tourist modernisation and social legitimation in spain

ABSTRACT

Spain’s modernisation has been based, to a large extent, on the so-called ‘residential tourism’. Its two-fold nature—as a production model and a type of lifestyle migration—has complex repercussions. The aim of this paper is to delve, with a qualitative approach, into the key factors that explain the current social legitimation of this process by the Spanish society. The research suggests that the process is legitimated by its defi nition as an essentially tourism phenomenon. The label ‘tourism’ acts as some sort of ‘funnel’ that would not allow to go through it the problems associated with lifestyle migration or urbanisation. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 15 January 2010; Revised 08 March 2010; Accepted 17 March 2010

Keywords: residential tourism; lifestyle migration; qualitative research.

INTRODUCTION

Spain’s political and socio-economic situa-tion during the 1950s was very precari-ous. Although it did not take part in

World War II, the country was devastated by a bloody civil war (1936–1939). Furthermore, Franco’s ideological alignment with the fascist powers had brought about Spain’s interna-tional geo-political isolation. By the mid-1950s, however, the autarkic system that had charac-terised Franco’s dictatorship was unsustain-

able, and a new team of ministers was appointed to manage Spain’s economy, which they tried to open to the Western world (Carr, 1980). Their modernising measures were implemented through the Stabilisation Plan of 1959. Although this is not the place for a detailed analysis, it is worth noting that the offi cials who devised the plan considered tourism as a pillar of Spain’s socio-economic modernisation (Vera, 1987). The wealth of European citizens, immersed in a cycle of socio-economic expansion, led to a high level of consumption of holiday leisure. Millions of Europeans chose the Spanish Mediterranean coast, attracted by the mildness of the climate, the low prices and a socio-political environ-ment that conveyed safety. The emigrants’ remittances, together with the revenue gener-ated by the boom of mass tourism, funded the industrial development of Spain in the 1960s (Carr, 1980).

The obvious benefi t that tourism develop-ment has meant for the Spanish economy is accompanied by other processes, among which it is worth highlighting two. Firstly, the envi-ronmental impacts of the urban growth related to tourism (Vera and Ivars, 2003). Secondly, the transformations in the socio-demographic structure of many areas because of two fl ows of immigrants: on the one hand, the young work force attracted by the labour market, and on the other, the elderly tourists and migrants that spend a few months each year, or settle indefi nitely, in the new tourist enclave. The latter fl ow is the most intense, which together with the ageing process of the local popula-tion, has brought about a progressive ageing of the demographic structure (Casado, 1999).

The fi rst of the above-mentioned processes is related to one of the two sides of residential tourism: the one that shows a development model based on the production of urban land for the construction of property (Mazón, 2006).

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 12, 617–626 (2010)Published online 26 April 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.784

Tourist Modernisation and Social Legitimation in SpainAlejandro MantecónDept. de Sociologia I, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain

Correspondence to: Dr. Alejandro Mantecón, Dept. de Sociología I, Universidad de Alicante, Ap. Correos 99, Alicante E03080, Spain.E-mail: [email protected]

618 A. Mantecón

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 617–626 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Labour market statistics of the Alicante prov-ince (on the Spanish Mediterranean coast) show that in the most relevant tourist towns, with the exception of Benidorm, the percentage of employers and employees linked to the real estate and construction sectors is considerably higher than the proportion of employers and employees related to the tourism sector (OOA, 2006). The real estate nature of the process becomes also apparent when we observe the planning pressure that most towns of the Medi-terranean region are subjected to. In 1987, up to 22% of the two-kilometre strip from the Medi-terranean coast inland was built up; the percent-age reached 26% in the year 2000, and was as high as 34% in 2005. The Valencian region (con-sisting of the Castellón, Valencia and Alicante provinces) has already built up 40% of that coastal strip, and the number of towns that have built up, or made available for development, more than 50% of their land is increasing on a yearly basis (OSE, 2006). Another illustrative example is the disparity between the number of bedplaces in hotels and the number of bed-places available in second homes. Estimates of the number of bedplaces in second homes across the country range between 12 and 21 million, although most of them are located in the prov-inces on the Mediterranean coast. The wide range between these two estimated fi gures is because of the alarming fact that millions of houses are not registered. Thus, if we know that regulated property offers approximately 3 million bedplaces, this means that the actual dimension of the accommodation in second homes is four to seven times higher (Requejo, 2007). Nevertheless, the data regarding regu-lated accommodation are suffi ciently illuminat-ing: 75% of the overnight stays classifi ed as ‘tourism related’ that took place in the Valen-cian region during 2006 occurred in private dwellings (OVV, 2007).

