Keywords

1 Introduction

Today, the Smart Tourism Destinations program is a successful initiative in Spanish tourism policy. The program helps destination decision-makers to become aware of their level of development and efficiency with respect to five variables that are considered central to progress towards being a sustainable tourism destination: governance, innovation, technology, sustainability, and accessibility.

The Smart Tourism Destinations program can be looked at from various perspectives in order to analyse and discuss its structure and components. In this chapter, we use a historical perspective to understand the context that gave rise to the program and some key concepts to help us frame it.

The program traces its origins to the tourism policy of the Spanish central government, specifically in two key elements that have become standard lines of action of this policy. In the first place, there is the idea of destinations and destination management. In a series of successive approaches, public programs have placed the destination and its management in a central position in the tourism ecosystem, moving beyond the initial idea that they were simply settings in which tourism activity and its associated impact occurred. Secondly, there is the idea of a system of indicators, which emerged at the same time, tied to the expansion of quality systems in the private sphere and program evaluation in the public sphere (Scriven, 1980). Indicator systems became a work methodology that would be very useful for further innovation in management processes and the incorporation of new values into organizational cultures. This is of extreme value for public policy, whose central objective is to change behaviours and processes in the direction of new models that are more in line with the values that are becoming embedded in society (Peters, 2015).

This chapter uses a historical perspective that looks at a broad time frame and uses the heuristic method, selecting primary sources that will allow us to observe how new concepts appear and how the current Smart Tourism Destinations program is taking shape.

2 In the Beginning, It Was About Quality

Monitoring the efficiency of work processes emerged from manufacturing during the industrial revolution and evolved during the twentieth century. In addition to the first control systems, advances in statistics and developments in strategic planning were incorporated—in particular the concept of stages, which would be central to the design of quality systems (Evans and Lindsay, 1999). In the 1980s, for the first time, quality-related thinking and practices moved from the product sphere to the service sphere (Rosander, 1989), and it is in this context that they reached the tourism sector. As is the case with other values that germinate and develop in different social spaces, so too it was during this period that they appeared in tourism policy.

In those years, the Spanish government designed and implemented a tourism policy that was set out in a document called Plan Futures (1992–1996). It was the first tourism policy document following the passing of the Spanish constitution. Since the end of the dictatorship, tourism policy had been handed over to the autonomous regions, and the central government did not have a space of its own. However, the sector was calling for a public policy that would boost the activity, and this boost ultimately resulted from a change in the perception of tourist activity itself: tourism grew to be seen as yet another industrial sector, which would make it possible to talk about improving competitiveness from a broad point of view that included the social, cultural, and environmental context (Velasco, 2004).

The document already contained nearly 100 mentions of the concept of quality, almost always linked to the idea of competitiveness and the price-quality ratio. Reflecting on the competitiveness of the tourism industry, it states:

Competitiveness […] will obviously depend both on all the functions inherent to the scope of the company […], and on the institutional framework in which the company operates and on infrastructures. This approach therefore goes beyond the classic concept of competitiveness, which is univocally linked to productivity and price, and links competitiveness to the capacity to innovate and the philosophy of total quality or excellence (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1992, p. 15).

Quality is thus associated, for the most part, with work processes in the private sector. However, it also points out that an improvement in quality will eventually lead to an improvement in the welfare of the host societies, in particular through the impact it would have on improving employment.

[…] Host societies are calling for some overall benefit to compensate for the various costs that tourism entails. In many cases, this benefit is of a cultural and social nature and is largely determined by the quality of the design, production, distribution and after-sales services of the tourist product. Quality in the tourist product also means the use of sophisticated inputs, including highly skilled and highly paid labour (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1992, p. 59).

At this initial stage, it was felt that the private sector was responsible for designing the quality system, and that the role of the government was to focus on promoting and stimulating it. With this objective in mind, a financing Agenda was launched to support the execution of quality implementation projects, subsidizing 25% of the cost.

This sub-Agenda was undertaken by supporting the creation of a quality system by the private sector, with companies themselves defining standards and establishing controls. The system would be based on the prestige it would gain and on the voluntary nature of its use. Support was also given to companies specializing in the provision of professional quality diagnostics and quality development services (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1992, p. 86).

In the Plan Futures 1992–1996, the idea of quality applied to the destination also appears for the first time—at that time regarded more as a scenario where action took place than as an ecosystem of stakeholders with its own rules. The tourism policy states that a central element in the competitiveness of destinations is to have an “environment that respects nature and a quality habitat” (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1992, p. 112).

