European Planning Studies

ISSN: 0965-4313 (Print) 1469-5944 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Promoting tourism through the EU LEADER

programme: understanding Local Action Group
governance

Juan Gabriel Tirado Ballesteros & María Hernández Hernández

To cite this article: Juan Gabriel Tirado Ballesteros & María Hernández Hernández (2018):
Promoting tourism through the EU LEADER programme: understanding Local Action Group
governance, European Planning Studies, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1547368

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1547368

Published online: 20 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1547368

Promoting tourism through the EU LEADER programme:

understanding Local Action Group governance
Juan Gabriel Tirado Ballesteros and María Hernández Hernández
Universidad de Alicante, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

For many European rural areas, the rural development programmes Received 13 July 2018
based on the LEADER approach constitute the main policy for Revised 22 October 2018
promoting tourism. Going a step further than a rural development Accepted 7 November 2018
programme, LEADER represents an ideal method for overcoming
KEYWORDS
some of the challenges involved in rural tourism development, Rural development; LEADER;
such as the integration of tourism supply through public-private bottom-up approach;
organizations or the coordination of multi-level policies. Despite tourism; multi-level
its potential, there are difficulties involved in putting this governance
approach into practice. This article aims to provide in-depth
understanding of the challenges faced by some managers
responsible for developing tourism strategies through the LEADER
approach. To do this, semi-structured in-depth interviews have
been held with Local Action Groups managers from Castilla-La
Mancha (Spain). The main findings reveal that the actions of
regional governments lead to the limitation and strangulation of
the principle of subsidiarity according with the LAG managerś
opinion.

1. Introduction
The Maastricht Treaty (European Union, 1992) paved the way for the consolidation of the
Principle of Subsidiarity in European Union (EU). The objective of this principle is to
guarantee a certain degree of decentralization to the member states in the design, planning
and execution of EU policies (Janin Rivolin, 2005). Furthermore, it confers greater legiti-
macy to local governments than central governments with respect to involving citizens in
decision making (European Commission, 2018; Granberg, Andersson, & Kovách, 2015).
All of these principles are reflected in the implementation of European rural development
policies based on the LEADER initiative. LEADER was launched in 1991 with the aim of
improving the development of rural areas through non-agricultural activities based on a
multifunctional, territorial and participative approach (Papadopoulou, Hasanagas, &
Harvey, 2011). The principle of subsidiarity is applied in rural development policies
using the LEADER approach through Local Action Groups (LAGs), a public-private
body in which the main actors of the territory are represented and which enjoys legitimacy
regarding the allocation of European funds (Cañete, Navarro, & Cejudo, 2018).

CONTACT Juan Gabriel Tirado Ballesteros gabriel.tirado@ua.es Universidad de Alicante, Carretera de San Vicente
del Raspeig, s/n, 03690 Sant Vicent del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

Within this paradigm, tourism has played a principal role in rural development strat-
egies (Bull, 1999). The importance given to tourism in the programmes based on the
LEADER approach is expressed in quantitative terms. For example, in Spain, more than
51% of actions were focused on rural tourism in LEADER I (1991–1993) (Barke &
Newton, 1997) and 32% in LEADER II (1994–1999) (Tirado Ballesteros & Hernández
Hernández, 2018). From a qualitative point of view, the application of LEADER gives
rise to important opportunities for improving the competitiveness of tourist destinations
and for overcoming several of the challenges inherent in destinations, such as: (a) the inte-
gration of the tourism supply through a public-private organization (Beaumont & Dredge,
2010); (b) the development of strategies on a supra-municipal level based on a territorial
brand (Panyik, Costa, & Rátz, 2011); and (c) the coordination of multi-level policies to
create destination products for marketing policies (Wilson, Fesenmaier, Fesenmaier, &
Van Es, 2001).
In spite of the potential of LEADER, sometimes the LAGs are not able to overcome the
challenges involved in tourism governance and encounter difficulties in applying the
LEADER method. This article aims to: (a) provide an in-depth understanding of the chal-
lenges that some LAGs face when developing their strategies and applying the LEADER
method, with particular focus on the elements which they have to address in terms of
tourism development; and (b) provide empirical evidence with respect to the results of
applying the EU Cohesion Policy and the principle of subsidiarity. The article is structured
into five sections. The first part introduces the scope, topic and objective of the research.
Next, some theoretical aspects that justify the study are presented. Subsequently, the case
study and methodology are presented, followed by the results. Finally, the main con-
clusions are drawn and the theoretical, practical and methodological contributions to
the field of study are discussed.

2. Review of the literature

2.1. EU Cohesion Policy and subsidiarity in rural development policies: the EU
LEADER programme
The EU Cohesion Policy is composed of financial instruments aimed at addressing the
economic and social inequalities between European regions (Bache, 2010); focusing on
lesser developed countries and regions where sectorial policies converge through EU
funding (Salmon, 2008). European economic, social and territorial cohesion policies rep-
resent 36% of the EU budget for the period 2014–2020 (Bachtler & Wren, 2006). The
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) accounts for 21% of the
total budget of the European policies for the same period (Kölling, 2016). With the intro-
duction of cohesion policies, the Structural Funds have adopted a distinct territorial nature
(Janin Rivolin, 2005). The regionalization of the policies is reflected in European pro-
grammes such as URBAN or the Fisheries Areas Network (FARNET), which, in turn,
stem from cohesion policy and the principle of subsidiarity (Macken-Walsh, 2011). The
LEADER programme, another example and the object of this research, began as an EU
common initiative designed to address the problems of rural areas. Subsequently, it
became consolidated after the good results of LEADER II (1994–1999) and LEADER +
(2000–2006) (Esparcia Pérez, Noguera Tur, & Pitarch Garrido, 2000; Ray, 2000).
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 3

LEADER Local Development Strategy is based on seven principles (European Commis-

sion, 2016):

(a) Development of area-based strategies. That is, strategies with a distinct territorial
nature that bring together municipalities that have certain similarities in terms of
their socio-economic, historic or landscape fabric (Granberg et al., 2015). Therefore,
it is a cohesion policy designed on a territorial scale between the local and regional
levels.
(b) Development of non-agricultural activities through a multispectral approach which
also integrates the traditional activities. Through LEADER, projects are developed
to improve the natural environment and renovate its heritage, improve basic services,
support SMEs, the agri-food industry, handicrafts or rural tourism (Ray, 2000).
(c) Participation of the population in the design, execution and assessment of the pro-
gramme through a bottom-up approach (Esparcia Pérez et al., 2000; Ray, 2000).
Endogenous development is, in part, the consequence of applying the principle of
subsidiarity. In this way, the programme draws from the knowledge of the local com-
munity and new capacities are generated (Sisto, Lopolito, & van Vliet, 2018).