The second of the above-mentioned pro-cesses refers to the other side of residential tourism: the one that conceals a complex system where different sorts of leisure mobil-ity converge. Several authors have made valu-able contributions to explain these dynamics that operate in the Spanish Mediterranean region on the grounds of their research into the mobility and residence patterns of citizens from Central and North European countries

(King et al., 1998, 2000; Casado, 1999, 2006; Gustafson, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2009; King, 2002; Salvà, 2002; Huber, 2003; Huber and O’Reilly, 2004; Rodríguez et al., 2004, 2005; Huete, 2009). Two groups shape the most relevant types of residential mobility associated with leisure in these regions. On the one hand, we can iden-tify the conventional tourists, for the most part Spaniards, who during their holidays travel to an apartment (owned, borrowed or rented) located in some area of the Spanish Mediter-ranean. On the other hand, another group can be identifi ed. Much more heterogeneous and very diffi cult to categorise, it is mainly made up of citizens from Central and North Euro-pean countries. Karen O’Reilly (2000) differen-tiated between full (British) residents, who live in Spain full time; returning residents, who return to the UK regularly, although they see their Spanish home as their primary residence; seasonal migrants, who live in the UK but spend the winter in Spain; and peripatetic migrants, who move back and forth between the UK and Spain in an irregular and unpredictable fashion, and consider both countries as their home. O’Reilly developed in 2007 an argument to explain these types of human mobility using the concept of intra-European migration (2007a). Later that year (O’Reilly, 2007b), she accepted the notion of residential tourism after acknowl-edging that the semantic contradiction of this expression (an oxymoron) offers the possibility of highlighting the tensions that appear in a social system where different types of mobility and residential strategies converge. The com-plexity of these new social realities has led her to use in her latest publications the notion of ‘lifestyle migration’. It is a conceptual frame-work with which to explain the new migration forms, which have more to do with self-reali-sation projects and the search for an intangible ‘good life’ than with strictly productive activi-ties. In this respect, ‘residential tourism’ is the best known of the different types of ‘lifestyle migration’, and Spain, the country where it has left a more profound mark (Benson and O’Reilly, 2009; O’Reilly and Benson, 2009).

Most of the above-mentioned studies have focused on aspects related to the socio-economic, geo-environmental and socio-demographic dimensions associated with residential tourism. Its cultural dimensions

Tourist Modernisation 619


have been paid less attention, although essen-tial contributions have been made by King et al. (2000), O’Reilly (2000, 2005, 2009), Gustafson (2001, 2008) or Huber (2003). Fewer are the studies that try to understand how (discourses, ideologies) the host societies assess this process (Barke, 1999; Schriewer, 2008), and among these, the analyses that try to understand the role played by social legitimation are excep-tional (Mantecón, 2008; Mazón et al., 2009).

The literature produced by Spanish academ-ics offers, for the most part, rather critical diag-noses about the repercussions of residential tourism. These studies warn of situations of environmental unsustainability, cultural vul-garisation, excessive economic dependence on the activity associated with residential tourism or problems to manage public resources (Gaviria, 1976; Jurdao, 1979; Vera, 1987; Navalón, 1995; Monfort and Ivars, 2001; Vera and Ivars, 2003; Mazón, 2006; Requejo, 2007). These authors argue that residential tourism generates dynamics that are essentially detri-mental to host societies. Consequently, it is dif-fi cult to understand why the Spanish society has allowed its development. If there were any doubts about this, recent surveys (Mazón et al., 2009) prove the existence of a legitimation context among the citizens: 91% of the popula-tion are in favour of the modernisation associ-ated with residential tourism. The results of the survey show that pillars supporting this modernisation model are not challenged. Therefore, what are the sociological keys that support the legitimating, prevailing opinion of the Spanish citizens? That is the question that guides the present research. The aim of this paper is to delve, with a qualitative approach, into the role played by social legitimation, once its relevance in the modernisation related to residential tourism has been established. It is about understanding the way residential tourism is explained and justifi ed in the Spanish Mediterranean towns where this process has been more intense.

