Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Rural tourism in Spain: an analysis of recent evolution

Gemma C�anoves a,*, Montserrat Villarino b, Gerda K. Priestley a, Asunci�on Blanco a

a Department of Geography, Universitat Aut�onoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spainb Department of Geography, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Received 13 March 2002

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyse the evolution of Rural Tourism 1 (RT) in Spain within a European context. The first step is to

examine the development of different ‘‘models’’ of RT and trace some experiences of the application of European policy. In order to

set the scene and understand this evolution, the collective imagery on which RT is based is also analysed. This is followed by a study

of the development of tourist products and services in rural Spain since the 1980s, as diversification of the traditional sun/sand/sea

(3S) tourist economy is sought. The analysis underlines the importance of the role of women, and the consequences of the activity

for the economy of rural areas. The purpose is to identify differences in the pattern of evolution with more northern European

countries, understand their causes and formulate recommendations for future development.

� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Spain; Rural tourism; Collective imagery; Local economy diversification; Women’s role in rural economy

1. Introduction: costs and benefits of rural tourism

The expansion of Rural Tourism (RT) is a trend that

is common to most countries in Europe. Tourism is

considered to be a potentially complementary activity

for local communities and especially for farming fami-

lies. The benefits are generally summed up as a three-

way yield for the host community (the economical andsocial dimension of RT), for the land itself (environ-

mental maintenance), and for the tourist (leisure and

tourism in the countryside), which implies a sequence of

inter-related benefits. All these elements place this type

of tourism within a framework of long-lasting develop-

ment. Enlarging on this, several studies (Gannon, 1994;

OECD, 1994; Sharpley and Sharpley, 1997, pp. 40–41;

Roberts and Hall, 2001, pp. 3–5) have pointed out dif-ferent kinds of benefits related to rural development.

These include the diversification of the rural economy

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address: gemma.canoves@uab.es (G. C�anoves).1 The term Rural Tourism is applied in a wide sense, to cover a wide

range of activities that are being developed in rural areas, directly

related to the supply of services and experiences in tourist and leisure

activities.

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.03.005

through the creation of a new business within the service

sector. The social benefits include the maintenance of

local services such as public transport, schools and

health care, increased social contact in isolated com-

munities, re-population of some rural areas, and the

enhancement of the role of women as rural tourism

managers. The environmental benefits comprise support

for the preservation of landscapes and a stimulus for theconservation, protection and improvement of the natu-

ral environment.

Nevertheless various studies also draw attention to

the disadvantages (Sharpley and Sharpley, 1997; Rob-

erts and Hall, 2001). At the outset, it must be accepted

that all forms of tourism generate some form of negative

impact upon the physical and socio-cultural environ-

ment in destination areas. Whilst the scale of these im-pacts varies according to a number of factors, such as

the volume of tourists, their activities, the robustness of

the local environment and the strength of local cultures

and traditions, some or all of the following costs may be

associated with the development of tourism in the

countryside. Tourism undoubtedly contributes to in-

come and employment opportunities, but jobs are part-

time or seasonal, and in some cases tourism-relatedbusiness are run by outsiders. However, this is offset by

756 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

increases in the need for and the cost of public services,

on the one hand, and the price of land, properties, goods

and services, on the other. In particular, second home

ownership in rural areas often pushes local people out ofthe property market. Social costs are inflicted through

increasing social and cultural instability in the rural

community, for it recognised that tourism can act as a

catalyst in the process of global culturalization, and

rural communities are particularly susceptible to outside

influences. As a result, the adoption of new ideas, styles

and behavioural modes which alter traditional culture

and values, and in some cases the usurpation of dailylife-styles and the privacy of the local residents, can

cause conflicts between locals and incoming temporary

or permanent residents.

Environmental costs are also important. The rural

environment is particularly fragile and susceptible to

damage from tourism development. The presence of

large numbers of tourists and the provision of attrac-

tions and facilities to satisfy their needs, may diminish oreven destroy the characteristics that originally attracted

them to the countryside. Some activities (such as skiing,

hiking, rock-climbing, riding) cause damage to the nat-

ural environment, which suffers from intensive visitor

use. Pollution in various forms increases as visitor

numbers rise: physical pollution (through litter and

rubbish), air pollution (increased traffic), noise pollution

(caused at weekends and during holiday periods) orvisual pollution (intensity of lights, additional country

roads). Increased activity levels may also disturb the

ecological and biological ecosystems and the fauna. The

problem arises as the contribution of agriculture to

income and employment declines, and tourism is being

viewed as a viable and justifiable economic activity in

the rural areas. It is therefore essential to balance the

effects of tourism in the countryside as the rural re-sources support a variety of uses. Farming and forestry

have long been accepted as an integral element of the

physical and social characteristics of the countryside,

but others, such as tourism, roads and housing are seen

to diminish the overall supply of countryside and detract

from its attractiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the main

characteristics of RT in Spain, and compare its devel-opment with the trend of the activity in the European

Union. In order to set the analysis in context, reference

is made to the imagery on which the activity is based.

Then, the evolution of RT in Europe is traced and stages

in its development are established. It is in this frame-

work that RT in Spain is examined, in order to identify

differences in the pattern of its evolution when compared

with more northern European countries, understand thecauses of these differences, and formulate recommen-

dations for future development. This analysis of Spanish

RT is based on the results of an on-going research

project on rural tourism (http://seneca.uab.es/ter/).

2. Imagery of rural tourism

As Voase (1995, 160) puts it: ‘‘Staying in a farmhouse

bed-and-breakfast and enjoying family-style hospitalityis a form of tourist game which is psychologically the

opposite of the city break’’. On the same issue, Pearce

(1990) considers that the ‘‘universal appeal of rural

tourism rests on the ordinary and everyday happenings

of a rural community’’; the problem, however, lies in the

visitor’s image or definition of ‘‘everyday activities’’.

There is ample documentation to support the opinion

that rural tourism is the result a conjunction of factors inpost-industrial societies, where new trends related to

leisure, consumption, and nature––denominated post-

touristic––have appeared, and where the social and

cultural changes derive from a new imagery of the con-

sumption of leisure/tourism. As Bunce (1994) argued, the

countryside ideal can be interpreted as a social construct

that emerged and evolved along with industrial society.

Rural tourism is based on an image or a set of imagesthat are shaped by the history, geography, and culture of

the territory. These images must be communicated to

‘‘sell’’ these places, this territory. But the images are co-

constructed by both the tourist and the ‘‘sellers’’. It is

through this collective imagery that a neutral place is

transformed into a tourist destination, and rural tourism

is an example of this rediscovery of places, from a social

and anthropological viewpoint. The conversion and useof space and rural heritage for tourist activity has been

obtained by resorting to values of authenticity, cultural

identity and ethnicity (Mari�e and Vilard, 1977; Mac-

Cannell, 1989; Amirou, 2000). This collective imagery of

rural tourism has been based on different elements, such

as: naturophilia, rural roots, a positive image of the rural

environment, quality and authenticity, increased mobil-

ity and access, cultural changes in post-modern society,changes in the tourist market, and tourist experience.

These elements have contributed to the rediscovery and

promotion of rural tourism.

In the first place, a current of Naturophilia––defined

as a return to the values of nature––emerged with con-

siderable strength in highly industrialized countries,

where the first steps taken consisted in protecting the

natural environment (Hall, 1998). After the SecondWorld War and especially in the 1960s, it became a

banner for the environmentalists and its dynamism

continues throughout Europe. The image of both nature

and rural areas transmitted by the mass media is positive

and widespread within Europe’s industrial countries,

reaching the Mediterranean more recently. The protec-

tion and conservation of natural resources is now con-

sidered an essential component in the dynamics of thetourist industry (Shaw and Williams, 1994). This redis-

covery of nature extends to all rural life and it is in the

large urban nuclei that the main consumers of this

‘‘idealized rural environment’’ are found.