(d) Innovation. The LEADER Local Development Strategy supports new approaches to
rural development and this innovation confers freedom to the LAGs in decision
making. The innovation extends to the processes by enhancing the value of local
resources and the new management models through participative structures (Espar-
cia, 2014).
(e) Creation of networks. Its implementation favours the exchange of experiences and
know-how between LAGs, the knowledge transfer and the demonstration effect
(Papadopoulou et al., 2011). The EU promotes the exchange of experiences
through The European Network for Rural Development.
(f) Cooperation. The EU encourages the territories to promote joint projects on a
regional and transnational level in order to be able to bring together sufficient critical
mass so as to make a project viable and create economies of scale.
(g) The LAG as the focal point of this community-led local development approach. The
LAG acts as a grassroots organization made up of different local stakeholders from the
public and private sectors (Sisto et al., 2018). It is also responsible for administrating
the resources and designing the development strategy (Böcher, 2008; Ray, 2000). It
should also be capable of achieving a consensus between all of the local agents with
respect to the eligibility of the projects, promoting dialogue and cooperation.

Agenda 2000 marked a significant change in the organization of the policies with the
LEADER approach. The desire of the EU to simplify the cohesion policies and the
growing importance allocated to rural development policies in the EU budget gave rise
to the creation of the EAFRD. After LEADER + (2000–2006), the LEADER approach
stopped being a self-governing EU common initiative and was framed within EU Rural
Development Programmes (RDP). In this way, there is a greater decentralization
towards the member states in terms of programmes based on LEADER, which, in turn,
have become part of wider RDP (Martínez Arroyo, 2006). However, differences may be
observed in relation to the political-administrative structure of the different states.
4 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

Therefore, there are member countries with a nationwide rural development policy and
other countries with a federal system, such as Spain, Germany or Italy where regional
level programmes have been designed. This has given rise to different procedures for
implementing and developing the LEADER approach. In Germany, for example, RDPs
forming part of LEADER + (2000–2006) were executed in 13 Länder (Böcher, 2008). In
the case of Spain, the Autonomous Regions are responsible for designing their own devel-
opment strategies and there is also a national RDP.

2.2. The role of tourism in EU rural development programmes

The results of the agricultural productivity-based policies revealed that the emergence of
new functions in rural areas went beyond mere food production. Within this framework of
the ‘tertiarisation’ of the CAP, the EU identified tourism as a promising activity for the
future of rural areas which is summarized in the following points: (a) it potentially rep-
resents an important economic compliment for farmers; (b) it could contribute to mitigat-
ing the rural exodus or unemployment in agriculture (Chevalier, 2005); (c) it is an element
with a high capacity to integrate with the other strategic sectors (Garrod, Wornell, &
Youell, 2006), as it facilitates the revitalization of the agro-food industry, handicrafts or
the enhancement of the value of local products; (d) and it contributes to the conservation
and restoration of heritage elements and the maintenance of villages (McAreavey &
McDonagh, 2011).
All of these potentialities, together with the demonstration effect of the impact gener-
ated by tourism in other types of spaces, such as coastal or urban areas, confer this econ-
omic activity a primary role in the development strategies described by LAGs (Bull, 1999).
In addition, tourism is a territorial activity which is in tune with the essence of the place-
based policies of the LEADER approach. There are data that highlight the importance of
tourism in the multifunctionality of rural development strategies. In the period 2007–
2013, tourism represented 25% of the non-agricultural investment in Portugal (Dinis,
Panyik, & Breda, 2010) and 37% in France (Chevalier, 2010). The importance of
tourism is even more noteworthy, taking into account that the EU limits the
budget allocation to favour the multifunctionality of rural areas (Hernández Hernández,
2008). As a development approach, LEADER also represents an added value for the man-
agement, planning and governance of destinations (Pulido Fernández & Cárdenas García,
2011). From a theoretical point of view, LEADER is an ideal tool for territorial
cooperation, particularly in marketing actions, due to the low capacity of villages to under-
take promotional campaigns individually (Wilson et al., 2001). This approach also enables
the local population to participate in the development of the strategies; another of the chal-
lenges of tourism development in rural areas (Bornhorst, Brent Ritchie, & Sheehan, 2010).
Despite the potential of the LEADER approach for the development of tourism, some-
times the LAGs are not able to manage their programmes as expected and encounter
difficulties in applying them (Esparcia, 2014; Martínez Arroyo, Sacristán López, &
Yagüe Blanco, 2015; Ray, 2000). One of the dysfunctions mentioned in the literature
resides in the excessive prominence of public bodies in the development of the strategies.
Panyik et al. (2011) maintain that the involvement of the local stakeholders who partici-
pate in the decision making of the LAGs is related to the levels of empowerment. It is also
claimed that the public sector has an excessively prominent role, despite the limitations
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 5