METHODS

Starting from the premise that not all social actors have the same power to defi ne social reality, this research has focused on those posi-tions with the capability to infl uence the view-

points and behaviour of most social sectors. Thus, the sources of power in residential tourism towns were identifi ed. They result from the interaction between political elites, the main economic agents involved in the process, the experts in the analysis of the process and what I have called ‘active citizen-ship’. There is no doubt that regional dynamics are infl uenced by economic elites (property developers, and trade and hospitality associa-tions) and local political elites (particularly in Spain, where the central government has devolved more and more responsibilities to local authorities). Local economic elites, mainly property developers, reap more economic ben-efi ts generated by the modernisation related to residential tourism than any other group, and therefore have the most interest in perpetuat-ing it. The local political elites are also inter-ested in keeping the known dynamics going, since the main source of funding of their local councils is the revenue obtained by granting building permissions (Mazón, 2006). Experts, both academics and local government offi cers, play an increasingly important role in regional development: they contribute to the creation of public opinion through their diffusion activi-ties; play a key role as advisors in tourism, urban and cultural matters; and they are also a source of approval or criticism when, through their diagnoses and assessments, they legiti-mise or delegitimise the interests of politicians and business people. Consequently, their atti-tudes and expectations towards the reality of residential tourism are worthy of attention. For their part, the citizens interviewed have been grouped under the expression ‘active citizen-ship’. The reason behind this label is that they were all chosen to take part in the study because they were (or had recently been) members of different citizens’ associations (neighbours’ associations, sport clubs and cul-tural associations). Although they were not members of any political party or relevant eco-nomic organisation, they were persons who intensely took part in the public life of their towns. Hence, I considered it interesting to regard them, with the label ‘active citizenship’, as a relevant social actor.

In-depth interview was chosen as the appro-priate technique to gather information from politicians, business people and experts. All

620 A. Mantecón


the interviews were conducted in their offi ces. The focus group technique was used to gather information from the citizens. The application of this research technique is based on its suit-ability to identify the discourses rendered by citizens. This is grounded in the assumption that individuals (affected by an issue in which they are not experts) that share their concerns with other people in the same situation even-tually form a better-founded opinion on the specifi c issue (Marshall and Rossman, 1999, p. 114). In other words, individuals tend to form and shape their views while interacting with others, and consequently, ideas in the making become the discourses registered by the researcher. The focus groups were conducted in the premises of a local cultural centre, a foundation devoted to cultural diffusion and a public centre for tourism and regional devel-opment. Both the interviews and the focus groups were conducted with a semi-structured guide of the main issues: defi nition and opinion of the tourism model, economic activ-ities, environmental situation and the relation-ships between Spanish residents and the other groups. Each interview was fully taped and transcribed. The in-depth interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, while each of the six focus groups lasted between 90 and 120 minutes. Fieldwork was carried out in fi ve coastal towns within the Alicante province, representative of the process of residential tourism explained in the previous pages (Denia, Altea, Benidorm, Santa Pola and Tor-revieja). These towns were selected for having the largest demographic weight and the highest number of registered second homes

on the province’s coast. All interviews and focus groups were conducted in 2006. The interviewees were classifi ed into four sub-groups of interest. Taking this into account, I used a sampling strategy that combined a snowball sampling method and a stratifi ed purposive sampling to select the subjects (Patton, 2002). Thus, participants in the focus groups (active citizenship) were recruited through the snowball sampling method, start-ing from an initial contact with an individual who knew the president of a neighbours asso-ciation. Members of the subgroups’ ‘experts’ (university teachers and local government offi cers) and ‘economic elites’ (presidents of trade and hospitality associations and prop-erty developers) were recruited through strati-fi ed purposive sampling. Finally, I decided to interview the councillors of all the political parties with responsibilities on tourism man-agement and representation in the councils of the selected towns to select the members of the subgroup ‘political elites’. As is usually the case with qualitative research, the sample size was determined when the point of data satu-ration of each subject category (in all the sub-groups) raised during the interviews was reached. The interviewees’ distribution is shown in Table 1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The defi nition of the situation and economic growth

Unlike the stance taken by the Spanish aca-demics, the mode of production of residential

Table 1. Distribution of the 71 interviewees

Social actor Characteristics

Political elites 15 in-depth interviews with councillors of all the political parties with responsibilities on tourism management and representation in the councils of the selected towns.

Economic elites Nine in-depth interviews (with four presidents of trade and hospitality associations and fi ve property developers whose main fi eld of action is the Mediterranean regions).

