research, we adopt a more operational
approach to dene analytical tools that full the requirements of
potential users (i.e., local authorities and tour operators) providing
a practical guide to establish how to use them for tourism planning.
Specically, we claried three core practical uses of the indicator
system and the composite indicators, namely (1) the establishment of general action plans at a regional level, (2) the denition
of short-term strategies at a local level, and (3) the delineation of
benchmarking practices for the comparison of destinations. As a
result, this system also overcame another important limitation of
the previous studies, as we provided guidelines on how to interpret
and utilise the indicator values in current policy-making processes.
In conclusion, our study used social, economic and environmental indicators of sustainability to identify the gaps in sustainable
tourism practices through the comparative ranking of cultural
tourism destinations. The system developed facilitates the regular
re-evaluation of practices, allowing changes in planning processes
to be monitored and adjusted, as well as the comparison of sustainability at regional, national and international levels, not only
promoting competition but also the sharing of best practices. The
analytical system developed in our study may be applied to different sustainable practices on local, regional and global scales.
Ultimately, the conclusions of this study may be used as a practical guide to dene, quantify and apply information obtained from
the sustainable tourist indicators for other destinations.
Some improvements could be introduced in future studies. In
this sense, case studies should be carried out to establish a practical
procedure that can be taken as a reference by managers to complete the indicator system proposed through participative methods
(Mascarenhas et al., 2010). From a methodological point of view, the
aggregation method suggested to obtain composite indicators can
be improved. Specically, an interesting issue to explore in this way
is the denition of a weighting method from an expert panel that
allows aggregating the information in a more realistic way (Callon
et al., 2001).
Regarding the proposed practical guidelines, we have established three possible uses for indicator systems and composite
indicators to plan in the tourism sector. However, these tools may
have multiple uses which should be decided by local managers
based on the issues that need to be addressed. In this sense, studies
that aim to establish new practical uses for indicators are needed in
order to set out guidelines about the formulation of local tourism
action plans. The case study approach is the most suitable one for
this kind of analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the referees for
their valuable and helpful comments, which have improved the
quality of the paper. This research has been partially funded by the
research projects of the Andalusian Regional Government and the
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science.
References
Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente, 2008. Conjunto Bsico de Indicadores de la
AEMA. Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente, Bruselas.
A., Morera, C.,
vila, R., Iniesta, A., Herrero, D., de Juan, J., Aguirre, G., Guerena,
Beluche, G., Aguilar, P., Zambrano, D., Ruiz, R., Buglass, L., Kamp, C., Giraldo, A.,
2002. Turismo Sostenible. Coleccin problemas internacionales. EIPALA, Madrid.
Bell, S., Morse, S., 2001. Breaking through the glass ceiling: who really cares about
sustainability indicators? Local Environ. 6 (3), 291309.
Besculides, A., Lee, M.E., McCormick, P.J., 2002. Residents perceptions of the cultural
benets of tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 29 (2), 303319.
Blackstock, K.L., Scott, A.J., White, V., McCrum, G., 2006. Indicators and Sustainable
Tourism: Summary of Interview Findings. The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen. AB15 8QH.
Blancas, F.J., Caballero, R., Gonzlez, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., Prez, F., 2010a. Goal
programming synthetic indicators: an application for sustainable tourism in
Andalusian coastal counties. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11), 21582172.
Blancas, F.J., Gonzlez, M., Lozano-Oyola, M., Prez, F., 2010b. The assessment of
sustainable tourism: application to Spanish coastal destinations. Ecol. Indicators
10, 484492.
Blancas, F.J., Gonzlez, M., Guerrero, F.M., Lozano-Oyola, M., 2010c. Indicadores sintticos de turismo sostenible: una aplicacin para los destinos tursticos de
Andaluca. Rect@ 11, 85118.
Bosh, P., 2002. The European Environment Agency focuses on EU-policy in its
approach to sustainable development indicators. Stat. J. United Nations ECE 19,
518.
Bryon, J., Russo, A.P., 2003. The tourist historic city. Ann. Tourism Res. 30 (2),
492494.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., Barthe, Y., 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur
la dmocratie technique. ditions Seuil, Paris.
Camagni, R., 2002. On the concept of territorial competitiveness: sound or misleading? Urban Stud. 39 (13), 23952411.
Castellani, V., Sala, S., Pitea, D., 2007. A new method for tourism carrying capacity assessment. In: Tiezzi, E., Marques, J.C., Brebbia, C.A., Jorgensen, S.E. (Eds.),
Ecosystems and Sustainable Development VI. WIT Press, Southampton.
Castellani, V., Sala, S., 2010. Sustainable performance index for tourism policy development. Tourism Manage. 31, 871880.
Castro, J.M., 2004. Indicadores de Desarrollo Sostenible Urbano: Una Aplicacin para
Andaluca, Consejera de Economa y Hacienda. Junta de Andaluca, Sevilla.
Clarke, J., 1997. A framework of approach to sustainable tourism. J. Sustain. Tourism
5 (3), 224233.
Coccossis, H., 2008. Cultural heritage, local resources and sustainable tourism. Int. J.
Serv. Technol. Manage. 10 (1), 814.
Consejera de Turismo, Comercio y Deporte, 2007. Plan general de turismo sostenible
de Andaluca 20082011. Junta de Andaluca, Sevilla.

