See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256987142

Carrying capacity model applied in coastal

destinations

Article in Annals of Tourism Research · March 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2013.03.005

CITATIONS READS

33 215

3 authors, including:

Enrique Navarro Jurado Antonio Fernández-Morales

University of Malaga University of Malaga
28 PUBLICATIONS 137 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 560 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tourism and social media View project

Climate Change incidence in Cuba View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Enrique Navarro Jurado on 27 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 43, pp. 1–19, 2013
0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.03.005

CARRYING CAPACITY MODEL

APPLIED IN COASTAL
DESTINATIONS
Enrique Navarro Jurado,
Ionela Mihaela Damian,
Antonio Fernández-Morales
Universidad de Málaga, Spain

Abstract: A large number of studies have been carried out on the social carrying capacity of
tourists regions. Most of these studies have examined protected natural areas, the best known
being Shelby and Heberlein’s study. The research aim of this paper is to adapt the social car-
rying capacity model to a mature coastal destination, Costa del Sol. The empirical findings
provide an indicator that allows us to establish the proportion of tourists who perceive over-
crowding and are predisposed to leave. A cluster analysis was performed to better understand
how overcrowding is perceived by tourists, the socioeconomic characteristics of tourists and
the factors that may influence the capacity thresholds. The generating data will allow a scien-
tific debate on the overcrowding problems and the growth limits. Keywords: carrying capac-
ity, overcrowding, coastal destinations, perception, Costa del Sol. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The Growth and Sustainability of Consolidated Destinations
Coastal destinations are characterized by a strong increase in de-
mand and the occupation of a large amount of space, both of which
have severe environmental and social impacts (Garay & Canoves,
2011). In fact, a significant number of Mediterranean destinations
are characterized by maturity or, even decline according to the Butler
model (2011). Since the 1990’s, the future of consolidated sun and
beach destinations has been debated. Poon (1993) argued that the
breakdown of the Fordist model of mass tourism and the rise of the
post-Fordist model in the communication era would mean the end
of mass tourism. Knowles and Curtis (1999) made the same determin-
istic argument about the Mediterranean perimeter, claiming that the

Enrique Navarro-Jurado, (University of Malaga, Faculty of Tourism, Department of

Geography, Teatinos Campus. s/n, 29017. Malaga, Spain. Email <enavarro@uma.es>). He
obtained his Phd. in Geography from the University of Malaga in 2000. His research focuses
on urban planning and environmental carrying capacity, sustainability indicators and the
development of models in mature coastal destinations Mediterranean and Caribbean.

1
2 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

rejuvenation policies would achieve only a temporary delay in the trend

of declining visitor numbers at these destinations.
Taking a more positive view, Ioannides and Debbage (1997) argued
that consolidated destinations are readjusting themselves to the mar-
ket, by implementing new information and communication technolo-
gies and by offering a tourism product that is target to particular
market segments. Aguiló and Juaneda (2000), using supply and de-
mand data on tourist spending, loyalty and satisfaction levels from
1989 to 2000, concluded that the Balearic Islands, and, by extension,
many mature Mediterranean destinations, will prosper and expand
in the short and medium term. Without entering the debate about
the future of these destinations, it seems essential to achieve higher lev-
els of sustainability at coastal destinations, because sustainability is an
important factor in development (Navarro, 2012) and competitiveness
(Ritchie & Crouch, 2004).
Several authors have described the evolution of tourism develop-
ment. Jafari (2001) analyzed it by applying four platforms as ways of
thinking about tourism: support, precaution, adaptation and knowl-
edge. Macbeth (2005) included two more: the ‘‘ethics’’ (that is, the
recognition of non-objective positions adopted by different fields that
affect tourism development), and ‘‘sustainability’’. This latter is a polit-
ical concept associated with limited growth, the idea of limits to growth
may be opposed because of the implications for economic develop-
ment. Saarinen (2006) related sustainability to the assignment of limits
to growth and to carrying capacity. In fact, sustainability and carrying
capacity have the same difficulties as the formulation of the ideas, prac-
tices, utility and diversity of types of capacity.

Sustainability and Tourism Carrying Capacity

The concept of tourism carrying capacity arises from the perception
that tourism cannot grow continuously in a particular region without
causing irreversible damage to the local system (Coccossis & Mexa,
2004). The concept of carrying capacity in tourism has its origins in
the 1960’s, when it was developed to place limits on the numbers of vis-
itors that a tourist attraction (such as a natural reserve) or destination
could cope with (Coccossis & Mexa, 2004). Butler (2010) argues that
the concept of carrying capacity in tourism was very much in vogue
in the 1970s, and has encountered a fall in interest since then. Many
definitions of tourism carrying capacity have been proposed (Coccos-
sis, Mexa, & Collovini, 2002; Saarinen, 2006) but the best known is
the World Tourism Organization’s definition: ‘‘the maximum number
of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time without
causing destruction of the physical, economic or socio-cultural environ-
ment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of the tourist satis-
faction’’ (Coccossis et al., 2002, p. 38). This definition implies
various capacities: physical, economic, perceptual, social, ecological,
and political (Getz, 1983).
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 3

Saarinen (2006) applied this definition to sustainability limits, pro-

posing three approaches that have guided studies according to differ-
ent ontological ideas and different epistemological perspectives. First,
the resource-based tradition based on a positivist ecological perspective
(McKercher, 1993) and aims to protect resource by introducing limits
and measurable goals. Second, the activity based tradition in which lim-
its are dynamic and the changes depend on how the destination adapts
to new situations and grounds the best known tourism model in the lit-
erature, the product life cycle of Butler (2011); carrying capacity can be
increased by marketing, improving the infrastructure or renewing the
products. This approach has a developmental perspective, and it is
the approach taken by various international organizations such as
the World Tourism Organization. Finally, the community based tradi-
tion is based on communities and is related to information, knowledge
and relationships with empowerment; the limits are chosen through
participation of stakeholders by means of a process of social negotia-
tion (Hughes, 1995).
Therefore, we must close the 1990’s discussion about the ‘‘magic
number’’ limit (Buckley, 1999; Lindberg, Mccool, & Stankey, 1997;
Watson & Kopachevsky, 1996) because it is impossible to find a single
number. This is because there are different ways to set limits (Saarinen,
2006), there is no single carrying destination (Getz, 1983) and, the lim-
its depends on human values and perceptions about resources, indica-
tors, criteria and impacts (Saarinen, 2006).
In the community based tradition, the limit is viewed as a manage-
ment concept (Lindberg et al., 1997). Managers have to know tourist’s
thresholds because when this limit is exceeded, tourists flee to other,
less-crowded, destinations, initiating the destination’s decline and its
loss of competitiveness. The management of tourism crowding is an
important part of sustainable development (Jin & Pearce, 2011).