Experts 13 in-depth interviews (with fi ve university teachers with renowned experience in researching the process of residential tourism in the Spanish Mediterranean region, and eight local government offi cers with responsibilities in tourism management).

Active citizenship Six focus groups, with a total of 34 participants, were conducted with the aim of gathering and representing the citizenship discourse.



tourism has been promoted by the political and economic institutions and has also been perceived as a model with an essentially tourism nature by the citizens. As Klaus Schriewer (2008, p. 86) explains: ‘it should not come as a surprise that the sector’s largest company in Murcia, Polaris World, promotes itself as the number 1 in residential tourism rather than the number 1 in European immigration. In this respect, it is easier to achieve social legiti-mation to market a tourism product than a real estate product. The interviewees identify residential tourism as the key element of the region’s socio-economic modernisation. The assessment of the changes experienced by the region is subordinated to the perception of an improvement in the population’s living condi-tions, an improvement understood in terms of material well-being. The host societies have not found until today an alternative way of development capable of matching the benefi ts generated by the process of residential tourism: a rapid increase in all types of services and urban facilities, the creation of jobs and the demographic recuperation of towns at risk from depopulation. The twofold growth, urban and demographic, would be the most signifi cant expression of this stage of progress.

Before, there was nothing. If it weren’t for tourism, one wouldn’t have anything to do here. Tourism has brought wealth [. . .]. The people that have come here attracted by tourism have stimulated all the economic sectors of the town. The result is that we’ve taken in a lot of money, and the population is happy; there are more jobs. Because of the income from tourism, we’ve achieved a very high stan-dard of living. People know they earn their living thanks to tourists, because these make their business work. All the people who have come from England, Germany and other countries have spent a lot of money on property and in the local shops (councillor of Partido Popular, Spain’s main right-wing party).

Alberto: We simply don’t have a choice. There’s no industry, and the fi shing doesn’t go well.

Ana: Yes. We have to get used to the idea that that’s the way it is here.

Noelia: We can no longer depend on the sea, or on industries that don’t exist. We have to depend on tourism (focus group 4).

This produces a simple and indisputable argu-ment: more tourists equal more jobs, more jobs equal more income and more income equals more happiness.

As I have previously explained, residential tourism is in fact a type of lifestyle migration that conceals a complex range of residential strategies, in which the limits between tourism and migration are often vague. It became clear during the interviews and focus groups that most people use the label ‘residential tourism’ to refer to practically all the situations men-tioned here. The interviewees do not recognise the oxymoron ‘residential tourism’, and defend instead the tourism nature of most of those behaviours. Thus, they seem to be applying the following logic: if my town is defi ned as a tourist town, then all those people who come here for reasons more related to the search for leisure than the search for work must be cate-gorised as tourists. Such a simplifi cation has at least two consequences for the protagonists of lifestyle migration. Firstly, since the different situations are not recognised and analysed in depth, Spanish authorities are unable to provide each group with the specifi c services they require, as well as the resources, of higher or lower quality, provided to the general con-tingent of tourists (Huete, 2009). Secondly, the word ‘tourist’ has certain connotations for Spaniards (related to the temporary stays of visitors, with economic benefi ts for the towns), which creates a lack of interest in the potential problems stemming from the interaction with foreign citizens and at the same time, sup-presses prejudices and possible confl icts (Barke, 1999). In this respect, the processes of ‘dualisation’ brought about by the frequent socio-spatial separation of communities made up of British, German, Swiss, Norwegian, etc., residents, who settle in housing developments on the towns’ periphery (several illustrative examples can be found in some towns of the Alicante province: Alfaz del Pi, San Fulgencio,

622 A. Mantecón


Rojales), contribute to the ignorance of this new social reality among Spanish citizens. Consequently, English or German retirees are not identifi ed as immigrants, as happens with the contingent of labour migrants from North Africa, eastern Europe or South America. This complex group has been the focus of the nega-tive perception regarding migration processes, since it has been associated with diffi cult eco-nomic and working conditions that may give rise to problems. However, these ‘diffi cult con-ditions’ are not associated with British or German residents, who would not be expected either to make the same effort to integrate into their new town.

Javier: It’s only natural that they have shops where their own language is spoken and they can buy their stuff [. . .] There’s no interaction with theses people because we don’t take walks in that area. You don’t go to a pub there to get a drink. When you go in one of those places, you fi nd Irish or English . . . so it’s not a pub like ours. Those people lead the same life here as in their home country, only with sun and beaches.

