Balance between Hosts and Guests: The Key to Sustainable Tourism in a Heritage City

Citation: Rama, M.; Carral, E.; González-García, S.; Torres-Feijó, E.; del Rio, M.L.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Balance between Hosts and Guests: The Key to Sustainable Tourism in a Heritage City. Sustainability 2022,14, 13253. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142013253 Academic Editor: Kyle Maurice Woosnam Received: 15 August 2022 Accepted: 13 October 2022 Published: 14 October 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Balance between Hosts and Guests: The Key to Sustainable Tourism in a Heritage City Manuel Rama 1, Emilio Carral 2, Sara González-García1, Elías Torres-Feijó3, Maria Luisa del Rio 4, María Teresa Moreira 1and Gumersindo Feijoo 1,* 1CRETUS, Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain 2Galabra Research Group, Functional Biology Department, Ecology Section, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain 3Galabra Research Group, Galician Philology Department, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain 4Galabra Research Group, Business Organization and Marketing Department, Marketing and Market Research Area, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: A sustainable city implies socio-economic characteristics that allow citizens to maintain a certain quality of life. However, the effect of overtourism in some tourist cities negatively affects the community. In this study, a methodology was developed to analyze how tourism affects the way of life of residents in Santiago de Compostela. This work aims to define a set of environmental and socio-economic indicators to assess the impact of tourism activity. To this end, surveys were carried out among the three groups involved in the tourism sector: Citizens, traders, and visitors. Thereby, data were collected from the responses to the surveys conducted. Finally, this set of indicators was aggregated to a sustainability score on a scale of 1 to 10. The results show a sustainability score of 6.84, and the main weak points were the mobility between the residence of citizens and peripheral areas and the change in the offerings by the commerce promoted by tourism. Consequently, this methodology is useful for policy makers when making decisions and proposing actions to foster sustainable tourism. Keywords: sustainable city; integrated tourism; historical heritage; overtourism 1. Introduction The urban population has grown exponentially since 1950, and it is estimated that 60% of the world’s population will reside in cities by 2050 [ 1 ]. Consequently, a large share of natural resources is destined for consumption in cities, being responsible for a large amount of global emissions and waste [ 2 , 3 ]. However, cities contribute about 80% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), being a major driver for the economy [ 3 ]. Consequently, cities can be considered key hotspots for global sustainable development. The Agenda 2030 action plan established by the United Nations in 2015 defined 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030. This action plan, in which all members made a commitment to meet these objectives, contains, among others, a specific goal focused on making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. This goal is SDG number 11 and is titled Sustainable cities and Communities [ 4 ]. This goal implies that policymakers must not only act on the environmental impacts of cities, but also ensure the social and economic well-being of their citizens. Consequently, the main function of a city should be to be able to maintain or improve the quality of life of its residents [5]. City tourism is a sector that has been growing since the 1960s, with an increase in travel to cities of 82% between 2007 and 2014 [ 6 ]. In Spain, the tourism sector contributed Sustainability 2022,14, 13253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013253 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 2 of 18 approximately 12% to its GDP, being one of the most important sectors [ 7 ]. The arrival of tourism in a city can be beneficial both socially and economically (increase in services and supply, economic growth of the city, etc.), but in excess, it can also be one of the driving factors that can affect the quality of life of its citizens [ 8 – 10 ]. Therefore, some researchers have studied the consequences of overtourism in cities, and how it affects the lives of their residents. Overtourism is a problem that affects several European cities such as Barcelona, Seville, or Venice [ 11 ]. The way in which this phenomenon can affect the quality of life in a city can be evidenced in several ways. For example, in Venice, the massive use of boats in the canals damages the stability of the city’s buildings [ 12 ]. In Seville, the concentration of tourism in its old city displaces citizens to other areas [ 13 ]. In addition, excessive tourism creates feelings of rejection among citizens in relation to visitors [ 9 , 10 , 14 ]. Moreover, in economic terms, cities with a large tourist flow with a