established by the EU (Martínez Arroyo et al., 2015). Since the application of the 2007–
2013 RDP, certain restrictions have been established with respect to the structure of the
LAGs such as the fact that public bodies cannot represent more than 50% (Böcher,
2008). This, in turn, feeds back into the partnership principle and multi-level governance,
which fosters a politicization of rural development, where LEADER is used as a local strat-
egy to obtain extra-local funds (Ray, 2000). These misalignments in the structure of the
LAGs are also manifested in the social aspect. There is limited participation of the local
population in the development of the strategies and the will to apply the bottom-up
approach (Panyik et al., 2011; Ray, 2000). This is partly due to the pressure exercised
by politicians to control the management of the LAGs (Böcher, 2008; Martínez Arroyo
et al., 2015).
These contradictions in the management and design of the strategies of the EU
LEADER programmes reside in the operational levels when implementing specific pro-
jects and also become apparent in the execution of tourism development strategies.
According to Tirado Ballesteros and Hernández Hernández (2018), in Spain, the way in
which destination products are designed reflects the dysfunctions described above. The
majority of actions are carried out at the request of public bodies and correspond to
tourism products, in many cases characterized by their temporariness. Furthermore,
there are very few projects developed on a county level around a tourism brand with
public-private involvement. There is a predominance of locally-developed projects and
a low level of collaboration between the towns that make up the LAGs. From the
private sector, the excessive presence of projects related to the creation of accommodation
is another dysfunction found (Bull, 1999). Pato and Kastenholz (2017) claim that it is
difficult to create tourism projects that go beyond rural accommodation or restaurant
initiatives. According to Chevalier (2010), 58% of investment made in tourism in
France was allocated to the creation of accommodation supply under LEADER +
(2000–2006). In Spain, the endowment of funds allocated to the creation of accommo-
dation supply and restaurants is around 60 and 70% (Tirado Ballesteros & Hernández
Hernández, 2018). There are very few tourism products that integrate local resources
and traditional activities. On the other hand, elements that are not pertaining to the
rural environment, such as the development of tourism products related to adventure
sports are incorporated (Moltó Mantero & Hernández Hernández, 2004). A low involve-
ment of farmers in tourism activities has also been observed (Panyik et al., 2011). Taking
into account the idiosyncrasy of the rural development policies, the low participation of
farmers in the policies implemented using the LEADER approach is paradoxical
(Macken-Walsh, 2011). According to the study carried out in France by Chevalier
(2010), only 2% of tourism projects carried out under LEADER + (2000–2006) have
been oriented towards agro-tourism activities.
In any case, it cannot be confirmed that these weaknesses represent a low profitability of
the projects executed. In fact, it is difficult to determine the impact that the EU LEADER
programmes have on the improvement of the competitiveness of the tourism destinations
(Bull, 1999). Esparcia Pérez and Noguera Tur (2000) state that the reglamentary evalu-
ations have not been useful to the LAGs, as they have been conducted on the whole
from a more generalized conceptualization. In the field of tourism, the EU evaluation
systems have mainly focused on quantitative aspects by analyzing impact indicators
such as the number of tourist beds, the number of tourism businesses created and the
6 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

employment generated (Tirado Ballesteros & Hernández Hernández, 2017). The impact of
the policies should not only be attributed to individual actions. The result of the EU Rural
Development Programmes is a consequence of the interaction of several factors. There-
fore, the assessment methods should have a different objective and use different
approaches (Papadopoulou et al., 2011). Furthermore, in destinations, numerous com-
parative advantages converge, such as the existence of high potential tourism resources,
the climate or the closeness to the demand. Therefore, attributing the possible effect on
the territory to the EU LEADER programmes would not be correct. In this light, Bachtler
and Wren (2006) suggest using a programme-level evaluation approach, oriented towards
capacity building. This is expressed in similar terms by Panyik et al. (2011, p. 1353): ‘the
collaborative capacity building of the LAGs for innovative actions in tourism has not been a
source of considerable academic discourse’. Beaumont and Dredge (2010) also highlight the
need to explore the governability relationships oriented towards the promotion of tourism
activities in rural areas. Due to the atomization and the transversal nature of the EU Rural
Development Programmes, the proposed evaluations are not very profound. In light of
this view, there is a need to study the evaluation processes of the programmes in
greater depth and conduct the evaluation from the point of view of the tourism sector
so as to gain a better understanding of the causes that hinder the application of the
LEADER approach.

3. Research design
3.1. Case study
Historically, Spain is the country which has most benefitted from EU Cohesion Policy
(Kölling, 2016). The maximum volume was obtained at the beginning of the century when
EU contributions granted to Spain represented 1.2% of GDP (Salmon, 2008). In the period
2007–2013, they represented 0.3% of GPD. For this period, RDPs were implemented
through 17 regional programmes (one for reach Autonomous Region) in addition to the
development of one national programme. In Castilla-La Mancha (Spain), the case study of
this research, rural development policies have been applied since LEADER I. Agriculture
plays an important economic role in Castilla-La Mancha, the sector represents 6.7% of
regional GPD, as opposed to the national average of 2.3% (INE, 2015). The degree of rurality
is also expressed in terms of population. 90% of the population resides in towns with less than
15,000 inhabitants, of the 919 municipalities, only 37 have more than 10,000 inhabitants (Ruiz
Guevara & Martín López, 2013). Over the last finalized period (2007–2013 RDP) and during
the new period of application (2014–2020 RDP), 29 LAGs have been formed which cover
practically the whole territory (Figure 1). 96% of the municipalities are affiliated to a LAG
(Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Environment, 2014), except for urban areas
which, on the whole are the provincial capitals.
In the RDP of Castilla-La-Mancha for the programming period 2007–2013, tourism
continued to constitute a strategic pillar for diversification in the rural environment.
According to Tirado Ballesteros and Hernández Hernández (2018), in the last program-
ming period executed in Castilla-La Mancha (2007–2013), all the LAGs have invested
part of their budget in tourism (23% on average at the regional level). The priority objec-
tives of the specific line of tourism promotion were: (a) to promote tourism and handicraft
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 7

Figure 1. Diachrony of EU LEADER programme in Castilla-La Mancha

activities; (b) to reinforce a rural accommodation network; (c) to improve and adapt the
tourism infrastructure network; (d) to promote actions aimed at the economic enhance-
ment of cultural, historical and natural heritage; and (e) to enhance the value of local
endogenous resources (Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Environment, 2014).
In order to develop these activities, the 2007–2013 programme included measure 313 ‘pro-
motion of tourism activities’ in Axis 3, ‘Quality of life in rural areas and the diversification
of the rural economy’. Furthermore, a transversal axis was established (Axis 4) to
implement the LEADER approach (Martínez Arroyo et al., 2015).

3.2. Methodology
Midmore (1998) indicates that using a qualitative approach for evaluating RDP is useful if
a specific aspect of the policies is evaluated. According to Viñas (2004), one of the most
important sources for evaluating RDP is in-depth interviews. The interview is a technique
used to gather qualitative information constituting a face-to-face situation whereby a con-
versation is held with a reciprocal exchange and a member of a group is represented
(Taylor & Bogdan, 1996). In the interview, the researcher stimulates the speaker to talk
in depth about what he or she knows and, through the information gathered, seeks to
obtain and understand the way in which the reality is defined and the connections estab-
lished between the elements of the phenomenon studied.
In any event, although this is the chosen method, the possible limitations of this tech-
nique should be acknowledged: (a) the researcher may attribute greater importance to the
hypotheses proposed, neglecting other issues that may be transcendental; (b) the intervie-
wees tend to give responses that the interviewer expects, either to please or no to prolong
the interrogation; (c) the synergies generated in the interaction of different interviewed sub-
jects are not the same as those generated in group discussion techniques; and (d) the
impossibility of ensuring the anonymity of the interviewees may cause the subjects to exer-
cise caution when responding (López Estrada & Deslauriers, 2011). Considering the objec-
tives of this study, within the hierarchical organization of the LAGs, the LAG manager
represents a strategic element for gathering information for several reasons: (a) he or she
is the connecting link between the Board of Directors, the investors and the population;
(b) he or she knows all of the technical and regulatory aspects of managing the programmes;
and (c) his or her functions include the management of the LAG activities, the monitoring of
the execution of the projects and the follow-up and evaluation of the strategy (Yagüe Blanco,
De Nicolas, & Martínez, 2013). On the other hand, it should be recognized that there could
be biases selecting the LAG manager since their job stability depends on the Board of
8 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

