Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Carrying capacity assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the

creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area
E. Navarro Jurado a, *, M. Tejada Tejada b, F. Almeida García a, J. Cabello González c, R. Cortés Macías a,
J. Delgado Peña d, F. Fernández Gutiérrez e, G. Gutiérrez Fernández a, M. Luque Gallego c,
G. Málvarez García b, O. Marcenaro Gutiérrez f, F. Navas Concha b, F. Ruiz de la Rúa c, J. Ruiz Sinoga d,
F. Solís Becerra a
a
Faculty of Tourism, Malaga University, Campus de Teatinos s/n, 29071 Malaga, Spain
b
Physical Geography, Pablo Olavide University, Spain
c
Department of Applied Economy (Mathematics), Malaga University, Spain
d
Department of Geography, Malaga University, Spain
e
Human Geography, Almeria University, Spain
f
Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Malaga University, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The growth and expansion of tourism is a complex phenomenon and its study requires multiple disci-
Received 7 June 2011 plines. When related to sustainability, the growth limits and carrying capacity of destinations must also
Accepted 18 December 2011 be considered. The objective of this article is to develop a methodology to assess the growth limits of
tourist destinations, and this method is then applied to the management and planning of an open tourist
Keywords: resort. The limits to growth are established using a mathematical formulation (i.e., multicriteria analyses,
Carrying capacity
based on the reference point methodology) based on synthetic indicators applied to two scenarios: weak
Coastal management
and strong sustainability. There are two developments in this type of research. The first is that the
Multicriteria analyses
Indicators
application of this method is neither restricted to a natural protected area, which has its own rules and
Costa del Sol management, nor to an island possessing geographically controlled entry and exit points. Rather, this
study focuses on an open coastal area with an economy based on mass tourism. Second, this new way of
assessing growth limits uses a flexible formula e adaptable to other coastal areas, e.g., rural, natural, and
urban e depending on the impacts generated by the tourism and the objectives specified by destination
managers.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction refers to the complex political concept associated with limited

The growth and expansion of the tourism industry in recent
decades is a highly complex phenomenon whose study has to be
approached using multiple disciplines (Gormsen, 1997; Ritchie &
Crouch, 2004). In the present economic system, quantitative
growth has been positive and has served as a base for models of
tourist development (Butler, 2006; Hawkins & Mann, 2007). Many
authors have described the evolution of tourism development. For
instance, Jafari (2001) describes four platforms (advocacy,
cautionary, adaptancy, and knowledge-based) that are of use to
study and understand tourism. Later, MacBeth (2005) includes two
additional platforms (sustainability and ethics). “Sustainability”
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 952133250; fax: þ34 952132092.
E-mail addresses: enavarro@uma.es (E. Navarro Jurado), mtejtej@upo.es
(M. Tejada Tejada).
growth, although the idea of the limit is usually is avoided due to
the implications that it may have for economic development. The
“ethical” platform is thus the acknowledgment of assuming non-
objective positions in different scopes that affect the develop-
ment of tourism, such as policy, development, planning or
management. This new approach recognizes that tourism is multi-
sector and multidimensional and has implied “a most significant
concept to draw from the literature over the past years” (Hawkins &
Mann, 2007:353).
The debate on the limits of growth is not new (Meadows Report
IeII) and has been around since the 1930s in the case of the tourism
sector (Saveriades, 2000:148). The first experiments were con-
ducted in the 1960s in natural parks within the United States. In the
1980s, the focus was on the analyses of impacts and on reducing
negative effects through the modification of tourism policies
(Gössling & Hall, 2005). In the 1990s, when the concept of