strong economic dependence on tourism may have major economic problems when external factors cause tourism to fall such as the economic crisis or the recent pandemic caused by COVID-19 [ 15 , 16 ]. Additionally, overtourism can also indirectly contribute to local environmental impacts due to increased waste from overconsumption [ 17 ], such as waste related to the agro-industrial sector [18]. The evaluation of the impact of tourism in cities through indicators has been used to determine how the city and citizens are affected by tourism and provide information to design sustainable tourism strategies and avoid overtourism [ 8 , 19 – 22 ]. The dynamics followed in this type of work were used to determine a series of indicators and obtain the corresponding information through specifically designed surveys. Thereby, a literature review of articles using this type of survey to analyze tourism within specific cities was conducted. Previous works have highlighted residents’ perceptions of tourism activities [ 8 , 20 ]. Emotional solidarity aims to explain residents’ attitudes towards tourism in different contexts [ 23 , 24 ] and how indicators beyond the attractions and facilities offered in a given context can determine the tourist attractiveness of an area [ 19 , 25 ]. It is also interesting to take into account the role of other stakeholders such as the resource administration as detailed by Tsaur et al. [ 22 ]. However, there are few studies in the literature that evaluate the impact of tourism considering an integrated perspective of the visitors and residents in the same study [26,27]. For this reason, this article proposes a methodology to determine how tourism affects the way of life of the citizens of Santiago de Compostela (one of the most important touristic cities in Spain, which is the destination of the St. James Way), taking into consideration the perspective of both visitors and residents. Therefore, this article seeks an answer to these questions: Does tourism have any impact on Santiago de Compostela? What are the potential impacts of tourism on the city? On this basis, a methodology was developed that was based on the use of multiple socioeconomic indicators selected from a specific survey of three population groups involved: Citizens, traders, and tourists. The main novelty of this study was that, for the first time, the behavior of these interrelated actors was integrated to determine the impact and consequences of tourism in this historical city. Moreover, this methodology could be applied to other cities with similar characteristics (growing tourism, the relevance of its historical area, etc.) to assess the impact of tourism on the well-being of its residents. On the other hand, it could also provide policy makers with valuable information that would be useful for proposing actions towards more integrated and sustainable tourism. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Case Study Santiago de Compostela is a city located in the region of Galicia (NW Spain) (Figure 1). According to the number of inhabitants, Santiago de Compostela is the fifth most populated city in Galicia with 97,260 inhabitants registered in 2019 [ 28 ]. It is the Galician city with the highest GDP per inhabitant with 37,508 € per capita in 2018, and the service sector is the largest contributor to its economy with more than 80% [ 29 ]. The large flow of tourists visiting the city is behind these figures and highlights the important role that tourism plays Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 3 of 18 in the local economy. Figure 1represents the boundaries of the municipality composed of the rural area and the city, which is distributed in three subareas: Old Town (Historical Center), Industrial, and Residential areas. Figure 1. Location of Santiago de Compostela in Spain and distribution of the different areas of the municipality. Three main reasons support the growing tourism in the city: First, the city was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1985. Secondly, it is a historic university city with one of the oldest universities in Spain (founded in 1495), which contributes to the mobility of students and researchers and, consequently, to the celebration of congresses and different related businesses. Finally, Santiago de Compostela is the final destination of the St. James Way, one of the most important pilgrimage routes in Europe [30]. Since 1993, the regional government has promoted the St. James Way as a tourist destination, considerably increasing the arrival of pilgrims, especially in the Holy Year or “Xacobeo” (celebrated the year when July 25th is Sunday). Thus, while the number of pilgrims in the “Xacobeo” year of 1993 was 99,436, the figure rose to 327,378 in 2018 (which was not a “Xacobeo” year). In addition, not only did the arrival of pilgrims to the city increase, but also the number of tourists visiting the city increased, reaching a peak of 842,895 visitors in 2017 (68% more than in 2005) [31]. Considering this economic growth in the tourism sector, proportional growth in the size of the city could be