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 757

Up to the 1970s, leisure was defined as ‘‘free time

when work is finished’’ (Dumazedier, 1962; Ant�on,1998). Post-industrial societies, however, do not tend to

consider work as the essential central value, but insteadattempt to reduce working time––non-existent for an

important sector of the passive society, such as the

unemployed or retired––and increase leisure time. Lei-

sure is no longer the privilege of a minority, but has

extended throughout the spectrum of classes to become

a ‘‘necessity’’ in our consumer societies. As a result,

leisure time is now another consumable product, with

constantly increasing numbers of consumers and de-mands for services, especially bearing in mind that a

large proportion of leisure products are provided by the

tourist industry (�Alvarez Souza, 1994).Cultural changes in post-modern society constitute a

third factor, for, as Urry (1990) argues, the new uses of

tourism cannot be disassociated from cultural changes.

The collective outlook is a phase of mass consumption,

where access to leisure was a victory of the middle classand was characterized by the uniformity in leisure/travel

products. Now, however, we are faced with a personal

and romantic outlook where leisure is valued with ref-

erence to the tourist experience, the cultural contribu-

tion and the conservation of nature and heritage. This

explains the current trend towards segmentation of the

industry which leads, in some cases, to a product that

could be called ‘‘tourism �a la carte’’. In this way, a newconsumer has emerged, that has lost his/her rural

roots.The society of the 1960s maintained some family

ties with the rural environment, either because part of

the family still lived in the country, or because, in spite

of emigration, the land and houses were still maintained

by the family. In the 1990s, society is predominantly

urban with few family ties in the rural areas. At the same

time, farmers have become more conscious of theincreasing demand for rural houses, as a result of the

acquisition of many as second homes. RT appears as a

lucrative activity, mostly in near-urban fringe zones

within easy reach of the city. Urban ‘‘entrepreneurs’’

and retired city-dwellers invest in their own second

homes to host tourists. This constitutes an alternative

which allows them to live in the countryside while

obtaining an income during the summer. This newtourism scenario has obviously been facilitated by the

increase in mobility and access. In fact RT in Europe

has been favoured by widespread improvements in

transport facilities, especially the road network. RT

clients generally travel by car, both at weekends and for

holiday periods, so the road network is a basic factor in

permitting access to distant sites.

The result of the conjunction of these factors is a morepositive image of the rural environment. The increase in

rural incomes to reach parity with those in urban areas

and the consequent rising living standards in agricultural

zones has modified the image of rural areas from a

backward and closed society to a more modern one. The

new RT businessmen and women have a relatively high

educational and cultural level, and understand the de-mands of urban visitors. Many are, in fact, people who

have left the city to live in the country: ‘‘neo-rurals’’,

returned emigrants; or young people returning to settle

on their parents land. All this helps in understanding

present-day tourists: tourism, as a consumable com-

modity, is becoming thematic in our post-industrial

society. The tourist experience acquires value in relation

to its contents and we are witnessing the thematic seg-mentation of the territory for tourist purposes. Simple,

straight forward RT is no longer sufficient; it has to be

adorned with a thematic pattern, such as trekking paths,

local gastronomy, wildlife observation, wine tasting, etc.,

and many more activities and experiences related to

cultural and social themes, which can be standardized

and converted into commodified products. Tourism in

general has becomes thematic and, in this respect, RThas much to offer, as it is identified with an individualized

and unique experience for the tourist.

But this unique territory has to be explained to the

client, and the product and its specific characteristics

transmitted. Quality and authenticity can no longer be

separated, especially considering that many RT prod-

ucts are becoming artificial and possibly losing the

essential quality which is their authenticity. Urry (1995)accurately highlights the fact that through the mer-

chandising of sites visited by tourists, these are being

renovated according to the taste of the clients, often

leading to the artificiality of a rural environment, where

the reconstruction of the landscape and the place com-

plies with the expectations of the rural tourists––what

they expect or wish to see. Or, as expressed more

pointedly by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983) andLowenthal (1985), there is a tendency to re-invent tra-

ditions, which in RT becomes essential, to satisfy the

clients’ expectations. This, in fact, constitutes the step

from promoting the site to selling the site (Burgess,

1982; Gold and Ward, 1994), either through the

‘‘refurbishing’’ of natural surroundings, or even more

frequently through the sale of products identified with

the site (reviving medieval fairs, handicrafts, traditionalevents). The problem arises when the basic decision

regarding advertising policy is established at the origin

of demand, and perhaps none of the ‘‘affected locals’’

will have the courage to rebel against this usurpation

and invasion of the identity of the area, due to a certain

respect for the policies of economic revitalization of the

rural area. The problem with all these points of view is

to identify what is ‘‘real’’, ‘‘authentic’’ and ‘‘traditional’’within societies where control by the ‘‘mass communi-

cation media’’ is constantly increasing and global cul-

tural models are spreading fast.

758 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

3. The European context

The vast majority of Northern Europeans have lived

in towns and cities for at least six generations, so thedesire for outdoor recreation in open, green surround-

ings is an understandable response to the pressures of

living in an urban environment for them. Hence RT in

Europe has a long tradition, although its widespread

popularity dates from the 1960s. The hosting of tourists

in farm houses, known as ‘‘chambres d’hotes’’, origi-

nated in the Tyrol and in rural England at the beginning

of the twentieth century. It gradually spread throughoutEurope, first gaining ground in mountain zones in re-

sponse to increasing interest in climbing and trekking,

especially in the Alps (Tyrol and Bavaria). Until 1960,

lodging was rudimentary, but provided a small supple-

ment to incomes for a limited number of farmers. Since

the sixties, rural tourism has expanded rapidly, espe-

cially in the Benelux countries, France and Italy, as both

the number of farmers participating and demand rose.At government and municipal levels, it was encouraged

as a good solution and, in some cases, a universal

remedy for the crisis in family agriculture in Europe

during the 1980s, as a means of developing and diver-

sifying economic activities in rural areas. However,

enthusiasm soon gave way to disappointment, as rural

tourism experienced difficulties intrinsic to a growing

sector, when the pioneers found that the benefits did notlive up to expectations. Demand also fell, as tourists

were tempted to more exotic destinations in natural

surroundings, the market became more competitive and

consumers more demanding in terms of infrastructures

and services. The re-launching and recovery of rural

tourism demand in recent years may be attributed to

changing patterns of leisure time, the segmentation of

holidays and the development of ‘‘long weekends’’.Therefore, with new parameters, ranging from higher

quality premises and services, the maintenance of com-

petitive prices, simultaneous provision of attractive and

imaginative complementary leisure activities, it could be

said that a new tourist product was created in the 1990s,

similar to traditional ones, but which encompasses the

entire extent of Europe. These new demands have im-

plied the selection of farmers who are committed torural tourism, others who continue to provide only

lodgings, and others who specialize in quality food or

complementary activities, in harmony with their specific

areas. As a result, rural tourism today has become a

major complement to the farming industry, accentuated

by the reduction in incomes derived from both crop and

pastoral farming. It does, however, remain a heteroge-

neous activity, differentiated by the characteristics of therural areas and the people involved, and the aims of

each local, regional and national administration.

In spite of the growth of RT, statistics show that RT

is still a minor activity in comparison with agriculture in

Europe (Mart�ın-Cruz, 1991; B�eteille, 1996b). About20% of Swedish farms receive paying guests, Austria

only 10%, the UK 7% (Butler et al., 1998), Belgium and

Germany 5% and less than 2% in France (B�eteille,1996a; Moinet, 1996). Even so, in absolute terms, the

European countries of the UK, France, Germany and

Austria currently dominate the global vacation farm

industry with 20,000–30,000 enterprises in each (Weaver

and Fennel, 1997). However, in recent years, rural

tourism has been expanding in most countries and, in

many cases, has changed from being a supplementary

commercial activity to developing into a sector in itsown right (Busby and Rendle, 2000, p. 640).

