Tourism Business,Place Identity,Sustainable Development,and Urban Resilience: A Focus on the Sociocultural Dimension

Abstract

La Unión is a city located in the southeast of Spain with a long mining tradition. Along the twentieth century, this place faced a severe industrial crisis. Building on its history, heritage, and resources, the local economy changed towards the mining heritage tourism business. This article describes such a process of sustainable development and urban resilience through a two-stage approach. First, the focus is on explaining how the locality moved from being a mining industrial area to a mining heritage tourism place. In doing so, the study highlights the key role played by the cooperation of the local government and the nearby university. The second stage shows how the new economic model is firmly rooted on the mining identity of the place and what provides higher levels of sustainability to the destination from a social and cultural view. In this context, the article shows how the place identity model of tourism would be eager to limit the negative impacts usually associated with the spread of tourism, consequently receiving further support by the local population. To better understand the second-stage process, the study defines a theoretical framework and tests it empirically through a structural equation modeling approach. Results of the research provide regional policy advices.

Keywords

mining business urban resilience place identity tourism sustainability sociocultural dimension structural equation modeling

Introduction

The term “resilience” is in the forefront of many studies nowadays. The capacity of industries, cities, firms, or people to face difficult times and thriving in that situations always provides important lessons. Traditionally, the notion of resilience has been linked to its engineering and ecology perspectives (Jones and D´Errico 2019). This article aligns with the general notion of resilience in urban settings defined as “a system’s ability to change, adapt and transform in response to disturbances” (Davoudi 2012, 302) and on the interaction of urban resilience and sustainable development (Marques-Nunes, Duarte-Pinheiro, and Tomé 2019; Folke et al. 2002). In particular, and by focusing on the analysis of a territory recently facing a severe industrial crisis, the research shows how this local economy has been able to change toward the service sector, namely the tourism business. Along that way, the local society has reached a number of positive externalities including a higher sustainability content of the local economy.

This study includes two main stages: in the first stage, a review and discussion of the process of change of the local economy is carried out. In doing so, the investigation highlights the cooperation taking place among the local university and local/regional governments as one key piece in this successful story. Further on, in the second stage, the research builds on the terms of urban resilience, sustainable development, and place identity (PI) in an urban resilient environment when analyzing the process of design and launching of the local tourism model. To this end, a theoretical framework is defined to capture the process of change and adaptation as well as the sociocultural benefits emerging. This framework allows for a better understanding of how building on the local identity treats enabled a positive perception on the impacts of the tourism growth process itself and consequently resulted in high levels of support and recognition by the local population. Along this second stage, the theoretical model is tested empirically for the case of La Unión in the southeast of Spain.

The analysis adds new findings to the tourism literature on the sustainability of destinations also abounding in the sociocultural dimension of the process. The model helps to enlarge the study of identity issues in tourism research showing the capacity of this complex variable in turning the traditional negative externalities emerging in the tourism growth process into positive ones. Results of the research provide policy guidelines for current challenges in regional development and tourism policy. These appear of pivotal importance in times of overtourism where destination planners constantly seek for more sustainable strategies for the local population.

After this Introduction, the rest of the article is as follows: the Mining Tradition, Public Cooperation, and Business Sustainability section reviews the process of change of La Unión in Spain, turning industrial decline into a growing tourism industry at an historical mining area. Section 3 introduces the theoretical framework of the research and reviews the related tourism literature. PI, Sustainable Tourism, and Urban Resilience section deals with data details and defines the empirical model and the research method. Results section shows main findings of the estimation procedure, while Discussion of Results section discusses the results of the investigation. Finally, Conclusions section concludes and sets up some policy guidelines.

Mining Tradition, Public Cooperation, and Business Sustainability

The mining history of the Mediterranean city of La Unión (Region of Murcia, Spain) goes back to the times of the Phoenician, Carthaginian, and Roman civilizations, given its gold and silver mineral stocks. During the mandate of the Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus, in the first century AD, such an underground richness made commerce to flourish under the leadership of the neighboring city of Cartagonova. Yet in the modern era, from the second half of the nineteenth century until the mid of the twentieth century, local businesses experienced a boost based on numerous underground concessions with stocks of other minerals like sulfur, zinc, or copper being exploited by important companies employing hundreds of workers (Berrocal 2006). However, since the 1970s the decline of industrial mining demand led to the closure of numerous mines, resulting in rising levels of unemployment, deindustrialization, and depopulation. Other related problems included the damage inflicted to the surrounding environment by the industrial process of some mining activities, like, for example, the case of the closer Bay of Portman collapsed and polluted with mineral wastes (Andreu, Marin, and Vidal 1992).

Despite the negative effects of the crisis hardly hitting La Unión, the town itself and its surrounding mountains, the Sierra Minera, are endowed with an important heritage background linked to their historical mining tradition. Tangible heritage resources include unique facilities and constructions built in the nineteenth and twentieth century by the industrial bourgeoisie families living there. Two examples include “La Casa del Piñon,” nowadays a mining heritage museum, and the former “Mining Public Market,” serving today as the main stage of the “Flamenco International Music Festival—Cante de las Minas.” The music festival, also taking place inside some of the local recovered mines as alternative stages, occupies a relevant place in the international flamenco scene, staying at its forty-ninth edition in 2019. This same year has attracted more than 50,000 visitors with an estimated impact of around 6,500 news generated in the media, followed by more than 800 million people around the world (https://www.ayto-launion.org/2018/09/13/el-cante-de-las-minas-2018-pulveriza-todos-sus-registros-mediaticos/). Other outstanding buildings related to the mining history of La Unión include the “Liceo Obrero” that will host new facilities showing the mining life and culture of this area, and the “Hospital de la Caridad,” all them planned and constructed at times of industrial mining splendor along the two former centuries. Moreover, given the long tradition of the mining activities, there are even greater intangible resources linked to this place, including the “Mineral and Fossil Fair” or the heavily anthropized landscape of the “Sierra Minera.” Further from this, the social focus on the mining issues is present all around the locality, with resident population showing an important sense of PI (Berrocal, Miquel, and Marín 2005).

Since the 1990s, and being conscious of the rich mining heritage and history characterizing La Unión, the local government decided to continue building on such an identity dimension to foster new businesses. This was the response of the government to the severe industrial crisis affecting the region of Murcia, the geographical area where La Unión is placed. These were times when the industrial crisis hardly affected Spain, with the neighboring city of Cartagena and La Unión being suffering a considerable impact too. The economy impact included the closure of important industrial factories in the navy and ships construction, mining activities, and the petrochemical industry. The industrial rebuilding plan launched by the socialist country government in the 1980s and 1990s had devastating consequences for the regional economy and the city of Cartagena. Naval and shipbuilding industry, mining and related fertilizer’s industries, and steel foundry’s industry, with renamed companies such as Peñarroya, Española del Zinc, Bazan, or FESA-Enfersa, went bankrupt and had to close, together with other 500 smaller companies. It accounted for more than 30,000 lost jobs followed by disturb episodes ending up with the burning of the Regional Parliament by the insurgent workers asking for public social support measures that never arrived (Berrocal, Miquel, and Marín 2005).

Yet in the beginning of the new millennium, in the year 2002, the School of Tourism of the recently created Technical University of Cartagena (hereinafter UPCT), posed the challenge of working on the study, identification, and recovery of part of this tangible and mostly intangible cultural heritage. These efforts helped to start to put in value the mining identity of La Unión and its conversion into an important tourism product in the near future.¹ Spain was then one of the most competitive tourism destinations in the world, and the region of Murcia in the southeast of the country was seeking to enter that industry. In 2000, the Mediterranean region was the top world tourism destination with more than 100 million of annual international arrivals (United Nations World Tourism Organization [UNWTO] 2018). The tourism specialization reached by La Unión and the surrounding Sierra Minera (Mining Mountains) was foreseen as the most affordable option by the local government. It also would help to provide a sustainable development scenario from an economic, environmental, and mostly sociocultural view (Manteca and Berrocal 1997; Ruíz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramírez 2007). Pursuing this goal, the UPCT defined the project with two main key initial objectives: (a) to work primarily on continue putting in value such an important intangible asset, namely the mining identity of the locality, and (b) the need to involve all social agents in the process of change, including the local population, businessmen, and institutions, and regional, national, and European governments (Manteca and Berrocal 1997).