The Social Carrying Capacity of the Demand

To study tourist’s thresholds, it is necessary to know the demand
characteristics. Tourist behavior and decision-making have always been
a central issue in the tourism management literature (Papatheodorou,
2001). In practice, managers usually ask ‘‘why tourists hesitate or delay,
or even change their destination and itinerary-related decisions?’’
(Wong & Yeh, 2009). Numerous studies have identified various factors
that prompt people to visit a destination (Nadeau, Heslop, O’Reilly, &
Luk, 2008; Um & Crompton, 1990), and these factors are categorized
as pull (the external forces of the destination) and push factors (inter-
nal, psychological forces) (Beerli, Meneses, & Gil, 2007; Yoon & Uysal,
2005). These include factors such as tourist characteristics (Papatheod-
orou, 2001), destination preferences and awareness (Goodrich, 1978),
nationality (Pizam & Sussmann, 1995), attitudes (Um & Crompton,
1990), health-related issues, safety, time, expenditure and trip distance
(Bansal & Eiselt, 2004). A place’s image is derived from attitudes to-
ward the destination’s perceived tourism attributes (Um & Crompton,
4 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

1990) and recent research provides evidence that place’s image influ-
ences tourist’s decisions (Pike & Ryan, 2004; Tapachai & Waryszak,
2000). Therefore it is important to study tourists’ perceptions of the
saturation of a destination.
There are numerous case studies measuring tourists’ thresholds
(Burton, 1975, Navarro, 2005; PAC/RAC, 2003). According to Shelby
and Heberlein (1986), we should determine carrying capacity by study-
ing tourists’ expectations along with destination managers’ pre-deter-
mined rules. In their study, the two sociologists develop conceptual
foundations, allowing the creation of social carrying capacity model
that is still valid and has been applied to natural areas by distinguishing
the types of activities tourists engage in there. Vaske and Shelby’s paper
(2008, p. 123) reviews studies of perceived crowding from 1975 to 2005
(all in recreational settings) and reports that ‘‘the standards proposed
by Shelby and Heberlein (1986) remain a viable method for assessing
carrying capacity judgments based on levels of perceived crowding’’.
When people evaluate an area as crowded, they have at least implicitly
compared the conditions they experienced (impacts) with their per-
ception of what is acceptable (standards) (Vaske & Donnelly, 2002).
Several studies show the factors that may influence carrying capacity
thresholds, such as the tourist’s gender (Freedman, Levy, Buchanan, &
Price, 1972), education (Fleishman, Feitelson, & Salomon, 2004) and
socio-economic status (Hayduk, 1983). Other factors include the fol-
lowing: spatial organization of the destination (Stokols, 1972), social
environment of the destination (Rustemli, 1992), reasons for the expe-
rience (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980) different types of areas, re-
sources and activities carried out (Mieczkowski, 1995), tourist’s
psychological adaptation to different levels of use (Stankey, 1982),
the tourist’s sociological characteristics and the type of trip that they
engage in (Santana & Hernández, 2011), local people’s behavior to-
ward tourists (Mieczkowski, 1995), familiarity with the destination
(Getz 1983), noise and rude behavior (Ruddell & Gramann, 1994).
Another interesting line of research relates tourists’ satisfaction with
carrying capacity thresholds and states, ‘‘the satisfaction model comes
from economics, and the implicit evaluative criterion is the point of
maximum aggregate benefits’’ (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986, p. 55). This
model states that increasing the number of people at a destination will
decrease the satisfaction and it is called the ‘‘economic approach’’ (All-
dredge, 1973). Moreover, other studies (Lucas, 1964) have defined car-
rying capacity as the ability to provide satisfaction. However, studies
since the 1980s have suggest that increasing the number of tourists
does not diminish satisfaction on the basis of four hypotheses that
are well documented in the literature (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986;
Vaske, Donnelly, & Heberlein, 1980): ‘‘self-selection’’, ‘‘product shifts’’
and ‘‘displacement’’, ‘‘multiple sources of satisfaction’’ and ‘‘rational-
izing’’. In conclusion, satisfaction may influence the overall satisfaction
of the tourist experience but may not be the only variable with which to
measure the carrying capacity.
Because of the difficulties associated with the concept of satisfaction,
Shelby and Heberlein (1986) proposed using other variables. They
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 5

emphasized the need to verify the ‘‘level of contact’’ with tourists (how
many times the different groups of tourists were engaged in each of the
studied recreational activities) and ‘‘preferences regarding the con-
tact’’ (the number of people the tourist wanted to meet) in a particular
activity or destination. However, Tarrant and English (1996) argued
that verification of the ‘‘level of contact’’ between tourists can exist
only under certain background conditions in destination of low den-
sity, making the concept potentially less useful in destination of high
density than those carried out in the open (non-island coastal destina-
tions). Navarro (2005) determined a saturation indicator for open
spaces and, high- density destinations, adapting Shelby and Heber-
lein’s method to coastal destinations.
The research reviewed here has three goals: first, to establish the per-
centage of tourists who perceive overcrowding and are considering to
leave; second, to deepen our understanding of how tourists perceive
overcrowding and of the socioeconomic characteristics and other factors
that influence capacity thresholds; and third, reposition the problems of
overcrowding and the limits of growth in the scientific debate, particu-
larly for the most popular destinations and those that need it most.