Pedro: This doesn’t bother me because they’re tourists that are bringing money into the town. Apart from being there and socialising together, they also come and spend a lot on clothes, shoes . . .

María: I don’t think it’s a bad thing that these people come here. I don’t have any-thing against anybody but I think that these people are more benefi cial to us than immigrants. Tourists spend money and don’t cause trouble, and the others don’t spend a thing, they take up a job, send all the money to their country, and every now and then cause problems (focus group 2).

Unlike labour migrants, residential tourists are not regarded as competing to enter the same labour market as Spaniards, and they do not occupy the same urban space either, since many residential tourists live in peripheral estates, while almost all labour migrants live in the traditional city centres, like most Spanish citizens also do. As a result, a certain ‘dualisa-

tion’ of the process of social perception takes place, consisting of a rather simplifi ed distinc-tion between desirable immigrants and ‘less’ desirable ones, in other words, between immi-grants (a label applied only to labour migra-tion) and residential tourists. In fact, British migrants who have settled, more or less per-manently, in southern Spain are faced with situations more complicated than what our interviewees think (see, for instance, O’Reilly, 2003, 2005, 2007a, 2009, regarding integration and social exclusion problems). Thus, applying the label ‘tourism’ to such a complex residen-tial reality, together with a sometimes indiffer-ent attitude among the Spaniards, increases the diffi culties with which these social groups are faced that, although different to the prob-lems experienced by labour migrants, are also serious.

Transformation of the environment and cultural change

The interviews with experts, particularly with academics, refl ect critical discourses with con-stant references to a model of economic growth that gives rise to an urban overcrowding, very aggressive to the environment. However, expressions like ‘sustainable planning’ came up during the interviews and focus groups to try and challenge the common criticism of the inadequate (or nonexistent) urban and land planning.

But I also have to tell you that it’s not the same a natural area than any piece of land. Not all the areas are the same. It also makes me angry when some people say they’re ecologists but haven’t studied Biology or anything like that, and give their opinion about everything, many times without foundation. I’ve spoken with farmers that have told me that these ecologists should try and get a farmer’s job done and see if they fi nd it so easy. Many farmers admit that there are other possibilities of socio-economic develop-ment that have to do with tourism and a sustainable town planning; possibilities that can be very interesting. As not all areas can be developed, the same way, not all natural areas might be protected.



Sometimes we tend to generalise things too much, and go to extremes (property developer).

The environment has paid the highest price for the modernisation based on the development of residential tourism. It is precisely in the environment where the greatest risks to the future feasibility of the region’s development can be found, since irreparable damage has been infl icted on it for some time. The inter-viewees blame local councils for the lack of adequate planning of the towns’ growth. They also think that private initiative, led by prop-erty developers and the intense demand for houses, has forced local councils to approve time and again new property development plans with an erratic planning. Although these critical views are common, when asked about the environmental impacts, the interviewees express their reasoning together with other opinions, less strong, and even legitimating. The fact that there exist nature reserves in many towns serves as empirical evidence to support critical positions about the manipula-tion of the environment through the transfor-mation of natural areas into urban parks. However, these nature reserves were also brought up during the interviews to support arguments that try to diminish the environ-mental problems of the region.

The environment is respected quite a lot, thanks to nature itself, that has given us areas where nothing can be done and . . . well, what could have damaged the environment is the low quality of the houses that have been built, the over-crowding, the proximity of some of them to the natural areas that we have. But anyway, we still have some rather large areas where nothing can be done, and they are like the lungs of our town (coun-cillor of PSOE, main social democratic party).

Noelia: The problems have been caused by very specifi c issues [. . .] I think that we haven’t exploited our natural resources for tourism. We need to know how to make the most of it. I think that we can’t put ourselves at the service of nature;

rather nature should be at our service. Not just conserving and conserving . . . That’s clear (focus group 4).

Therefore, nature is construed as a resource liable to be transformed depending on the needs of the production model here discussed. To put it in other words, as in many other processes of advanced capitalism, nature is at the service of the economic interests of the pro-duction model, in this case, through the inte-gration of natural areas into the urban system.

Along similar lines, the overcrowding brought about by residential tourism (Vera and Ivars, 2003) is redefi ned as ‘democratisa-tion’ of tourism.

The type of tourist that used to come over could spend more money. The people that come over now spend money, too, but on another level. Then, there may be more tourists now . . . better, worse? Well, now I believe that, on equal terms, everybody is entitled to come here, and there are all sorts of people (councillor of Partido Popular).