The initial stage of the work included the launching of the “Aula Sierra Minera 2002-2011” (Mining Mountains Open Seminar) in close cooperation between the School of Tourism of UPCT and the local government of La Unión. The overall objective of this initiative was the promotion of research and training activities to recover and make visible the material and immaterial resources of La Unión. The targeted audience were not only the pioneer visitors reaching the city at holiday times but the local population able to become more conscious of his own identity heritage with the young people in the forefront. The “Aula Sierra Minera” initiative allowed to generate a common umbrella gathering teachers, students, businessmen, and other interested people who had been working or seek to work in the knowledge of the Sierra Minera from different disciplines and could now conform a joint and interdisciplinary task force in La Unión.

Four guidelines were defined for the actions within the Aula Sierra Minera: first, it was key to know and understand the people of La Unión and to detect their individual and collective feelings toward the mining history and heritage. Second, to maintain and to reinforce the existing sense of identity by collecting living testimony to make population more aware of the heritage through specific campaigns with popular and business associations as well as with the whole public and private schools of La Unión and its sphere of influence of the Sierra Minera. And third, to identify and select the heritage to be valued as well as to delimit the territory in which the La Unión Mining Park would subsequently be created. That included the efforts to obtain the delivery of the necessary land and getting the initial funding from Spanish and European programs.

Following the guidelines established by the Aula Sierra Minera, a number of initiatives were developed by the UPCT. While working on the Integration of the Tourism Office of La Unión into the Quality Tourism Office network of the Region of Murcia—obtaining the International Organization for Standardization 9001 certification in January 2006—the European Union (EU)–funded Mining Heritage Development Project in EU countries (MINEU) Project was also developed as a necessary support initiative. The granting of the MINEU Project (A1/CH/ES-348, 2005–2006) represented a revaluation and dignification of the mining heritage of La Unión in the eyes of the local population and local/regional public authorities. Specific actions resulting from the MINEU project were to delimit the area where the Mining Park would be located as well as the patrimonial resources to act upon. This area was first cleaned, and roads were opened to start conforming the future “La Unión Mining Park.” One key issue was that this work allowed start strengthening the idea that the mining cultural heritage was a resource susceptible to be marketed. In fact, it received the funding from the Spanish Tourist Revitalization Plans for the enhancement of the Agrupa Vicenta Mine as a future tourist resource of the Mining Park.

The second major action taken at that time was the project “Creation of the Archive of the Mining Tradition” (2006–2009), an agreement between the UPCT and the Regional Government of Murcia. Its main objective was twofold: (a) to better know the uses, habits, and working ways of traditional mining people in the Sierra Minera of Cartagena-La Unión through an intense work of ethnographic research and (b) the transmission of knowledge about the value of the cultural mining-based heritage to the local population including the citizens, businessmen, and public institutions. It allowed to reinforce the local sense of belonging to a mining community that would stay at the basis of the mining tourist model.

Finally, the third major project carried out from Aula Sierra Minera was the preparation of the document “Considerations for the promotion of the tourist value of Carretera del 33 and Cuesta de las Lajas,” within the “Master Plan for Carretera del 33 and Cuesta de Las Lajas,” project commissioned by the City of La Unión to the UPCT (2008–2009). This document contains all the considerations for the design and development of the tourism product of “La Unión Mining Park” and included a detailed study for valuing the reference area, the musealization proposal for the Agrupa Vicenta Mine and for El Tesoro mineral washing facility, with an additional risk analysis on the future tourist use of the mining heritage. As a result, La Unión Mining Park was opened to visits for the first time in July 2010, becoming one of the core resources enabling La Unión to become an appealing mining tourism area with around 40,000 visitors in year 2018. This can be thought of as an important number of visitors, considering that the total population of the municipality in 2016 was of 19,630 inhabitants (National Statistical Office, Spain [INE] Annual Report 2017). That inflow of tourists accounted for a revenue of around 4.2 percent of the direct turnover of the private sector of La Unión (2018 Yearbook of the Chamber of Commerce of La Unión).

Place Identity Sustainable Tourism, and Urban Resilience

In this section, the concepts of sustainable tourism, urban resilience, and PI are introduced as the underlying framework informing the subsequent empirical analysis.

Sustainable Tourism and Urban Resilience

Sustainable development theory first appeared in biology and ecology studies, making reference to the use of resources that allow for the reproduction of ecosystems (Alberti 1996). The theory includes concepts like the “triple bottom line,” “three E,” “three-legged stool,” or “Venn diagrams” with the environmental dimension described in relation to the economic and social ones (Campbell 2013). When applied to urban areas, sustainability is frequently seen as the challenge of cities to remain at levels below the carrying capacity of their surrounding ecosystems, while ensuring sustainable social practices and levels of the quality of life for its present and future members (Campbell 2013). Following Romero-Lankao et al. (2016), cities are socio-ecological systems of interacting components representing five domains: sociodemographic, economic, technological, environmental, and governance (SETEG). In this way, when managing the city capacity, urban policies connect to the SETEG domains, including ethical principles like, for example, equity in resource distribution. The adaptive and transformative capacity of cities becomes then central in this framework, highlighting the interaction between the urban sustainable dimension and the concept of place resilience (Burch and Robinson 2007; Romero-Lankao et al. 2013).

The resilience concept has also a long history with roots in ecology, engineering, and psychology. Despite some social scientists suggesting that resilience cannot be uncritically applied to social domains (Adger 2000; Davidson 2010), in ecology, resilience is often viewed as a system’s ability to “bounce-forward” (Romero-Lankao et al. 2013). Resilience is not conceived as a return to normality but rather as the ability of socio-ecological systems, such as cities and urban communities, to change, adapt, and crucially transform in response to both internal and external pressures, taking advantage of opportunities (Carpenter, Westley, and Turner 2005).

Over the last decades, sustainability and resilience have become key concepts aimed at understanding urban dynamics and responding to the challenges of creating livable futures (Romero-Lankao et al. 2016). At cities, urban actors seek to develop strategies for environmental protection, economic prosperity, inclusivity, and community well-being (Arup 2020). Notwithstanding differences within and across approaches to sustainability and resilience, efforts have been made to integrate them (Romero-Lankao et al. 2016). Summing up, this literature concludes that is fundamental to approach urban sustainability and resilience as social and ethical issues with both concepts converging in their way of facing values, motivations, and power dynamics across spatial and temporal domains at urban environments. As a result, resilience speaks out of change and adaptation when cities face sharp challenges, pursuing in this way new planning approaches leading to more sustainable lifestyles for their inhabitants (Brandt et al. 2013; Klenk and Wyatt 2015).

The Concept of Place Identity

International tourism arrivals have boomed since the 2000s. More than 1.3 billion people moved in 2018 in their vacation time (UNWTO 2019). As a result, the study of impacts of tourism at destinations has become a popular topic in the literature (Andereck et al. 2005). More broadly, the research on tourism sustainability has recently engaged in the analysis of tourism impacts at host societies (Boley and McGehee 2014; Sharpley 2014) and how it affects the quality of life of the local population (Uysal et al. 2016; Kim, Uysal, and Sirgy 2013). In this context, the topic of culture has been gaining momentum in recent tourism studies. Local culture becomes one of the most important resources to be marketed in the tourism sector (Artal-Tur and Kozak 2019). Some villages and destinations account for an important identity of place as seen in the previous section. The definition and application of the “Place Identity” theory is also a recent contribution of this novel approach (Gu and Ryan 2008; Nunkoo and Gursoy 2012). The concept of PI builds on that of social identity or how individuals perceive themselves based on social categories (Turner 1982). The individuals form from childhood their identity by interacting with others (Hatch and Schulltz 2002), this being a reference that will guide their behavior in life (Stets and Biga 2003). For Bauman (2004) and Laclau (1996), social identities have a fundamentally symbolic and discursive character, together with a clear function of representing reality. For Ruíz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramírez (2007), identities are symbolic, open, political and dynamic, guiding, and stimulating social action. Thus, the community together with the individual is the main point of reference for the recreation of identities. Along this line, the literature argues that the theory of social identity can also be developed to include aspects of place. For Althman and Low (1992), a territory becomes a place when people, groups, or cultural processes acquire their meaning there. The so-called strong collective identities, those linked to living spaces, give rise to a solid sense of belonging (Augé 1992), conforming the link between identity, space, and community (Ruíz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramírez 2007). Following Manzo (2003), PI is an abstraction that can be uniquely represented by its individual and collective meanings, being therefore considered as the result of interactions between human beings, a specific physical space, and the social and cultural environments related to that space.