3.1. An evolutionary typology of RT

From the outset, RT has been based on offering moreor less permanent accommodation in rural houses, al-

though the formula in Europe is not homogeneous. At

an early stage RT was based nearly exclusively on

lodgings: rooms rented in the owner’s private home,

independent lodgings, or rural campsites, although

under different labels, such as ‘‘Bed & Breakfast’’, or

‘‘Cottage’’ in the UK, ‘‘Zimmer frei’’ in Germany, Gıtes

in France. The purpose of these activities was to com-plement incomes from agriculture and can be classified

as ‘‘green tourism’’, which does not represent a threat to

the main agricultural activity.

Diversification is the key-note of a second stage. The

product has evolved from simple accommodation

to more specialized structures, following a strategy to

capture a more diverse and demanding clientele and

to encourage repeat visits. Hence many proprietorsprovide a number of activities related to nature and

rural activities (horse-riding, fishing, hunting, trekking

excursions, rafting, educational courses, therapy treat-

ment, fruit-picking, etc.); more sophisticated local

products (gourmet food, sale of country products) all

with unmistakably commercial objectives, without for-

getting that guests wish to maintain contact with the

farming family. The various formulae are innumerablein Europe and each country or region places emphasis

on one or more specialities. However, they can be clas-

sified in accordance with the stage of development that

RT has reached. It is now quite common for this type of

proprietor to abandon agricultural activities, because

they are less profitable, and also because it is difficult to

manage both businesses. In France 36% of the farms

and 45% in UK (Ardillier-Carras, 1999; Dehoorne,1999) are substituting tourism for agricultural activities in

rural houses. This is therefore a growing phenomenon,

especially in areas where agriculture is not economically

competitive. Another form of diversification is the sub-

stitution of animal husbandry by a ‘‘leisure farm’’. These

alternatives are quite well developed in France, the UK,

Germany and the Netherlands; where agricultural lands

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 759

are now permanent campsites, riding schools or leisure

parks (like petting zoos, agricultural mazes, tractor

rides). In some cases, the new activities compete directly

with identical ones which are not, however, of an agri-cultural nature, as is the case of theme parks. Another

form of specialization associated with rural houses is to

offer attractions related to specialized agricultural

products. Examples include the vineyards of the Douro

valley in Portugal for the production of Port wine,

agriculture in the P�erigord region of France, the pro-

duction of gastronomic delicacies, such as ‘‘foie gras’’

and ‘‘confits’’, or the more recent development ofcheese, shellfish and wine in Galicia (NW of Spain).

The trend towards specialization are already consol-

idated in the UK and the Netherlands, but have

emerged more recently in France and Italy. They mark a

clear path towards a higher degree of ‘‘tourist profes-

sionalism’’ which farmers claim as an image of quality in

the eyes of their clients. This case could be said to denote

a third phase, the maturity of RT. This gives rise to thequestion of category. Is it a new, specific activity, a form

of agricultural diversification or a commercial activity?

And, in any case, in which group should it be included?

Or is it related to the tourist industry, to hostelry, or

should it remain within the agricultural one, as a strat-

egy for promoting economic diversification? In France,

conflicts have occurred between agro-tourism owners

and hoteliers who rent out rooms in Rural TouristHomes, Hotels and ‘‘fermes auberges’’ as well as res-

taurants. In Germany and Belgium, RT is regulated by a

special fiscal enactment, which accepts its peculiarities

and its limited accommodation capacity.

Nevertheless, not all areas within any country are at

the same stage of development. The increasing mobility

of tourists together with the trend towards the frac-

tioning of holiday periods has encouraged the estab-lishment of RT accommodation on site in the proximity

of major, fast communication networks. Pigram (1983)

demonstrated the relationship between the time avail-

able for travel and the potential of rural leisure sites, and

this concept was later built upon by Shaw and Williams

(1994), who pointed not only to the variable related to

distance but also to a socio-economic base in the use of

rural space. They argued that clients use private vehiclesto travel to farmhouse accommodation and the inde-

pendent nature of this mobility is one of the main

attractions. The rural traveller plans itineraries person-

ally, according to interests and knowledge, and avoids

standard massified itineraries other tourists may use. An

adequate balance of access and accessibility is therefore

an important factor influencing demand. Finally, in

countries with sharp climatic differences between regionssome destinations can be favoured over others.

The combination of these factors introduces an initial

disparity in demand among specific destinations, rural

areas and regions, as they lead to sharp seasonal con-

trasts on the one hand and variations in the frequency of

visits on the other. In fact, occupancy in the majority of

rural areas is concentrated over a period of 8–10 weeks

(principally July and August). In areas around theMediterranean such as Greece, Spain and Portugal the

season extends for up to 12–14 weeks (from mid-June to

the end of September). Some farmers and areas increase

their occupancy up to about 30 weeks where a winter

season also exists. The different potential of each area is

paralleled by corresponding differences in the economic

results for individual enterprises, farmers and obviously

the impact on the development of each rural area. As aresult, RT can be considered ‘‘sporadic’’ in distant rural

areas, isolated from large urban nuclei, able only to

attract short and irregular tourist stays and where the

implantation of farmhouse accommodation is incipient.

These areas include the UK periphery, the centre of

France and the central south of Spain and Portugal

(Ramos and Marengo, 1999). At the opposite end of the

spectrum are the ‘‘intensive’’ RT destinations, whereoccupancy is spread throughout the year, and clients

come regularly for weekends or short vacations, thanks

to the proximity of large urban agglomerations and

rapid access, as occurs in rural areas close to London––

the Cotswolds and Chilterns––, and Lisbon––the Douro

valley––(see Table 1) for example.

3.2. Some experiences of RT policy in Europe

Within the European Union, strategic documents

related to the implementation of the European Common

Agricultural Policy (CAP) have highly recommended

the integration of alternative and/or complementaryactivities on the agricultural scene (Commission of the

European Communities, 1985, 1988). Objective 5b and

LEADER programmes show that rural tourism is con-

sidered crucial to agricultural policy, as they aim to

restructure and to create or maintain jobs in rural areas.

Innovation is encouraged in two ways: by widening the

scale and scope of tourist products based on rural re-

sources; and at community level by shifting the accenttowards leisure-orientated production.

A study of the implementation of Objective 5b in

Denmark (Hjalager, 1996) showed that farmers were

actively searching for alternatives to traditional farming

and that they were willing to accept lower profit margins

in doing so if necessary. In fact, the extra income was

acquired at a higher ‘‘price’’ than expected. It also

showed that tourism could not be expected to createmany new jobs, but did serve to reallocate family work

and occupy idle manpower resources (especially women

and grown-up sons and daughters). Competent, pros-

perous farmers launched into larger-scale, more pro-

fessional tourism projects with greater probabilities

of success. Smaller-scale projects and isolated destina-

tions proved to have poorer prospects for success and

10741532

2000 22242826

31363860

49875693

6534

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Num

ber o

f Rur

al H

ouse

s

Table 1

Rural tourist establishments in Portugal, 1999

Region Turismo rurala Turismo de Habitac�aob Agroturismoc Casa de Campod

Costa Verde 79 78 13 0

Montanhas 52 42 33 2

Costa de Prata 30 25 15 1

Plan�ıcies 27 17 20 13

Costa de Lisboa 14 17 0 2

Algarve 9 3 1 2

Madeira 7 13 0 0

Ac�ores 3 11 0 0

Total 221 206 82 20

Total number of establishments: 529.

Source: Guia de Turismo Rural de Portugal, 1999 and statistics provided by Asociaci�on de Turismo d’Habitac�ao, 1999.aTurismo rural is the formula for RT in general.bTurismo de Habitac�ao is a category reserved for large country mansions.cAgroturismo is accommodation in the farmer’s home.dCasa de Campo implies the renting of an entire fully-equipped house.

760 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

proprietors were less enthusiastic. In fact, only 10% of

Danish farmers have introduced tourism on their hold-

ings. Two major difficulties have been encountered.