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.017
1338 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346
sustainable development arose in relation to tourism, the sustain-
able development was related to the carrying capacity (CC), more
than anything because the idea of sustainability implies a limit and
because both concepts share the same difficulties as far as the
formulation of the ideas (objectives), practices, utility and diversity
of types (Saarinen, 2006, 1122). The most basic problem is not
arrived at because the prevailing economic ideology denied the
existence of limits.
The study of limits within the concept of carrying capacity has
a long tradition in biology, forest sciences, sociology, and geography
(McCool & Lime, 2001) because it provides specific answers for
particular destinations, as researched by Cifuentes et al. (1999, 60
pp.) in Costa Rica’s Protected Natural Areas. Many definitions of
and opinions on carrying capacity perspective exist (Garrigos
Simón, Narangajavana, & Palacios Marques, 2004; Saarinen,
2006). For example, some definitions are more oriented toward
behavior and reflect the quality of the recreational experience,
while others focus on biophysical and resource thresholds
(Saveriades, 2000). The WTO defines carrying capacity as “the
maximum number of people that can visit a tourist destination at
the same time, without causing destruction of physical, economic
or sociocultural means and an unacceptable reduction in the
quality of the satisfaction of visitors” (PAC/RAC., 2003:5).
Consequently, different types of carrying capacity limits exist
because it has not been an object of unique study. The threshold
established by residents is different than that for tourists, and both
differ from ecological limits. It is for that reason that the search for
a “magic number” is not possible and has obstructed the develop-
ment of the concept of carrying capacity for quite some time. A
clear example is the criticisms and proposals for use of alternative
tools, such as Visitor Experience and Resource Protection and Limits
of Acceptable Change (McCool & Lime, 2001). Additionally, there is
debate in prestigious journals, where Lindberg, McCool, and
Stankey (1997) invalidated the concept of carrying capacity.
Buckley (1999) responded by easily arguing the benefits of using
the concept of carrying capacity to emphasize relations between
impacts, the level of use and the limits to be established. Watson
and Kopachevsky (1996, 177) indicated that “the fact that we
have not devised tools with which to measure carrying capacity
does not justify dismissing it from the discussion.” Furthermore,
Butler (1996) proposed that a reasonable estimation would be
established using a similar concept.
However, the debate has not concluded because there is an
interest in presenting theoretical and practical advances in scientific
research. An example is the systematization that Saarinen (2006)
applied to sustainability limits, proposing three approaches that
have guided studies according to different ontological ideas and
different epistemological perspectives. (i) In the case of carrying
capacity based on “resources”, the aim is to protect resources and is
based on measurable limits from original conditions and the
intensity of their impact on the natural and cultural resources of the
destination. This approach is based on the positivist tradition
through an ecological perspective of sustainability (McKercher,
1993). (ii) The developers’ perspective is based on changes in
“tourism activity”. This approach has been adopted by different
international organizations such as the World Trade Organization.
One of the better-known tourism models for destinations is Butler’s
life product cycle; in this model, limits are dynamic, and changes
will depend on how the destination adapts to the new situations, for
example, increasing the carrying capacity with marketing,
increasing infrastructures or renewing products. The limits depend
on the tourism sector, the different segments of the destination and
its resources. In fact, if growth does not exist, it may be that the limit
has been reached and that new products are needed for continued
growth. (iii) The “community-based” traditions of sustainability
focuses on the selection of limits through the participation of share
capital (locals and stakeholders involved in the tourism industry)
via a process of social negotiation (Hughes, 1995). This perspective
is associated with constructivism and related to information,
knowledge and relations with power, for which reason, it has had
a noticeably political slant (Saarinen, 2006).
The community base approach interprets carrying capacity
similar to a management concept that reflects the objectives of
managers and users to satisfy both tourists and residents (Lindberg
et al., 1997; Williams & Gill, 1994). At present, the objective of public
managers (representing citizens) is to have a competitive tourist
destination. In this globalized context, competitiveness is related to
the sustainability of the destinations; a more sustainable space can
be more competitive (Ritchie & Crouch, 2004), and an assessment
of sustainability limits needs to be established. The limits are
quantified according to the type of sustainability desired. Hunter
(1997) considers that there are two main types. First, there is
“weak sustainability,” which implies that an economy is sustainable
when capital remains constant, while recognizing that environ-
mental capital can be replaced by other forms of capital. Natural
resources have a market value: the neoclassical economy. The
second type is “strong sustainability,” which maintains that natural
capital cannot collapse because it is not replaceable with the other
form of capital: ecological economy.
With our sights on the cutting edge in this field of study, the aim
of this article is to develop and apply a methodology to assess the
growth limits of tourist destinations. This method is then applied to
management and planning using two synthetic indicators in the
context of a complex and open tourist resort. There are two
developments in this research. The first is related to the fact that
the application is not restricted to either a nature preserve, which is
protected by policy (with specific management), or to an island,
which is geographically controlled at entry and exit points. The
study focuses on an open coastal area based on mass tourism.
Second, this new way of assessing growth limits uses a flexible
formula e adaptable to other coastal areas, e.g., rural, natural, and
urban e depending on the impacts generated by the tourism and
the objectives specified by destination managers. The investigation
also presents an answer to Saarinen’s (2006) conceptual reflections
and contributes to an experimental approach where proposed
growth limits and formulate fundamental principles. The meth-
odology considers two limits for each criterion: the “threshold of
reserve” assumes that a criterion has exceeded the carrying
capacity, and the “threshold of aspiration” assumes that the ideal
state, e.g., sustainability, because carrying capacity has not been
exceeded. The result is that the first synthetic indicator assimilates
the concept of weak sustainability but extends to all variables
ranging from environmental to economic or social. If some criterion
exceeds the reserve threshold, it can be compensated for by other
criteria. The second synthetic indicator deals with strong sustain-
ability and assumes that if there is some criterion that exceeds the
reserve threshold, it cannot be compensated by the other criteria,
and therefore, the destination has surpassed its carrying capacity.
The research has been validated when applied to a consolidated
coastal destination; however, the flexibility of the method allows it
to be applied to other areas, adapting to different indicators, their
weights and the objectives of managers (reference points).
2. Area of study: Eastern Costa del Sol (Spain)
The study area is the Eastern Costa del Sol (Malaga-Spain),
which is located south of the Iberian Peninsula in the Spanish
Mediterranean, opposite the northern coasts of Morocco and
separated by the Strait of Gibraltar and the Alboran Sea (Fig. 1). The
study focuses on a surface area of 331 km2 with a population of
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346
Fig. 1. Location of the study area. Southeastern coast of the Costa del Sol (Spain).
147,637 inhabitants (2007), and a coastal length of 55 km. The area
includes five municipalities from west to east: Rincón de la Victoria,
Vélez-Malaga, Algarrobo, Torrox and Nerja. The topography is
defined by weak hills and is exposed to the south and isolated from
the hinterland by a mountainous ridge, which allows for significant
sunshine and protection from cold northerly winds from the
hinterland. Access and transport are complicated, and traditional
agriculture produces typically low yields because of the landscape
as well as limited capacities of hillside soils. These conditions have
contributed to making the tourism industry a significant alterna-
tive, especially considering the privileged subtropical climate,
beaches alongside coastal plains and small coves of outstanding
biological wealth, especially in the Tejeda and Almijara Mountains
Natural Park.
Before the development of the tourism industry near the end of
the 1960s, the economy was essentially one of subsistence, except in
the areas with subtropical crops. With time, conflicts between
agriculture and tourism arose over the use of natural resources,
similar to those in other destinations of the Spanish Mediterranean.
Tourist development grew, in combination with city-planning
growth (Blázquez Salom, Garau Muntaner, & Murray Mas, 2002;
Malvárez, Pollard, & Dominguez, 2000, 2003; López et al., 2005).
The area has not benefited from rational spatial planning, and
growth was determined by the demand for urban planning in all
municipalities. The result has been a strong transformation of the
coastal landscape with now irreversible environmental impacts
(erosion of beaches, artificialization of river basins, pollution of
aquifers, etc.). Economic and social impacts, e.g., a 248% increase
between 1991 and 2007 in tourist areas, and 60% increase in resident
population, have been interpreted as positive trends by the press
and local and regional politicians. This expansive growth has been
the main factor of change, limited only by regional spatial plans.
1339
3. Methodology
Methodologically speaking, the research focuses on two main
currents: (1) the development of an indicator system for the
assessment of tourism sustainability (Coccossis et al., 2002;
Manning, 1999; United Nations, 1997) and (2) the adaptation of
multicriteria evaluation techniques (Buzai & Baxendale, 2006; Jiang
& Eastman, 2000; Pereira & Duckstein, 1993; Woodcock & Gopal,
2000). The methodological proposal has two phases. In the first
phase, 175 indicators were created, all in relation to the sustain-
ability and vulnerability of tourist activity along the coast. In the
second phase, 35 indicators were selected using three criteria: (i)
the importance of the indicator in the tourist system for the zone,
(ii) the possibility of establishing objective quantitative limits (legal
criteria) and subjective (enunciated in the literature or criteria for
management with respect to the competitiveness of the destina-
tion in the Spanish Mediterranean) and (iii) the possibility of
integrating the data in a geographic information system (GIS) with
the purpose of determining zones that have exceeded established
limits. Finally, once streamlined, only 24 indicators are selected: 9
physical, 9 socioeconomic and 6 social (Table 2).
The scale used in the spatial dimension for the study is local,
although the impacts of tourism are global (Saarinen, 2006), the
academics, policies and research have operated more on this scale
(Canestrelli & Costa, 1991; Saveriades, 2000). In addition, local
agents contribute to global processes with their results (Teo & Lim,
2003), in what Falk (2003) has described “globalization from above.”
In phase 1, the aim is to classify the state of the territory with the
purpose of determining growth limits. This vision is not free of
technical difficulties due to the diversity of information, the
multitude of sources and the different methodologies applied. To
organize the information, the DPSIR system is used (Driving force,
1340 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346