Consejera de Turismo, Comercio y Deporte, 2009. Plan Director de Marketing
2009/2012 Andaluca. Junta de Andaluca, Sevilla.
Constantin, D., Mitrut, C., 2008. Tourism, cultural resources and regional competitiveness: a case study in Romania. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manage. 10 (1), 4860.
Craik, J., 1995. Are there cultural limits to tourism? J. Sustain. Tourism 3 (2), 8798.
Dachary, A.C., Arniz, S.M., 2002. Globalizacin. In: Turismo y Sustentabilidad. Universidad de Guadalajara, Mxico.
Dahkal, S., Imura, H., 2003. Policy-based indicators systems: emerging debates and
lessons. Local Environ. 8, 113119.
Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2004. Steps to Sustainable Tourism.
Planning a Sustainable Future for Tourism, Heritage and Environment. Australian Government. Commonwealth of Australia.
Esty, D.C., Levy., M., Srebotnjak, T., Sherbinin, A., 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. Yale Center of
Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, Conn.
EUROSTAT, 2006. Methodological Work on Measuring the Sustainable Development
of Tourism. Part 2: Manual on Sustainable Development Indicators of Tourism.
Working Paper. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European Communities,
Luxembourg.
Farsari, Y., Prastacos, P., 2002. Sustainable tourism indicators. Case-study for the
municipality of Hersonissos. Paper presented at the International Scientic Conference on Tourism on Islands and Specic Destinations, Chios.
Frausto, O., Rojas, J., Santos, X., 2006. Indicadores de Desarrollo Sostenible a Nivel
y Cozumel, Mxico, Estudios MulRegional y Local: Anlisis de Galicia, Espana,
tidisciplinarios en Turismo. SECTUR 1, 175201.
Fletcher, J., 2008. The socio-cultural impact of tourism. In: Cooper, C., Fletcher, J.,
Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., Wanhill, S. (Eds.), Tourism. Principles and Practice. FT Prentice Hall, Milan.
Fullana, P., Ayuso, S., 2002. Turismo Sostenible. Rubes, Barcelona.
Fundacin EOI de Andaluca y Observatorio Ambiental de Andaluca, 2008. Informe
de Sostenibilidad en Andaluca 2008. Coleccin EOI Medio Ambiente. Fundacin
EOI de Andaluca, Sevilla.
Gallego, I., Moniche, A., 2005. Sistema de Indicadores Territoriales para un Destino Turstico. Conferencia de la OMT Iguaz, Argentina/Brasil/Paraguay, 36 de
octubre de 2005: La Cuenta Satlite de Turismo (CST): Comprender el Turismo
Estrategias.
y Disenar
Garca-Meln, G., Gmez-Navarro, T., Acuna-Dutra,

S., 2012. A combined ANP-delphi
approach to evaluate sustainable tourism. Environ. Impact Asses. 34, 4150.
Gibson, A., Dodds, R., Joppe, M., Jamieson, B., 2003. Ecotourism in the city? Torontos
Green Tourism Association. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 15 (6), 324327.
Ginsberg, N., Osborn, J., Blank, G., 1986. Geographic Perspectives on the Wealth
of Nations. Department of Geography Research Paper No. 220, University of
Chicago, Chicago.
Gudmundsson, H., 2003. Making concepts matter: sustainable mobility and indicators systems in transport policy. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 55, 199217.
Hanley, N., Moffat, I., Faichney, R., Wilson, M., 1999. Measuring sustainability: a time
series of alternative indicators for Scotland. Ecol. Econ. 28, 5573.
Hardy, A., Beeton, R.J.S., Pearson, L., 2002. Sustainable tourism: an overview of the
concept and its position in relation to conceptualisations of tourism. J. Sustain.
Tourism 10 (6), 475496.
Hernndez, A., 2003. Informe sobre los indicadores locales de sostenibilidad
utilizados por los municipios espanoles