Even more relevant to the subject of this paper, 30 years ago, it was proposed that if the destination met certain requirements, it would be considered an “Excellent Tourism Destination” and that this would entail some sort of incentive for the destination, such as exclusive promotion abroad.

When a tourism destination combines a habitat that respects tourist resources (improved aesthetics and urban planning, elimination of noise and environmental pollution, etc.), and modernized establishments adapted to the quality requirements of the market, it can be defined as an “Excellent Tourism Destination” and, therefore, it will be eligible for special promotion Agendas abroad (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1992, p. 113).

The second version of this policy, contained in the document Plan Futures II 1996–1999, already contains two separate lines of action: one for developing tourism quality systems and its proposal of working with indicators, and the other for the design and implementation of Agendas aimed at improving destination management.

Thus, the FUTURES Quality Agenda encompasses three lines of action: developing quality systems for each specific tourism sub-sector, promoting an advisory Agenda and financing an Agenda for modernizing equipment, organized by means of a range of subsidies and subsidized loans for renovating private tourist accommodation and facilities. The FUTURES Tourism Destinations Agenda seeks to “promote a dynamic confluence of public and private actions aimed at improving the tourist attractions of the destination. The aim is to create processes with the active participation of all actors involved, each acting in their own area, but under the principle of co-responsibility” (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1996, p. 63).

This Agenda already describes, albeit in terms from another era, the elements that are still central to today’s Smart Tourism Destinations Agenda.

For a destination to offer a quality product, not only must the products offered by the private sector (accommodation, catering, entertainment...) be of high quality, but a wide range of public services related to transport, hospitality, environmental quality, safety, etc. must also be provided at a high level of quality. On the basis of this analysis, the Tourism Destination Agenda is seen as an instrument for addressing the problems of a given destination from a global perspective, integrating all the elements that converge there (Secretaría General de Turismo, 1996, p. 63).

3 The Entrepreneurial State: Tourism Policy as an Impetus for Indicator-Based Management and Integrated Destination Management

In the first phase of tourism policy described above, it was proposed that the private sector should define the quality systems to be applied to the tourism sector, establishing standards and thresholds for compliance. In the year 2000, a new tourism policy was introduced in the document Comprehensive Plan for the Quality of Spanish Tourism (PICTE) (Secretaría de Estado de Comercio, Turismo y Pyme, 2000), which changed the criteria and made the State the central driving force, at the request of the private sector itself. Issue 139 of the 1999 edition of the Journal of Tourism Studies is devoted entirely to quality (Revista de Estudios Turísticos, 1999). The initial article, written by a person from the Ministry, explains:

The Spanish Tourism Quality Plan (PICTE) designed by the Secretary of State for Trade, Tourism and SMEs basically involves the development of a common methodology for all tourism subsectors involved in improving the quality of their products and services, and institutional backing for the implementation of the Spanish Tourism Quality Brand. The aim is to respond to the requests made by the Business Associations and Federations of the Sector to this Administration, asking for financial and technical assistance to develop and implement quality standards of voluntary application (Navarro de Vega, 1999, p. 6).

The PICTE proposed the creation of quality assurance systems in various tourism subsectors and of a single brand for tourism quality (Spanish Tourism Quality Brand) and to support the participation of Spanish business organizations in international standardization bodies.

From that moment on, two different initiatives were launched at the same time in order to advance in the implementation of quality in Spanish tourism. Firstly, the Spanish Tourism Quality Institute (ICTE) was created, a private organization set up by the associations of different tourism subsectors to promote quality systems in companies in their respective fields. With this aim, the ICTE contributed to the processes of standardization (creation, development, and revision of tourism quality standards), certification, and training. This means providing the tourism sector with a solid quality structure and promoting a culture of quality in the sector as a whole. But quality had already been incorporated into the market, being a professionalized field that generates service providers and an exchange structure outside of a public policy; so, secondly, another tool was created and promoted, more closely linked to the idea of public policy, which would be free of charge and aimed at destination managers whose main objective is to raise awareness and create networks of stakeholders. This tool was the Spanish Integrated Tourism Quality System in Destinations (SICTED) Agenda, which aims to achieve a homogeneous level of quality in the services offered to tourists in a destination and offers tools for the integrated management of destination quality, recognizing, but not certifying, those tourism services that exceed the established requirements. The SICTED methodology was developed in 2000–2001 and has been implemented in different phases, progressing until the present day.

The Comprehensive Plan for the Quality of Spanish Tourism (PICTE) also seeks to promote destination management Agendas, implementing some initiatives and incorporating others that had been created in the previous stage.