expected. However, while other Galician cities with a similar size compared to Santiago de Compostela, such as Lugo and Pontevedra, grew in population size by 13% and 12%, respectively, in the period between 1998 and 2018, the population of Santiago de Compostela only grew by 3% in the same period [ 28 ]. However, this growth was evident in some municipalities bordering the city such as Oroso, Teo, and Ames, which increased their population by 57%, 33%, and 120%, respectively, indicating that their population more than doubled in the period between 1998 and 2018 [ 28 ]. Thus, from these data, some questions arise in this regard: Why do citizens prefer to reside in peripheral cities? Is tourism related to this mobilization of citizens? Thus, the starting hypothesis was that the tourist pressure on the city is affecting the lifestyle of its citizens. Therefore, the main objective of this work was to determine to what extent this pressure affects the lifestyle of citizens and how to obtain relevant information when planning integrated and sustainable tourism strategies. Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 4 of 18 2.2. Indicators Selection The starting point of the present study was the elaboration of three specific surveys performed by the Galabra Research Group to the three most potential collectives directly related to tourism: Citizens, traders, and visitors. The number of people surveyed was 929 citizens, 46% of whom were men and 54% women, with approximately 60% between the ages of 30 and 64. In the case of visitors, 2081 people were interviewed, of which 56% were women and 44% were men, and 64% were between 30 and 64 years of age. With respect to the traders, data on sex and age were not considered, and a total of 410 people were interviewed. These surveys were part of the project led by the Galabra Research Group “Speeches, images and cultural practices about Santiago de Compostela as the goal of the Caminos” and “Narratives, Uses and Consumptions by Visitors as Allies or Menaces for the Community Well- Being: The Case of Santiago de Compostela” [ 32 ]. The aim of the questionnaires was to obtain information about the discourses, images, and referenced practices of traders, residents, and visitors. Thus, the socio-economic indicators used in this study were selected from the questions posed. Consequently, a two-stage selection method was used to identify the questions that contained the information necessary for the purpose of this work. To carry out this screening, the opinion of different experts with backgrounds in various research areas such as environmental engineering, philology, biology, and economics was taken into account. First, the questions were classified according to the information contained considering the approach from a sustainable city and integrated tourism. Information such as i) the socioeconomic situation of residents and visitors, ii) the use that citizens make of the different areas of the city, iii) the social commitment of residents, and iv) the economic relationship between residents, tourism, and the city’s services and offers were established as reference frameworks [ 8 , 33 ]. In this way, all questions containing information within these defined frameworks were selected in this first step. Nevertheless, most of these questions contained qualitative information. Thus, and with the objective of obtaining quantitative data from these questions, it was necessary to classify the answers to each question into different categories and give each of them a numerical value [ 34 ]. However, some of the questions selected in the previous stage cannot be directly quantified. For this reason, a second screening stage was carried out in which questions that could not be quantified or categorized and scaled were discarded Finally, the number of questions selected was 19, 19, and 13 for the groups of citizens, traders, and visitors, respectively. These selected questions were renamed to be transformed into indicators as shown in Table 1. To simplify reading and comprehension, each indicator was coded with the letters C, T, or V, depending on whether citizens, traders, or visitors are involved, and a number. Table S1 of the Supplementary Material shows the indicators and the preceding questions. Table 1. Indicators selected from Rede Galabra questions and their description. Cod. Indicator Description Citizens C1 Level of education Educational level of citizens C2 Municipality of residence Residence in the city, in the metropolitan area or in a more distant location C3 Residence within the city How far from the city center you live C4 Family income level Household income level according to high or low income C5 Employment Situation Employment situation: Worker, unemployed, student, etc. C6 Leisure places Areas frequented during leisure time C7 Affective areas Places that have affection for citizens C8 Coincidence in significant places Citizen’s perception of the coincidence of the most affective areas C9 Alternative tourist elements Citizens believe if there are elements that should be part of the image of the