Pressure, State, Impact and Response) (EEA, 2005; OCDE, 1993). The
driving forces induce pressure, generating an impact, and the
resulting state is the response of the system, from administrations
as well as stakeholders. A system of indicators is developed with
the purpose of understanding and becoming aware of the variables
that can measure capacity thresholds. There are two types of
thresholds: objective limits (e.g., the physical resilience of beaches,
possible floods zones in the hydraulic river basin, etc.) and
subjective limits (e.g., the percentage of tourists and residents that
has exceeded the threshold, causing a downgrading of the resort, or
the limits of the local economic system over revenues and expen-
ditures of the city council.). A detailed explanation of each one of
the methodologies used to create the indicators is tedious and is
not one of the objectives of this publication. Table 1 lists some data
of interest from the indicators.
In terms of the data on coastal morphology, updated bathymetric
information made it possible to classify coastal types according to
the potential behavior of the beach system. This was performed to
develop the morphodynamic indicator. Using this data, the resil-
ience of beaches could be inferred, and the physical potential for
tourist development implied. For other social data-fed indicators,
four surveys were carried out in 2007, interviewing residents (529
samples, with a level of confidence of 95% and a sampling error of
3.9%), tourists (732 samples, with a level of confidence of 95% and
a sampling error of 3.3%) as well as a Delphi survey with 52 inter-
views of experts and tourism sector professionals. A survey of beach
users (133 samples, with a level of confidence of 95% and a sampling
error of 7.7%) was also conducted. With this data, the carrying
capacity of beaches was calculated for residents and tourists.
The integration of the different indicators was carried out using
Geographic Information Technologies based on multicriteria anal-
yses (GIS-MCDA) (Boroushaki & Malczewski, 2010; Buzai &
Baxendale, 2006; Jiang & Eastman, 2000; Tejada et. al., 2009;
Woodcock & Gopal, 2000). The use of these techniques permits
homogenization as well as the ability to measure each indicator
using the same scale, thus making them comparable.
In phase 2 of the study, the comparison and aggregation of
values resulting from the individual analysis of each indicator was
carried out. A multicriteria scheme based on reference point
methodology (Wierzbicki, 1980) was used. Generally speaking, this
methodology consists of establishing, for each criterion (in this
case, for each indicator), a reference value, i.e., a value that is
regarded as desirable by the decision makers. Once these values
are established, an achievement scaling function is used, which
measures the deviation between the values of the indicators and
the reference levels. These functions also incorporate weights,
whose role can range from purely normalizing (scaling) factors to
fully preferential parameters (Ruiz, Luque, & Cabello, 2009). The
original reference point scheme can be generalized if a double
reference point (reservationeaspiration) is used. Namely, the
decision maker is asked to provide, for each objective indicator,
a reservation level (i.e., a level beneath which the values of the
function are not regarded as acceptable) and an aspiration level
(i.e., a desired value for the function). In Wierzbicki, Makowski,
and Wessels (2000), this scheme is proposed as a means of
carrying out objective rankings of alternatives; in Ruiz, Cabello,
and Luque (2011), it was used to develop synthetic sustainability
indicators.
The procedure is divided into several steps, which are now
described in detail.
Step 1: Classification of the initial data
The indicators measure different concrete aspects of the
carrying capacity of the zone, relative to each pixel of the grid,
and they have been divided into three classes (physical,
economical, and social). Let us denote with T the number of
pixels considered in the study. For each class k (1,2,3), let pk
j
denote the number of indicators assigned to class k, and by qki,
the value of indicator i for pixel j (i ¼ 1,., pk, j ¼ 1,., T). The
decision makers must decide whether each indicator corresponds
to the types ‘more is better’ or ‘less is better’. For the sake of
clarity, it will be assumed in this section that all the indicators
are of the ‘more is better’ type (which corresponds to the
maximization scheme).
Step 2: Setting of the reference levels
In this step, we have to establish the double reference points
(reservationeaspiration) for each indicator. Wierzbicki et al. (2000)
mention several ways to establish these values for an objective
ranking problem. In the neutral scheme, all aspiration and reser-
vation levels are set equal to specific percentages of their respective
criteria ranges. In the voting scheme, they are set through voting
processes among a group of decision makers. This last scheme has
been used in this study, given that the decision makers preferred to
establish them according to their preferences and expertise. For
indicator i, belonging to class k, let qrki and qaki denote the reserva-
tion and aspiration levels, respectively (Fig. 2).
Step 3: Individual achievement functions
This consists of calculating synthetic indicators for each pixel
within each of the classes considered. Therefore, let us consider