Tourists choose their holidays according to the destination, so this is a basic level of action if we want to improve the quality of the Spanish tourist attractions as a whole [...] The destination is more than the sum of its tourist companies; it involves the services provided by public agents, the attitude of the residents, the shops, the facilities and infrastructures, the environment, etc. (Secretaría de Estado de Comercio, Turismo y Pyme, 2000, p. 41).

With this idea in mind, the creation of integrated tourism management models was proposed, although a concrete programmatic development had not yet been found. However, another line of work emerged which would end up having an impact on destination management.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in 1992 and known as the Rio Summit, called for environmental preservation to be considered in any development initiative, and one of the Agendas arising from it was Program 21, which would become Agenda 21 at the local level. Furthermore, the fifth Framework Program of the European Union considered tourism to be one of the five key sectors on which action had to be taken for the protection of the environment, specifying various problematic aspects (land use, illegal construction, automobiles, noise, water, atmospheric emissions, risk of vulnerable areas, etc.). With this objective in mind, it was decided to push for the implementation of an Environmental Management System in tourism municipalities, taking as a model the one designed in a Community Regulation and called the Community Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS),Footnote 1 and in 1998 the Green Municipality Project began, which was carried out in partnership with the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces. This project brought together, for the first time, local tourism managers and local environmental managers.

In the following tourism policy document, the Spanish Tourism Plan Horizon 2020 (2008–2012), all the aforementioned lines of action were maintained, but a specific program for the planning and management of destinations was also incorporated, with the following objective:

Promoting the application of new methodologies and criteria for the planning and management of tourism destinations based on public-private joint responsibility, capable of integrating and developing a strategic vision of the tourism model that, from a market perspective, considers territorial development, environmental quality, the quality and professionalism of tourist services and social welfare (Secretaría General de Turismo, 2008, p. 122).

All the elements were now in place for the destination to be considered the key element of the ecosystem, and to be done so with a clear perception of the social and environmental surroundings. We also had at this point a context in which indicator-based systems were already in place and functioning. The first steps of the program had been taken.

4 The Encounter Between Models: Sustainable Tourism Municipalities and Smart Destinations

In 2012, a new tourism policy document was approved: the National Integrated Tourism Plan (PNIT) 2012–2015 (Secretaría de Estado de Comercio, Turismo y Pyme, 2000). In it, the concept of the Smart Tourism Destination appears for the first time.

[…] this measure aims to establish the appropriate mechanisms that allow the rapid incorporation of innovation while defining a homogeneous framework, which allows for the technological development of tourism destinations under the concept of Smart Destinations in line with the trend towards the creation of Smart Cities (PNIT, 2012, p. 71).

In 2013, the Ministry of Industry, Energy, and Tourism proposed the creation—within the framework of the Technical Standardization Committee for Smart Cities of the Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification (AENOR)—of the subcommittee on Tourism Destinations (SC5), which would be chaired by the State Society for the Management of Innovation and Tourism Technologies (SEGITTUR). This Committee approved the first definition of a Smart Tourism Destination:

[…] a tourist space that is innovative, accessible to everyone, established through a cutting-edge technological infrastructure that ensures the territory’s sustainable development, it facilitates the interaction and integration of the visitors and improves the quality of their experience in the places they visit and also the residents’ quality of life (SEGITTUR, 2015).

Between 2014 and 2016, 12 pilot reports were conducted by the Secretary of State for Tourism in four areas: Technology (connectivity, smart infrastructures, sensorization, internet of things), Sustainability (environmental, socio-cultural and economic), Innovation and Accessibility.

But the National Integrated Tourism Plan (PNIT) 2012–2015 was also making progress on a parallel program: the Sustainable Tourism Destination.

The sustainability of tourism destinations must be ensured first and foremost in their planning. To this end, a tool or method inspired by the European Union's Agenda 21 for sustainable tourism will be implemented to help local authority planners to understand the current situation of their tourism development model, to apply monitoring indicators and to design sustainable tourism action plans that include actions to publicize these attributes (PNIT, 2012, p. 70).

With this idea in mind, the development of the “Sustainable Tourism Destination Method” was proposed, a set of diagnostic and planning tools aimed at improving the sustainability of destinations’ tourism development models, which is beginning to be applied to some destinations (Menorca, Cazorla, and Sigüenza). The method proposes working in three phases: diagnosis of the sustainability of tourism in the territory, drawing up and implementing an action plan, and monitoring the actions.