METHODOLOGY
Study Area
The Costa del Sol (Malaga, Spain) is one of the most important tour-
ist destinations in the Spanish Mediterranean, with a well established
reputation that attracts more than nine million tourists a year. Since
it first became a tourist destination at the end of the 1950s, tourism
has been the most important productive sector in the area and has
completely transformed the territory, and its society and economy.
The Costa del Sol is divided into two zones: the western part, which
is the larger and more developed of the two zones; and the eastern
part, where tourism competes with intensive, highly profitable agricul-
ture (under plastic or in greenhouses).
The study area is in eastern Costa del Sol (Figure 1), and includes an
area of 331 km2 with, a population of 147,637 people in 2007 and
55 km of coastline.
The area has strongly compartmentalized geographical characteris-
tics, alternating between small floodplains, where the widest beaches
are located, and mountains in a range that extends to the sea, forming
small coves. These features, coupled with a subtropical climate (owing
to mild temperatures and scarce rainfall), have great tourist potential.
In 2007, tourist accommodation could house 209,376 people in med-
ium—quality accommodation, mostly in holiday home (non-regulated
offer). Only 16,392 places were formal offers, which is less than 7.8% of
the accommodation available. The coastal area is complemented by the
internal area (Axarquia) offering considerable interest to tourist be-
cause of its mix of: sun and beach, rural areas, cultural activities, adven-
ture trips, marine activities, golfing etc.
6 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

Figure 1. Location of the study area. Southeastern coast of Costa del Sol
(Spain)

The number of tourists visiting this region has been constantly grow-
ing since the 1990s, from 1.5 million in 1996 to 1.9 million in 2007,
which has put great pressure on the territory. However, during the con-
struction boom (1998–2007), the demand increased. For instance, the
formal offer grew by 92% and the tourist housing by 40%. These data
reflect how the development of tourism has been linked to urban
growth, as is common in other Spanish Mediterranean destinations.
The direct consequence of this excessive growth in offers is a major
drop in the hotel occupancy rate (from 73% in 1999 to 55% in
2007) and, a decline in tourist daily expenditure (US$44.6 in 2000 goes
to $38.7 in 2005), which created ‘‘a direct effect in reducing the direct
economic impact of tourism, amounting to $729 million (€556 mil-
lion)’’ (Junta de Andalucı́a, 2007) and great dissatisfaction with certain
factors (such as traffic, overcrowding, and noise) (Sociedad de Plan-
ificación y Desarrollo, 1999–2007).
Urban planning has influenced this growth, not tourism strategies,
although economic and political situation has affected growth in
tourism, a sector with a very good image. The result has been a major
transformation of the coastal landscape, including irreversible environ-
mental impacts (such as loss of beach sand, artificiality of watercourses,
and groundwater contamination), a high economic dependence on
real estate, and economic benefits that have detracted from the quality
of life for resident.
In conclusion, the choice of the study area is justified for three rea-
sons: it is a clear example to Spanish coastal destination that has expe-
riences growth; it is a consolidated destination; and it is a popular
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 7

destination with a well-established image and is positioned in the Med-

iterranean, the most important tourist region in the world.

Questionnaire Design and Sampling

For our analysis, we draw on a survey of tourists in the Eastern Costa
del Sol that was conducted from June to August 2007. Our sample in-
cludes 739 interviews with a sampling error of 3.3% and a 95% confi-
dence level. Data were collected directly from the tourists in places
such as beaches and beach promenades, throughout the whole area
of the study. The number of interviews was distributed proportionally
to the tourist accommodation capacity of each of the five municipali-
ties in which the beaches are located. In order to avoid biases derived
from an incorrect composition by nationalities of the sample, quota
controls were taken for this variable, according to demand studies from
the Tourist Observatory of Costa del Sol (Sociedad de Planificación y
Desarrollo, 1999–2008)—and based in the tourist accommodation
capacity of each municipality.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first section en-
quires about tourists’ characteristics, such as: age, educational level,
employment status and place of residence. The second section includes
questions related to the trip, such as: daily expenditure, length of stay,
type of accommodation, whether the tourist would recommend the des-
tination and trip satisfaction. The third section assesses various aspects
of the destination such as noise, authenticity, the number of people,
and the spatial organization: the respondents were asked to choose from
5 item scale, from a ‘‘very negative’’ to a ‘‘very positive’’ opinion. In the
fourth and final part, overcrowding elements are included.
More specifically, to assess overcrowding in the place of residence,
the tourist were asked to indicate, using a five-point scale, their level
of agreement with the statement that there are ‘‘too many tourists’’
in their usual place of residence, and how overcrowding influenced
their satisfaction with their trip. This section of the questionnaire also
used a five-point scale and asked tourists’ opinion on the current load
and whether they thought that too many people were in the visited pla-
ces,(this is called ‘‘perception of crowding’’) and their ‘‘attitude to-
ward overcrowding’’. Giving the impossibility of measuring the
‘‘acceptable level of encounters’’, (Shelby and Heberlein’s value),
the solution was to measure the ‘‘tourist’s attitude toward possible
overcrowding’’, the predisposition of people ready to leave the destina-
tion (also on five point scale). Reported encounters describe a count of
the number of other people that an individual remembers observing
in an area (Vaske & Donnelly, 2002). Perceived crowding is a subjective,
negative evaluation that the number of encounters or people observed
in an area is too many (Shelby & Heberlein, 1986).

Analysis
The data have been analyzed in four phases. In the first phase, we
determine the profile of the tourism demand through descriptive
8 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

analysis. The second phase aims at establishing the social carrying

capacity perceived by tourists obtained by linking the two questions:
‘‘perception of crowding’’ and ‘‘tourist’s attitude toward possible
overcrowding’’. This indicator has been named the ‘‘current risk

Table 1. Characteristics of Demand (N = 739).