In this respect, even one of the academics inter-viewed during the research point out that:

There’s also an ethic-social sort of problem if one decides to reject the worker, the average worker who, after many years and much effort, can fi nally afford to travel (university teacher).

When asked about the cultural changes expe-rienced by their towns because of the urban and demographic growth associated with the process of residential tourism, and particu-larly, when asked to assess the main cultural changes that had taken place in their towns, the citizens participating in the focus groups express opinions along the same lines than the views about the environmental impacts. The interviewees acknowledge profound transfor-mations of the cultural dimension of the citi-zens’ attitudes and customs, as well as of the built environment. But instead of identifying these transformations with processes of cul-tural vulgarisation (as some academics point out), they are seen as normal socio-cultural

624 A. Mantecón


changes inherent to any intense process of social modernisation, or in any case, they are perceived as a price that can be paid by the host society.

Miguel: The problem is always the same. Yes to progress, no to progress. There’s this bucolic image of fi shermen’s houses and . . . It’s very beautiful, and we all want that. But all these people can’t live in the few little houses that we had here. So more houses have to be built. And to build more houses, we have no choice but to pull down some of those little houses . . . And, is this a good thing or a bad thing? The old facades were more beautiful; the new ones are more commercial [. . .] I think we can’t go against progress. I was born in Altea in a house by the sea that’s still there. It hasn’t been touched, so yes, it’s nice to have it there, but if I live there I’m also prevent-ing others from living there . . . It can’t be something exclusive, either [. . .] So those beautiful houses are now pizzerias. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Some will say it’s good, and others will say it’s bad [. . .]

Juan: I believe that we’ve made the best possible thing. Progress is inevitable. We must follow the progress lines [. . .] I think it’s all right. I was speaking with my son the other day, and we talked about my grandmother who spend a lot of time on the street, and had a more family-oriented life. I loved that but now-adays it would be impossible to keep up (focus group 6).

The cultural and environmental impacts are redefi ned as side effects or inevitable conse-quences of a process, also interpreted as inevi-table, that has created an economic wealth from which the whole society has benefi ted.

CONCLUSION

The fi rst part of the paper has comprehensively approached the origin and the present reality of the process of modernisation, which in the Spanish case is based on the so-called ‘residen-

tial tourism’. Its twofold nature — as a pro-duction model and a type of lifestyle migration — has complex economic, cultural, demographic and environmental repercus-sions that Spanish academics have generally been critical about. Faced with this situation, one could think that, being residential tourism a process that in fact brings about critical situ-ations, the Spanish society probably would, particularly in the Mediterranean region, have not allowed its development throughout fi ve decades. At any rate, it would have not allowed these dynamics to intensify during the demo-cratic era (from 1976 onwards). If there were any doubts about this, recent surveys, like the one carried out by Mazón et al. (2009), prove the existence of a legitimation context among the citizens. The aim of this paper has been to delve, with a qualitative approach, into the sociological factors that support this context.

This research suggests that residential tourism is fi rst legitimised through its defi ni-tion as an essentially tourism phenomenon, invalidating the perception of its real estate and lifestyle migration nature. In this respect, it is well known that the tourism industry is usually seen by society as a group of activities more sustainable and less problematic than the construction industry (Huete, 2004). Only when we take this defi nition into account can we understand how the host society justifi es its intense development. In the Spanish case, this was further enhanced by the fact that the starting point of the process of residential tourism coincided with an extremely precari-ous situation (the terrible reality of Spain in the 1950s is only too well known). Consequently, the ‘progress’ achieved, thanks to the develop-ment of residential tourism, can be clearly seen, and even more so when it is understood as the production of material wealth.

As documented here, the interviewees do not believe that the negative side effects of this process can obscure the positive general image. All of them link the greater level of well-being to the development of residential tourism. Therefore, both the loss of cultural identity caused by the increasing overcrowding and the environmental impacts, are redefi ned as acceptable changes in a context of transforma-tion of the social reality. Although the subor-dination of the cultural and environmental



impacts to economic growth is nothing new, since in fact it goes back to the very origins of industrialisation (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1944), the way it takes shape in the case here analysed has a singular sociological relevance. It is the explanation and justifi cation of a process of modernisation based on a group of activities, whose nature is defi ned by most of the social sectors involved in it in a complete opposite way as it is defi ned by most experts, who have studied it in depth. Thus, the label ‘tourism’ acts as some sort of symbolic ‘funnel’ that would not allow to go through the prob-lems associated with lifestyle migration (prob-lems of integration, exclusion, isolation, under-registration . . .), nor those associated with urban growth (environmental impacts, destruction of the traditional architecture . . .). As a result, the only problems acknowledged by the host society are those related to the tourist activity, and are, therefore, considered minor or acceptable costs.