In the literature of tourism, recently authors started to investigate how the sense of PI by local population could influence their perception on the impacts of tourism. Besides, they wonder how such impact perceptions could determine the level of support to the tourism activity shown by the resident population (Stylidis et al. 2014; Palmer, Koenig-Lewis, and Jones 2013). Pioneer contributions in this respect include the role of local museums in consolidating the resident’s PI (Uzzell 1995) or how heritage-renew activities could act in this direction (Rogers 2002; Gu and Ryan 2008). More recently, Wang and Chen (2015) developed a framework to test the linkages among the sense of PI, people’s perceptions of tourism impacts, and subsequent support for tourism (ST) development. The authors find evidence of this relationship, emphasizing the need of employing the PI theory as a good complement of the social exchange theory, the previous standard in the literature. In this setting, the analysis of La Unión appears as a good case to continue developing this framework of analysis. The place accounts for a high degree of PI based in its former mining history, culture, and heritage, in line with other mining villages (Vargas-Sánchez, Plaza-Mejía, and Porras-Bueno 2009), being an excellent social laboratory to test for the linkages among local identity, impact perceptions, and ST.

The concept of PI appears to be closely related to that of attachment feelings, both at the individual or groupwise level (Lewicka 2013). One initial definition remarks the personal connections with some particular places (Scannell and Gifford 2014). Social identity accounts for a symbolic representation of reality helping to guide the social action (Bauman 2004). Strong collective identities linked to living spaces allow to build a solid sense of belonging (Augé 1992; Gu and Ryan 2008). The complex concept includes a number of dimensions like the sense of continuity (CONTI), distinctiveness (DISTI), self-efficacy (SEFCCY), and self-esteem (SSTMD) of individuals (Breakwell 1996). Gu and Ryan (2008) operationalize the concept of PI in tourism studies, building on process identity theory and its four dimensions as defined by Breakwell (1996) and Twigger-Ross and Uzzell (1996). DISTI implies differentiation and singularity feelings by local residents (McGuire 1984); CONTI implies place and culture preservation; SSTMD accounts for positive evaluation of oneself as belonging to one particular place and local social group; finally, SEFCCY refers to the individual or social response employed to face adverse situations. McGehee (2004) and Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012) emphasize the need of building on PI, while launching new products at the level of destinations, as a way of gaining recognition and support by the residents.

PI, Impacts of Tourism, and Local Support for Tourism (ST) Development

According to the literature, tourism impacts breakdown into economic, social, and environmental ones (Almeida-García et al. 2016). Sharpley (2014) identifies residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts, finding them to be influenced by their engagement into tourism businesses, individual profile (skills, relative wealth), or closeness to the downtown area of the city. Choi and Murray (2010) also indicate that perceptions become shaped by the extent at what benefits of tourism affect the local society or by the way they feel engaged with tourism products reflecting treats of their social identity (Bott, Cantril, and Myers 2003). In this way, destinations that build on identity issues could get higher support by the local population, resulting in higher levels of sustainability (McGehee and Andereck 2008).

However, the appealing of the topic, the literature on the relationship between PI and tourism impacts is still scarce. The original paper by Gu and Ryan (2008) finds a general negative impact of tourism development on heritage for the case of a cultural place in Beijing, China, that even could result in the disappearing of cultural street traditions. This individual perception of impacts seems to rely on the age of the respondent and embeddedness in tourism activities or on the role played by the local government in the development process. Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012) find for the case of Mauritius Island that developments affecting occupational identity, with the possibility of people losing their traditional jobs, leads to negative perceptions. In general, main findings highlight the fact that identity shapes the local perceptions only at particular contexts where the place and the people reinforce each other in a tourism-and-culture virtuous circle. As a result, dissimilar contexts could provide differing outcomes in the identity–impacts linkage with this type of studies requiring well-designed environments to be tested. The mining locations, showing an important PI content, appear to be good laboratories for this type of models (Ruíz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramírez 2007).

Other authors investigate the role that the perception of tourism impacts could play in driving the linkage of PI and ST. Wang and Chen (2015) develop a framework to test this theory in the city of Indianapolis (United States), finding evidence of how the perceptions on the impacts of tourism modulated by the social identity of the place influence the local ST. In their modeling exercise, they only find support for two dimensions of their PI variable, namely, SSTMD and SEFCCY. Other authors also find additional variables that could foster or reduce the local ST, like the emergent or mature character of the vacation destination (Vargas-Sánchez et al. 2015), the perception of personal benefits and economic progress related to the tourism growth process (Alector-Ribeiro et al. 2017), and to what extent tourism helps to preserve the local culture (Besculides, Lee, and McCormick 2002), or more broadly to promote the life quality of the local population (Liang and Hui 2016).

Place Identity at Mining Tourism Destinations

As seen, first records of mining activity in Europe goes back at least until the Roman Empire. However, mining heritage tourism is a more recent term present at former industrial mining places able to rebuild new experiences for tourists attracted by this type of natural heritage resources. In 2017, this type of tourism received 39 million visits all along the EU, including entrance to museums, inside-the-mine tours, and thematic parks. There are around five hundred facilities of this type all around the EU, most of them with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage certification (Eurostat 2018). In what regard the link between mining tourism and social identity issues, there are some initial studies on that matter. Balcar and Pearce (1996) describe on their study of mining tourism in New Zealand how this activity mostly seeks to preserve the history and identity of populations, rather than providing large earnings for residents. Cohen (1988) analyze the contribution of mining tourism to local identity, finding this to be of great importance in that direction. Edwards and Llurdés (1996) document the role of the local identity in the mining tourism experiences, while Ruíz-Ballesteros and Hernández-Ramírez (2007) show how mining heritage tourism allows to reinforce the social identity. Vargas-Sánchez, Plaza-Mejías, and Porras-Bueno (2009) analyze attitudes of residents toward a mining tourism product in Riotinto (Huelva), a traditional mining area in the south of Spain. Main findings show the role played by economic returns, jobs, and income on shaping the residents’ perceptions about the rewards from tourism, finding a direct effect between individual perceptions and their ST.

In this context, the next section conducts an empirical exercise for a mining heritage destination with deep local identity issues. In doing so, the main objective is to test for the role that personal perceptions could exert in modulating people attitudes and behavior toward tourism in line with this emerging literature. This being part of a change project of the local economy after a tough industrial crisis in La Unión, Spain, the study seeks to get deeper insights on the role played by the sociocultural dimension in this type of studies on urban resilience and sustainable development.

The Empirical Model and Data Issues

Data Issues

This section presents the process of gathering data from questionnaires for the subsequent modeling exercise carried out to the resident population in La Unión, Spain. The city of La Unión made 19,630 inhabitants in 2016—9,964 females and 9,966 males, according to the last National Padrón records (INE Annual Report 2017). To carry out this research, a quantitative methodology was chosen based on a random sampling to the resident population, collecting data along the months of May and June 2016. Indicators were collected through a questionnaire with a seven-point scale as usual in the literature, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The months selected for the fieldwork were chosen as months of intense tourism activity, as a way of ensuring that residents were conscious of the impact of tourism on their daily lives. Student research assistants from the UPCT collected survey data, ending up with a number of 381 usable questionnaires.² The data collection included an informational campaign regarding the ongoing study, through its presentation in schools, cultural centers, and local population and business associations. This effort was part of a bigger initiative of the local and regional government regarding the tourism-based project as seen in the previous section. Surveys were distributed across the town, while a group of pollsters carried out street charges. As a result, the response of the population was very satisfactory, reporting important information to the researchers. The resident population was quite aware in general of the ongoing project, given the duration of the tourism development project as shown in Mining Tradition, Public Cooperation and Business Sustainability section, with a response rate of around 83 percent, respondents from all social segments in the population, and important social cooperation in gathering data by schools of the own locality together with those of the nearby UPCT.