city C10 City use time Years that a citizen has been using the city daily Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 5 of 18 Table 1. Cont. Cod. Indicator Description Citizens C11 Shopping establishments Types of favorite establishments C12 Shopping Site Place where purchases are made with respect to the district of residence C13 Use of the historic area Part of the daily life of the citizens takes place in the historic area C14 Place attachment How a citizen perceives his/her belonging to the city C15 Community participation Participate actively within the community (Neighborhood Association, municipal policy, charity, etc.) C16 Economic dependence on tourism Degree of economic dependence on tourism C17 Tourist image of the city How much is in accordance with the image of the city C18 Citizen lifestyle How much tourism affects the way of life of citizens C19 City evolution Opinion on whether citizens prefer the city in the early 1990s, when there were few tourists, or today Traders T1 Level of education Educational level of traders T2 Municipality of residence Residence in the city, in the metropolitan area or in a more distant location T3 Employment situation Employment situation: Worker, unemployed, student, etc. T4 Family income level Household income level according to high or low income T5 Offering evolution Whether or not the commercial and economic offer improved with the increase in tourism T6 Perception of changes in the offer How much the offer changes due to tourism T7 Perception of changes in the offer (other establishments) How much the offer changes due to tourism in other establishments T8 Customers in the early 1990s Type of customers that frequented the business in the early 1990s T9 Customers at present Type of customers that frequented the business at present T10 Difference in most demanded products Visitors and citizens do or do not consume different types of products T11 Evolution in most demanded products The most demanded products changed with the increase in tourism or not T12 Community participation Participate actively within the community (Neighborhood Association, municipal policy, charity, etc.) T13 Place attachment How a trader identifies who belongs to the city T14 Income from tourism Percentage of income from tourism at present T15 Income from tourism (early 1990s) Percentage of income from tourism in the early 1990s T16 Economic dependence on tourism Degree of economic dependence on tourism T17 Tourist image of the city How much is in accordance with the image of the city T18 Type of visitor How much do you like the type of visitor who comes to city T19 Camino de Santiago as Public Image How much is the Camino de Santiago part of the identity of the city Visitors V1 Level of education Educational level of visitors V2 Employment Situation Employment situation: Worker, unemployed, student, etc. V3 Family income level Household income level according to high or low income V4 Transport used Means of transport used V5 Satisfaction with the visit How satisfied are you with the visit? V6 Discovered activities Activities and places that surprised the visit V7 Places to plan to eat and drink Places where visitors eat and drink V8 Expenditures on food products Consumption of local gastronomic products V9 Shopping in the city Do visitors make purchases? V10 Shopping places Places where visitors shopping V11 Accommodation in the city Visitors stay in or out of town V12 Spending on visit Spending on leisure and transport/ accommodation V13 Total spending per person Total spending per person on the trip 2.3. Sustainability Score Calculation The objective of this study was to determine a sustainability score for Santiago de Compostela in relation to its tourism situation. This sustainability score, which reflects the degree of sustainability of tourism and its relationship with residents and traders, was calculated from the selected indicators. The score takes values on a scale of 0 to 10. Thus, a high score should mean that the relationship of citizens and traders with tourism was Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 6 of 18 good, so that visitors should be integrated without harming the quality of life of residents. Figure 2shows schematically how this sustainability score was calculated, which consisted of several steps. First, the different indicators were categorized and scaled by transforming the qualitative values (i.e., the answers to the questions to which each indicator corresponds) into numerical ones. Second, the indicator values within the same group (i.e., citizens, traders, or visitors) were summed to assign a score to each of the groups. Finally, the sustainability score of the city was the result of the weighted average of the scores of the groups. These steps are explained in more detail below. Figure 2. Scheme of the methodology used to calculate an Integrated Tourism Score of Santiago de Compostela. 