Table 1. Topics addressed in the interview

Bottom-up approach in tourism
. Integration of the local population in tourism planning
. Sense of place
Destination products. Area-based strategies
. Public-private collaboration and partnership in destination design
. Cooperation between LAGs for promoting tourism
. Creation of destination products on a supramunicipal level
. Temporariness of the destinations products
Innovation in tourism
. Oversupply of accommodation and restaurants
. Integration of tourism with local products

Directors. In any event, these were the reasons for selecting the manager as the target popu-
lation in order to identify the key issues that explain the difficulty encountered by LAGs to
apply the LEADER method in the development of projects for the promotion of rural
tourism. The topics addressed in the interviews were selected based on the research ques-
tions generated as a result of the conclusions drawn from the literature review regarding
the design and results of applying the EU LEADER programmes in tourism. The content
of the topics addressed in the interviews can be seen in Table 1.
Due to the entire 29 LAGs that make up the RDP 2014–2020 of Castilla-La Mancha had
invested on tourism; all of them were invited to be interviewed. Unfortunately only 9 LAG
agreed to be interviewed, which makes it difficult to extrapolate the results obtained to the
whole case study (31% of the sample frame). The semi-structured in-depth interviews were
carried out between January and February 2017 and had an average duration of 91 min.
They were conducted face-to-face, although three of them were carried out through videocon-
ference calls. In both cases a voice recorder was used. The use of this element enabled the
researchers to focus their attention on the interviewee, while acknowledging the possible
biases that its use could generate (restraint of the interviewee with the presence of a recorder).
This facilitated the transcription of the responses in a subsequent phase using a word pro-
cessor. A content analysis software, ATLAS.ti, was used to code, classify, group and make con-
nections in the data gathered in the interviews. This software also allowed having a better
consistency during the analysis process. The use of this software also enabled the interviews
to be accessed more quickly and in a more systematic way in order to present the findings and
to identify potential similarities or dissimilarities of the constructs.

4. Results and discussion

With respect to the profile and structure of the LAGs analyzed, the following data may be
extracted: (a) the LAG managers had an average work experience of 16 years. Some of
them (3 cases), had been managers since LEADER II; (b) with respect to their academic
training, four were graduates in Law, three were Agricultural Engineers, one had a
degree in Sociology and one had a diploma in Rural Development; (c) in all of the
cases the position of Chairman was a public position; (d) despite the fact that all LAGs
interviewed have carried out projects related to tourism, six of the nine groups included
businessmen and women from the tourism sector in their Board of Directors; and (e)
only one of the nine groups had personnel with a background in Tourism. The respon-
dents belong to the following LAGs (Figure 2)
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 9

With regard to the challenges faced by the LAGs in rural tourism development, four
main blocks can be highlight as a result of the coding process: (a) the importance of
the formation of tourism associations in applying the bottom-up approach, (b) limitations
in the eligibility of the tourism projects on a regional level, (c) the socio-cultural charac-
teristics of the local population, and (d) the localisms exercised by the public bodies in the
design of destination products.

4.1. The importance of forming associations in applying the bottom-up approach

Applying the bottom-up approach in tourism is crucial to create sense of place between
the LAG and the local community. Tourism can be managed locally with participation
from the local community, with a bottom-up approach renders the connections
between the population needs and the solutions designed to respond to them more coher-
ent and efficient (Wilson et al., 2001). Taking into account the low participation of the
population in the design of tourism strategies through LEADER (Macken-Walsh, 2011)
and the low endowment of tourism projects that are started up from the private initiative
(Tirado Ballesteros & Hernández Hernández, 2017), the LAG managers were asked about
the operational processes when applying the bottom-up approach.
In general, the LAGs have adopted a participative approach which can be subdivided
into two processes. First, forums of citizen participation open to the whole population
have been set up. In these forums general matters have been debated regarding the
SWOT of the territory. Second, sectorial forums are organized related to the main lines
of the rural development strategy. In the case of tourism, of the nine groups analyzed,
seven have established tourism-based sectorial forums. Furthermore, different approaches

Figure 2. Location of respondents. Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)

10 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

have been identified in the participative processes. In some groups the decision making is
decentralized in tourism associations (2 cases of the 9 analyzed), despite the fact that all the
groups interviewed have carried out tourism projects. In this respect, interviewee CLM-01
indicates: ‘the rural tourism association has been working very well since 1993. The tourism
association is always involved when planning actions or defining the strategy and deciding
where the subsidies should be directed’. In other cases, despite carrying out participative
processes and establishing tourism forums to design the strategy, the planning processes
in tourism have been externalized. At least three of the nine groups declared that they sub-
contracted the strategic plans of tourism to external consultants. This situation exists pre-
cisely in regions where the levels of association formation are the lowest or incipient.
The participative processes have not only served to design the strategy, they have also
been used as a guarantee to overcome the arbitrariness of power by the public bodies
within the LAG structure. Interviewee CLM-03 comments:
Strategic planning also helps us not to fall into the trap of allowing certain factors (political
agents, mayors etc..) to intervene. If we do not plan we are a little exposed to partisan interests
and at a given time they will overwhelm us [referring to the public bodies]

From the outset we have not agreed to the sharing of the money between the local councils. It
was very difficult but they ended up accepting and we are working on strategic planning. The
actions that are supported are defined by the strategy; I do not make it up.

The participative processes have also contributed to promoting the motivation of the
population and increasing their willingness to participate in the development processes.
Interviewee CLM-01 indicates: ‘supporting certain objectives that are not accepted by the
local population is not development’. Interviewee CLM-02 states: ‘it is important to
apply the requirements demanded by the population in the participative processes
because if not, they will stop participating’. Therefore, broadly speaking, it can be
confirmed that the bottom-up approach, one of the pillars of the LEADER approach, is
exemplified in the cases analyzed. The participative processes lead to contribution in ter-
ritorial diagnostics and in defining the overall objectives. On the other hand, in many
cases, the execution at the operational level corresponds to the Board of Directors and
the team of practitioners. Only in the LAGs where the association movement is efficient
and functional can a more legitimate participative approach be taken (2 of the 9 LAGs).
In the other cases, the function of the local population is reduced to a consulting role
in an ex ante diagnosis, but without any clear connection to the decision making (7 of
the 9 cases). Therefore, considering the cases analyzed, participation can be more success-
ful if it is channelled through tourism associations. The absence of associations obliges to
outsource the planning processes, which increases the operating costs.