A descriptive approach to the surveys’ information shows that (a) a share of 52 percent of females and 48 percent of males characterizes the full sample with a mean age of 46 years; (b) 4 percent of respondents declare to live in La Unión since less than 1 year, 5 percent between 1 and 5 years, 12 percent between 6 and 15 years, 18 percent more than 15 years old, and 61 percent are natives of La Unión, while the rest coming from nearby populations like Cartagena and Torre-Pacheco; (c) as for the level of studies of the respondents, 50 percent is shown to have below secondary level, secondary (38 percent), and postsecondary education (12 percent); (d) finally, 51 percent of respondents have had a direct relationship in the past with the local mining industry. All these data approximately match the sociodemographic structure of La Unión as shown in the last available National Population Census of 2011. According to 2011 Census data, females accounted for 51 percent of population in that year with 58 percent of residents declaring to be born there, 58 percent showing below secondary level of studies, and 9 percent postsecondary one (INE Population Census 2011). The survey also shows that 93 percent of the respondents declare to be aware of the creation of the Sierra Minera Project, 88 percent say to know the Mining Park, 60 percent have visited the Mine Agrupa Vicenta, 92 percent is happy with the creation of the Mining Park of La Unión, and 89 percent of those who visited the Mine Agrupa Vicenta declare to like the rebuilding process. Those findings show that the local population is aware of the tourism development projects going on with a declared support to them.

Data Modeling

The empirical model and related hypotheses are defined in Figure 1 with the variables being measured according to the literature recommendations. PI is captured in its four dimensions as pointed out by Gu and Ryan (2008) and Wang and Chen (2015). Measurement scales on CONTI follow Ujang (2010), those of singularity rely on Wang, Beauchamp, and Jiang (2011), SSTMD applies recommendations in Stokburger-Sauer (2011), while SEFCCY variable builds on the work of Wang and Chen (2015) and Bandura (1997).

Figure 1.

The empirical model.

Following this literature, tourism impacts are of the economic, sociocultural, and environmental type (see Almeida-García et al. [2016] for a review). The data set collects measures of all three sets of impacts. Economic impacts include indicators on the perceptions of residents about the capacity of mining tourism to generate revenues, employment, new investments, and expenditures as usual measures in the literature (Almeida-García et al. 2016; Andriotis and Vaughan 2003). For sociocultural impacts, the list includes several indicators capturing variables like the stock of cultural facilities, the sociocultural environment, improvements in educational level in town due to tourism, and cultural supplies provided in line with this literature (Besculides, Lee, and McCormick 2002; Bujosa and Roselló 2007). Environmental impacts include questions on the degree of conservation of natural resources and wildlife, the rebuilding of degraded areas, or the capacity of limiting levels of pollution also in line with previous authors (Andereck and Nyaupane 2011; Dyer et al. 2007; Jurowski and Gursoy 2004). To close the model, the variable of ST is approached by indicators used in Wang and Chen (2015), Nunkoo and Gursoy (2012), and Choi and Sirakaya (2005).

Departing from this model, the testing exercise concentrates in the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The PI sense of residents in La Unión influences their perception of sociocultural impacts of tourism (SCTI).

Hypothesis 2: The PI sense of residents in La Unión influences their perception of environmental impacts of tourism (ENTI).

Hypothesis 3: The PI sense of residents in La Unión influences their perception of economic impacts of tourism (ECTI).

Hypothesis 4: The resident’s perception of SCTI influences their Support for Tourism (ST) development.

Hypothesis 5: The resident’s perception of ENTI influences their ST development.

Hypothesis 6: The resident’s perception of ECTI influences their ST development.

The following sections are devoted to test the significance of these six research hypotheses.

Data Analysis

The empirical analysis employs fifty-four indicators to approach the constructs of the model, including PI, perception of impact of tourism activities, and ST development, with definitions included in the Appendix Table A1. Data analysis employs partial least squares (PLS) in a structural equation modeling setting, relying on SmartPLS software (Version 3.1; Ringle, Wende, and Becker 2014). As usual, the empirical analysis builds on a two-step procedure with the first step leading the assessment of the measurement model by testing on the capacity of indicators to fit the theoretical constructs defined in the model. The second step allows to evaluate the structural model and corresponding significance of the research hypotheses (Hair et al. 2013).

In this case, the evaluation of the measurement model also accounts for a two-step approach, given that the model accounts for a multidimensional construct design (Chin 2010). In the first step, reflective first-order constructs are evaluated, then, in the second step, a second-order model, composed by a formative construct and four reflective ones, is employed in the analysis. The formative construct allows for capturing the four dimensions of the PI variable in order to run the subsequent empirical analysis.

Results

The Measurement Model

The measurement model tests for the capacity of the defined empirical constructs to capture the theoretical variables in the model. Validity and reliability tests are employed as shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s α (CA) indicator, composed reliability (CR) test, and factor loads are the usual tests employed at this stage. Factor loads should report values above .707 (Chin 2010; Hair et al. 2013). However, following Hair et al. (2013), those loads above .4 could be kept always that they don’t reduce the CR or average variance extracted (AVE) tests.

Table 1.

Properties of Measurement Reflective Constructs: Reliability and Convergent Validity.

Construct	Items	Factor Loading (λ)	CR	CA	AVE
Distinctiveness (DISTI)	DISTI_1	.848	.934	.911	.738
	DISTI_2	.896
	DISTI_3	.833
	DISTI_4	.892
	DISTI_5	.822
Self-esteem (SSTMD)	SSTMD_1	.810	.951	.943	.638
	SSTMD_2	.783
	SSTMD_3	.781
	SSTMD_4	.780
	SSTMD_5	.795
	SSTMD_6	.796
	SSTMD_7	.814
	SSTMD_8	.745
	SSTMD_9	.821
	SSTMD_10	.857
	SSTMD_11	.802
Continuity (CONTI)	CONTI_1	.918	.915	.861	.783
	CONTI_2	.817
	CONTI_3	.917
Self-efficacy (SEFCCY)	SEFCCY_1	.823	.848	.738	.650
	SEFCCY_2	.796
	SEFCCY_3	.799
Sociocultural tourism impacts (SCTI)	SCTI_1	.695	.903	.870	.610
	SCTI_2	.860
	SCTI_3	.843
	SCTI_4	.812
	SCTI_5	.800
	SCTI_6	.654
Environmental tourism impacts (ENTI)	ENTI_1	.739	.874	.800	.699
	ENTI_2	.858
	ENTI_3	.902
Economic tourism impacts (ECTI)	ECTI_1	.898	.941	.908	.842
	ECTI_2	.924
	ECTI_3	.931
Support for tourism (ST)	ST_1	.777	.953	.944	.717
	ST_2	.831
	ST_3	.856
	ST_4	.833
	ST_5	.816
	ST_6	.900
	ST_7	.857
	ST_8	.896

Note: CA = Cronbach’s α; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

As Table 1 shows, two items of the construct SCTI (SCTI_1 and SCTI_6) are below .7 but above .4 value. New analyses removing these two items were made. However, as the level of CA, CR of the model, and AVE were similar to the previous one, researchers decided to keep these two indicators.To assess the discriminant validity, based on Fornell and Larcker (1981), this study compared the square root of the AVE (diagonal elements in Table 2) with the correlations between constructs (off-diagonal elements). All constructs shared more variance with their indicators than with other constructs. Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015) introduce a new criterion that determines the existence of the discriminant validity when the value of the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations is found to be lower than .85–.9 (Table 3). The model, as shown in Tables 2 and 3, attains both criteria, what ensures the presence of the necessary discriminant validity property.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix of Reflective Constructs.

Construct	ST	CONTI	DISTI	ECTI	ENTI	SCTI	SEFCCY	SSTMD
ST	.846
CONTI	.244	.885
DISTI	.481	.397	.859
ECTI	.236	.245	.319	.918
ENTI	−.141	.003	.014	.268	.836
SCTI	.504	.549	.420	.400	−.025	.781
SEFCCY	.536	.484	.415	.311	−.104	.754	.806
SSTMD	.392	.771	.439	.312	−.084	.666	.673	.799

Note: ST = support for tourism; CONTI = continuity; DISTI = distinctiveness; ECTI = economic tourism impacts; ENTI = environmental tourism impacts; SCTI = sociocultural tourism impacts; SEFCCY = self-efficacy; SSTMD = self-esteem.