Finally, the analysis of the results obtained allows us to recognise an obvious contradic-tion between the diagnoses carried out by Spanish academics and the views of the main social actors involved in the process (which, on the other hand, calls attention to the fact that academics do not seem to have the ability to take on their role of actors with social infl u-ence). Hence, we can appreciate here a varia-tion of one of the most signifi cant theoretical contributions of the history of sociology: Thomas theorem (‘If men defi ne situations as real, they are real in their consequences’). In other words, if the main social actors involved in residential tourism defi ne this process in tourism terms, then the perpetuation of the process is legitimised by appealing to the fore-seeable consequences of an eminently tourism process, rather than to a process that, at least to a great extent, shows a real estate and migra-tion nature, and consequently gives rise to other types of problems. Thus, the local society substitutes the oxymoron (O’Reilly, 2007b), which it is indeed recognised by academics, with a synecdoche (pars pro toto): the tourism dimension of the process is considered the total dimension of the process. The most obvious practical consequence is its contribu-tion to the legitimation of the known dynamics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The results presented here are part of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation: ‘La percepción social del turismo en la Comunidad Valenciana. Análisis sociológico y prospectiva’ (CSO2009-10293) directed by Dr. Tomás Mazón, Univer-sity of Alicante. I am grateful to Dr. Raquel Huete for her support and comments.

REFERENCES

Barke M. 1999. Tourism and culture in Spain: a case of minimal confl ict? In Tourism and Cultural Confl icts, Robinson M, Boniface P (eds). CABI: Wallingford; 247–267.

Benson M, O’Reilly K. 2009. Migration and the search for a better way of life: a critical explora-tion of lifestyle migration. The Sociological Review 57(4): 608–625.

Carr R. 1980. Modern Spain, 1875–1980. Oxford Uni-versity Press: Oxford.

Casado MA. 1999. Socio-demographic impacts of residential tourism: a case study of Torrevieja, Spain. International Journal of Tourism Research 1: 223–237.

Casado MA. 2006. Retiring to Spain: an analysis of differences among North European nationals. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32(8): 1321–1339.

Gaviria M. 1976. El turismo de invierno y el asenta-miento de extranjeros en la provincia de Alicante. Diputación Provincial: Alicante.

Gustafson P. 2001. Retirement migration and transna-tional lifestyles. Ageing and Society 21(4): 371–394.

Gustafson P. 2002. Tourism and seasonal retirement migration. Annals of Tourism Research 29(4): 899–918.

Gustafson P. 2008. Transnationalism in retirement migration: The case of North European retirees in Spain. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(3): 451–475.

Gustafson P. 2009. Your home in Spain: residential strategies in international retirement migration. In Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences, O’Reilly K, Benson M (eds). Ashgate: Aldershot; 69–86.

Horkheimer M, Adorno Th. 1944. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Querido: Amsterdam.

Huber A. 2003. Sog des Südens. Altersmigration von der Schweiz nach Spanien am Beispiel Costa Blanca. Seismo: Zurich.

Huber A, O’Reilly K. 2004. The construction of Heimat under conditions of individualised modernity: Swiss and British elderly migrants in Spain. Ageing and Society 24(3): 327–352.

626 A. Mantecón


Huete R. 2004. La imagen social del impacto del turismo sobre el medio ambiente. In Turismo, ocio y deporte, Álvarez-Sousa A, (ed). Universidade da Coruña: La Coruña; 287–298.

Huete R. 2009. Turistas que llegan para quedarse. Una explicación sociológica sobre la movilidad residencial. Universidad de Alicante: Alicante.

Jurdao F. 1979. España en venta: compra de suelo por extranjeros y colonización de campesinos en la Costa del Sol. Ayuso: Madrid.

King R. 2002. Towards a new map of European migration. International Journal of Population Geog-raphy 8: 89–106.

King R, Warnes A, Williams AM. 1998. Interna-tional retirement migration in Europe. Interna-tional Journal of Population Geography 4: 91–111.