Frequency Frequency
(%) (%)

Country of residence Income

Spain 64.0 Less than 1,300 $ 6.8
Great Britain and Northern 10.7 Between 1,301 $ and 1,900 $ 18.7
Ireland
Germany 9.6 Between 1,901$ and 3,150$ 26.1
France 3.4 Between 3,151$ and 4,300$ 25.6
Italy 0.1 More than 4,301$ 22.8
Benelux 1.6
Ireland 1.4 Type housing
The rest of Europe 7.6 Hotel 18.3
USA 0.4 Pension 1.6
Others 1.2 Apartment hotel 5.3
Private house 39.1
Age Housing rented to an individual 17.0
18–29 years 23.4 Housing rented to an agency 7.2
30–39 years 21.6 House of friends or relatives 9.1
40–49 years 24.4 Camping 1.4
50–64 years 24.0 Multiple property 0.1
More than 65 years 6.6 Others 0.9
Study level Days of stay
No schooling 4.2 From 0 to 1 day 0.3
Primary studies complete 13.9 Two days 13.8
Secondary studies 34.1 From 3 to 6 days 23.7
University studies at Bachelor 21.7 From 7 to 10 days 24.7
level
University studies at a higher 21.1 From 11 to 15 days 15.4
grade
Other 5.0 From 16 to 30 days 10.9
More than 1 month 11.2
Professional category
Liberal profession 6.4 Previous visits
Entrepreneur 7.1 Yes 74.1
Executive 4.2 No 25.9
Mid-level manager 4.1
Qualified worker 27.6
Unskilled worker 6.8
High-level official 9.3
Other officials 1.5
Student 11.1
Housewife 7.2
Retired 7.0
Other 7.7
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 9

population’’: tourists who perceive the overcrowding and are predis-

posed to leave the destination they are visiting (Navarro, 2005). The
third phase, examines a segmentation of tourists using cluster analysis,
performed using the SPSS 19 program. The number of clusters was
decided after hierarchical clustering with the Ward method and the
squared Euclidean distance was chosen as the dissimilarity measure.
Discriminant analysis is used to validate the cluster solution.
Cluster analysis is dependent on the selection of variables. Thus, vari-
ables for inclusion in the cluster analysis should be chosen within the
context of a theory (or theories), that is needed to support the classi-
fication. In this sense, the considered variables are age and education
level (Fleishman et al., 2004), income (Hayduk, 1983), daily expendi-
ture, perception of the amount of people and closed or open space
(Stokols, 1972), including noise perception (Ruddell & Gramann,
1994), authenticity of the study area (Navarro, 2005), and familiarity
(previous visits) of an individual with the destination (O’Riordan,
1969). Similarly, we also include tourists’ perception of residents
(Mieczkowski, 1995), tourists’ satisfaction with their experience (Lucas,
1964), the dissatisfaction with overcrowding at the destination (Ryan &
Cessford, 2003), overcrowding in the place of residence (Getz, 1983),
perception of crowding and, the attitude toward possible overcrowd-
ing. Finally, we investigate whether there are significant differences
among the clusters in the variables ‘‘perception of crowding’’ and
‘‘attitude toward possible overcrowding’’ in order to verify which have
the highest current risk population, and thus to identify the profile of
the tourist groups by means of segment analysis.

RESULTS
Sample Profile
The characteristics of tourist demand in the Eastern Costa del Sol
are shown in Table 1. A descriptive analysis of the sample indicates that
Spanish tourists (64%) are the largest group of tourists in the Eastern
Costa del Sol. The segment comprised of British and Irish tourists
(11%) and German tourists (10%) is the most common foreign tourist
group. The analysis also reveals a medium-high cultural level of the
tourists, with qualified workers (28%) with average purchasing power
(nearly half earn more than $3,150 per month) being the dominant
group. Private housing (39%) is the most popular accommodation, fol-
lowed by hotels (18%), and most tourist (25%) stay seven to ten days. It
is also worth noting that tourist generally have a high level of familiarity
with the destination (74% of them have visited the region previously).

Estimation of the Social Carrying Capacity Perceived by the Tourists

We adapt Shelby and Heberlein’s social carrying capacity model
(1986) to a mature coastal destination, as opposed to an insular desti-
nation, in this research. The descriptive analysis of the sample indicates
10 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

Table 2. Perception of Crowding at the Destination and Attitude Toward

Overcrowding

Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

Perception of crowding Attitude toward possible overcrowding

Strongly disagree 10.30 It doesn’t influence me in any 26.60
way
Disagree 39.02 I would avoid areas with 27.56
numerous tourists
Neither agree 24.39 I would visit in another season 19.92
or disagree
Agree 18.97 I would go to another site in the 9.55
Costa del Sol
Strongly agree 7.32 I would go to another site in 16.37
Andalucı́a or in Spain
Total 100 100

that 27% of tourists perceive crowding, whereas 49% do not and 24%
are undecided (Table 2). According to Shelby and Heberlein (1986, p.
62) ‘‘if more than two-thirds of the visitors say that they are crowded, it
appears likely that the capacity has been exceeded. If less than one
third senses the overcrowding, the area is probably below the load
capacity. When the perception of the mass is between these thresholds,
no determination can be made with this rule’’. Following this criterion,
we conclude that the Eastern Costa de Sol did not exceed its capacity in
2007. Faced with possible overcrowding of the destination, only 27% of
the tourists would not be affected at all by the overcrowding, whereas
the rest would be affected (Table 2).
The cross classification of the two variables analyzed above shows that
only 20% of tourists, represent the current risk population (tourists
who perceived overcrowding and are affected by it), i.e., only 20% of
tourist have reached their carrying capacity thresholds for the destina-
tion and are therefore predisposed to leave the destination.

Segmentation Analysis
We segmented tourist in the sample using cluster analysis, as
described in 2.3. Following the recommendation of Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, and Black (1998), we considered the sample‘s representative-
ness and tested for the absence of multicollinearity. With regards to the
former, the sampling method, sample design and size (described
above), mean that the sample representative of the population of inter-
est. With regards to the latter, the elements of the matrix of correlation
coefficients between the variables included in the cluster analysis
ranges from .17 to +.38 indicating low collinearity among variables.
After performing hierarchical cluster analysis and examining the
dendrogram, the group membership and group sizes and the aims of
the study suggested a two-cluster solution.
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 11