Firstly, the modern agricultural community cannot

easily provide facilities that enable tourists to experience

traditional farm life, so many activities have had to be

‘‘reinvented’’ to satisfy the clients. However, Objective

5b makes it obligatory to establish special workshops,stables, etc. for hands-on experiences, which may not be

completely compatible with modern farming, and hence

not only ‘‘commodifies’’ activities but also yields dis-

appointing financial returns.

The second difficulty pinpointed by Hjalager (1996) is

the efficient marketing of rural tourism. Existing coop-

erative facilities are not suitable for tourism products

and other channels outside agricultural ‘‘circuits’’ mustbe created or used. In fact more than 50% of the

enterprises included in the Danish study reported seri-

ous marketing problems initially, at least. In his study of

marketing structures in rural tourism in the United

Kingdom, Clarke (1996) identifies a similar situation to

that encountered by Hjalager in Denmark, concluding

(p. 37) that ‘‘small rural tourism enterprises suffer from

inadequate marketing resources’’. He proposes thatminimal resources can be made more effective through

the professional contact and social cohesion that local

groups provide. The bottom-up development of a mar-

keting network to national level can maximise resources

while safeguarding against the standardisation of the

product. It will therefore be interesting to examine these

two aspects of tourism development in more detail in the

Spanish context.

0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Fig. 1. Evolution of rural tourism in Spain. Source: INE Stadistical

Institut of Spain, 2001–2003 and Gu�ıa de alojamiento en Casas

Rurales de Espa~na, El Pais Aguilar, 1994–2000.

4. Rural tourism in spain

Mass migration from rural to urban areas in

Spain, focusing on Madrid and Barcelona, came much

later than in most industrialized European countries,

covering the period from the mid-1950s to the 1980s.

Farmhouse holidays did exist in the 1960s, a type of

inexpensive holiday in the Spanish countryside, and

some grants to adapt and renovate the premises to im-

prove the quality for the guests were awarded (Villarino

and C�anoves, 2000). However, RT in Spain (see Fig. 1,

Table 2 and Map 2) has only experienced considerablegrowth over the last 20 years––much later than in most

of Europe––and a variety of reasons has contributed.

First, the activity was rapidly accepted in Spain, because

of the need to sustain population levels in rural areas in

the face of rapid depopulation. The new rural economy

was based on family businesses and, as in the rest of

Europe, constituted a strategy for the diversification of

farm activities and rural economies. A second reason,perhaps more unique to Spain, was the increasing eco-

logical and environmental awareness prompted by a

consciousness of the negative effects of mass tourism

and its consequences on the landscape and land use, on

the part of the expanding urban middle class population

Map 2. Situation of Rural tourism in Spain, 2003. Source: INE Stadistical Institute of Spain, March 2003.

Table 2

Rural tourism in Spain, 2003

Spanish regions No. of rural tourism

houses opened

% of rural tourism

houses opened

Number of rooms % of rooms

Andaluc�ıa 367 5.6 3.017 5.3

Arag�on 622 9.5 4.692 8.3

Asturias (Principado de) 528 8.1 3.142 5.6

Balearic Islands 95 1.5 1.713 3

Basque Country 195 3 1.922 3.4

Canarias 432 6.6 2168 3.8

Cantabria 226 3.5 3.687 6.5

Castilla y Le�on 1.124 17.2 9.817 17.4

Castilla-La Mancha 486 7.4 3.641 6.4

Catalonia 695 10.6 5.833 10.3

Comunidad Valenciana 395 6 4.217 7.5

Extremadura 162 2.5 1.763 3.1

Galicia 386 5.9 4.557 8.1

Madrid (C. de) 87 1.3 1.381 2.4

Murcia (Regi�on de) 257 3.9 1.827 3.2

Navarra (C. Foral de) 415 6.4 2.672 4.7

Rioja (La) 61 0.9 527 0.9

Ceuta y Melilla – –

Total 6.534 100 56.575 100

Source: INE Stadistical Institut of Spain, March 2003.

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 761

762 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

recently separated from its rural roots. There is docu-

mented evidence that over the last two decades and

more so in the 1990s, RT has achieved its objectives of

mitigating emigration from rural areas (Paniagua, 2002)and of generating benefits by diversifying the economy,

through the cultural exchange which developed between

urban and rural areas, and by adding new value to rural

life (Yag€ue, 2002; B�eteille, 1996a; Dernoi, 1991). Thisnew tourism, totally different from the traditional 3S

forms, has encouraged a better-balanced economy in the

marginal, underdeveloped and even neglected and

depopulated areas, that are not as well known as thecoastal areas and that have not been affected by mass

tourism.

It could therefore be said that the earliest stage of RT,

based almost exclusively on lodgings, developed at the

beginning of the 1980s in Spain, related to the strategy

for the survival of small family farms, by specializing in

new products, or adding complementary activities such

as RT. At this stage it was the female members of thefamily who welcomed the guests into rural homes,

promoted the values of the local culture and organized

food and accommodation (C�anoves, 1997; C�anoves andVillarino, 2000a,b; Caball�e, 1999).The second stage identified, involving diversification

by providing a variety of activities is still incipient in

Spain, due to the late development of RT, and began

only in the 1990s. Although variations are encounteredwithin regions, it can be asserted that the most devel-

oped regions are those where RT started earliest, namely

Navarra, Asturias, Catalonia and Galicia, where more

sophisticated products can be found as well as more

attempts to enhance the product offered. Examples in-

clude: ‘‘Art and Nature’’ in the Catalan Pyrenees; ‘‘The

Romanic Route’’ in the Vall de Bo�ı (Catalonia) whichwas recently declared a World Heritage Area; plannedroutes through the vineyard regions of Galicia where

natural landscapes combine with visits to important

architectural sites, wine cellars, the sampling and pur-

chase of products, and in some cases excursions into

Portugal, by crossing the Mi~no river (the border be-

tween the two countries). Various Autonomous Com-

munities along the Cantabrian coast––Galicia, Asturias,

and the Basque Country––have joined forces to promotea product that extends beyond each individual region.

This is the case of the ‘‘Green Spain’’ product, which

includes a classification of the rural houses by quality

levels. The difference in the level of development of these

new activities between much of Europe and Spain lies in

the fact that, in the UK or France, many farmers have

trained as horse-riding monitors, hikers or mountain

guides, experts in salmon fishing or going down gorges,cross-country skiing or cycle-tourism. In Spain, activi-

ties other than those directly linked to board and lod-

ging, are not undertaken by the farmer, thus causing

problems of coordination. This situation is related to the

recentness of RT in Spain, and for the moment farmers

are more inclined to simply host tourists at home.

The third stage identified––that of maturity––has not

been reached in Spain. Nevertheless, the question ofclassification has arisen, for the autonomous govern-

ments have just become aware of the problem, and as

each is responsible for its own legislation, there is no

uniform policy. In some regions RT is regulated as an

agricultural activity, in others as a tourist activity. No

definitive solutions have been found and, in most cases,

they are still classified as agricultural activities. Taxes,

policy regulations related to capacity and marketing arealso different in each case, due to the functional inde-

pendence of each region and because RT is still in its

early stages. The low level of penetration of RT in

Spanish rural society is therefore understandable and it

is quite insignificant in statistical terms: only 1.6% of

farms are involved (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica,

2001) and this is concentrated in certain regions, espe-

cially Castilla-Le�on, Catalonia, Arag�on and Cantabria(see Table 2). The factors affecting demand that were

outlined in Section 3 are likewise easily identified in the

case of Spain. Hence the predominance of Catalonia

and Castilla-Le�on are due to the proximity of Barcelonaand Madrid, respectively, and the existence of two high

seasons, especially in the mountainous regions (Pyrenees

in the former and Sierra in the latter). In fact, demand is

maintained throughout the year and, in Catalonia, inaddition to the Pyrenees, distinctive attractive regions

such as Alt Empord�a, Garrotxa and the River EbroDeltaare within less than three hours’ reach of Barcelona. The

‘‘meseta’’ areas of Castille-La Mancha and Extremadura

could be considered ‘‘peripheral’’ as access and activities

are less well developed and they have a low profile.