King R, Warnes A, Williams AM. 2000. Sunset Lives: British Retirement Migration to the Mediterranean. Berg: Oxford.

Mantecón A. 2008. La experiencia del turismo. Un estudio sociológico sobre el proceso turístico-residen-cial. Icaria: Barcelona.

Marshall C, Rossman GB. 1999. Designing Qualita-tive Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks.

Mazón T. 2006. Inquiring into residential tourism: the Costa Blanca case. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development 3(2): 89–97.

Mazón T, Huete R, Mantecón A, Jorge E. 2009. Legitimación y crisis en la urbanización de las regiones turísticas mediterráneas. In Turismo, urbanización y estilos de vida. Las nuevas formas de movilidad residencial, Mazón T, Huete R, Mantecón A (eds). Icaria: Barcelona; 399–412.

Monfort VM, Ivars, JA. 2001. Towards a sustained competitiveness of Spanish tourism. In Mediter-ranean Tourism, Apostolopoulos Y, Loukissas Ph, Leontidou, L (eds). Routledge: London; 17–38.

Navalón R. 1995. Planeamiento urbano y turismo resi-dencial en los municipios litorales de Alicante. Insti-tuto Gil-Albert: Alicante.

OOA (Observatorio Ocupacional de Alicante). 2006. Mercado de trabajo de la provincia de Alicante 2006. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales and INEM: Alicante.

O’Reilly K. 2000. The British on the Costa del Sol. Transnational identities and local communities. Rout-ledge: London.

O’Reilly K. 2003. When is a tourist? The articulation of tourism and migration in Spain’s Costa del Sol. Tourist Studies 3(3): 301–317.

O’Reilly K. 2005. Los jubilados británicos en la Costa del Sol. In La migración de europeos retirados en España, Rodriguez V, Casado MA, Huber A. (eds). CSIC: Madrid; 151–166.

O’Reilly K. 2007a. Intra-European migration and the mobility-enclosure dialectic. Sociology 41(2): 277–293.

O’Reilly K. 2007b. Emerging tourism futures: resi-dential tourism and its implications. In Going Abroad: Travel, Tourism, and Migration, Geoffrey Ch, Sibley R (eds). Cambridge Scholars Publish-ing: Newcastle; 144–157.

O’Reilly K. 2009. Migración intra-europea y cohe-sión social: el grado y la naturaleza de la inte-gración de los migrantes británicos en España. In Turismo, urbanización y estilos de vida. Las nuevas formas de movilidad residencial, Mazón T, Huete R, Mantecón A (eds). Icaria: Barcelona; 249–268.

O’Reilly K, Benson M. 2009. Lifestyle migration: escaping to the good life? In Lifestyle Migration: Expectations, Aspirations and Experiences, O’Reilly K, Benson M (eds). Ashgate: Aldershot; 1–13.

OSE (Observatorio de la Sostenibilidad en España). 2006. Cambios de ocupación del suelo en España. Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid.

OVV (Observatorio Valenciano de la Vivienda). 2007. Segunda residencia y turismo residencial en la Comunitat Valenciana. Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Aigua, Urbanismo i Habitatge: Valencia.

Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks.

Requejo J. 2007. Turistas: del concepto legal a la compleja realidad del actual panorama español. Estudios Turísticos 172/173: 147–56.

Rodríguez V, Casado MA, Huber A (eds). 2005. La migración de europeos retirados en España. CSIC: Madrid.

Rodríguez V, Fernández-Mayoralas G, Rojo F. 2004. International retirement migration: retired Euro-peans living on the Costa del Sol, Spain. Popula-tion Review 43(1): 1–36.

Salvà, P. 2002. Foreign immigration and tourism development in Spain’s Balearic islands. In Tourism and Migration. New Relationships between Production and Consumption, Hall CM, Williams AM (eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers: London; 119–134.

Schriewer K. 2008. Los norteuropeos residentes en España vistos por los españoles. In Ni turistas ni migrantes. Movilidad residencial europea en España, García M, Schriewer K (eds). Isabor: Murcia; 71–88.

Vera F. 1987. Turismo y urbanización en el litoral ali-cantino. Instituto Gil-Albert: Alicante.

Vera F, Ivars JA. 2003. Measuring sustainability in a mass tourist destination: pressures, perceptions and policy responses in Torrevieja, Spain. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(2/3): 181–203.

tourist modernisation and social legitimation in spain

Documents