rmantes de la Carta Aalborg.
http://habitat.aq.upm.es/indloc/aindloc.html (accessed 21.02.11).
Hezri, A.A., 2004. Sustainability indicator system and policy issues in Malaysia: a
framework for utilisation and learning. J. Environ. Manage. 73, 357371.
ICOM and WFFM/FMAM, 2007. Declaration of the International Council of Museums
(ICOM) and the World Federation of Friends of Museums (WFFM) for Worldwide
Sustainable Cultural Tourism. http://icom.museum/leadmin/user upload/
pdf/Statements/ENG/tourism2007 eng.pdf (accessed 21.02.11).
Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2000. Indicators for sustainable communities: a strategy
building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Plan. Theor. Pract.
1, 173186.
Ivanova, I., Arcelus, F.J., Srinivasan, F., 1999. An assessment of the measurement
properties of the human development index. Soc. Indic. Res. 47, 157179.
Jurincic, I., 2005. Carrying capacity assessment of Slovene Istria for tourism. In: Brebbia, C.A., Kungolos, A. (Eds.), Sustainable Development and Planning II, vol. 1. WIT
Press, Greece.
Kozak, M., 2002. Destination benchmarking. Ann. Tourism Res. 29 (2), 497519.
Landford, C., 2009. Managing for sustainable tourism: a review of six cultural world
heritage sites. J. Sustain. Tourism 17 (1), 5370.
Liu, Z., 2003. Sustainable tourism development: a critique. J. Sustain. Tourism 11 (6),
459475.
Liu, C.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., Lee, M.-H., 2012. Improving tourism policy implementation
the use of hybrid MCDM models. Tourism Manage. 33, 413426.
Lozano, M., Prez, V.E., Blancas, F.J., 2009. Indicadores sintticos de sostenibilidad
turstica para destinos rurales: el caso andaluz. In: Lpez, D. (Ed.), Innovacin,
creatividad y nuevos modelos de gestin en turismo, Castelln, Editorial Tirant
lo Blanch.
Luque-Martnez, T., Munoz-Leiva,