4.1. Imagery of rural tourism in Spain

This investigation pinpoints some of the difficulties

that are present in rural tourism today in Spain. First, the

fact that the various Autonomous Communities are

responsible for tourism legislation means that there is noregulation of the different categories of rural Farm

Houses at a nationwide scale. Table 4 reflects the differ-

ences in Autonomous Community legislation and the

specific denominations applied in each region. This lack

of uniformity makes it impossible to list RT products in

clearly defined categories and clients’ ‘‘word of mouth’’ is

probably a more widespread system for communicating

opinion and image (on aspects such as quality, attrac-tiveness, complementary activities) than the existing guide

books, which often only reproduce a picture of the site.

As a result, no clear image of the product has really

been created so far. The common denominator is not

even that of ‘‘accommodation on farms’’, as town

houses in small rural settlements are also authorised to

provide accommodation in some Autonomous Com-

Table 3

Ownership of rural tourism establishments in Spain

Autonomous community % Businessmen % Businesswomen

Basque Country 50 50

Galicia 50 50

Catalonia 49 61

Asturias 41 59

Cantabria 39 61

Navarra 27 73

Source: Gu�ıa de turismo rural, Navarra, 2000 and El libro verde del

turismo rural, 2000.

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 763

munities. However, in general, RT maintains the

symbiosis between agricultural production and the

conservation of a more humanized rural environment.

This enhanced aspect is not only obvious in the culti-vated fields, but also, in greater measure, in the areas

surrounding the home, where decoration in the form of

antiques, flowers, or small gardens is common. Strong

support from RT administrative authorities for the

provision of a high quality product appears necessary,

and more so, when competition in this market tends

towards higher quality and less massification. This is

understandable in a country where the power of at-traction of leisure and vacation resorts on the coast is

omnipresent. Certainly some initiatives already exist.

For example, in Catalonia a product known as ‘‘Gıtes

de Catalunya’’ has been created, consisting of elegant

country houses in harmony with their surroundings,

with a variety of accommodation options, marketed in

different categories by different numbers of ears of corn

(as in France). One of their most attractive and signifi-cant aspects is the warm welcome which the proprietors

always give. The aim is to offer a higher quality product,

focused potentially on foreign clients. The initiative

dates from 1995 and a total of 45 Gıtes had been

established by 1999. Advantage has been taken of an

image already existing just over the border in France,

even though the product is not identical.

Another initiative already mentioned is that of‘‘Green Spain’’, which embraces the Autonomous

Communities along the northern coast of Spain. This is

a conscious and significant attempt to counteract the

fragmentation of the product as a result of the admin-

istrative fragmentation of the country, by developing a

territorial unit called ‘‘Green Spain’’, to promote a wide

range of tourism units in rural areas. The programme

guarantees a quality mark for the associated houses, inwhich the category of each establishment is denoted by

apples (instead of ears of corn as in the case of ‘‘Gıtes’’).

The image which is transmitted is one of a continuum of

attractive green landscapes, a total contrast from the

better known images of Spain. The advertising cam-

paign focuses on the following motto:

We suggest that the very best way to tour all of

Green Spain, which extends from Galicia to the

Basque Country along the Cantabrian coast and

in rural homes. You will continuously enjoy excep-tional landscapes in a rural environment with its

traditional values and life style, where time is rela-

tive, and where people are much closer to the land

(Green Spain, quality mark, 2000).

4.2. Women: the protagonists of tourism in rural areas

Research has shown that women’s work is certainly

basic and essential for agricultural homesteads to sur-

vive. (C�anoves, 1995, 1997; Garcia Ramon et al., 1995,Garcia Ramon and Baylina, 2000; Villarino, 1995).

Small family farms are forced to define their own sur-

vival strategies, which range from an important techni-cal complement (Bouquet and Winter, 1987; Stratigaki,

1988, Stratigaki and Vaiou, 1994) through to special-

ization in new products, multiple activities (Villarino,

1995; C�anoves and Villarino, 2002), internal or externaldiversification (Arias Abell�an and Fourneau, 1998) orcomplementary activities, such as RT (C�anoves andVillarino, 2000b). Research has also demonstrated that

it is, in fact, in medium sized farmsteads that newtourism initiatives were first introduced as a diversifying

strategy for farm income.

Under the leadership of European Programmes

such as LEADER and PRODER, many Spanish

Autonomous Communities have promoted and pro-

vided economic support for tourism in rural areas, and

many programmes have been oriented to give the

women in farm families the opportunity to obtainsupplementary employment and income. As a result, a

significant number of rural houses are managed by

women (see Table 3). Statistical collection and field

work has focused on some of the regions of Spain

where RT has been most successful: Navarra, Canta-

bria and Catalonia. Overall the presence of women as

owners is significant, and in some cases predominant

(Navarra, Cantabria, Asturias and Catalonia). Buteven distribution is equal (Galicia and the Basque

Country), it is not due as much to the absence of

women but to the necessity of both men and women

to attend guests and, in these circumstances, male

ownership is maintained. The important role of women

in this activity is a result of the fact that in Spanish

RT, still in its early stages of development, emphasis is

placed on lodging, a traditional management domainfor women.

Women are usually designated to welcome guests in

rural homes, promote the values of the local culture and

protect the environment. Women usually look after the

house and its surroundings, and say that tourists

appreciate finding neat surroundings, all leading to a

change of use in many areas of a rural home:

Table 4

Legislation and denomination of RT in Spain’s autonomous communities

Autonomous community Legislation Denomination

Andalusia Decree 94 of 1995 Casa rural (Rural House)

Hotel rural (Rural Hotel)

Aragon Decree of 1986 Vivienda de turismo rural (Rural tourism residence)

Decree 69/1997

Asturias Decree 26/91, 20th February, 1991 Casa de aldea (Village house)

Resolution of 1993 Casona asturiana (Asturian country house) (1)

Decree 69 of 1994

Balearic Islands Decree 13/10 of 1995 Hotel rural (Rural Hotel)

Allotgament de turisme d’interior (Inland tourism house)

Basque Country Decree of 1988 Alojamiento tur�ıstico agr�ıcola (Agritourism)Canary Islands Law of 1995 Establecimiento de turismo rural (Rural tourism establishment)

Cantabria Decree of 1989 Posada en casa de labranza (Farmhouse inn)

Posada (Inn)

Vivienda vacacional (Recreational house)

Decree 31/1997, 23th April Palacio y casona c�antabra (Cantabrian mansion and country house)

Posada de Cantabria (Cantabrian inn)

Casa de labranza (Farmhouse)

Vivienda rural (Rural dwelling)

Castille-Le�on Decree of 1993 Casa rural (Rural house)

Posada (Inn)

Decree 84/1995, 11th May Centro de Turismo Rural (Rural tourism centre)

Castille-La Mancha Decree 43/1994 Casa rural de alojamiento compartido (Rural house with on-farm

lodging)

Casa rural de alquiler (Rural house to Rent)

Casa de labranza (Farmhouse)

Catalonia Decree of 1983 Resid�encia casa de pag�es (Farmer’s residence)

Decree 214 of 1995 Gıte de Catalunya (Catalonian Gıte) (2)

Extremadura Decree 120/1998, 6th October Casa rural (Rural house)

Agroturismo (Agritourism)

Decree 4/200, 25th January Apartamento tur�ıstico Rural (Rural tourism apartment)

Hotel rural (Rural hotel)

Galicia Reglamentation of 1995 Pazo (Mansion)

1997 Law of tourist promotion Casa de aldea (Village house)

Casa de labranza (Farmhouse)

Madrid There is not an specific legislation Apartamento tur�ıstico (Tourist apartment)

Murcia Decree 79,10th September,1992 Alojamiento tur�ıstico especial en zona de interior (Special touristaccommodation in inland area

Navarra ‘‘Foral’’ decree of 1991 Casa rural (Rural house)

‘‘Foral’’ decree of 1993

‘‘Foral’’ decree of 1995

La Rioja Decree 8 of 1995 Casa rural (Rural house)

Decree 26/2000, 19th May

Valencian community Decree 253 of 1994 Casa rural (Rural house)

Modified Decree 207/1999,

9th November

Albergue tur�ıstico (Tourist hostal)

Decree 4/2000, 25th January Apartamento de Turismo Rural (Rural tourism apartment)

Hotel rural (Rural hotel)

Source: Authors based on current legislation.