We used discriminant analysis with appropriate tests to assess the

classification and consistency of the two groups obtained. One canon-
ical discriminant function was estimated by using classical discriminant
analysis of all factors. The function is statistically significant as mea-
sured by Wilks’ lambda (K = 0.434; with associated v2 = 537.53,
d.f. = 15, p < 0.0001 and statistic F15,638 = 59.43, p < 0.0001), indicating
that the function discriminates significantly between the two groups.
However the data matrix of factors does not support the hypothesis
of multivariate normality (Doornik-Hansen’s v2 = 730.52 and 1088.71
for groups 1 and 2, both with d.f. = 30, p < 0.0001) and Box’s M statistic
shows significant differences in error variances across them (Box’s
M = 298.45, p < 0.0001). Thus, we also conducted a robust discriminant
analysis, by replacing the classical group means and within group
covariance matrix by robust equivalents based on the minimum covari-
ance determinant estimator (Todorov & Filzmoser, 2009). Robust tests
of the homogeneity of variances, Levene and Browne and Forsythe
tests indicate that only three of the independent variables exhibit sig-
nificant differences in their variances across groups. The robustly esti-
mated discriminant function is also significant (K = 0.445; with
associated v2 = 521.41, d.f. = 15, p < 0.0001 and statistic F15,638 = 56.83,
p < 0.0001). The classification matrices of the classical and robust dis-
criminant functions showed that 88.36% and 86.22% of the cases, were
correctly classified, respectively, indicating a relatively high accuracy
and reliability of the cluster solution.
An additional way in which to assess the stability of the estimated
cluster solution is to split the sample and cross-replicate the analysis.

Table 3. Identification of Clusters Based on the Perception of Crowding and

the Attitude Toward Overcrowding

TSC (n = 315/ TNSC (n = 338/ v2 gl p

48.2%) 51.8%)

Perception of crowding 11.353 4 0.023

Strongly disagree 7.9 13.6
Disagree 37.2 41.1
Neither agree or disagree 23.5 23.4
Agree 22.2 16.3
Strongly agree 9.2 5.6
Total 100 100
Attitude toward possible overcrowding 102.795 4 0.000
It doesn’t influence me in any way 12.1 41.4
I would avoid areas with numerous 27.3 28.7
tourists
I would visit in another season 21.6 16.9
I would go to another site in the 12.0 7.1
Costa del Sol
I would go to another site in 27.0 5.9
Andalucı́a or in Spain
Total 100 100
12 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

We randomly split the sample into two equal sized subsamples and rep-
licated the cluster analysis with the same variables. The resultant classi-
fication agrees with the original solution in 84.5% of the cases.
Across the two groups, we performed a chi-squared test of association
with the two questions ‘‘perception of crowding’’ and ‘‘attitude toward
possible overcrowding’’, confirming that the clusters can be well differ-
entiated, on the basis of these two variables (Table 3).

Cluster Profile
The two resultant clusters are: cluster I (48% of the sample), in
which the tourists predisposed to leave the destination site as a result
of crowding, i.e., predominating ‘‘tourists sensitive to crowding’’
(TSC), predominate, and cluster II (52% of the sample), representing
tourists not influenced by crowding, i.e., ‘‘tourists non sensitive to
crowding’’ (TNSC). We also use segmentation analysis to determine
how strongly each variable used in the cluster analysis affects the tour-
ists ‘social carrying capacity. The analysis of tourist profile by clusters
varies notably in our case study. In socio-demographic terms, the
TSC is a segment of older people (60% of the cluster is over 40 years
of age), whereas the TNSC is younger (56% of this cluster is between
18 and 39 years of age). We also find that tourist in the TSC segment
have a higher level of education (49% have a university education,
compared to 37% of those in the TNSC segment) and a higher income
(58% of the TSC segment have a monthly income above $3,151
(€2,400) and 30% have an income of monthly more than $4,301

Table 4. Socio-Demographic Profile of the Two Clusters (N = 653)

Tourist‘s profile TSC TNSC Tourist‘s profile TSC TNSC

Agea Incomec
18–29 years 13.0% 32.8% Less than 1,300 $ 6.7% 7.4%
30–39 years 21.0% 23.4% Between 1,301 $ and 1,900 $ 13.6% 23.4%
40–49 years 27.9% 22.5% Between 1,901$ and 3,150$ 21.6% 29.9%
50–64 years 27.9% 17.7% Between 3,151$ and 4,300$ 27.3% 25.1%
More than 65 years 10.2% 3.6% More than 4,301$ 30.8% 14.2%
Study level b Daily expenditured
No schooling 5.1% 4.1% Less than 23$ 3.2% 7.1%
Primary studies complete 13.6% 13.7% Between 24$ and 39$ 20.0% 22.8%
Secondary studies 28.6% 39.6% Between 40$ and 78$ 34.3% 35.2%
University studies at 23.2% 20.1% Between 79$ and 130$ 28.8% 24.0%
Bachelor level
University studies at a 26.0% 17.2% More than 131$ 13.7% 10.9%
higher grade
Other 3.5% 5.3%

a 2 b 2
v = 47.92, d.f.4, p < 0.001; v = 14.07, d.f. 4, p = 0.015; cv2 = 33.21, d.f. 4, p < 0.001;
d 2
v = 9.27, d.f. 4, p < 0.055.
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 13

(€3,300)). It seems that tourists who have sensitive to crowding are

those who spend more money at the destination (43% of TSC tourists
spent more than $79 per day) (Table 4). In addition, we see in Table 5
that 39% of tourists in the TSC segment believe that their usual resi-
dence is overcrowded, compared to 33% in the TNSC segment.
The segmentation of tourists based on their perceptions of the des-
tination and trip characteristics allows us to determine the key factors

Table 5. The Profile of the Tourists’ Perception of the Destination and Trip
Characteristics