Table 1
Some applied indicators, sources and methodologies.

Indicator Source Methodology Reference

Climatic wellbeing
Beach morphodynamics
Water health index
Total population and tourists
Carrying capacity of tourist
accommodation
Urbanization index
Beach carrying capacity
Social carrying capacity
of tourists
GDP trend
Meteorological Agency (AEMET)
Fieldwork: bathymetry in the surf zone
Questionnaires and Ministry of Health
Urban solid waste production
Institute of Statistics of Andalusia (IEA)
Aerial Photographs, Orthophotos and
Urban Planning,
Questionnaires and Orthophotos
Questionnaire to tourists
Institute of Statistics of Andalusia (IEA)
Siple y Passel
Waves in the surf as Guza and Inman
Micaffef, Antón and Williams and Allan, 2004
Ratio of urban solid waste production (kg/inh/day)
Sum of hotels, apartments and campings
GIS digitization and comparison
Pereira 2002, Roig and Munar 2003, Manning. 2007,
Shelby and Heberlein 1986 and Navarro 2005
Perception of overcrowding and predisposition
to escape from the resort
Rates of change
Besançenot, 1991
Guza and Inman, 1975
Tejada et al., 2009
Polytechnic School of Gerona, 1987;
Sarramea, 1981 and Navarro, 2005
Pearce, 1988; Lozato-Giotart, 1990
European Environment Agency and
Corine Land Cover (1999 and 2003)
Pereira, 2002; Roig and Munar, 2003
Shelby and Heberlein, 1986 and
Navarro, 2005
Bote Gómez, 1998
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346 1341

Table 2
Thresholds of the indicators of carrying capacity.

Aspiration level Reservation level Minimumemaximum

Social indicators Residents’ satisfaction index 4 3 1e5
Tourist satisfaction index 4 3 1e5
Tourist spending >50 V 1e5
Social carrying capacity of residents 10 >50% 1e100
Social carrying capacity of tourists 10 >50% 1e100
Perception of future social carrying 4 3 1e5
capacity of residents
Economic indicators Regulated places (2001. Places/Km2) 16.5 21.8 0e142.4
Non-regulated places (2001. Places/Km2) 164.7 386.7 0e6854
Annual growth rate of regulated places 1.1 3.6 0e51.1
(2000e05)
Annual growth rate of total tourist and 2.59 3.11 4.66
residential places (2000e05)
Per capita rent (2003) 10,000 9742.5 10,850
Gibbs-Martin index (employment by 0.7599 0.6692 0e1
economic sector. 2001)
Municipal budgets. Per capita income 11.8 4.2 27.1
evolution 2000e05 (%)
Municipal budgets. Per capita expenditure 4.3 10.3 75.5
evolution 2000e05 (%)
Profitability index 2004 3.9 3.4 0e5.8
Ecological indicators Beach stability indicator 0.5 0.5
Morphodynamic index Dissipative and Intermediate type Guzza and Inman, 1975
reflective type, (2.5e20), Value 0
Value 1
Beach quality indicator 3 2 1e5
Wealth landscape indicator 13 7 1e26
Built-up areas in the first kilometer 5 15 50 a 50
coastal strip (1999e03) (%)
Ecological capital (vegetation indicator) 3.3 6.6 1e10
Ecological capital (fauna indicator) 3.3 6.6 1e10
Waterproofing grade in PTA 1 There is no theoretical limit
Indicator of potential tourist area (PTA) Different of 0 46.35e8.25

j
class k. For every indicator i (i ¼ 1,., pk) and taking into account values, and values between 1 and 2 if qki is over the aspiration value
the reference points given by the decision makers, the following (Cirella, Tao, & Mohamad, 2007; Mavroulidou, Hughes, & Hellwell,
individual achievement functions are considered: 2004; Tejada, Malvárez, & Navas, 2009).
8
>
> qjki  qaki Step 4: Determination of the weights
>
> 1 þ ; if qaki  qjki  qmax
>
> qmax  qaki ki
>
> ki

 >
< qj  qr The process consists of weighing each one of the criteria
ski qjki ; qaki ; qrki ¼ ki ki
; if qrki  qjki  qaki analyzed according to the desired scenario: a carrying capacity
> qa  qr
>
>
> ki ki where economic parameters prevail, where social and perception
>
> q  qr
j
>
> items prevail, or one in which more importance resides in the
>
: r
ki ki
; if qmin  qjki  qrki
qki  qmin ki territorial base (Cirella et al., 2007). The consideration procedure
ki
is based on expert consultation, where the social, economic and
where qmin
ki
and qmax
ki
are the minimum and maximum values that physical heuristic criteria were evaluated (Mavroulidou et al.,
the indicator can take, respectively. That is, ski takes values 2004) by a panel of experts (12 experts gathered in two class-
between 1 and 0 if qjki is under the reservation value, values room sessions on June 30 and July 15, 2009). The procedure used
j
between 0 and 1 if qki is between the reservation and aspiration by the experts is similar to the one proposed by Mavroulidou et al.
(2004), using a first diagonal in which different criteria are
crossed to see their relations of dependency. The results helped to
determine the relative importance of each criterion on others.
Once the values were calculated, a consistency test was performed
in which the probability of results being obtained randomly was
measured.
Let uki denote the weight given to indicator I of class k.