(1) The Casona Asturiana was legislated by Decree 69/1994, 1 September, 1994. The Board of Industry, Tourism and Employment put together a

quality program conceived as a select ‘‘club’’ of small hotel establishments in specially attractive natural environments or rural areas, in which

services and facilities are considered excellent. It is the first initiative of this nature for non-urban tourist establishments in Spain, and in order to join

the program, a certain number of requisites must be complied with:

1. They must be running establishments with a maximum of 20 rooms, in a building of outstanding character.

2. The establishments must be assessed favourably on initial inspection, and the owners have to follow a course in Strategy and Services for Casonas

Asturianas. In these establishments the relation with the client is that of host/guest rather than that of hotelier/tourist, the guest receives person-

alized attention and if there are 6 or more complaints within 6 months, the establishment is expelled from the club. In 1998, there where 20 Caso-

nas Asturianas, grouped mainly in the Eastern part of the region, where the majority of ‘‘Aldea’’ houses are also located.

(2) The Gıtes de Catalunya is a product created by the Generalitat de Catalunya, inaugurated in 1999, and defined as a chain of independent rural

accommodation units (turn key), with the highest possible standards. The houses are stylish country homes, near rural nuclei in exceptionally

beautiful landscapes. The interior decoration is traditional, comfortable and very welcoming. The gardens include a private or shared swimming

pool, and barbecues to take advantage of outdoor space. The fully-equipped house is rented for weekends, weekly or monthly. There are 45 houses at

present, spread around the inland counties. By contrast, the Residencies-Casas de Pag�es are mostly located in the Pyrenees and Pre-Pyrenees (305houses and 2647 beds, 2000).

764 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 765

. . . the threshing floor was used to pile up wood andold things, store handcarts and other objects that

were in the farmhouse, but now we’ve made it into

a garden. There aren’t too many flowers yet, aswe’ve just started . . .’’; ‘‘. . . there’s a garden on bothsides. On one side, seesaws and swings for the chil-

dren to play with, a pile of sand, there for them to

have a good time. . . (Casa Milia, Arz�ua, Galicia)(Villarino and C�anoves, 2000).

The same happens with interior decoration, which

has to comply with traditional tastes; the testimony of

one Galician woman illustrates this situation:

. . . these curtains, for example, that you can see thereare made out of old linen bed sheets that belonged to

my mother-in-law or perhaps to her mother or her

grandmother, God knows!. . . (Casa Blanca, Palasde Rei. Galicia) (Villarino and C�anoves, 2000).

Women feel that work involving rural tourism is an

extension of home chores and an extension to the guests

of the sort of care that is normally dispensed to membersof the family:

When I have tourists at home I feel my work is

more visible, they appreciate the atmosphere of

the house, the traditional food and the relation with

the members of the family. My domestic work

seems an extension for the tourist guests. . . (CalMestre, Catalonia) (C�anoves and Villarino, 2002).

All in all, they demonstrate a certain degree of sat-isfaction for performing these tasks, as they allow them

to remain at home and also look after their family.

These chores normally increase during weekends and

holiday periods:

During the weekend I have more tasks to do, but

my daughter helps me. It is normal, . . . the househas quite a few guests and I have to take care of

my family and the guests. . . (Casa La Quintana,Catalonia) (C�anoves and Villarino, 2002).

Income until now has generally been spent to cover

family necessities and everyday expenses for the home.

Generally, rural tourism is not considered as a ‘‘real’’

job, for various reasons. Firstly, because its contribution

to total income is limited––about a third of the house-

hold income––and because women do not receive asalary, but rather an unreliable income, that helps the

family budget. Women consider this situation as ‘‘nor-

mal’’ because it has always been like this in all farm-

houses: a contribution to the total income, but never the

main source:

I don’t have a salary for rural tourism, the benefits

are in relation to room occupancy during the year,

and for the moment my contribution to the family

income is more or less 30% of the total budget ofthe farm. . . (Mas la Farga, Catalonia) (C�anovesand Villarino, 2002).

Second, it is always a part-time job which allows

women to take care of the regular domestic workload.

Thus, looking after tourists at home is still a comple-

mentary job to agriculture.A different situation occurs when the agricultural

activity becomes secondary or residual and the main

income comes from tourist activity and both the man

and the woman in the household work at it. In this case,

there is a tendency to professionalize the activity, either

by increasing the number of rooms, or by providing

complementary activities, new services and/or through

the sale of handicrafts. In this case, when there is a needfor a complete working day, the dilemma arises whether

the woman should give up control of the business and

return to a half-day occupation, in order to have time to

look after her family. This obviously implies houses

which have reached the second stage of development,

that is, the diversification of services. In fact, if the

situation favours complementary activities, especially

sports (horse riding, cycling, etc.) then, in general, menprovide information about them and/or manage them.

If, on the other hand, expansion implies increasing the

number of rooms, then women are more likely to be in

command, or get help from other women, usually either

another female member of the family, or immigrant

women. Hence, there is still a division of tasks and

specialization in different activities, depending basically

on whether they are performed inside or outside thehouse. It should be emphasized that, even though rural

tourism is a cleaner and less strenuous job than agri-

cultural work, it perpetuates women’s traditional role:

looking after the house and tending to the family

members, whilst the additional income generated by

tourist activity replacing the sale of vegetables produced

in the kitchen garden, as occurred in the past. It can

therefore be concluded that RT does not appear to havemodified the male–female relationships in the house-

hold, where the different jobs still respond to clear

gender patterns. Nevertheless, the women interviewed

showed a marked interest in carrying on with the job

and highlight three aspects. In the first place, they rate

highly being able to generate an income without leaving

the house; secondly, their work is visible to the eyes of

the rest of the family; and finally, the income comesfrom a source outside normal farm activities, thus the

woman’s work is no longer integrated in the general

range of farm tasks which became ‘‘invisible’’ when

simply helping on the farm:

766 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

In my case I prefer to work in rural tourism, be-

cause it gives me economic independence, I can take

care of my family, manage my own rural house and

now my job is more valuable in the eyes of societyand my family. . . (Can Rovira, Catalonia) (C�ano-ves and Villarino, 2002).

Consequently, women feel that they acquire a certain

social importance. Moreover, they consider that RT is a

good strategy to maintain the farm and the house in

which they live, once renovated to accommodate tour-

ists:

Since we have become involved in rural tourism, we

have introduced several reforms in the house to

make it more comfortable for the guests and alsofor our family, the regional administration provides

grants for central heating, and we applied for one of

these. . . (Casa Milia, Arz�ua, Galicia) (Villarino andC�anoves, 2000).

Another very important added value is that the new

activity generates changes in the attitude of the younger

members of the family with regard to remaining on the

farm, provided the economic perspectives are satisfac-

tory, as the activity is more in line with up-to-date socialpatterns than traditional farming.

Nevertheless, changes are slow and subtle, although it

can be asserted that work-sharing encourages collabo-

ration between members of the family at a general level,

and the visible financial contribution of women leads to

greater equality in personal relationships. However, it is

dangerous to generalize and identify a uniform type of

woman, since the scale of sharing tends to vary with age,education and economic levels. These innovations are

still incipient and it is only in a limited number of cases

that the activity has become professional. However, if

women are conscious of the need to professionalize their

activity, converting RT into a real career similar to that

of a farmer, the impact of the changes will be greater

within the new, diversified rural framework. In Spain,

women’s role in RT remains ambiguous for the moment,as the activity has not yet reached the stage of maturity.