Table 3.

Heterotrait–Monotrait Matrix of Reflective Constructs.

Construct	ST	CONTI	DISTI	ECTI	ENTI	SCTI	SEFCCY
ST
CONTI	.278
DISTI	.522	.441
ECTI	.228	.275	.336
ENTI	.164	.076	.080	.333
SCTI	.536	.635	.463	.441	.088
SEFCCY	.641	.598	.516	.354	.148	.900
SSTMD	.408	.855	.464	.333	.110	.728	.806

In the second step, the measurement model is evaluated by including the formative construct for PI composed by four dimensions, namely CONTI, DISTI, SEFCCY, and SSTMD. As these four dimensions are reflective, they follow the evaluation procedure in terms of reliability and validity. However, the formative construct might be checked in terms of lack of collinearity and significance of the coefficients and factor loads (Benítez and Ray 2012; Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009).

Table 4 shows no traces of collinearity between the formative construct PI and the rest of variables in the model, since values of the variance inflation factor are below 5 for all items (Hair et al. 2013). Weight values in Table 4 are also shown to be positive with 99 percent of significance for the variable SEFCCY, 95 percent for those of DISTI and SSTMD, and no significance for the variable CONTI.

Table 4.

Properties of Measurement Formative Construct.

Construct	Items	VIF	Weight	T Value	Load	T Value
Place identity (PI)	CONTI	2.514	.171	1.169	.684***	7.890
	DISTI	1.298	.166**	1.921	.582***	6.424
	SEFCCY	1.907	.683***	6.156	.938***	31.566
	SSTMD	3.503	.211**	1.187	.821***	13.212

Note: VIF = variance inflation factor; CONTI = continuity; DISTI = distinctiveness; SEFCCY = self-efficacy; SSTMD = self-esteem.

*p < .10.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

Table 5 also shows that all loads for the indicators are above .5 and can be kept as part of the formative construct as prescribed by Hair et al. (2013). In what refers to the rest of reflective constructs, they are evaluated as in the first step, showing minor changes in terms of load values and significance with regard to those of the previous step (see Tables 5 –7).

Table 5.

Properties of Measurement Reflective Constructs.

Construct	Items	Factor Loading (λ)	CR	CA	AVE
Sociocultural tourism impacts (SCTI)	SCTI_1	.695	.903	.870	.610
	SCTI_2	.860
	SCTI_3	.843
	SCTI_4	.812
	SCTI_5	.800
	SCTI_6	.655
Environmental tourism impacts (ENTI)	ENTI_1	.782	.880	.800	.710
	ENTI_2	.878
	ENTI_3	.865
Economic tourism impacts (ECTI)	ECTI_1	.899	.941	.908	.842
	ECTI_2	.923
	ECTI_3	.930
Support for tourism (ST)	ST_1	.777	.953	.944	.717
	ST_2	.831
	ST_3	.856
	ST_4	.833
	ST_5	.816
	ST_6	.900
	ST_7	.857
	ST_8	.896

Note: CA = Cronbach’s α; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 6.

Correlations Matrix.

Construct	ST	ECTI	ENTI	SCTI
ST	.846
ECTI	.237	.918
ENTI	−.140	.272	.843
SCTI	.504	.401	−.023	.781

Note: ST = support for tourism; ECTI = economic tourism impacts; ENTI = environmental tourism impacts; SCTI = sociocultural tourism impacts.

Table 7.

Heterotrait–Monotrait Matrix.

Construct	ST	ECTI	ENTI
ST
ECTI	.228
ENTI	.164	.333
SCTI	.536	.441	.088

Note: ST = support for tourism; ECTI = economic tourism impacts; ENTI = environmental tourism impacts; SCTI = sociocultural tourism impacts.

The Structural Model

The assessment of the structural model is based on the algebraic sign, magnitude, and significance of the structural path coefficients (β), the R ² values, the effect size f ², and the Q ² test for predictive relevance. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) index is also included as a goodness-of-fit criteria of the model (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarsted 2015). Table 8 shows the structural model with t values confirming the significance of four of all six hypotheses, namely, Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 5. However, Hypotheses 2 and 6 were found not significant.

Table 8.

Summary of the Hypotheses Testing Results.

Hypothesis	Path Coefficients (β)	T Value	R ²	f ²	Q ²	SRMR
Hypothesis 1: PI–sociocultural impacts	.789	25.892***	.622	1.648		.079
Hypothesis 2: PI–environmental impacts	−.081	1.203 ^ns	.007	0.007
Hypothesis 3: PI–economic impacts	.361	4.624***	.130	0.150
Hypothesis 4: Sociocultural impacts–ST	.463	7.064***	.277	0.244	.354
Hypothesis 5: Environmental impacts–ST	−.155	2.249**		0.030	.002
Hypothesis 6: Economic impacts–ST	.093	1.386 ^ns		0.009	.096

Note: PI = place identity; ST = support for tourism; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; ns = not significant.

*p < .10.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

The evaluation of the predictive power of the model builds on the R ² value in the endogenous constructs according to Wetzels, Odekerken-Schroder, and Oppen (2009), considering the values .1, .25, and .36 defining a small, medium, and high, respectively, predictive power. According to this, PI construct shows a high capacity of predicting the perception of the sociocultural impacts by residents (62.2 percent), small in predicting their perception on the “economic impacts” of tourism (13.0 percent), and intermediate in predicting how the perceptions of all three tourism impacts together influence the “ST” of residents (27.7 percent). Moreover, Table 8 also shows the individual contribution that each construct makes to the whole performance of the structural model in terms of the f ² statistic. Values of f ² of .02, .15, and .35 indicate a small, medium, or high effect of the corresponding construct on the model behavior, respectively (Cohen 1988). Once again, the Hypothesis 1, and to a lower extent Hypotheses 3 and 4 appear to be relevant in leading the model’s performance. Predictive index Q ² is positive for all endogenous variables, showing the relevance of the model according to Hair et al. (2013). In the same way, the SRMR value is below .08–.1, indicating a goodness of fit in line with the expected theoretical values (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). In general, the evaluation of the structural model leads to accept the validity of Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 5 as summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Main effects in the model.

Discussion of Results

The city of La Unión in the southeast of Spain could be a paradigm of how one territory builds on their own advantages and expertise to create new sources of wealth along a process of change and adaptation with a clear sustainable focus. In this particular case, the mining tradition of the local economy, starting many centuries ago, led to the surge and consolidation of an initial mining extractive sector, followed in the twentieth century by the development of a prominent mining industry. All this tradition and history become a key in facing the industrial crisis finally resulting in the dismantling of the mining activity in the 1990s. The abandonment of all facilities, and the rise of the tourism sector at neighboring spaces like La Manga del Mar Menor, opened new opportunities for the local economy. With the joint work of the private and government instances, La Unión started to develop a mining tourism sector and a new socioeconomic model.

In order to measure that process from a more academic point of view, the research has tested for the significance and performance of the theoretical framework previously defined. First of all, the model has approached the PI concept in a multidimensional way in line with recent developments in the literature. The formative construct employed for capturing PI shows a good performance as well as its relationships with the rest of constructs in the model. Key findings show how the process of socioeconomic change taking place in La Unión, building on identity issues, has led to a good local perception and support to the tourism growth process taking place. In this way, PI feelings seem to exert an interesting influence on the view of the resident population about the process of change. Moreover, given that PI is a personal, cultural, and social concept, main effects come from the side of the sociocultural dimension, a novel finding in this emergent literature. Consequently, and given the positive dimension shown by local perceptions on the sociocultural side, findings of the empirical model have pointed toward a way in which the tourism development process can be approached in a more sustainable way for the whole society not only for those engaged in tourism business at the local level. As a result, the PI approach appears as a good complement of the traditional focus on economic gains in tourism business and in the mainstream literature and a way to limit the negative impacts usually emerging in tourism growth processes.