4.2. Limitations to the eligibility of the projects at a regional level

Some of the studies in which LEADER is examined from the tourism angle reveal some
dysfunctions in the projects executed in previous periods: (a) predominance of locally-
developed tourism projects carried out at the request of public bodies, (b) low level of col-
laboration between the towns that make up the LAGs to create destinations products
(Tirado Ballesteros & Hernández Hernández, 2018), (c) low levels of innovation, predo-
minance of projects related to accommodation (Chevalier, 2010). Something which
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 11

some of the LAG managers have frequently reiterated as one of the arguments hindering
the dysfunctions observed are the requirements established by the Regional Government.
The simplification of the Structural Funds due to the creation of the EAFRD in 2005 has
meant that the development of strategies using the LEADER approach has been inserted in
regional RDPs. For the period 2007–2013, in Castilla-La Mancha this has resulted in a
limitation of the eligibility of the projects, impositions on the levels of execution and limit-
ations on the budget allocation according with the LAG managerś opinion.

4.2.1. Limitation to the budget allocation for the hiring of personnel

The allocated operating costs cannot exceed 20% of the total LAG budget. This leads to
differences in the number of workers in each LAG. The lack of technical staff means
that it is impossible to carry out a more detailed planning process in the tourism sector.
Interviewee CLM-09 comments: ‘I have been alone for 8 months. You cannot do any
more than manage the programme, you cannot invigorate and you cannot promote partici-
pation’. Along the same lines, interviewee CLM-04 states: ‘little can be done with the money
received for personnel costs. We are energisers; we have to be a catalyst so that they can con-
tinue on their own’. Some of the LAG managers are aware of the impossibility of managing
the different sectorial processes that contribute to the rural development strategy and
highlight the participation of the population in order to overcome this challenge. Intervie-
wee CLM-13 indicates:
we wish to create a tourism association as an immediate step. In the LAG there are two tech-
nical practitioners and myself, and we cannot do any more. In this way, what we want to
achieve is to be able to delegate through this tourism association which defines the guidelines
to follow.

Furthermore, the low endowment of personnel prevents an evaluation of the pro-

gramme from being made or a monitoring of the continuity in the approved investments.
Interviewee CLM-02 highlights: ‘no, a follow-up process is not carried out. I would like that,
but here the only staff we have are those who you can see here now’. Therefore, the creation
of associations is not only an acceptable instrument to encourage participation, it is also
can be useful to counteract the limitations on personnel costs.

4.2.2. The regional government establishes limits to the eligibility of certain projects
The way in which the principle of subsidiarity was interpreted in the periods of application
LEADER I, II and LEADER +, in which there was a full decentralization so that the LAGs
could design their own strategies and freely decide the actions required to improve rural
development, suffered a change in 2005 after the creation of the EAFRD. Since the appli-
cation of the 2007–2013 RDP, the principle of subsidiarity has been strangled as the LAG
managers interviewed regard the possibilities for the development of actions as being very
limited. Interviewee CLM-09 indicates: ‘the thing is that they [referring to the Regional Gov-
ernment] issued a list of 90 types of projects from which to choose’. In addition to this list of
projects, there are other requirements for a project to be approved. For example, there are
limitations to certain types of initiatives depending on who the promoter is (public or
private). According to interviewee CLM-13, ‘this problem exists in tourism. A local council
wishes to implement an accommodation project but its eligibility is not permitted through
the normal channels’. The size of the population also conditions the types of projects to
12 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

be subsidized. For example, the regional government has vetoed certain lines of financing in
municipalities of more than 30,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, there are certain limitations to
projects that seek to promote on a county level. This also makes it difficult to approve pro-
jects for implementing marketing actions of the destinations under a territorial brand. Inter-
viewee CLM-03 comments: ‘through LEADER, promotion on a county level is very limited. It
is much easier to approve a rural accommodation than finance the purchase of a car to adver-
tise the destination’. All of these requirements generate confusion between the LAGs regard-
ing the eligibility of the projects. Interviewee CLM-13 remarks: ‘there are times when we do
not know whether a project is eligible or not. I believe that they don’t even know’.

4.2.3. The timeframes established by the Regional Ministry of Agriculture for the
execution of the projects
Another of the arguments that LAG managers underline as an impediment to start up
tourism projects, was the temporary limitation in the execution of projects. A term of
18 months is established for the execution of any project. Interviewee CLM-13 indicates:
18 months is either not very long or a very long time, depending on the type of project. If you
have a problem with obtaining licences or you need an environmental impact study, forget it.
You either start with the project already initiated or you will have problems with the deadlines.

This obstacle partially explains the low number of projects aimed at creating destina-
tion products. Interviewee CLM-02 made a comment in this respect: ‘these types of
project cannot be executed within the time limit. This is the main difficulty. As we have
these limits of 18 months, we try to carry out projects that are relatively short from beginning
to end’. In addition, in order for a project to be subsidized, a certificate of non-commence-
ment must be presented. Interviewee CLM-02 states:
the subsidies cannot be allocated to projects that have already been started. This responds to the
deadweight concept incorporated into the EU regulations. The EU wishes to prove that without
the subsidies it would not have been possible to develop the initiative, therefore: first, the appli-
cation; then the certificate of non-commencement; and then the execution and payment.

This requirement limits the access to investors with projects that, although aligned with
the rural development strategies, have been initiated without informing the LAG. Most
of all, it limits the support to projects that could have been started earlier in other
periods. This hinders the continuity of the policies between periods. Similarly, it means
that the financing of those projects which require a longer execution period is unfeasible.

4.2.4. The Regional Ministry of Agriculture requires the LAGs to undertake minimum
volumes of budget implementation
One more of the issues that hinder the development of tourism projects, was the minimum
volume of budget established. At the halfway stage, the LAGs must comply with minimum
volumes of implementing the initially allocated budget. The Regional Ministry of Agricul-
ture of Castilla La-Mancha establishes penalties for the LAGs which are not able to allocate
the budget that was initially granted. These penalties represent a reduction in the capital
allocated for the budget of the following yearly payments of the programme. This causes
the LAGs to feel pressured to reach these investment quotas and therefore, they try to
support projects that require large volumes of investment. Interviewee CLM-22 remarks:
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 13

If you do not reach the implementation level, they withdraw the money. Everything that is pro-
posed is subsidised, provided that it is feasible. I prefer the money to end up in my territory
than to go to someone else. You like some projects more than others, but you have to do it.