F., 2005. City benchmarking: a methodological
proposal referring specically to Granada. Cities 22 (6), 411423.
675
Mascarenhas, A., Coelho, P., Subtil, E., Ramos, T.B., 2010. The role of common
local indicators in regional sustainability assessment. Ecol. Indicators 10,
646656.
Mauerhofer, V., 2008. 3-D sustainability: an approach for priority setting in situation of conicting interests towards a sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 64,
496506.
Miller, G., 2001. The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: results of a
Delphi Surrey of tourism researchers. Tourism Manage. 22, 351362.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2008. Banco Pblico de Indicadores Ambientales.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.
Nader, M.R., Salloum, B.A., Karam, N., 2008. Environment and sustainable development indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecol.
Indicators 8, 771777.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E., 2005a.
Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide.
OECD Statistics Working Papers.
Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., 2005b. Tools for Composite Indicators Building. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, European
Commission.
Neto, F., 2003. A new approach to sustainable tourism development: moving beyond
environmental protection. ST/ESA/2003/DP/29, DEA discussion paper series 29,
United Nations.
OECD, 2000. Frameworks to Measure Sustainable Development. Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development Publications Service, Paris.
OECD, 2008. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and
User Guide. OECD Publications, Paris.
2008. Indicadores del Observatorio de
Observatorio de Sostenibilidad de Espana,
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.
Sostenibilidad de Espana.
Paracchini, M.L., Pacini, C., Jones, M.L.M., Prez-Soba, M., 2011. An aggregation framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land
use to the stakeholder evaluation of policy options. Ecol. Indicators 11,
7180.
Pena, J.B., 1978. La Distancia P: Un Mtodo para la Medicin del Nivel de Bienestar.
Revista Espanola
de Economa 8, 4989.
Romagosa, F., Cutara, L., 2001. El Desarrollo Sostenible en Destinos Tursticos: Propuesta de un Sistema de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad. Papers de Turisme 30,
124139.
Romero, E.M., Prez, F., Sande, J.J., 2003. La Valoracin del Desarrollo Sostenible: Una
Propuesta Metodolgica. Andaluca Ecolgica, Medio Ambiente, Sevilla.
Saisana, M., Tarantola, S., 2002. State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and
practices for composite indicator development. Joint Research Center, European
Commission.
Snchez, M., Pulido, J.I., 2008. Medida de la sostenibilidad turstica Propuesta de un
ndice sinttico. Centro de Estudios Ramn Areces y FITUR, Madrid.
Sancho, A., Garca, G., 2006. Qu indica un Indicador? Anlisis Comparativo en los
Destinos Tursticos. Revista de Anlisis Turstico 2, 6985.
Sancho, A., Garca, G., Rozo, E., 2007. Comparativa de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad
para Destinos Desarrollados, en Desarrollo y con Poblaciones Vulnerables. Ann.
Tourism Res. 9, 150177.
Sharpley, R., 2000. Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the theoretical
divide. J. Sustain. Tourism 8 (1), 119.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.F., Lanoie, P., 2010. Measuring the sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indicators 10,
407418.
Trumbic, I., 2004. Tourism carrying capacity in Mediterranean coastal tourist
destinations. In: Coccosis, H., Mexa, A. (Eds.), The Challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment. Theory and Practice. Ashgate Publishing Company,
Burlington.
Vila, M., Costa, G., Rovira, X., 2010. The creation and use of scorecards in tourism
planning: a Spanish example. Tourism Manage. 31, 232239.
World Tourism Organization, 1993. Tourism: The Year 2000 and Beyond Qualitative
Aspects. Discussion Paper, World Tourism Organization.
World Tourism Organization, 1996. What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism.
World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization, 2004. Indicators of Sustainable Development for
Tourism Destinations. A Guidebook. World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
Yunis, E., 2004. Indicators to measure sustainability in tourism. Paper presented at
7th International Forum on Tourism Statistics, Stockholm, Sweden, 911 June,
World Tourism Organization.
Zarzosa, P., 1996. Aproximacin a la Medicin del Bienestar Social. Universidad de
Valladolid, Valladolid.
Zarzosa, P., Molpeceres, M.M., Prez, A., Prada, M.D., Prieto, M.M., Rodrguez, C.,
Zarzosa, F., 2005. La Calidad de Vida en los Municipios de la Provincia de Valladolid. Diputacin Provincial de Valladolid, Valladolid.
Zheng, B., 1993. An axiomatic characterization of the watts poverty index. Econ. Lett.
42, 8186.
Zhenjia, Z., 2008. Signicance of protecting natural sites for ecotourism development. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2 (1), 101106.

1 s2.0 S1470160X12000295 Main PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 s2.0 S1470160X12000295 Main PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 954349061; fax: +34 954349339.

M. Lozano-Oyola et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675

Aggregation and Analysis:

how to use this methodology to evaluate the sustainability aim in

M. Lozano-Oyola et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675

For each sustainability issue, a symbol is used to distinguish

Medio Ambiente, 2008; Observatorio de Sostenibilidad de Espana,

M. Lozano-Oyola et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675

Number of sports facilities

Sport facilities per

Number of health centers

Number of passenger transport vehicles

Number of nancial institutions

Number of establishments in the service sector

Safety assessment by tourist (provincial

Rate of natural increase

I16 = |Vegetative growth|

Tourist population assisted

Declared income 2005Declared income 2004

School population (non-compulsory levels)

Population under 15 and over 65 years

Taxable property value

Funds for the

Local public safety

Number of cultural assests (heritage building)

Number of volunteers in cultural voluntary

Number of expert guides in interpretation

Population under 20 years

Population over 65 years

Total population of the municipality

I15 = |Inmigrants Emigrants|

Life expectancy at birth (provincial approach)

Number of renovated buildings

Amount of funds for building renovation

Public funds for the improvement of the physical urban environment

M. Lozano-Oyola et al. / Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659675

Volume of tourism demand

Total number of tourist arrivals

Average length of stay

Employment generated by the

Proportion of employees in the

Investment in service sector (industrial registry ofce)

Number of telephone lines in service

Number of RDSI lines in service

Number of ADSL lines in service

Available income per

Declared net income

Tourist satisfaction with

Volume of registered service

Satisfaction with the visit to

Planning of the tourist area

Quality of ofcial tourism

Restaurant services on offer

Promotion of activities for

Seasonality of tourist demand

Access to the destination by

Level of satisfaction with the

Total number of tourist arrivals to the

Total unemployment rate at the municipality