TSC TNSC TSC TNSC

Overcrowding in the resident placea Days of stayf

Strongly disagree 12.8% 14.8% From 0 to 1 day 0.0% 0.3%
Disagree 34.6% 35.6% Two days 12.4% 14.2%
Neither agree or disagree 13.2% 16.0% From 3 to 6 days 17.4% 30.8%
Agree 23.7% 20.2% From 7 to 10 days 26.7% 23.0%
Strongly agree 15.7% 13.4% From 11 to 15 days 15.9% 16.0%
From 16 to 30 days 13.0% 8.6%
More than 1 month 14.6% 7.1%
Noiseb Satisfaction with trip experiencesg
Very negative 14.9% 5.3% Not at all satisfied 1.6% 0.9%
Negative 19.4% 13.9% Dissatisfied 1.3% 0.3%
Normal 28.9% 27.8% Moderately satisfied 19.0% 10.0%
Positive 30.1% 37.0% Mostly satisfied 50.5% 45.3%
Very positive 6.7% 16.0% Very satisfied 27.6% 43.5%
Authenticityc
Very negative 3.5% 1.5% Relationship between overcrowding and
satisfactionh
Negative 20.6% 6.5% Nothing at all 13.0% 65.7%
Normal 31.7% 29.0% A little 5.4% 13.0%
Positive 35.9% 45.0% Moderate 23.5% 13.0%
Very positive 8.3% 18.0% A lot 37.5% 7.7%
Number of peopled Very much 20.6% 0.6%
Very negative 3.5% 0.0%
Negative 13.6% 5.3% Contact with residentsi
Normal 31.1% 23.1% Very negative 0.3% 0.3%
Positive 45.1% 54.7% Negative 1.3% 0.9%
Very positive 6.7% 16.9% Normal 16.8% 14.5%
Destination perceived as closed spacee Positive 57.8% 52.6%
Very negative 3.8% 0.3% Very positive 23.8% 31.7%
Negative 7.3% 4.4%
Normal 27.6% 12.8% Previous visitsj
Positive 48.0% 46.7% Yes 78.0% 70.7%
Very positive 13.3% 35.8% No 22.0% 29.3%

a 2
v = 2.94, d.f.4, p < 0.560; bv2 = 32.64, d.f. 4, p < 0.001; cv2 = 42.59, d.f. 4, p < 0.001;
d 2
v = 45.03, d.f. 4, p < 0.001; ev2 = 63.60, d.f. 4, p < 0.001; fv2 = 25.60, d.f. 6, p < 0.001;
g 2
v = 24.21, d.f. 4, p < 0.001; hv2 = 261.68, d.f. 4, p < 0.001; iv2 = 5.17, d.f. 4, p < 0.271;
j 2
v = 4.55, d.f. 1 p < 0.033.
14 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

that allow tourists to recognize their threshold value and decide

whether to leave the destination (Table 5). Approximately, 25% of
tourists who are sensitive to crowding consider lack of authenticity as
negative or very negative. They are also more likely to regard noise
as a negative aspect (34% for TSC versus 19% for TNSC). A particularly
important geographical aspect of the destination is the perception of
space as ‘‘closed’’. Eleven percent of the TSC segment perceived the
study area as closed compared with only 5% of the TNSC. Those
who perceive the space as closed are likely to perceive a greater num-
ber of people. Therefore, individuals in the TSC cluster tend to expe-
rience the presence of more people (17% versus 5% of the other
cluster). Additionally, the TSC is characterized by medium and long
holidays (28% stay ‘‘more than 16 days’’) and familiarity with the des-
tination (78%). Finally, our results indicate that tourists in the TSC seg-
ment perceive the contact with residents slightly more negatively (1.6%
versus 1.2% of TNSC) and slightly less positively (82% versus 84% of
TNSC), although this particular result is merely descriptive: the chi-
squared test of association is not significant.
Regarding the satisfaction levels, the TSC segment is generally less
satisfied with the trip experience (22%) than the other cluster
(11%). Therefore, it is not enough to determine only the satisfaction
level of the trip experience—it is also important to specifically enquire
about the impacts of overcrowding on satisfaction. This study sought to
investigate these relationships and the results are clear: a high percent-
age of the TNSC segment believe that overcrowding does not influence
their satisfaction (66% respond ‘‘Nothing’’), whereas 58% of tourists
in the TSC segment responded that overcrowding affected their level
of satisfaction ‘‘a lot’’ or ‘‘very much’’ (Table 5).

DISCUSSION
The results obtained show that only 20% of tourists in the study area
perceived overcrowding and were predisposed to leave the destination.
Another study using the same methodology in 1999 in the Costa del
Sol stated that only 10% of tourists had exceeded perceived overcrowd-
ing. In that study, the tourist mainly had high levels of education and
pocket spending (Navarro, 2005). It is not possible to find whether
those 10% of tourists left the destination, but a study from 2005 (Junta
de Andalucı́a, 2007) showed that a decline in pocket spending between
2000 and 2005, during a boom in demand and supply, had a direct ef-
fect on reducing the economic impact of expansion. The impact of this
decline in spending was estimated at $729 million. Did the destina-
tion’s saturation have an economic cost?
The first conclusion of our study is that mature tourists who are bet-
ter educated have a high socioeconomic status because of their high
income and are more beneficial to the destination, but these tourists
make up the segment that is most sensitive to crowding. These results
confirm Hayduk’s finding that higher status individuals are less toler-
ant of crowding (1983). It is generally accepted that old and young
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 15

people do not have the same thresholds as each other. However, Fleish-
man et al.’s investigation, (2004), held in nature reserves, found the
opposite: it showed that young people are less tolerant of crowding
than older people. This result points to one of the most important
questions in this study: what is the difference between the experience
of tourists visiting a natural destination and the experience of those vis-
iting a coastline destination. It is also important to note that 70% of
tourists who frequently visit the Costa del Sol are over 40 years of age
(Sociedad de Planificación y Desarrollo, 2007).
Our finding confirm that a low level of authenticity of a destination
(Navarro, 2005) and a high level of noise (Ruddell & Gramann 1994)
are two of the most important factors influencing the social carrying
capacity. Many tourists were dissatisfied with noise levels in Costa del
Sol. In particular, although only 3% of tourists were dissatisfied with
noise level in 2000 by 2008, 14% were (Sociedad de Planificación y
Desarrollo, 2008).
This research also finds that tourists tend to perceive the concentra-
tion of people more accurately if the destination is perceived as a
‘‘closed’’ space, (Stokols, 1972), and in this case, they recognize the
carrying capacity threshold earlier. From a social point of view, it is
important to understand the relationship between tourists and resi-
dents. Mieczkowski (1995) argues that if tourists perceive the local pop-
ulation as friendly, they may more easily handle the saturation level.
Although this study does not provide clear findings on this point, there
is evidence that the TSC group perceive contact with residents slightly
more negatively.
According to O’Riordan (1969), the perception of overcrowding is
related to an individual’s familiarity with the destination. Therefore,
those tourists who are more familiar with a destination are less tolerant
of concentration levels. Our study seems to confirm that deeper knowl-
edge of the area, either from familiarity with the area or longer stays,
influences the perception of saturation and the destination capacity
threshold.
Our results show that tourists in the TSC group are less satisfied with
their trip experience. Numerous studies reveal that this displeasure
stems from overcrowding at a destination (Needham & Rollins, 2005;
Ryan & Cessford, 2003; Saveriades, 2000). Managers and employers
in the Costa del Sol are aware of this. Tourist Observatory in the Costa
del Sol (Sociedad de Planificación y Desarrollo, 2000–2008) shows that
overcrowding is an issue that tourists find unsatisfactory: the percent-
age of tourist who expressed this dissatisfaction rose from 7% in
2000 to 9% in 2008. Clearly, when crowding is perceived in a negative
way, the overall satisfaction decreases.
Overall, use of the above methods enabled us to meet the first two
goals of the research, i.e., to identify he percentage of tourists who
had exceeded the social carrying capacity threshold, and to determine
the profile of those tourist who perceive overcrowding and the key fac-
tors that most affect these tourists.
16 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