In the field of tourism, all of these requirements could contribute to explaining the high
acceptance of projects related to the creation and modernization of accommodation and res-
taurants. These projects, in general, require a high level of investment and help in some way
to cover the quotas of implementation established by the Regional Ministry of Agriculture.
One point that is shared by all of the interviewees is the fact that all of these administrative
requirements to access the funds (endowment for operating costs, limits in the eligibility of
the projects, demands in the levels and periods of execution) limit the degree of innovation,
another of the principles of the LEADER approach. Interviewee CLM-09 indicates:
It is very complicated to do new things. At the end of the day, everything depends on the
eligibility of the project, that is, whether it can be subsidised. And this is where you always
clash with the civil servant. We continue to use the same methodologies and keep doing
the same thing, because we are not able to do anything else.

Interviewee CLM-02 comments:

We have not been permitted to apply new models for the last two periods. It is very complicated
to work within the timeframe and achieve this continuity, but there is no alternative, otherwise
we would end up financing rural houses.

4.3. Social-cultural characteristics and the interest of the population

In addition to the limitations established at the regional level, there are other factors that
can disclose the low degree of innovation of tourism products. According to the LAG
managers the socio-cultural characteristics of the population affects the low degree of
innovation. Interviewee CLM-04 states:
the characteristics of the population are highly decisive. The possibility of there being innova-
tive investors in the tourism sector who offer something that is different to the classic restaurant
or rural house is remote, because our population has discreet capacities.

In this regard, the reinforcement of training in tourism is essential. In the final period of
application in Castilla La-Mancha, however, the access to lines of investment connected to
the training of the local population through RDPs has been fairly limited. Interviewee
CLM-03 indicates: ‘what we have not been able to do with LEADER we have had to do
with other tools. In training tourist guides, for example, the initiatives have been financed
through other initiatives of the European Social Fund’.
Similarly, other arguments against the possibility of generating synergies related with
the public-private collaboration have been the low levels of interest and motivation by
the private sector. Interviewee CLM-09 remarks: ‘the private sector does not realise that
it has to spend money for something to work. As long as there is public money, everything
works’. Interviewee CLM-22 uses similar arguments:
with the territorial brand, for example, we have been working well, but it began to work well
when there was public money. Because when you ask them to work or you ask them to provide
guidelines, they lock it away. My opinion is that you cannot invest in something which the
entrepreneurs have no interest in.
14 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

In the same way, the socio-cultural characteristics of farmers make it difficult to develop
projects linked to agrotourism. The interviewee CLM-09 states: ‘This is due to the absence
of a more open mentality and an entrepreneurial culture. Farmers are not prone to that kind
of diversification’. The interviewee CLM-13 pointes out: ‘large-scale farmers do not pay
attention to those things [referring to tourism projects]. They are not able to see the potential
of tourism and see it as a problem’.

4.4. The localisms exercised by the public bodies

From a theoretical point of view, LEADER is an ideal tool for territorial cooperation, par-
ticularly in marketing actions, due to the low capacity of villages to undertake promotional
campaigns individually, territorial brand is also decisive for creating sense of place. Apart
from the limitations at regional level and the social-cultural characteristics of the popu-
lation, the existence of localisms represents another weakness in the implementation of
tourism projects (Dinis et al., 2010; Esparcia, 2014; Martínez Arroyo et al., 2015; Ray,
2000). This fact is particularly unfavourable for the formulation of strategies for
tourism development as supramunicipal collaboration is crucial for territorial promotion
and for increasing the possibilities of attracting the demand, pooling together the tourism
resources of the different municipalities that make up the LAG through a territorial brand.
On the other hand, tourism strategies are not exempt from political interests. Interviewee
CLM-02 indicates: ‘We must fight against localisms, but they still exist. The politicians like
to talk about the county level, but they are very local’. The conflict of interest when imple-
menting tourism projects has led to an abuse of power of those members of the Board of
Directors with greatest financial power. Interviewee CLM-22 points out: ‘it is the local
councils who put up the money and maintain the LAGs. Our job is to guide them. As
long as they don’t ask me to surface the streets, because I won’t do that’. Interviewee
CLM-09 comments: ‘The weight of the decisions on the Board of Directors is: one
member, one vote. But in the end, he who rules is in charge’. Furthermore, this pressure
from the public bodies is also manifested in the design of the destination products on a
supramunicipal level. Interviewee CLM-13 acknowledges: ‘The problem of trying to
make everybody happy is complicated. Everyone wants to form part of the project, but
the fact is that some villages are better prepared than others to be tourism destinations’.
This represents a loss of potentiality of the destination products. Tourism products lose
their attractiveness due to the large amount of resources required and those that have
the greatest potential are not selected so as to avoid conflicts with local entities in an
attempt to please all parties. The interviewee CLM-02 indicates: ‘the application has too
much information [referring to an app for promotion of tourism destinations], there
should not be so much local information because we are promoting them at the county level’.
Figure 3 summarizes the main challenges faced by some managers for developing
tourism strategies through the LEADER approach.

5. Conclusion
This section includes the main theoretical, methodological and practical contributions
derived from this research. Likewise, some guidelines for future lines of research are rec-
ommended. With respect to the theoretical implications, the research reveals some of
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 15

Figure 3. Main challenges for developing tourism through LEADER

the dysfunctions of the multi-level governance system and the partnership principle
applied to a specific case of the EU Cohesion Policy. Although the LAGs are well on
the way to becoming a suitable means of institutionalizing the principle of subsidiarity
for rural development, the intervention on an EU scale in policies based on the
LEADER method should be evaluated and mechanisms should be established to
ensure technocracy. The multifunctionality that characterizes the RDPs together with
the limitation to the budget allocation for the hiring of personnel make it difficult to
establish independent planning processes for each of the non-agricultural activities.
The role of the LAGs in the strategies planning processes should be reconsidered.
Decentralization processes would help to improve the efficiency of the EU RDP. The
findings have demonstrated that channelling participation through a tourism association
is useful for avoiding outsourcing planning processes and bridging the limitations on
operating cost.
From a methodological point of view, the qualitative approach proposed complements
the mandatory methods of evaluation and the EU Assessment Guidelines that are limited
to the application of a few quantitative indicators. Addressing the research problem from
the point of view of the tourism sector has provided another more operational and prag-
matic perspective of the application of LEADER. Similarly, this study has contributed to
fill the gap between the LEADER approach and tourism.
With respect to the practical contributions, despite having adopted a participative
approach in the tourism planning processes, they have only been approached from
the supply perspective. The strategies have very rarely been considered according to
16 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