RT does not satisfy some of the personal needs of

women living in rural areas––including economic auton-

omy, social relations and intellectual expectations––but,

on the other hand, the majority of them do not have

access to other employment opportunities locally. RT

constitutes a better option for ‘‘traditional rural women’’

but still condemns the women to work at home indomestics tasks. Younger women, who do have other

job options and a greater degree of mobility, are less

motivated to offer hosting services to the consumers of

this ‘‘idyllic rural tourism’’ and thus are less tempted to

manage a rural tourism venture.

4.3. Institutional, marketing and promotion issues

Many of the difficulties facing RT in Spain can be

attributed to the recentness of its development, al-though, on the other hand, this should provide the

opportunity to correct possible errors that have arisen in

other countries where the activity has long been estab-

lished, such as France and the UK. Perhaps the greatest

problem for marketing RT at present is the lack of

uniformity in the denominations, as a consequence of

the Spanish legislation system, as mentioned earlier. It is

absolutely essential for the regional administrations incollaboration with the national tourist authority to

adopt a unified category system to denote quality, be it

ears of corn, stars, shells, different coloured apples (or

whatever!) and also to adopt easily understood termi-

nology to identify the different products offered under

the generic label of RT. Otherwise, RT will run the risk

of falling into a state of confusion and find itself com-

peting with other types of hotel establishments, as ap-pears to be the case in the Balearic Islands, where tourist

accommodation establishments in rural areas are mostly

small, professionally run, luxurious hotels with little or

no connection to the farming community.

Strong support of a quality product, on the part of

the administrative authorities, appears essential and

more so, when competition in this market is inclined

towards higher quality and less massification. RT hascreated certain expectations among farmers in Spain, so

if it lost substance like a mirage, it would be faced with

failure within a few years, and farmers would lose the

investments that they had made with great effort.

RT is not only an investment made by farmers to

compensate for reductions in agricultural income, but is

destined to contribute to improvements in the land-

scape, heritage and the environment. Cultivating theland, maintaining the farms, refurbishing the buildings

is part of the cultural heritage of rural areas. Without a

‘‘typical’’ rural life style, there is no tourist attraction;

therefore, conservation of the land also implies the

provision of economic alternatives in rural areas. RT

cannot be circumscribed simply within a concept of

accommodation, because the connection between living

in a rural home, sharing family life and discovering thepeculiarities of the territory and landscape, is precisely

what makes RT special. Enhancing the unique features

of each area requires the development of activities

inherent to the territory: natural parks, offering visits

with a scientific base, special areas for trekking, the

observation of flora and fauna, guided tours, etc. It must

be transmitted that RT is not just a snowy mountain. It

is far more than that and the task of the local resident-actors is to develop the outstanding aspects of their

respective areas. The importance of accommodation

should not, of course, be forgotten; together with local

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 767

gastronomy, a pleasant stay contributes to enhance all

the different elements. But without the natural envi-

ronment and landscapes or the architectural and cul-

tural heritage, rural tourism does not make sense.Another problem observed in this type of tourism is

that of seasonality, as demand is concentrated at

weekends and traditional holiday periods. To counteract

this, imaginative initiatives are essential. Encouraging

special offers for different types of clients is a successful

formula to compensate the variations created by gaps

between peaks. Elderly people are possible clients for

this type of tourism, which is restful and relaxed, whilegroups of schoolchildren, company meetings and sci-

entific gatherings can also be potential clients. However,

commercialization by individual enterprises would not

be satisfactory. Central reservation systems or even

smaller organizations must be developed to facilitate

access by consumers to the product according to the

targeted area. Thus, it is logical to think that, while

amateur enthusiasm provided the initial impetus to theproject, the time has come to develop the activity in a

much more professional manner. Nevertheless, the spe-

cific structure and dynamics of rural areas should be

taken into account; it is necessary to count on local

people able to coordinate activities and local adminis-

trations (town halls, cooperatives and associations), for

they are possibly those best prepared to do so, as they

know the people and the land. However, as previouslymentioned, the atomization of the various local pro-

tagonists makes coordination more difficult.

5. Conclusions

Tourism in rural areas has been actively promoted asa panacea for the economic problems of the rural pop-

ulation. However, research in various European coun-

tries has shown that RT is not the solution for the

problems facing the agricultural community, although it

certainly can contribute to diversify farm incomes in

family farms, inject additional benefits into the rural

economy, counteract emigration from rural areas,

encourage an increase in cultural exchange between ur-ban and rural areas, and enhance the values inherent to

rural life, as well as contribute to the general diversifi-

cation of the economy.

The success of RT depends upon establishing a bal-

ance between the maintenance of economic activities

and safeguarding the attractiveness of the rural envi-

ronment. In order to achieve this balance, management

by the local community and constraints on visitornumbers are implied, for tourism development must

guarantee not to detract from landscape quality and

reduce the attractiveness of the resource upon which it

depends. The development of endogenous rural ini-

tiatives is beneficial, for it has been shown that the

provision of leisure activities on site enhances the

characteristics of the landscape and/or culture, and this

generates greater demand and satisfaction. The objectiveshould be to promote improvement and diversification,

thus reducing uniformity in the use of the environment.

From this perspective, space consumption implies the

appreciation of the idiosyncrasies of each space and RT

areas are especially rich in culture, landscape variation,

gastronomy and traditions. It is evident that RT offers

increasingly varied options for advanced societies

looking for enjoyment from a wide range of leisurepursuits.

This paper has revealed certain differences between

the development of RT in Spain and other advanced

economies in Europe. The underlying cause is the later

introduction of the activity in Spain, which means that it

is at an earlier stage of development, and is therefore less

evenly spread and less well structured. This situation is

accentuated, moreover, by the fact that major develop-ment occurred after the transfer of responsibility for

tourism from the central government to the regional

legislative bodies (Autonomous Communities). As a

result, there is considerable disparity in legislation, while

commercialization and marketing are highly frag-

mented, leading to considerable confusion among po-

tential consumers.

Late development is, however, understandable, asmass rural depopulation took place much later in Spain

than in other advanced European countries. Hence,

until recently, rural areas were associated with poverty

and backwardness rather than idyllic, peaceful land-

scapes, and, apart from industrial farms, other agricul-

tural enterprises were often considered residual by and

large. Moreover, the rural exodus more or less coincided

with the upsurge of the ‘‘sun cult’’ and consequent massoccupation of the coastal areas for hotel and second

home development. It is only over the last two decades

that new generations of urbanites, born and bred in the

large cities, have come to appreciate the positive imagery

of the countryside and a return to the values of nature––

Naturophilia. As Urry (1990) argues, a ‘‘new consumer’’

has emerged, that has lost his/her roots.

Farming families are still at the stage of adapting tomodern European agricultural practice. In this respect,

the role of the female members of the family has been

fundamental in starting up and managing tourism on

farms throughout Europe, as Hjalager (1996) points out.

This activity provides not only economic benefits, but

also helps maintain the house and family heritage. It

also provides personal satisfaction for the women in-

volved, as it is a clearly visible, remunerated job whichcontributes to the family budget, and brings them into

contact with more people––often a valuable bonus in

isolated rural areas. This is a specially important issue in

768 G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769

many parts of Spain, where the gap in development

between rural and urban areas is still considerable.

Nevertheless, important challenges still confront

Spanish RT. In addition to the need for consensus onlegislation, in order to introduce greater clarity and

more uniformity, professionalization of this relatively

new activity is urgent, to improve, above all, manage-

ment and marketing. Notwithstanding the contribution

of farming women, young people in particular must

become the driving force of these initiatives by pro-

moting ideas from within. They consider RT a more

attractive and socially more highly valued activity thanagriculture and will be willing to invest in it. Creating

job opportunities in the rural world is not easy, but what

could be better than offering people the possibility of

remaining in their place of origin, if they wish to?