CONCLUSION
Carrying capacity is an operational tool to achieve sustainability. As
argued by Saarinen (2006), there is no sustainability without limits. It
is impossible to establish an equation for a destination, and it is a fal-
lacy of political marketing to think otherwise. In mature destinations
and those that are beginning to consolidate, tourism management can-
not ignore this tool, because if tourism managers want to control a des-
tination’s impact, they must know how to anticipate impact. This paper
examines tourists’ perceptions and attitudes toward overcrowding in
order to contribute to developing a more holistic approach to open-
area evaluation procedures.
We separately examined two groups using a cluster analysis in order
to determine which factors influence tourists’ perceptions of over-
crowding and their desire to leave a destination. Our results show that
there are statistically significant differences in perception between the
two clusters. Tourists who are sensitive to crowding in the Eastern
Costa del Sol are older, better education, have a higher income and,
consequently, have a greater expenditure at the destination. They
are known as quality tourists. The factors influencing this segment of
tourists are noise at the destination, the area’s authenticity, perception
of space as closed and knowledge of the destination. All of this factors
lead too somewhat lower level of satisfaction with their trip experience.
This study has shown that tourists’ perceptions vary according to their
profile and these profiles could be used to formulate better plans for
area management.
From a practical point of view, this study shows that measuring the
social carrying capacity of tourists in mass coastal destinations is possi-
ble. Each year, the tourism managers from the Costa del Sol conduct a
survey of tourists with a sample size of over 2000. This survey should
add only these two new key questions: the other variables are already
covered in this survey. The difficulty in analyzing tourist’s thresholds
is not budgetary but political; managers do not wants to publish nega-
tive impacts on society because they would have to propose relief mea-
sures which would limit economic growth and political projections.
The tourism sector is a ‘‘friendly’’ activity and it has great political
advantage because it is always seen as a positive activity: more tourists,
more growth, more businesses, and so on. Only scientists and academ-
ics want to determine the limits of economic growth.
Neither the subject of this investigation nor the methodology it uses
is new. It is simply a case study that provides an additional example to
the scientific community. This paper’s value is that a model that was
previously applied to natural areas has been applied to mature coastal
destinations, with problems of overcrowding. These are the most pop-
ular destinations in Spain, and need the most help to avoid or amelio-
rate the impacts that arise from their success: however, they are the
least studied in the carrying capacity literature. Another important
contribution of this paper is the application of advanced statistics to
precisely determine the profile of tourists who are sensitive to crowding
and the factors that influence these tourists. By extending social
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 17

carrying capacity theory beyond the usual type of study or disciplines,

this study has demonstrated the pragmatic utility of the theory because
of its relevance and applicability across disciplines, and this is a consid-
erable advance in social sciences applied to tourism.
Perhaps most interestingly for the future, with this research, we want
to reopen the debate on the limits of growth of tourist destinations.
Many consolidated tourist destinations need to engage in this debate
because, owing to their maturity, are starting to apply theories of
restructuring (Agarwal, 2002) with excessive costs plans. There are four
plans in Spain (the Costa del Sol, the Balearic Islands, Tenerife and Las
Palmas) and some of these will exceed $5,250 million (€4,000 million)
to implement. This study, leads to many other questions, which we are
currently exploring. Can this study also be applied to residents? Is it
possible to advance the understanding of economic limitations? If a
community consents to growth limits will that lead to sustainable devel-
opment of the tourist destination?

Acknowledgement—The research in this paper was funded by two projects: ‘‘Indicators for Sus-
tainable Management of Tourism Development: An Assessment of the Carrying Capacity in
Southern Mediterranean Coasts’’ (SEJ-2005-04660), financed by the program of the Ministry
of Education and Science, and the project ‘‘Geographies of the crisis: An analysis of the
urban-tourist spaces of the Balearic Islands, Costa del Sol and the most important tourist
destinations of the Caribbean and Central America’’ (CSO2012-30840) funded by the
Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (National Plan for R+D+I).

REFERENCES
Agarwal, S. (2002). Restructuring seaside tourism. The resort lifecycle. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(1), 25–55.
Aguiló Perez, E., & Juaneda Sampol, C. (2000). Tourist expenditure for mass
tourism markets. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 624–637.
Alldredge, R. B. (1973). Some capacity theory for parks and recreation areas.
Trends in Parks and Recreation, 10(Oct.- Dec.), 20–30.
Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and
planning. Tourism Management, 25, 387–396.
Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destination
choice. Tourism Management, 34(3), 571–585.
Bellenger, D., & Korgaonkar, P. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper. Journal
of Retailing, 56, 77–92.
Buckley, R. (1999). An ecological perspective on carrying capacity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 705–708.
Burton, R. C. J. (1975). La cabida de campo para el recreo Instituto Nacional para
la conservación de la Naturaleza. Ministry of Agriculture, Madrid, Monograph
no. 3.
Butler, R. W. (2010). Carrying capacity. In D. G. Pearce & R. W. Butler (Eds.),
Tourism research A 20-20 vision (pp. 53–64). Oxford: Goodfellow.
Butler, R. W. (2011). Tourism area life cycle. Oxford: Goodfellow.
Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (2004). The challenge of tourism carrying capacity assessment:
Theory and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Coccossis, H., Mexa, A., & Collovini, A. (2002). Defining, measuring and evaluating
carrying capacity in european tourism destinations, final report B4–3040/2000/
294577/MAR/D2. Athens (Greece): European Union.
de Andalucı́a, Junta (2007). Plan Qualifica. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucı́a.
18 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19