Step 5: Aggregation at class level

For each class of indicators, two synthetic indicators were

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of an individual achievement function ski.
determined for each pixel, following the strong sustainability and
the weak sustainability paradigms. While the former does not allow
for compensations among the different indicators, the latter does.
This is why, instead of building a single synthetic indicator, we
propose to build, for each pixel and each class, a pair of synthetic
1342 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346

indicators that correspond to the two sustainability paradigms: This scheme can also be combined with new weights given by
a strong indicator, Ikjs , and a weak indicator, Ikjw , in the following way: the decision makers or experts for each class of indicators.
n
o In conclusion, this methodology has the potential to be applied
js
Ik ¼ min uki ski qjki ; qaki ; qrki to other destinations. Doing so would require (i) adapting the
i ¼ 1 ; / ; pk
indicators to the characteristics and impacts of the case study,
X
pk
 adding other indicators, if necessary; (ii) assigning weights to
jw
Ik ¼ uki ski qjki ; qaki ; qrki each indicator; and (iii) selecting the reference points
i¼1 (reservationeaspiration) that reflect the objectives of managers.
Both synthetic indicators show better performance for higher The economic cost of research is not very high, if you have the
values. Regarding the strong indicator, a negative value indicates necessary information to the GIS.
that the pixel performs under the reservation level for at least one
individual indicator, and a value over 1 means that all the individual
4. Results
indicators of the unit have values better than their corresponding
aspiration levels. On the other hand, as a compensatory measure,
Tourist development is a driving force that is radically trans-
the weak indicator shows the overall performance of the pixels,
forming society, economy and the environment. The results of the
taking into account all the individual indicators.
first phase demonstrate the significant “human pressure” that it is
exerted in a region (1088 persons/km2 in August of 2005, with
Step 6: Final aggregation
165,073 tourists/day and 135,650 inhabitants), and although
numbers decrease during the off-season (67,730 tourists/day in
Once the weak and strong indicators have been calculated for
February 2005), a significant discontinuity in the seasons does not
each territorial unit and each class, the final aggregation is per-
exist, indicating the importance of the “residential tourists”. The
formed to obtain a single pair of indicators (weakestrong) for each
“increase of the capacity of tourist and residential lodging” is
pixel. If no weights are assumed for the overall classes, then the
related to this process (48% and 77%, respectively).
synthetic indicators are defined in the following way:
n o These forces exert a pressure that affects the tourist destination
js
I js ¼ min Ik (Fig. 3). There was a significant increase of 30.4% in urban land over
k ¼ 1;2;3 a seven-year period (of 1451 in 1998 to 1893 in 2005) half of which
occurred within new scattered urbanization projects. This growth
1 X
a
jw
has two effects on the public income: increased local income
I jw ¼ Ik (13.6%) but also increased expenses (12.1%). The focus on tourist
3
k¼1
real estate activity implies that the “economic structure” is more

Fig. 3. DPSIR model.