the needs and characteristics of the demand. This fact is evident in the oversupply of
accommodation and the low level of destination product created in the region under
study (Tirado Ballesteros & Hernández Hernández, 2018). Therefore, while a consen-
sual participative process prevails it is still characterized by a certain level of spontane-
ity. The financing-participation duality has created an unfavourable environment for
promoting collaboration which is necessary to improve the competitiveness of tourist
destinations. The LAGs show that planning and participative processes are more
important than the mere allocation of funds which they may obtain in order to be
able to address the structural problems that afflict the rural areas. The LAGs have
consolidated their hegemony as management entities of reference in local governance
and have proven that they are capable of overcoming temporariness and the depen-
dence on RDPs.
The conclusions obtained in this research have been strongly conditioned by the case
study. Taking into account that the strangulation of the principle of subsidiarity
imposed by the regional governments are showed as priorities according with LAG
managerś perspective, futures studies should be aiming at providing a more holistic
view of the research problem. Future lines of research can contrast the findings gathered
and interview other stakeholders such as regional governments and tourism associ-
ations. Additionally, it would be interesting to analyse how the initiatives and pro-
grammes using the LEADER approach are being developed in other territorial areas
and how the strategies are being applied in tourism. Some experiences of the still inci-
pient application of the LEADER approach in new member countries, such as the Czech
Republic or Hungary show similar results on an overall level with respect to the
LEADER method and the policy instrumentalisation exercised by public bodies (Cheva-
lier, Dedeire, Kovács, & Póla, 2013).
In order to reinforce tourist destinations on a supramunicipal level, there has to be a
clear leadership. Both the regional and local authorities should give the LAGs greater
legitimacy for several reasons: (a) the strategies designed by the LAGs according to the
participative approach take advantage of the existing capacities of all the agents involved
and also enhance the territorial identity and sense of place. (b) Similarly, applying the
bottom-up approach renders the connections between the needs of the population and
the solutions designed to respond to them more coherent and efficient. (c) The absence
of tourism planning in many of the rural municipalities should also condition the legiti-
mate assignment of the LAGs. This acknowledgement of leadership implies that the LAGs
are able to generate a demonstration effect through their management, transparency and
commitment to the territory that is above individual interests.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Office of the Vice President for Research, Development and Inno-
vation of University of Alicante under Grant UAFPU2014-5887 and the Research Group ‘Land-
scapes and natural resources in Spain (University of Alicante).
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 17

ORCID
Juan Gabriel Tirado Ballesteros http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1216-4673
María Hernández Hernández http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8823-0083

References
Bache, I. (2010). Europeanization and multi-level governance: EU cohesion policy and pre-acces-
sion aid in southeast Europe. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 10(1), 1–12. doi:10.
1080/14683851003606739
Bachtler, J., & Wren, C. (2006). Evaluation of European Union Cohesion policy: Research questions
and policy challenges. Regional Studies, 40(02), 143–153. doi:10.1080/00343400600600454
Barke, M., & Newton, M. (1997). The EU LEADER initiative and endogenous rural development:
The application of the programme in two rural areas of Andalusia, southern Spain. Journal of
Rural Studies, 13(3), 319–341. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00027-2
Beaumont, N., & Dredge, D. (2010). Local tourism governance: A comparison of three network
approaches. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 7–28. doi:10.1080/09669580903215139
Böcher, M. (2008). Regional governance and rural development in Germany: The implementation
of LEADER+. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(4), 372–388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00468.x
Bornhorst, T., Brent Ritchie, J. R., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success for DMOs
& destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management,
31(5), 572–589. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.008
Bull, B. (1999). Encouraging tourism development through the EU structural funds: A case study of
the implementation of EU programmes on Bornholm. International Journal of Tourism Research,
1(3), 149–165. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-1970(199905/06)1:3<149::AID-JTR167>3.0.CO;2-S
Cañete, J. A., Navarro, F., & Cejudo, E. (2018). Territorially unequal rural development: The cases
of the LEADER initiative and the PRODER programme in Andalusia (Spain). European
Planning Studies, 26(4), 726–744. doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1424118
Chevalier, P. (2005). Activités tertiaires et dynamiques rurale. Annales de Géographie, 641(1), 27–
48. doi:10.3917/ag.641.0027
Chevalier, P. (2010). L’approche LEADER et le développement local en France. In M. Halamska, &
M. Maurel (Eds.), Les acteurs locaux à l’épreuve du modèle européen LEADER: France, Hongrie,
Pologne (pp. 53–70). Centre Français de Recherche en Sciences Sociales (CEFRES).
Chevalier, P., Dedeire, M., Kovács, D., & Póla, P. (2013). The implementation of the Leader pro-
gramme in Central Europe: Between a local development approach and political instrumentali-
sation. Discussion Papers, (89). Retrieved from https://discussionpapers.rkk.hu/index.php/DP/
article/view/2533
Dinis, G., Panyik, E., Breda, Z. (2010). O papel dos Grupos de Acção Local (GAL) no desenvolvi-
mento do turismo em áreas rurais em Portugal. In E. Figueiredo, et al. (Ed.), Actas do IV
Congresso de Estudos Rurais (pp. 303–318). Portugal: Universidade de Aveiro. Retrieved from
http://sper.pt/oldsite/4cer/LivroActasFinal_corrigido.pdf
Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative
projects. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004
Esparcia Pérez, J., & Noguera Tur, J. (2000). Aproximación teórico-metodológica a la cultura eva-
luativa y la evaluación de programas de desarrollo rural. Cuadernos de Geografía, 67, 77–102.
Retrieved from https://www.uv.es/cuadernosgeo/CG67_68_077_101.pdf
Esparcia Pérez, J., Noguera Tur, J., & Pitarch Garrido, M. D. (2000). LEADER en España: desarrollo
rural, poder, legitimación, aprendizaje y nuevas estructuras. Documents d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 37,
95–116. Retrieved from http://www.raco.cat/index.php/DocumentsAnalisi/article/view/31727
European Commission. (1992). Treaty of European Union. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
europeanunion/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/treaty_on_european_union_en.pdf
European Commission. (2016). LEADER Local Development Strategies (LDS). Guidance on design
and implementation. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/enrd-guidance_lds.
pdf
18 J. G. TIRADO BALLESTEROS AND M. H. HERNÁNDEZ