If those involved in RT in Spain do not find solutions

for these challenges, RT may regretfully fall into obliv-

ion and become little more than a mirage.

Acknowledgements

A first version of this paper was presented at the

European Urban and Regional Studies Conference heldin Barcelona, July 2002. The authors wish to thank Jody

Emel, David Sauri and the anonymous reviewers for

helpful comments on previous drafts.

References

�Alvarez Souza, A., 1994. El ocio tur�ıstico en las sociedades industriales

avanzadas. Bosch Turismo, Barcelona.

Amirou, R., 2000. Imaginaire du tourisme culturel. Presses Univers-

itaires de France, Paris.

Ant�on, S., 1998. La urbanizaci�on tur�ıstica. De la conquista del viaje a

la reestructuraci�on de la ciudad turistica. Documents d’ An�alisiGeogr�afica 32, 17–43.

Ardillier-Carras, F., 1999. Espace rural et tourisme: mirage ou

opportunit�e? Reflexion autour d’un ensemble regional entre Poitouet Limousin. In: Violier, P. (Ed.), L’espace local et les acteurs du

tourisme. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rehenes.

Arias Abell�an, J., Fourneau, F. (Eds.), 1998. El paisaje mediterr�aneo.

Universidad de Granada, Granada.

B�eteille, R., 1996a. L’agrotourisme dans les espaces ruraux europ�eens.

Annales de Geography 592, 584–602.

B�eteille, R., 1996b. Le tourisme vert. PUF, Paris.

Bouquet, M., Winter, M., 1987. Who from their labours rest? Conflict

and practice in rural tourism. Avebury, England.

Bunce, M., 1994. The countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of

Landscape. Routledge, London.

Burgess, J., 1982. Selling places: environmental images for the

executive. Regional Studies 16 (1), 1–17.

Busby, G., Rendle, S., 2000. The transition from tourism on farms to

farm tourism. Tourism Management 21, 635–642.

Butler, R., Hall, C.M., Jenkins, J., 1998. Tourism and recreation in

rural areas. Wiley, Londres.

Caball�e, A., 1999. L’agroturisme a l’Estat espanyol: An�alisi de l’oferta

des d’una perspectiva de g�enere. UAB, Barcelona.

C�anoves, G., 1995. (Coord.). La Mujer Rural. El Campo 133.C�anoves, G., 1997. The multiadaptative rural woman: is tourism the

solution? In: Paper presented at the Gender, Tourism, Fun

Conference. Davis, CA, USA.

C�anoves, G., Villarino, M., 2000a. Turismo rural en Portugal Las

mujeres piezas clave para recibir y servir. In: Garcia Ramon, M.D.,

Baylina, M. (Eds.), El nuevo papel de las mujeres en el desarrollo

rural. Oikos-Tau, Vilassar de Mar Barcelona.

C�anoves, G., Villarino, M., 2000b. Turismo en espacio rural en Espa~na

actrices e imaginario colectivo. Documents d’Analisis Geogr�afica

37, 51–77.

C�anoves, G., Villarino, M., 2002. Rural tourism gender and cultural

conservation in Spain and Portugal. In: Swain, M.B., Henshall

Momsen, J. (Eds.), Gender/Tourism/Fun(?). Cognizant, New York.

Clarke, 1996. Farm tourism, ETB Insights. English Tourist Board,

London. pp. 19–25.

Commission of the European Communities, 1985. Tourism in the

European Community. European file 11/85. Commission of the

European Communities, Brussels.

Commission of the European Communities, 1988. The future of rural

society. Document COM 7957788. Commission of the European

Communities, Brussels.

Dehoorne, O., 1999. Le tourisme rural en Aveyron L’affirmation d’une

nouvelle activit�e �economique. In: Violier, P. (Ed.), L’espace local et

les acteurs du tourisme. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennnes,

France.

Dernoi, L.A., 1991. About rural and farm tourism. Tourism Recre-

ation Research 16 (1), 3–6.

Dumazedier, J., 1962. Vers une civilization du loisir? Seuil, Paris.

Gannon, A., 1994. Rural Tourism as a Factor in Rural Community

Economic Development for Economies in Transition in Rural

Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development, B. Bramwell and B.

Garcia Ramon, M.D., Baylina, M., 2000. El nuevo papel de las

mujeres en el desarrollo rural. Oikos-Tau, Vilassar de Mar.

Garcia Ramon, M.D., C�anoves, G., Valdovinos, N., 1995. Farm

tourism, gender and environment in Spain. Annals of Tourism

Research 22 (3), 267–282.

Gold, J., Ward, S. (Eds.), 1994. Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity

and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions. Wiley, Chichester.

Hall, C.M., 1998. Historical antecedents of sustainable development

and ecotourism: new labels on old bottles. In: Hall, C.M., Lew,

A.A. (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism a Geographical Perspective.

Longman, London.

Hjalager, A.M., 1996. Agricultural diversification into tourism. Evi-

dence of a European Community development programme. Tour-

ism Management 17, 103–111.

Hobsbawm, E., Ranger, T., 1983. The Invention of Tradition.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, 2001. Encuesta de Ocupaci�onhotelera en acampamentos tur�ısticos, en apartamentos tur�ısticos

y en alojamientos de turismo rural.

Lowenthal, D., 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

MacCannell, D., 1989. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure

Class. Schocken, New York.

Mari�e, M., Vilard, J., 1977. La campagne invent�ee. Actes Sud, France.Mart�ın-Cruz, J.A., 1991. L’agroturisme dans la CEE: utopie et realit�e.

Bureau europ�een du tourisme.

Moinet, F., 1996. Le tourisme rural enFrance. Agricole, France.

OECD, 1994. Tourism Strategies and Rural Development. OECD,

Paris.

Paniagua, A., 2002. Urban–rural migration, tourism entrepreneurs and

rural restructuring in Spain. Tourism Geographies 4 (4), 349–371.

Pearce, P.L., 1990. Farm tourism in New Zealand: a social situation

analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 17, 337–352.

G. C�anoves et al. / Geoforum 35 (2004) 755–769 769

Pigram, J., 1983. Outdoor recreation and resource management.

Croom Helm, London.

Ramos, A., Marengo, R., 1999. Le role des acteurs locaux dans le

d�eveloppement touristique: Une approche du tourisme int�erieur au

Portugal. In: Violier, P. (Ed.), L’espace local et les acteurs du

tourisme. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennnes.

Roberts, L., Hall, D., 2001. Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles

to Practice. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Sharpley, J., Sharpley, R., 1997. Rural Tourism. An Introduction.

International Thomson Business Press, London.

Shaw, G., Williams, A., 1994. Critical Issues in Tourism. Blackwell,

London.

Stratigaki, M., 1988. Agricultural modernization and the gender

division of labour: The case of Heraklion, Grece. Sociologia

Ruralis 23 (4), 248–262.

Stratigaki, M., Vaiou, D., 1994. Women’s work and informal activities

in Southern Europe. Environment and Planning 26, 1221–1234.

Urry, J., 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary

Societies. Sage Publications, London.

Urry, J., 1995. Consuming Places. Routledge, London.

Villarino, M., 1995. La mujer rural gallega: Un protagonismo

permanente. El Campo 133. Banco de Bilbao, 11–24.

Villarino, M., C�anoves, G., 2000. Turismo rural en Galicia Sin mujeresimposible. In: Garcia Ramon, M.D., Baylina, M. (Eds.), El nuevo

papel de las mujeres en el desarrollo rural. Oikos-Tau, Vilassar de

Mar.

Voase, R., 1995. Tourism: The Human Perspective. Hodder and

Stoughton, London.

Weaver, D.B., Fennel, D.A., 1997. The vacation farm sector in

Saskatchewan: a profile of operations. Tourism Management 18

(6), 357–365.

Yag€ue, R.M., 2002. Rural tourism in Spain. Annals of Tourism

Research 4 (29), 1101–1110.