In sum, the relevance of the PI model will mostly arise from its capacity to modulate the sociocultural dimension of tourism. The social impact of tourism is nowadays acknowledged by a number of studies with negative overtourism situations shown as the extreme case (UNWTO 2019). The cultural impact of tourism on local societies is also an interesting recent line of research with standardization and globalization issues outstanding in this debate, where the local culture becomes highly impacted for the extension of tourism activities (Joo, Chob, and Woosnamc 2019). These two issues appear to be well addressed by the PI model. First, such a process of tourism development allows to reinforce and extend the local culture, this being one of its key sources indeed. Second, the connection between the PI development model and the sense of identity of the local population also brings about a significant support to the tourism activities, turning tourism growth from a negative matter into a positive one for mature destinations for example.

More closely, results of the structural model show a positive influence of PI on the perception of sociocultural impacts by residents (Hypothesis 1). The tourism specialization of La Unión in the mining heritage leads to an outstanding role of the sociocultural dimension along the whole process. The recovery of the natural surroundings also seems to be positively perceived by the local population including some updated old mines that allow the visitor to get in touch with the mining working and professional ways historically defining this area. The social perceptions on economic (Hypotheses 2 and 5) and environmental (Hypotheses 3 and 6) gains appear to be attenuated in this setting, given the cultural nature of the tourism growth process. In this case, the local population perceives a positive effect, although of second order, of economic gains from tourism (Hypothesis 3) and a reduction of the environmental negative effects that the mining industry inflicted historically on the territory (Hypothesis 5; Figure 2).

In relation to previous findings, the four dimensions of the PI construct also appear to be empirically relevant, in contrast with the pioneer contribution of Wang and Chen (2015), where CONTI and DISTI dimensions did not work. This result would be showing that the case of La Unión is a good laboratory for testing the PI hypothesis of tourism growth, in any case of superior adequacy than the urban setting of Indianapolis employed by Wang and Chen (2015). Regarding the ST development, PI experiences would be also allowing for the lineup of the entrepreneurial and social objectives regarding tourism growth. The sociocultural dimension becomes then the cornerstone of the development strategy, helping to limit some usual conflicts arising between destinations’ stakeholders during the tourism growth process (Artal and Kozak 2019).

Summing up, the results of the article show how social welfare externalities could arise in the process of change of a territory facing a crisis process, conferring the urban environments not only a way of adaptation to a new situation but also higher levels of sustainability. In this sense, this research opens new avenues in the tourism sustainability literature, providing evidence on the performance of the PI theory for tourism.

Conclusions

Resilience has become a fashionable concept nowadays. From pioneer approaches in the ecology science, the word has spread to other fields of research like the urban development literature. The interesting relationship of urban resilience and sustainable development has in fact opened new grounds of research, pointing how to make more sustainable and livable city environments all over the world. This article aligns with this theoretical focus by studying the recent history of La Unión in the southeast of Spain, revisiting a successful story of socioeconomic change. Such a path of development has allowed to reshape the local economic basis, from a previous mining industrial content, toward a present mining heritage tourism model. This provides not only a new source of income but a number of positive externalities in social and cultural terms for the local population. The joint efforts by private and public agents have allowed to change and adapt this city economy by building on historical comparative advantages and more particularly on PI attributes. In fact, the old mining industry has become a mining heritage tourism sector, building on existing resources, historical facilities, museums, and cultural festivals, to conform a coherent socioeconomic basis.

The research started by presenting the recent history of La Unión, including its mining industrial crisis leading to the disappearance of this one-time flourishing activity, followed by the introduction of a mining tourism model. Along this first section, we have shown the path of development transited by the tourism industry under the leadership of the local and regional governments, but also with the necessary support of the national and EU institutions as well as that of the private sector. Limitations of space did not allow to account for the detailed role of all these actors along the process, with the research focusing more on the key element of that, and the efficient cooperation among the nearby university and the local and regional governments. The second part of the study has defined a theoretical model showing how tourism development experiences, centered on the identity treats of the place, could lead to important gains. The empirical results have particularly shown that local attitudes (perception of impacts) could influence the behavior (support) of residents with regard to tourism and processes of socioeconomic change more generally. The current scope of the tourism industry makes this to be a global one. There are many positive aspects of the tourism activities that arise for the local population, including jobs and income creation, or the opening of isolated societies to the world. This situation has made tourism to become a highly desired business and a way of fueling the economic growth of developing countries and lagged regions. However, the growth of tourism activities at the level of destinations is not always an ordered process. Sometimes, just a few residents reach the benefits of tourism despite all of them have to face the costs of its spatial spread. In this context, increasing the sustainability of destinations, while limiting the negative impacts of tourism, is an important finding of this research.

PI has been pointed as the key variable of the research. Empirical evidence on the linkages of people’s attitudes on impacts and ST is not a usual finding of this type of studies but requires a controlled setting where all pieces of the theoretical model fit as in this case of study. In this way, main findings have reflected the importance of a good design of the empirical experiment when carrying out a research. It has helped to provide new insights in the performance of the PI theory as a complement of the social exchange paradigm. Results have shown how the tourism sector allows to preserve the mining tradition of La Unión while consolidating their cultural content and historical heritage. This tourism model also results in higher levels of social cohesion and intergenerational relationships on the identity concept. The specialization of destinations in providing goods and services based on identity and other local comparative advantages would then increase the social and cultural sustainability of the tourism industry. This is an important finding, in particular for crowded global destinations, either in the Spanish seaside areas or more broadly in the whole Mediterranean region, for example, the top destination in the world receiving more than 280 million of international arrivals in 2018.

In what regard to policy recommendations, results have shown that building on PI to develop tourism destinations could reduce or even rule out some of the negative impacts for residents also increasing their positive perceptions. The social and cultural dimension takes the lead of the tourism development in contrast with traditional findings of the social exchange theory and cost-benefit analysis, where economic gains become the necessary reward that balances the negative impacts brought by tourism growth. Finally, it is important to note that the PI factor is also perceived by the visitors, not only by the local population, reinforcing in this way their current search for authentic experiences while increasing their loyalty. In that sense, culture in a wider sense continues to be a first-order advantage of tourism destinations in the global market.

Footnotes

Table A1.

Indicators of the Empirical Model.