 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346
concentrated in the tertiary sector (66.6% in 2001), generating
a smaller diversification of productive activities, which is negative
for economic sustainability. This tourist model induces major
pressure for natural resources, such as “water consumption” (20%
between 2000 and 2005) and generates major production of urban
waste (13% between 2002 and 2005).
The consequence of this pressure is the change of the state of
the territorial system. In the first instance, the lodging capacity in
2005 was 16,345 regulated places, 192,984 non-regulated places
and 137,199 residential places. If these numbers are compared with
the visitors and residents of the Eastern Costa del Sol, the results
show that this year, 80% of the “carrying capacity from the lodg-
ings” was reached at the municipal level, indicating that saturation
oscillates between 90% in Vélez-Malaga and Nerja and 51% in
Torrox. With respect to the social indicators, neither the tourists
nor the residents perceive that the destination is exceeding its
“carrying capacity”. A total of 11% of residents and 21% of tourists
have surpassed the carrying capacity when they perceive the space
to be overcrowded; the tourists are prepared to leave to other
places, and the residents move elsewhere for the season when the
high season commences. This fact does not mean that the massi-
fication of the destination is not perceived. Rather, the survey
reveals that 24% of residents and 26% of tourists feel that “there are
too many people” in the destination, a fact that would have to be
taken into consideration by the public administration. With regard
to the “carrying capacity of beaches,” it is necessary to differentiate
between urban beaches and natural beaches, as user expectations
are different. The ratio in the first case is 8 m2/user, and 15 m2/user
in the second case. The result is that 19% of users of urban beaches
and 5% of natural beaches have exceeded the capacity threshold
(Jurado, et.al. 2009).
One of the main environmental conflicts with the greatest
economic impact affects coastal dynamics, especially because the
industry is somewhat beach-dependent. At present, the majority of
beaches have been re-nourished because the natural feeding cycle
(the sedimentary supply of the river network and its natural sedi-
ment transport) has been interrupted by the artificialization of the
area. It is fundamental to understand the physical characteristics of
the coastal strip (slopes, types of sediments, surf dynamics, etc.).
Out of these parameters, two main morphodynamic typologies
stand out (Komar, 1995): 29% of beaches are dissipative beaches
(smooth profiles and fine sediments) and less prone to erosion,
whereas 69% are intermediate beaches (steeper profiles and poorer
sorting), which are more fragile, dynamic and potentially subject to
erosion.
Land-use change use also alters the state of ecological capital
(biological and landscaping of the coast). At present there are very
few areas of high biological value, in addition to the fact that there is
little scenic value in this strip of coast when compared with
Andalusia’s standards (only 12 physiognomic units of 26 exist here).
The more relevant negative impacts include the environment,
changes in society and the loss of economic diversity. The positive
impacts include an increase in revenues, dynamicity in the creation
of businesses and the economic benefits of the tourist real estate
sector. Data include facts such as the per capita income increasing
between 30 and 50% and increase in businesses to 73% (from 6118
to 10,607). The developed surface in the first kilometer of coastline
has grown 29.3%.
Finally, the response of the administration has focused on the
generation of more urban land and land zoned for development.
For example, from 1998 to 2005 consolidated urban land in the area
has grown by 23%, and in 2001, land zoned for development already
accounted for 16,771 ha, providing an idea of the magnitude of the
city-planning/real estate phenomenon. A good example is the
municipality of Rincon de la Victoria, a developing area that is
1343
presently under development (Plan General de Ordenación
Urbanistica) proposes urbanizing 30% of the municipality (both as
urban and land for development). Taking into consideration that
the larger plots, which are difficult to access in mountainous lands,
and with environmental risks, these areas require high costs of
urbanization and a diffused implementation that increase infra-
structure, services and public equipment costs.
Regarding public investments, the hypothesis is that growth has
significant economic costs that draw on public resources, such that
continued growth will not increase benefits proportionally, incur-
ring additional high costs; some local administrations may observe
less growth to be more profitable (Calero Lemes & Márquez
Cerdeña, 2003, 76 pp.). Utilizing the few accessible data on the
accounts of the local administrations (1998 and 2001), it was
observed that of all sectors of municipal income, those that had
undergone the greatest growth were rates, taxes, etc. related to the
construction of houses (IBI, construction licenses, etc.). Neverthe-
less, the sectors that increased the most were expenses of current
goods (pertaining to administrational operation), current trans-
ferences, municipal transferences of capital to other public
companies and organizations (20%). For this reason, it is interesting
to note that little growth of real investments occurs (i.e., spending
on urban infrastructure 6%). The income increase has not neces-
sarily translated to strong investment by residents or the creation
of a better urban infrastructure. In other words, it appears that any
budget increase serves only to fund the growth costs of urban
development.
The result of the second phase is that the Eastern Costa del Sol
has exceeded its carrying capacity. There are some nuances in the
context of the sustainability proposal; using the weak indicator, 5%
of the territory has not exceeded its capacity. This area is located in
the eastern end of Nerja, in the Tejeda, Alhama and Almijara
Mountains Natural Park, where the highest values of biodiversity,
vulnerability and endemicity in fauna exist in the study area (Fig. 4).
This municipality is the least densely populated (323 places/km2,
compared to the 1076 places/km2 of Rincón de la Victoria) and had
the smallest annual increase of capacity of regulated and non-
regulated tourist lodging (2.2% of annual growth compared to
4.7% in Torrox); Nerja is the most valued site by the tourists (index
of satisfaction 3.8, against the 3.4 of Algarrobo), where the highest
daily cost to tourists exists (57 V/day compared to 51 V/day in
Vélez, Malaga).
Following the weak indicator, the rest of the area has surpassed
the proposed threshold of capacity. This is especially true in the
first coastal line, the most saturated zone, which makes sense
given the spatial occupation of coastal destinations. Additionally, it
is necessary to consider that the values close to zero correspond to
the most unfavorable morpho-environmental units for the future
location of establishments (greater slope and the northern region),
marked by the worst accessibility, significant pressure on non-
regulated supply (Rincón de la Victoria and Algarrobo) and
a higher growth percentage in the total lodging offer (Torrox, 4.6%
annual).
For the strong indicator, the territory has surpassed its carrying
capacity, as its criteria do not balance positive and negative factors.