In 2018 it was decided to group both models in a single program, which retains the name of both: the Sustainable and Smart Tourism Destinations (DTSI) program, whose objective is:

[...] to bring together Sustainable Tourism Destinations and Smart Tourism Destinations in a single program, given that the associated methods share methodology and procedures, making the Sustainable and Smart Tourism Destination those destinations that meet the parameters of both, and including within them, as a subset, those that meet the parameters of the Sustainable Tourism Destination or the Smart Tourism Destination, with the medium-term objective that all destinations meet all the parameters of a Sustainable and Smart Tourism Destination (Ministerio de Hacienda, 2018, p. 10).

5 The Last Step… Until Today

The final features of the program were defined at that time, and of particular importance was the incorporation of a fifth pillar into the program which would prove to be pivotal: governance.

The creation and consolidation of the model, from this point onwards, has been intense and has delved into converting the idea of destination management into standards with indicators that make it possible to understand and compare. Several standards are promoted in the Tourism Destinations Committee (CTN 178/SC 5—Tourism Destinations), the most important of which is the UNE 178501 standard—Management System of Smart Tourism Destinations—Requirements, the purpose of which is to:

[...] specify the requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining and improving a management system for a Smart Tourism Destination that adequately addresses governance, innovation, the use of technologies, universal accessibility and sustainability in such a destination. It is applicable to all types of tourism destinations, regardless of their nature (holiday, urban, rural, etc.), size (municipal or supra-municipal) and the nature of their management body. This standard has been designed to be used independently, although it can be aligned or integrated with other management systems (UNE, 2018).

This is in addition to eight other standards, which are discussed in depth in the next chapter.

  1. 1.

    Indicators and tools for Smart Tourism Destinations (UNE 178502, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Semantics applied to Smart Tourism Destinations (UNE 178503, 2022).

  3. 3.

    Digital smart hotel (HDIC) connected to smart tourism destination or smart city platforms. Requirements and recommendations (UNE 178504, 2019).

  4. 4.

    Framework for the creation of tourism destination websites (UNE 178505, 2022).

  5. 5.

    Methodology for the optimization of search engine positioning (SEO) of tourism destination websites (UNE 178506, 2022).

  6. 6.

    Tourism destinations. Applications of Wi-Fi connection on beaches (UNE 178507, 2022).

  7. 7.

    Tourism Destination applications (apps) model for mobile devices (UNE 178508, 2022).

  8. 8.

    Guide for the implementation of the Smart Destination Platform layer model (UNE 178511, 2023).

The last of the model elements is also created: the network of stakeholders that are implementing the Smart Tourism Destinations model in their destinations. The Network is a space for the exchange of experiences that also serves as an area for sharing best practices and training. The Network is an undeniable strength that allows destination managers to find a space for support which also helps them to progress. Readers will be able to learn in detail about the Network and its operation in chapter “The Spanish Smart Tourism Destination Network: A Nudge to Boost the Adoption of National Tourism Policies”.

6 Conclusions

The Smart Tourism Destinations program did not emerge from a blank piece of paper. It is the result of a journey that combines several elements, of which we will highlight the three that we consider most relevant.

The first is the important role of the Tourism Administration, in this case the Spanish central government, as a promoter and facilitator of change and innovation—innovation that involves new ideas, new processes, and new technologies. Since the 1980s, the Tourism Administration of the Spanish central government has designed various instruments within tourism policy that have had an impact on the functioning of the sector and its dynamics. The Smart Tourism Destinations model is one of them.

The second element that goes back a long way and explains its effectiveness has to do with the expansion of quality systems. The evolution of quality systems has allowed for the development of a working culture based on the creation of indicators. This changed the management models, but even more importantly, it generated a unique system for the transfer of new ideas, knowledge, and innovation processes. The Smart Tourism Destination model has been adding pillars, with the current ones covering the most important dimensions of destination management, but its strength lies in the fact that, as with other quality systems, the construction of indicators allows the participants to understand what the specific objectives are, what the relevant issues are, and how to move forward in the right direction.

The third element, which has also been present in the trajectory of public policies in recent decades, is the growing importance of the Smart Tourism Destination in the tourism ecosystem and, as a result, the importance of improving the model’s management. This is a difficult issue due to the weakness of public structures at the municipal level, the cross-cutting nature of the activity, and the complexity of the problems and challenges that arise in Smart Tourism Destinations. The Smart Tourism Destination model and network are not presented as a model that is imposed, but as a path that each destination chooses; furthermore, a strategic and integrated approach is proposed, which combines elements of economic sustainability with others of environmental and social sustainability and requires the involvement of various local players, strengthening governance in the destinations.