Constructs	Subdimensions	Indicators	Mean	SD
Place identity (PI)	Distinctiveness (DISTI)	DISTI_1: I think the Sierra Minera is an area with very unique characteristics.	5.64	1.35
		DISTI_2: The attractiveness of the Sierra Minera makes it an area very different from other areas that I know.	5.65	1.48
		DISTI_3: The mining landscape makes this area unique.	5.48	1.61
		DISTI_4: In addition to the mining landscape, the situation of the Sierra near the sea makes it a very unique place.	5.64	1.44
		DISTI_5: The Sierra Minera has a unique value for the great variety of minerals that can be found in it.	5.64	1.4
	Self-esteem (SSTMD)	SSTMD_1: When I can, I participate in the activities related to the mining culture.	4.63	1.08
		SSTMD_2: Normally I participate actively in the activities related to the mining culture.	4.49	1.06
		SSTMD_3: I like to participate in cultural activities and festivals that consolidate the mining identity (Cante de las Minas Festival…)	4.70	1.08
		SSTMD_4: I like to improve and enhance the cultural activities associated with the tradition of mining activity and the Sierra Minera.	4.33	1.18
		SSTMD_5: Whenever I can, I participate and help to hold cultural activities related to mining identity.	5.13	1.82
		SSTMD_6: Whenever I can, I participate and help to hold social activities related to mining identity.	5.08	1.68
		SSTMD_7: When someone refers to the Sierra Minera, I have a feeling of pride and personal flattery.	5.09	1.69
		SSTMD_8: Any negative news related to the Sierra disgusts me.	4.87	1.05
		SSTMD_9: I like to live in the surroundings of the Sierra Minera.	5.15	1.03
		SSTMD_10: I feel identified with the mining tradition of the Sierra.	4.07	1.05
		SSTMD_11: I would worry that the traditions associated with mining would be lost.	4.01	1.09
	Continuity (CONTI)	CONTI_1: The Sierra Minera brings back memories of my past life.	5.02	1.06
		CONTI_2: I believe that the character of the residents of La Unión has been forged through the experiences resulting from the mining activity and the peculiarity of the Sierra Minera.	4.55	1.27
		CONTI_3: I feel the mining culture as part of my roots.	4.93	1.24
	Self-efficacy (SEFCCY)	SEFCCY_1: I believe that tourism development is an adequate way to keep the mining tradition alive.	5.21	1.16
		SEFCCY_2: Tourism development helps to preserve mining facilities.	5.30	1.11
		SEFCCY_3: The tourist development of the Sierra Minera makes me hope to find my ideal job in the area.	5.40	1.19
Constructs	Indicators
Sociocultural tourism impacts (SCTI)	SCTI_1: The tourist development of the Sierra Minera makes me hope to find my ideal job in the area.		4.98	1.10
	SCTI_2: The tourist development of the Sierra Minera helps to value the cultural heritage.		4.96	1.15
	SCTI_3: The tourism development of the Sierra Minera helps the youngest to recognize their sense of belonging to a mining community.		4.91	1.16
	SCTI_4: Tourism development helps to eliminate the negative image associated with mining.		4.76	1.23
	SCTI_5: The tourism development of the Sierra Minera will improve the quality of life of La Unión.		4.68	1.23
	SCTI_6: A good integration of the recovered mining resources with the surroundings of the Sierra Minera has been achieved.		4.74	1.21
Environmental tourism impacts (ENTI)	ENTI_1: Tourism development implies destruction of the natural environment.		3.93	1.22
	ENTI_2: Tourism development implies deterioration of mining assets (facilities).		3.05	1.27
	ENTI_3: The tourist development implies inadequate value enhancement of the mining heritage.		3.67	1.28
Economic tourism impacts	ECTI_1: The tourism development of the Sierra Minera implies an improvement in infrastructures (services, transports…).		3.92	1.23
	ECTI_2: The tourism development of the Sierra Minera implies an increase in employment.		3.73	1.24
	ECTI_3: The tourism development of the Minera implies an increase in local businesses.		3.14	1.07
Support for tourism (ST)	ST_1: I would like more tourists to come to La Unión.		5.74	1.16
	ST_2: I would like more abandoned mining facilities to be valued.		5.79	1.13
	ST_3: More investments should be made in the tourism development of the Sierra Minera.		5.76	1.14
	ST_4: Part of the municipal taxes should be used in the tourism development of the Sierra Minera.		5.55	1.13
	ST_5: Part of the benefits of tourism management should be reversed in the enhancement of mining heritage for greater tourism development.		5.75	1.12
	ST_6: The city council (public institutions) should promote more the tourism development of the Sierra Minera.		5.89	1.18
	ST_7: I would like La Unión to become a mining tourist destination.		5.67	1.14
	ST_8: I would like the opportunities offered by the Mining Park and the Sierra Minera to diversify and expand.		5.81	1.10

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Groups of Excellence of the Region of Murcia, Fundación Séneca, Science and Technology Agency, Spain, Project 19884/GERM/15.

ORCID iD

Andrés Artal-Tur

Notes

References

Adger

W. N.

2000. “Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related?” Progress Human Geography 24:347–64.

Alberti

1996. “Measuring Urban Sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16:381–424.

Alector-Ribeiro

Pinto

Albino-Silva

Woosman

K. M.

. 2017. “Resident’s Attitudes and the Adoption of Pro-tourism Behaviour: The Case of Developing Islands Countries.” Tourism Management 61:523–37.

Almeida-García

Peláez-Fernández

M. A.

Balbuena-Vázquez

Cortés-Macías

. 2016. “Resident’s Perception of Tourism Development in Benalmádena (Málaga).” Tourism Management 54:259–74.

Althman

Low

. 1992. Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry. New York: Plenum Press.

Andereck

K. L.

Nyaupane

G. P.

. 2011. “Exploring the Nature of Tourism and Quality of Life Perceptions among Residents.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (3):248–60.

Andereck

K. L.

Valentine

Knopf

R. C.

Vogt

C. A.

. 2005. “Residents’ Perceptions of Community Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4):1056–76.

Andreu

Marin

Vidal

. 1992. “Minería tradicional y aspectos etnográficos en la sierra minera de Cartagena-La Unión.” In Memorias de patrimonio: intervenciones en el patrimonio histórico de la región de Murcia: inmuebles, muebles y etnografía, edited by Caparros

Murcia

M. C.

, 165–83. Murcia, Spain: Editora Regional de Murcia.

Andriotis

Vaughan

R. D.

. 2003. “Urban Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Development: The Case of Crete.” Journal of Travel Research 42 (2):172–85.

10.

Artal-Tur

Kozak

. 2019. Culture and Cultures in Tourism. London, UK: Routledge.

11.

Arup

R. P. A.

2020. “Resilience—Sustainable Cities—Siemens.” Accessed January 4, 2020. http://w3.siemens.com/topics/global/en/sustainablecities/resilience/Pages/home.aspx?stc=wwzcc120526.

12.

Augé

1992. Non-lieux. Introduction a “une anthropologie de la surmodernite.” Paris, France: Editions du Seuil.

13.

Balcar

M. J.

Pearce

D. G.

. 1996. “Heritage Tourism on the West Coast of New Zealand.” Tourism Management 17:203–12.

14.

Bandura

1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

15.

Bauman

2004. Identity: Conversations with Benedetto Vecchi. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

16.

Benítez

Ray

. 2012. “Introducing IT-enabled Business Flexibility and IT Integration in the Acquirer’s M&A Performance Equation. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Information Systems, 1–21. Orlando, FL. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b94/93ea3cb07e730b19422aca5023d784e6ba26.pdf.

17.

Berrocal

. 2006. Carta Arqueológica del Término Municipal de La Unión. Región de Murcia, Spain: Consejería de Cultura.

18.

Berrocal

Miquel

Marin

. 2005. “Patrimonio cultural y Yacimientos de Empleo en la Sierra Minera de Cartagena-La Unión.” In Bocamina. El patrimonio geológico y minero de la Región de Murcia, 145–60. Murcia, Spain: Fundación Sierra Minera.

19.

Besculides

Lee

M. E.

McCormick

P. J.

. 2002. “Residents’ Perceptions of the Cultural Benefits of Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 29 (2):303–19.

20.

Boley

B. B.

McGehee

N. G.

. 2014. “Measuring Empowerment: Developing and Validating the Resident Empowerment through Tourism Scale (RETS).” Tourism Management 45:85–94.

21.

Bott

Cantrill

J. G.

Myers

. 2003. “Place and Promise of Conservatory Psychology.” Human Ecology Review 10 (2):100–12.

22.

Brandt

Ernst

Gralla

Luederitz

Lang

D. J.

Newig

Reinert

Abson

D. J.

von Wehrden

. 2013. “A Review of Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science.” Ecological Economics 92:1–15.

23.

Breakwell

G. M.

1996. Social Psychology of Identity and the Self-concept. Guildford, UK: Surrey University Press.

24.

Bujosa

Rosselló

. 2007. “Modelling Environmental Attitudes toward Tourism.” Tourism Management 28:688–95.

25.

Burch

Robinson

. 2007. “A Framework for Explaining the Links between Capacity and Action in Response to Global Climate Change.” Climate Policy 7:304–16.

26.

Campbell

S. D.

2013. “Sustainable Development and Social Justice: Conflicting Urgencies and the Search for Common Ground in Urban and Regional Planning.” Michigan Journal Sustainability 22:196–202.

27.

Carpenter

S. R.

Westley

Turner

M. G.

. 2005. “Surrogates for Resilience of Social-ecological Systems.” Ecosystems 8:941–44.

28.

Chin

W. W.

2010. “How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses.” In Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, edited by Vinzi

V. E.

Chin

W. W.

Henseler

Wang

, vol. 2, 655–90. New York: Springer.

29.

Choi

H. C.

Murray

. 2010. “Resident Attitudes toward Sustainable Community Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (4):575–94.

30.

Choi

H. C.

Sirakaya

. 2005. “Measuring Residents’ Attitude toward Sustainable Tourism: Development of Sustainable Tourism Attitude Scale.” Journal of Travel Research 43 (4):380–94.

31.

Cohen

1988. “Traditions in the Qualitative Sociology of Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 15:29–46.

32.

Davidson

D. J.

2010. “The Applicability of the Concept of Resilience to Social Systems: Some Sources of Optimism and Nagging Doubts.” Society & Natural Resources 23:1135–49.