The results demonstrate that the strong growth of this tourist
destination (in inhabitants, lodgings, infrastructures and equip-
ment) is not always positive for the tourist industry, as exceeding
the thresholds of the carrying capacity implies the environmental,
social and economic deterioration of the destination. The fact that
because there is a tourist industry here that has continued growing
does not mean that it has not exceeded certain thresholds. Mean-
while, city councils invest less in the wellbeing of society and more
in maintaining an administration that needs additional financial
resources. It becomes apparent that the consumption of a finite
1344 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346
Fig. 4. Weak indicator of carrying capacity in the eastern Costa del Sol.
resource (such as land) has only slightly impacted the quality of life
of area residents; the urbanizing process does not necessarily
create development. This would lead to a reconsideration of the
deceptive relationship between development and urbanization
that has in recent years has been at the heart of many local political
arguments. Approaches in the study of tourism and its relation to
territory must be comprehensive and not only economic. This
considers that economic factors cannot be clearly separated from
social indicators or economic issues from environmental ones. For
example, an environmentally negative impact, such as the loss of
beach sand, has an economic cost over time that must be assumed
by the public (in 2005, the administration invested two million
Euros in regenerating the Costa del Sol’s beaches).
In conclusion, the first stage of the investigation has focused on
identifying how the tourist-territorial system functions; in the
second phase, a holistic and average method is set out, with
quantitative and cartographic results establishing growth
thresholds.
5. Final conclusions and reflections
The novel aspect of the study is the application of a new
method for evaluating capacity utilizing diverse methodologies
and techniques, with the aim of establishing partial limits (by
each variable) and totals (in the destination) the growth of tourist
destinations. This builds on previous studies that have debated
the limits and carrying capacities as merely theoretical consider-
ations (Coccossis & Parpairis 1996; Saarinen 2006; Williams & Gill
1994). Others have presented the scientific community with
research on carrying capacity related to residents (Saveriades,
2000), tourists (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986), socioeconomic
aspects (Canestrelli & Costa, 1991; Saleem, 1994), ecological
aspects (Burton, 1975), and so forth.
This paper contributes a new case set in a complex territory that
comprises one of the most popular destinations of mass, non-
insular territory, and where there is little information on the
number of incoming tourists. The goal of this study is not to break
any paradigms but only to revive the present debate on growth
limits in tourist destinations as a strategy of competitiveness and
sustainability. Furthermore, our study aims to contribute a meth-
odology using two synthetic indicators, using the latest theoretical
innovations in sustainability e weak and strong.
The application of advanced statistical analyses to knowledge of
growth limits in destinations is a novel aspect that is not frequently
discussed. The creation of two synthetic indices (weak and strong)
is an advance with respect to the classic studies of carrying capacity.
In this case, there is a geographic criterion of interest: the location
of saturated zones in a destination. The holistic perspective of
growth limits (social, economic and environmental) supposes
a challenge because of the difficulties that they imply. Nevertheless,
other studies, while advancing synthetic indicators of sustain-
ability, have not proposed either a methodology or a study of no
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346
case on synthetic indicators of carrying capacity with defined
thresholds.
In the end, more aspects of the investigation can be advanced,
establishing other indicators or creating other indices that enrich
the proposed methodology, i.e., the method can be easily adapted
to other areas of the scientific community and/or to land
managers. However, this is only possible from a multidisciplinary
approach (involving geographers, economists, ecologists, sociol-
ogists, and mathematicians). This approach can provide destina-
tion managers and planners a tool and an effective method, both
resisted and agreed upon with the purpose of simulating different
situations to aid in decision making. Territory managers must
raise their developmental objectives and lower thresholds to
advance in more sustainable practices. A change in the terms
dictates the direction because sustainability is achieved by
development, but rather, sustainability becomes the development
factor. The challenge is that this method can be used to establish
an analysis of the most detailed destination within a shorter
period of time.
Acknowledgments
This publication is within the framework realized with the data
of Project SEJ-2005-04660, financed by the program of the Ministry
of Education and Science of National Programs of the National Plan
of Scientific research, Development and Technological 2004e2007
and carried out Innovation by investigators of the universities of
Malaga, Almeria, Alicante, Pablo Olavide (Seville) and Universidade
Nova de Lisboa (Portugal). www.indicasig.uma.es.
References
Besançenot, J. P. (1991). Clima y Turismo. Barcelona: Edt Masson.
Blázquez Salom, M., Garau Muntaner, J. M.a, & Murray Mas, I. (2002). El tercer boom.
Indicadors de sostenibilitat del turisme de lIes Ulles Balears 1989e1999. Illes
Baleares: CITTIB.
Boroushaki, & Malczewski. (2010). Parcitipatory GIS: a web GIS-based collaborative
multicriteria decision analysis. URISA Journal, 22(1).
Burton, R. C. J. (1975). La cabida de campo para el recreo. Madrid: Ministerio de
Agricultura. Monografía 3.
Bote Gomez, V. (1998). El desarrollo del turismo en España: cambio de rumbo y
oportunidades científicas. Revista Valenciana D’Estudis Autonomics, 25, 29e45.
Buckley, R. (1999). An ecological perspective on carrying capacity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26, 705e708.
Butler, R. W. (1996). The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: dead
or merely buried? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2, 283e293.
Butler, R. (2006). The tourism area life cycle, Vol. 1. Ontario: Channel View.
Buzai, G. D., & Baxendale, C. (2006). Análisis socioespacial con sistemas de infor-
mación geográfica. Cap. 6 Análisis de Evaluación Multicriterio (pp. 125e158).
Buenos Aires, Argentina: GEPAMA, Edit.
Calero Lemes, P., & Márquez Cerdeña, M. J. (2003). Evaluación del ahorro público
producido por la contención del crecimiento de la oferta turística en Lanzarote.
Lanzarote: Cabildo de Lanzarote.
Canestrelli, E., & Costa, P. (1991). Tourist carrying capacity. A Fuzzy Approach Annals
of Tourism Research, 18(1), 295e311.
Cifuentes, M. A., Mesquita, C. A. B., Méndez, J., Morales, M. E., Aguilar, N., Cancino, D.,
et al. (1999). Capacidad de Carga Turística de las Áreas de Uso Público del Mon-
umento Nacional Guayabo, Costa Rica. Costa Rica: WWF CentroAmerica.
Cirella, G. T., Tao, I., & Mohamad, S. (2007). An application of an adaptive quanti-
tative method to measure the sustainability of the Gold Coast, Australia. Journal
of Coastal Research, SI. 50, 52e56.
Coccossis, H., & Parpairis. (1996). Tourism and carrying capacity in coastal areas:
Mykonos, Greece. In G. K. Pristley, J. A. Edwards, & H. Coccossis (Eds.),
Sustainable tourism? European experiences.
Coccossis, H., et al. (2002). Defining, measuring and evaluating carrying capacity in
European tourism destinations. Material for a document. Athens: Department of
Environmental Studies, University of the Aegean.
EEA-European Environment Agency. (2005). EEA core set of indicators e Guide 1/
2005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Comunities.
Falk, R. (2003). Resisting “globalization-from-above” trough “globalization-from-
below”. In R. Robertson, & K. E. White (Eds.), Critical concepts in sociology (pp.
369e377). New York: Routledge.
Garrigos Simón, F. J., Narangajavana, Y., & Palacios Marques, D. (2004). Carrying
capacity in the tourism industry: a case study of Hengistbury Head. Tourism
Management, 25(2), 275e283.
1345
Gormsen, E. (1997). The impact of tourism on coastal areas. Geojournal, 42(1), 39e54.
Gössling, S., & Hall, M. (Eds.). (2005). Tourism and global environmental change.
London: Routledge.
Guza, R. T., & Inman, D. L. (1975). Edge waves and beach cusps. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 80, 2997e3012.
Hawkins, D. E., & Mann, S. (2007). The World Bank’s role in tourism development.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 348e363.
Hughes, G. (1995). The cultural construction of sustainable tourism. Tourism
Management, 16(1), 49e59.
Hunter, C. (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptative paradigm. Annals of Tourism
Research, 14(4), 850e867.
Jafari, J. (2001). Research and scholarship: the basis of tourism education. The
Journal of Tourism Studies, 1, 33e41.
Jiang, H., & Eastman, J. R. (2000). Application of fuzzy measures in multicriteria
evaluation in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(2),
173e184.
Jurado, E., Dantas, A. G., & Pereira da Silva, C. (2009). Coastal zone management:
tools for establishing a set of indicators to assess beach carrying capacity (Costa
del Sol e Spain). Journal of Coastal Research, SI 56, 1125e1129.
Komar, P. D. (1995). Handbook for short course in coastal geology. In: XXV inter-
national conference on coastal engineering. Orlando, USA.
Lindberg, K., McCool, S., & Stankey, G. (1997). Rethinking carrying capacity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24, 461e465.
Lozato-Giotart, J. P. (1990). Geografía del Turismo. Barcelona: Edt. Masson.
López Olivares, Antón Clavé, Navarro Jurado, Perilla Del Álamo y Sastre Alberti.,
2005.
Malvárez, G., Pollard, J., & Dominguez, R. (2000). Origins, management and
measurement of stress on the coast of southern Spain. Coastal Management,
28(3), 215e234.
Malvárez, G., Pollard, J., & Dominguez, R. (2003). The planning and practice of
coastal management in southern Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11(2e3),
204e223.
MacBeth, J. (2005). Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32, 962e965.
Manning, T. (1999). Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tourism Management, 20,
179e181.
Mavroulidou, M., Hughes, S. J., & Hellwell, E. (2004). A quantitative tool combining
an interaction matrix and GIS to map vulnerability to traffic induced air
pollution. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 283e289.
McCool, S., & Lime, D. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: tempting fantast or useful
reality. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9, 372e388.
McKercher, B. (1993). Unrecognised threat to tourism: can tourism survive
sustainability. Tourism Management, 14(1), 131e136.
Navarro Jurado, E. (2005). Indicadores para la evaluación de la capacidad de carga
turística. Annals of Tourism Research en Español, 7(2), 397e422.
OCDE. (1993). OCDE core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews.
Environment Monographs n 83. Paris.
PAC/RAC.. (2003). Guide to good practice in tourism carrying capacity assessment.
Split: PAC/RAC.
Pearce, D. (1988). Desarrollo turístico: su planificación y ubicación geográfica. México:
Edt Trillas.
Pereira da Silva, C. (2002). Beach carrying capacity assessment. How important is it?
Journal of Coastal Research, 36, 190e197, [Special issue].
Pereira, J. M. C., & Duckstein, L. (1993). A multiple criteria group decision making.
International of Geographical Information Science, 10(8), 955e971.
Polytechnic School of Gerona. (1987). Estudi Estadíst inform0 stic de l0 índex ocupa-
cional. Gerona: Patronat de Turisme Costa Brava.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2004). The competitive destination. A sustainable
tourism perspective. Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.
Roig, & Munar, F. X. (2003). Análisis de la relación entre capacidad de carga física y
capacidad de carga perceptual en playas naturales de la isla de Menorca.
Investigaciones Geográficas, 31, 107e118.
Ruiz, F., Cabello, J. M., & Luque,, M. (2011). An application of reference point tech-
niques to the calculation of synthetic sustainability indicators. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 62, 189e197.
Ruiz, F., Luque, M., & Cabello, J. M. (2009). A classification of the weighting schemes
in reference point procedures for multiobjective programming. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 60, 544e553.
Sarramea, J. (1981). Estimation de la fréquentation touristique d0 une station (deux
éléments d0 enquêtes appliqués á Fréjus-Saint Raphaël). Méditerranée 1.
Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(4), 1121e1140.
Saleem, N. (1994). The destination capacity index: a measure to determine the
tourist carrying capacity. In Tourism e State of the art. Chichester: Edt John &
Sons.
Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social tourism carrying capacity for the
tourist resorts of the east coast of the Republic of Cyprus. Tourism Management,
21(2), 147e156.
Shelby, B. B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Cor-
vallis: Oregon State University Press.
Tejada, M., Malvárez, G., & Navas, F. (2009). Indicators for the assessment of physical
carrying capacity in coastal tourism destination. Journal of Coastal Research, SI
56(2), 1159e1163.
Teo, P., & Lim, H. (2003). Global and Local Interactions in Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30, 287e306.
1346 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 1337e1346
United Nations. (1997). Global urban observatory. Urban Indicators Programme,
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat). http://www.unhabitat.
org/guo/uip.htm#uip.
Watson, G. L., & Kopachevsky, J. P. (1996). Tourist carrying capacity: a critical look at
the discursive dimension. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2,
169e179.
Wierzbicki, A. P. (1980). The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimi-
zation. In G. Fandel, & T. Gal (Eds.), Lecture notes in economics and mathematical
systems, Vol. 177 (pp. 468e486). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Wierzbicki, A. P., Makowski, M., & Wessels, J. (Eds.). (2000). Model-based decision
support methodology with environmental applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Williams, P. W., & Gill, A. (1994). Tourism carrying capacity management issues. In
William Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism. The next decade. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Woodcock, C. E., & Gopal, S. (2000). Fuzzy set theory and thematic maps: accuracy
assessment and area estimation. International Journal of Geographical Informa-
tion Science, 14(2), 153e172.