Fleishman, L., Feitelson, E., & Salomon, I. (2004). The role of cultural and
demographic diversity in crowding perception evidence from nature reserves
in Israel. Tourism Analysis, 9(1–2), 23–40, 18.
Freedman, J. L., Levy, A., Buchanan, R. W., & Price, J. (1972). Crowding and
human aggressiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 528–548.
Garay, L., & Canoves, G. (2011). Life cycles, stages and tourism history. The
Catalonia (Spain) experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 651–671.
Getz, D. (1983). Capacity to absorb tourism. Concepts and implications for
strategic planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 239–263.
Goodrich, J. (1978). The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of
vacation destinations: Application of a choice model. Journal of Travel Research,
17(2), 8–13.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hayduk, Leslie. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological
Bulletin, 94(2), 293–335.
Hughes, G. (1995). The cultural construction of sustainable tourism. Tourism
Management, 16(1), 49–59.
Ioannides, D., & Debbage, K. G. (1997). Neo-fordism and flexible specialization in
the travel industry. Dissecting the polyglot. In Ionnides & Debbage (Eds.), The
economic geography of the tourist (pp. 99–122). London and New York: Routledge.
Jafari, J. (2001). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education. The
Journal of Tourism Studies, 1, 33–41.
Jin, Qian., & Pearce, Philip. (2011). Tourist perception of crowding and
management approaches at tourism sites in Xi’an. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 16(3), 325–338.
Knowles, T., & Curtis, S. (1999). The market viability of european mass tourist
destinations. A post-stagnation life-cycle analysis. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 1(4), 87–96.
Lindberg, K., Mccool, S., & Stankey, G. (1997). Rethinking carrying capacity.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 461–465.
Lucas, R.C. 1964. The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior area. USDA
forest service paper (pp. 5–15).
MacBeth, J. (2005). Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32, 962–965.
McKercher, B. (1993). Some fundamental truths about tourism: Understanding
tourism social and environmental impact. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1),
6–16.
Mieczkowski, Z. (1995). Environmental issues of tourism and recreation. Boston:
University Press of American.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country
image context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 84–106.
Navarro Jurado, E. (2005). Indicadores para la evaluación de la capacidad de carga
turı́stica. Annals of Tourism Research – In Spanish, 7(2), 397–422.
Navarro Jurado, E. (2012). Indicadores para la evaluación de la capacidad de carga
turı́stica. Annals of Tourism Research – In Spanish, 7(2), 397–422.
Needham, M. D., & Rollins, R. B. (2005). Interest group standards for recreation
and tourism impacts at ski areas in the summer. Tourism Management, 26(1),
1–13.
O’Riordan, T. (1969). Planning to improve environmental capacity. Town Planning
Review, 40(1), 39–58.
PAP/RAC (2003). Guide to good practice in tourism carrying capacity assessment. Priority
Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre, Split.
Papatheodorou, A. (2001). Why people travel to different places. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28, 164–179.
Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison
of cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42,
333–342.
Pizam, A., & Sussman, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior?. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(4), 901–917.
 E. Navarro Jurado et al. / Annals of Tourism Research 43 (2013) 1–19 19

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. Wallinglord: CAB

International.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2004). The competitive destination. A sustainable
tourism perspective. Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.
Ruddell, E. J., & Gramann, J. H. (1994). Goal orientation, norms, and noise-
induced conflict among recreation area users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 93–104.
Rustemli, A. (1992). Crowding effects of density and interpersonal distance. Journal
of Social Psychology, 132(1), 51.
Ryan, C. & Cessford, G. (2003). Developing a visitor satisfaction monitoring
methodology: Quality gaps, crowding and some results. Current Issues in
Tourism. Eri_im Tarihi: 2008, 6(6), 457–507.
Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(4), 1121–1140.
Santana, J. Y., & Hernández, J. M. (2011). Estimating the effect of overcrowding on
tourist attraction: The case of Canary islands. Tourism Management, 32,
415–425.
Saveriades, A. (2000). Establishing the social carrying capacity for the tourist
resorts of the East Coast of the Republic of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 21,
147–156.
Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Oregon
State University Press.
Sociedad de Planificación y Desarrollo (1999–2008). Touristic Observatory of
Costa del Sol, (1999–2008). Diputación Provincial de Málaga.
Stankey, G. (1982). Recreational carrying capacity. Research Review Ontario
Geography, 19, 57–72.
Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: some
implications for future research. Psychology Review, 79, 275–277.
Tapachai, N., & Waryszak, R. (2000). An examination of the role of beneficial
image in tourist destination selection. Journal of Travel research, 39, 37–44.
Tarrant, M. A., & English, D. B. K. (1996). A crowding-based model of social
carrying capacity: Applications for Whitewater boating use. Journal of Leisure
Research, 28(3), 155–168.
Todorov, V., & Filzmoser, P. (2009). An object oriented framework for robust
multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 32(3), 1–47.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432–448.
Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2002). Generalizing the encounter–norm–crowding
relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24(3–4), 255–269.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & Heberlein, T. A. (1980). Perceptions of crowding
and resource quality by early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences, 3(4),
367–381.
Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. (2008). Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an
evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of research. Leisure Sciences: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(2), 111–126.
Watson, G. L., & Kopochevsky, J. P. (1996). Tourist carrying capacity: a critical look
at the discursive dimension. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2,
169–179.
Wong, Jehn-Yih, & Ching, Yeh (2009). Tourist hesitation in destination decision
making. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 6–23.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26,
45–56.
Submitted 9 March 2012. Resubmitted 4 July 2012. Final version 14 December 2012.
Accepted 22 March 2013. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Joseph Elizeri
Mbaiwa.

View publication stats