33.

Davoudi

2012. “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End?” Planning Theory & Practice 13 (2):299–333.

34.

Dyer

Gursoy

Sharma

Carter

. 2007. “Structural Modeling of Resident Perceptions of Tourism and Associated Development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia.” Tourism Management 28:409–22.

35.

Edwards

J. A.

Llurdés

J. C.

. 1996. “Mines and Quarries: Industrial Heritage Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2):341–63.

36.

Eurostat. 2018. Key Figures on Europe 2018—Statistics Illustrated. Brussels, Belgium: Eurostat.

37.

Folke

Carpenter

Elmqvist

Gunderson

Holling

C. S.

Walker

. 2002. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31 (5):437–40.

38.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50.

39.

Ryan

. 2008. “Place Attachment, Identity and Community Impacts of Tourism—The Case of a Beijing Hutong.” Tourism Management 29:637–47.

40.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

. 2013. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

41.

Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

. 2002. “The Dynamics of Organizational Identity.” Human Relations 55:989–1017.

42.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarsted

. 2015. “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43:115–35.

43.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

. 2009. “The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing.” Advances in International Marketing 20:277–320.

44.

INE Annual Report. 2017. Accessed December 17, 2019. http://www.ine.es/ine/planine/informe_anual_2017.pdf.

45.

INE Population Census. 2011. Madrid, Spain: National Institute of Statistics (INE). https://www.ine.es/en/censos2011_datos/cen11_datos_inicio_en.htm.

46.

Jones

D´Errico

. . 2019. “Whose Resilience Matters? Like-for-like Comparison of Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Resilience.” World Development 124:2–15.

47.

Joo

Chob

Woosnamc

K. M.

. 2019. “Exploring Tourists’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts.” Tourism Management Perspectives 31:231–35.

48.

Jurowski

Gursoy

. 2004. “Distance Effects on Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2):296–312.

49.

Kim

Uysal

Sirgy

N. M.

. 2013. “How Does Tourism in a Community Impact the Quality of Life of Community Residents?” Tourism Management 36:527–40.

50.

Klenk

N. L.

Wyatt

. 2015. “The Design and Management of Multi-stakeholder Research Networks to Maximize Knowledge Mobilization and Innovation Opportunities in the Forest Sector.” Forest Policy and Economics 61:77–86.

51.

Laclau

1996. “The Death and Resurrection of the Theory of Ideology.” Journal of Political Ideologies 1 (3):201–20.

52.

Lewicka

2013. “Supporting Innovation through HRM Practices—Importance of Motivation.” International Journal of Innovation and Learning 14 (2):217–40.

53.

Liang

Z. X.

Hui

T. K.

. 2016. “Residents’ Quality of Life and Attitudes toward Tourism Development in China.” Tourism Management 57:56–67.

54.

Manteca

J. I.

Berrocal

M. C.

. 1997. “Sobre la creación de un parque geo-minero y arqueo-industrial en La Unión como medida de protección y puesta en valor del patrimonio histórico-minero.” II Congreso Empresarial COEC. Desarrollo turístico y económico de la Comarca de Cartagena. Cartagena, Colombia, February 20–21, 181–99.

55.

Manzo

L. C.

2003. “Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationships with Places.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (1):47–61.

56.

Marques-Nunes

Duarte-Pinheiro

Tomé

. 2019. “Does a Review of Urban Resilience Allow for the Support of an Evolutionary Concept?” Journal of Environmental Management 244:423–30.

57.

McGehee

N. G.

2004. “Factors Predicting Rural Residents’ Support of Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research 43:131–40.

58.

McGehee

N. G.

Andereck

. 2008. “Pettin the Critters: Exploring the Complex Relationship between Volunteers and the Voluntoured in McDowell County, West Virginia, USA and Tijuana, Mexico.” In Journeys of Discovery in Volunteer Tourism, edited by Lyons

Wearing

, 12–24. Cambridge, MA: CABI.

59.

McGuire

F. A.

1984. “A Factor Analytic Study of Leisure Constraints in Advanced Adulthood.” Leisure Sciences 6 (3):313–26.

60.

Nunkoo

Gursoy

. 2012. “Residents’ Support for Tourism: An Identity Perspective.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1):243–68.

61.

Palmer

Koenig-Lewis

Jones

. 2013. “The Effects of Residents’ Social Identity and Involvement on their Advocacy of Incoming Tourism.” Tourism Management 38 (1):142–51.

62.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J. M.

. 2014. SmartPLS 3. Hamburg, Germany: SmartPLS.

63.

Rogers

2002. “Which Heritage? Nature, Culture and Identity.” French Historical Studies 25 (3):475–503.

64.

Romero-Lankao

Gnatz

D. M.

Wilhelmi

Hayden

. 2016. “Urban Sustainability and Resilience: From Theory to Practice.” Sustainability 8 (12):1224.

65.

Romero-Lankao

Hughes

Rosas-Huerta

Borquez

Gnatz

. 2013. “Urban Institutional Response Capacity for Climate Change: An Examination of Construction and Pathways in Mexico City and Santiago.” Environmental Planning C 31:785–805.

66.

Ruíz-Ballesteros

Hernández-Ramírez

. 2007. “Identity and Community-reflections on the Development of Mining Heritage Tourism in Southern Spain.” Tourism Management 28:677–87.

67.

Scannell

Gifford

. 2014. “Comparing the Theories of Interpersonal and Place Attachment.” In Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by Scannell

Gifford

, 23–36. London, UK: Routledge.

68.

Sharpley

2014. “Host Perceptions of Tourism: A Review of the Research.” Tourism Management 42:37–49.

69.

Stets

J. E.

Biga

C. F.

. 2003. “Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology.” Sociological Theory 21 (4):398–423.

70.

Stokburger-Sauer

N. E.

2011. “The Relevance of Visitors’ Nation Brand Embeddedness and Personality Congruence for Nation Brand Identification, Visit Intentions and Advocacy.” Tourism Management 32 (6):1282–89.

71.

Stylidis

Biran

Sit

Szivas

E. M.

. 2014. “Residents’ Support for Tourism Development: The Role of Residents’ Place Image and Perceived Tourism Impacts.” Tourism Management 45:260–74.

72.

Turner

J. C.

1982. “Social Identity and Intergroup Relations.” In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, edited by Tajfel

, 15–40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

73.

Twigger-Ross

C. L.

Uzzell

D. L.

. 1996. “Place and Identity Processes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 16:205–20.

74.

Ujang

2010. “Place Attachment and Continuity of Urban Place Identity.” Asian Journal of Environment-Behavior Studies 1 (2):61–76.

75.

UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). 2018. UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2018. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.

76.

UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization). 2019. “Overtourism”? Understanding and Managing Urban Tourism Growth beyond Perceptions Volume 2: Case Studies. Accessed September 14, 2019. http://www2.unwto.org/publication/overtourism-understanding-and-managing-urban-tourism-growth-beyond-perceptions-volume--0.

77.

Uysal

Sirgy

M. J.

Woo

Kim

. 2016. “Quality-of-life (QoL) and Well-being Research in Tourism.” Tourism Management 53:244–61.

78.

Uzzell

D. L.

1995. “Conferring a Sense of Place Identity: The Role of Museums.” The International Journal of Heritage Studies 1:4–12.

79.

Vargas-Sánchez

Plaza-Mejía

M. A.

Porras-Bueno

. 2009. “Understanding Residents’ Attitudes toward the Development of Industrial Tourism in a Former Mining Community.” Journal of Travel Research 47 (3):373–87.

80.

Vargas-Sánchez

Valle

P. O.

Mendes

J. C.

Silva

J. A.

. 2015. “Residents’ Attitude and Level of Destination Development: An International Comparison.” Tourism Management 48:199–210.

81.

Wang

Chen

J. S.

. 2015. “The Influence of Place Identity on Perceived Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research 52:16–28.

82.

Wang

Beauchamp

Jiang

. 2011. “Flock Size and Human Disturbance Affect Vigilance of Endangered Red-crowned Cranes (Grus Japonensis).” Biological Conservation 144 (1):101–05.

83.

Wetzels

Odekerken-Schroder

Oppen

. 2009. “Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration.” MIS Quarterly 33 (1):177–95.