European Commission. (2018). Fact Sheets on the European Union – 2018. The principle of sub-
sudiarity. Retreived from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.2.2.pdf
Garrod, B., Wornell, R., & Youell, R. (2006). Re-conceptualising rural resources as countryside
capital: The case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(1), 117–128. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2005.08.001
Granberg, L., Andersson, K., & Kovách, I. (2015). Introduction: LEADER as an experiment in grass-
roots democracy. In L. Granberg, K. Andersson, & I. Kovách (Eds.), Evaluating the European
approach to rural development: Grass-roots experiences of the LEADER programme (pp. 1–12).
Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.
Hernández Hernández, M. (2008). Balance de las políticas de desarrollo rural en la Comunidad
Valenciana (1991-2006). Investigaciones Geográficas, 45, 93–119. doi:10.14198/INGEO2008.45.04
INE. (2015). Anuario Estadistico de España, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ine.es/prodyser/
pubweb/anuarios_mnu.htm
Janin Rivolin, U. J. (2005). Cohesion and subsidiarity: Towards good territorial governance in
Europe. Town Planning Review, 76(1), 93–106. doi:10.3828/tpr.76.1.8
Kölling, M. (2016). El presupuesto de la Unión Europea y el objetivo de la cohesión social: dos con-
ceptos en cambio. Revista de Derecho de la Unión Europea, 30, 313–334. Retrieved from http://e-
spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv/bibliuned:REDUE-2016-30-31-5060/Presupuesto_Union_Europea.pdf
López Estrada, R. E., & Deslauriers, J. P. (2011). La entrevista cualitativa como técnica para la
investigación en trabajo social. Margen: Revista de Trabajo Social y Ciencias Sociales, 61, 2–19.
Retrieved from http://www.margen.org/suscri/margen61/lopez.pdf
Macken-Walsh, A. (2011). Partnership and subsidiarity? A case-study of farmers’. participation in
Contemporary EU Governance and Rural Development Initiatives. Rural Society, 21(1), 43–53.
doi:10.5172/rsj.2011.21.1.43
Martínez Arroyo, F. (2006). El desarrollo rural en el contexto de la Unión Europea. Norba. Revista
de geografía, 11, 11–20. Retrieved from http://dehesa.unex.es/handle/10662/665
Martínez Arroyo, F., Sacristán López, H., & Yagüe Blanco, J. L. (2015). Are local action groups,
under LEADER approach, a good way to support resilience in rural areas? AGER, Journal of
Depopulation and Rural Development Studies, 18, 39–63. doi:10.4422/ager.2015.06
McAreavey, R., & McDonagh, J. (2011). Sustainable rural tourism: Lessons for rural development.
Sociologia Ruralis, 51(2), 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00529.x
Midmore, P. (1998). Rural policy reform and local development programmes: Appropriate evalu-
ation procedures. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(3), 409–426. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.
1998.tb01281.x
Moltó Mantero, E., & Hernández Hernández, M. (2004). La funcionalidad de los medios rurales en
las sociedades urbanas. Investigaciones Geográficas, 34, 63–76. doi:10.14198/INGEO2004.34.06
Panyik, E., Costa, C., & Rátz, T. (2011). Implementing integrated rural tourism: An event-based
approach. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1352–1363. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.009
Papadopoulou, E., Hasanagas, N., & Harvey, D. (2011). Analysis of rural development policy net-
works in Greece: Is LEADER really different? Land Use Policy, 28(4), 663–673. doi:10.1016/j.
landusepol.2010.11.005
Pato, L., & Kastenholz, E. (2017). Marketing of rural tourism – a study based on rural tourism lod-
gings in portugal. Journal of Place Management and Development, 10(2), 121–139. doi:10.1108/
JPMD-06-2016-0037
Pulido Fernández, J. I., & Cárdenas García, P. J. (2011). El turismo rural en España: orientaciones
estratégicas para una tipología aún en desarrollo. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles,
56, 155–176. Retrieved from http://www.age-geografia.es/ojs/index.php/bage/article/view/1348
Ray, C. (2000). The EU LEADER programme: Rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40,
163–171. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00138
Ruiz Guevara, I., & Martín López, V. M. (2013). Cooperativas agroalimentarias e impacto de su
estrategia en el desarrollo rural: análisis cualitativo en Castilla-La Mancha. REVESCO: Revista
de Estudios Cooperativos, 111, 137–158. Retrieved from http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/REVE/
article/view/42670
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 19

Salmon, K. (2008). New directions in European Regional Policy and their implications for Spain.
Investigaciones Regionales, 12, 147–177. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/html/289/
28913276007/
Sisto, R., Lopolito, A., & van Vliet, M. (2018). Stakeholder participation in planning rural develop-
ment strategies: Using backcasting to support Local Action Groups in complying with CLLD
requirements. Land Use Policy, 70, 442–450. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.022
Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Food adn Enviroment. (2014). Programa de Desarrollo Rural de
Castilla-La Mancha 2007-2013. Retrieved from http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/
temas/programas-ue/2014-10-22%20V7.2%20Abril%202014%20Tomo%20I%20PDR_CLM_
tcm30-131145.pdf
Spanish Statistical Institute (2015). Contabilidad Regional de España. Retrieved from http://www.
ine.es/daco/daco42/cre00/b2010/dacocre_base2010.htm
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1996). Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación.
Barcelona: Paidós.
Tirado Ballesteros, J. G., & Hernández Hernández, M. (2017). Assessing the impact of EU rural
development programs on tourism. Tourism Planning & Development, 14(2), 149–166. doi:10.
1080/21568316.2016.1192059
Tirado Ballesteros, J. G., & Hernández Hernández, M. (2018). Analysis of investments in rural
tourism in the territorial approach programs of Castilla-La Mancha (1991-2013). Documents
d’Anàlisi Geogràfica, 64(1), 149–174. doi:10.5565/rev/dag.387
Viñas, V. (2004). Evaluación cualitativa de programas de desarrollo regional en zonas rurales.
Revista de Estudios Regionales, 71, 13–36. Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/html/755/
75507101/
Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J., & Van Es, J. C. (2001). Factors for success in rural tourism
development. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 132–138. doi:10.1177/004728750104000203
Yagüe Blanco, J. L., De Nicolas, V. L., & Martínez, J. L. (2013). Leader rural development program in
Spain: Profile and functions of workers in local action groups. The sixth international scientific
conference rural development. Innovations and sustainaibility (pp. 543–547), Akademija,
Lithuania.