2.3.1. Categorization and Scaling of Indicators The information provided by the indicators was mostly qualitative, as mentioned above. Following the method described by Guttman [ 34 ], it was possible to scale the qualitative data. Therefore, to obtain quantitative values for these selected indicators, the responses for each indicator were grouped into different categories. Therefore, for each indicator, a certain number of categories were identified based on how the responses were grouped. The minimum number of categories identified in an indicator was two, corresponding to indicators with binary responses such as “Yes” or “No”. On the other hand, the maximum number of categories identified was 8. In the case of indicators with two categories, a score of 1 was assigned to one of the categories and q score of 10 to the other. For indicators where more than two categories were identified, the values assigned to each category were calculated according to equation 1 [34]: Y=X+(Max −Min) (n−1)(1) where Yis the value of the category, Xis the value of the lower category, Max is the maximum value of the scale (i.e., 10), Min is the minimum value of the scale (i.e., 1), and nis the number of categories identified in that indicator. For example, for an indicator in which 4 categories were identified (n= 4), Category 1 was assigned the lowest value on Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 7 of 18 the scale (1), then the value of Category 2 was calculated considering the value of X(lower Category value) corresponding with the Category 1 value (1), and therefore the Category 2 value was: Category 2 =1+(10 −1) (4−1)=4 (2) Thus, depending on the number of categories that were identified in each indicator, the value of each category was assigned. Table 2shows the values of all the categories according to the number of categories identified according to the indicator. Table 2. Relation between the number of categories and the values assigned to each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. Number of Categories Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 Category 8 2 1.0 10.0 3 1.0 5.5 10.0 4 1.0 4.0 7.0 10.0 5 1.0 3.3 5.5 7.9 10.0 6 1.0 2.8 4.6 6.4 8.2 10.0 7 1.0 2.5 4.0 5.5 7.0 8.5 10.0 8 1.0 2.3 3.6 4.9 6.1 7.4 9.7 10.0 The assignment of values to each category was based on whether the responses within a category were in line with the social, economic, and environmental principles of sustainability [ 35 ]. Therefore, the highest values were assigned to categories implying tourism that does not negatively influence the quality of life of residents [ 8 ], the economic offering of the city does not vary [ 36 ], and tourists use low-emission transport and consume local products [ 37 ]. Regarding the citizens and traders, the highest category values were assigned to those who have a high educational level, a high economic level, reside in the city (near the areas with greater tourist pressure), their economy does not depend on tourism, their purchases are made in the nearest local stores, their place attachment and their use of the areas are those with greater tourist pressure, and their social commitment to the city is high [33]. For example, if the question is “Where in the city do you shop?”, the category with the highest score (10) was the one that considers the closest establishments, since, from an environmental approach, it considerably reduces the emission of greenhouse gases (quantified as Carbon Footprint), which is linked to the distance between the home and the store [ 38 ]. In this sense, in some indicators, the Carbon Footprint was also considered as a criterion to assign values to the categories, considering that it is a widely used environmental parameter and to which society is sensitized. Once the responses to each question were categorized, all the indicators were scaled according to the number of responses, classified in each category, and received the value assigned to that category as shown in Equation (2) [34] Ij= n ∑ i=2 Ci· Ri TRj (3) where I j is the Indicator j(C1–C19, T1–T19, or V1–V13 in the case of citizens, traders, or visitors, respectively), nis the total number of categories in I j ,C i is a category identified within the indicator I j ,R i is the number of responses classified within C i , and TR j is the number of responses considered valid in I j . In all indicators, some of the responses were not accounted for because they could not be classified within the categories. These responses correspond with answers such as “do not know” and “no answer”. Accordingly, each indicator Ijwas quantified, obtaining a value on a scale between 1 and 10. Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 8 of 18 2.3.2. Aggregation The aggregation method allowed us to first calculate the scores of each population group (citizens, traders, and visitors), and then from these scores, estimate the sustainability score of the city. To do so, it was necessary to define the specific aggregation method and the weight of each indicator [ 39 ]. In the present study, the arithmetic mean of the value of the selected indicators for each separate group was considered as the aggregation method, and equal weight was attributed to all indicators. Thus, to calculate the scores for each group, the indicators belonging to each of the groups were first aggregated into Level 1 composite indicators (level 1 CI), and then these were aggregated into Level 2 composite indicators (level 2 CI). These composite indicators were defined taking into account the relationship of some of the indicators to each other and the information that each indicator contains. Table 3shows which Level 1 CI and Level 2 CI were defined for each of the population groups. Table 3. Level 1 composite indicators and level 2 composite indicators of the corresponding groups considered. Level 1 Composite Indicators Level 2 Composite Indicators Citizens Home Personal Characteristics Incomes Affective area Use of the city City Shopping Social Commitment Affinity for visitors Tourism Traders Incomes Personal Characteristics Offering evolution Customers and products Customers Products Social Commitment Economy from tourism Tourism Affinity for visitors Visitors Incomes Personal Characteristics Visit Gastronomic products Leisure Products Expenses In addition, Figure 3shows how the indicators were grouped into these composite indicators. All indicators were part of Level 2 CI, which was more generic. However, not all the indicators were grouped into Level 1 CI because they were not sufficiently related to be grouped. For example, C16, C17, C18, and C19 were grouped within the Level 2 composite indicator “Tourism” since all of these are related to the link between tourism and citizens; however, C17, C18, and C19 are related to the image perceived by citizens of tourism while C16 is related to an economic aspect. For this reason, C17, C18, and C19 were grouped in the Level 1 composite indicator “Affinity for visitors”, which, together with C16, were part of the “Tourism” level 2 composite indicator. In this way, some indicators were added directly to the Level 2 CI, as they were not grouped into the Level 1 CI. These were, within the group of citizens, C1, C6, C10, C13, C14, C15, and C16; in the group of traders, T1, T2, T12, and T13; and in the group of visitors, V1, V4, V5, V6, and V11. Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 9 of 18 Figure 3. Aggregation of the indicators into their respective composite indicators for each group: Citizens, merchants, and visitors. Hence, the values of the Level 1 CI were calculated as the arithmetic mean of those from the corresponding indicators within each composite indicator. Values of the Level 2 CI were calculated as the arithmetic means of those indicators and the level 1 CI, which were grouped in each level 2 CI. Thus, both the Level 1 CI and Level 2 CI obtained values between 1 and 10. Accordingly, the scores of each population group were calculated as the average value of the Level 2 CI. Finally, the sustainability score for the city of Santiago de Compostela was calculated as the average of the scores that each group obtained. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Scaling and Categorization As explained previously in the Material and Methods section, all the responses obtained for each question or indicator were classified into different categories. Table 4shows the categories considered for each indicator. The values of each category corresponded to those stated in Table 2according to the number of categories for each indicator. The Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 16 of 18 4. Conclusions Tourism in Santiago de Compostela has markedly increased in the last thirty years. In addition, the Old Town and the cathedral of the city are the main tourist attraction, making it the area with the greatest tourist pressure. This study presents the development of a methodology based on a series of indicators to determine the impact that this growth in tourism has on the three groups involved: Citizens, traders, and visitors. The final result obtained on a scale of 1 to 10 was 6.84, which indicates that despite not being a bad value, tourism’s relationship with city residents can be considerably improved. Considering the values obtained for the indicators, this study concluded that the way of life of the citizens was altered significantly due to tourism. One of the main consequences was the displacement of the citizens’ residences to more peripheral places of the city, moving away from the Historical Center. Another is the change in the places of leisure, where the use of green areas increased as the use of the Historical Area decreased. In addition, commerce varied the offerings available for tourism, casting the demand of residents aside. However, despite this, visitor expenditure was low in relation to the regional average expenditure per visitor. Thus, the variation in this supply was detrimental to residents and unattractive to visitors. Some possible solutions to better integrate tourism in the city could be to dilute the pressure of the Old Town and enhance tourism in the different neighborhoods of Santiago de Compostela. In addition, the range of products on offer (poor gastronomic examples) should be expanded, and the advertising of the products offered by the city should be improved to encourage consumption and increase visitor spending. Accordingly, local and regional governance could improve the reach and impact of the online advertising of Galician products, which could be a good way to publicize more products and broaden the range of offerings. This paper analyzes the impact of tourism in Santiago de Compostela, but the methodology used can be applied to other cities on St. James Way or other cities with important historical areas with similar characteristics. Moreover, it can be applied by updating the data so that the trends adopted by the indicators over time can be observed. Therefore, this work may be of interest to policy makers, as it provides useful information to design strategies for more integrated and sustainable tourism in the future. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142013253/s1, Table S1: Equivalence between questions in the Rede Galabra questionnaire and the indicators used; Table S2: Scores calculated for the indicators. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.R., E.C., S.G.-G., E.T.-F., M.L.d.R., and G.F.; methodology, M.R.; validation, M.R., E.C., S.G.-G., E.T.-F., M.L.d.R., and G.F; formal analysis, M.R., S.G.-G., and G.F.; investigation, M.R., E.C., S.G.-G., E.T.-F., and M.L.d.R.; resources, E.C., E.T.-F., and M.L.d.R.; data curation, M.R., E.C., S.G.-G., E.T.-F., M.L.d.R., and G.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R., S.G.-G., M.T.M.; M.R., E.C., S.G.-G., E.T.-F., M.L.d.R., M.T.M., and G.F; visualization, M.R. and G.F.; supervision, M.R., E.C., S.G.-G., E.T.-F., M.L.d.R., and G.F.; funding acquisition, S.G.-G., E.T.-F., and M.T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was partially supported by two projects granted by the Spanish Government and FEDER/Ministry of Science and Innovation and Universities—Spanish National Research Agency CTQ2016-75136-P and FFI2017-88196-R. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the total anonymity of the surveys carried out. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: S.G.-G. would like to express her gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for financial support (Grant reference RYC-2014-14984). The authors M.R., S.G-G, M.T.M., and G.F. belong to CRETUS and the authors E.C. and E.J.T.F. belong to the Galician Potential Growth Research Group ED431B 2020/40. All these programs are co-funded by FEDER (EU). Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 17 of 18 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Steffen, W.; Broadgate, W.; Deutsch, L.; Gaffney, O.; Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the anthropocene: The great acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2015,2, 81–98. [CrossRef] 2. Chrysoulakis, N.; Lopes, M.; San José, R.; Grimmond, C.S.B.; Jones, M.B.; Magliulo, V.; Klostermann, J.E.M.; Synnefa, A.; Mitraka, Z.; Castro, E.A.; et al. Sustainable urban metabolism as a link between bio-physical sciences and urban planning: The BRIDGE project. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013,112, 100–117. [CrossRef] 3. The World Bank. Available online: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview (accessed on 15 July 2022). 4. United Nations. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 15 July 2022). 5. Marans, R.W. Quality of urban life & environmental sustainability studies: Future linkage opportunities. Habitat Int. 2015 ,45, 47–52. 6. Postma, A.; Buda, D.M.; Gugerell, K. The future of city tourism. J. Tour. Futures 2017,3, 95–101. [CrossRef] 7. OCDE Data. Available online: https://data.oecd.org/industry/tourism-gdp.htm (accessed on 15 July 2022). 8. Biagi, B.; Ladu, M.G.; Meleddu, M.; Royuela, V. Tourism and the city: The impact on residents’ quality of life. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2020,22, 168–181. [CrossRef] 9. López Pena, Z.; Samartim, R.; Bello Vázquez, R.; Pazos-Justo, C.; Iriarte Sanromán, Á.; Sotelo Docío, S. Visitar, Comerciar e Habitar a Cidade. Desenvolvemento do Proxecto Expositivo e Participación Social en Santiago de Compostela; Andavira: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2020. 10. Torres Feijó, E.; del Rio Araujo, M.L.; Carral, E.V.; Rodríguez Prado, M.F.; Pichel Iglesias, I. A Cidade, o Camiño e nós. Desenvolvemento do Proxecto Expositivo e Participación Social en Santiago de Compostela; Andavira: Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2020. 11. Claudio, M.; Joseph, M.C.; Marina, N. Overtourism: A Growing Global Problem. The Conversation España 2018. Available online: https://theconversation.com/overtourism-a-growing-global-problem-100029 (accessed on 15 July 2022). 12. Trancoso González, A. Venice: The problem of overtourism and the impact of cruises. Investig. Reg. 2018,42, 35–51. 13. Diaz-Parra, I.; Jover, J. Overtourism, place alienation and the right to the city: Insights from the historic centre of Seville, Spain. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021,29, 158–175. [CrossRef] 14. Ramos, S.P.; Mundet, L. Tourism-phobia in Barcelona: Dismantling discursive strategies and power games in the construction of a sustainable tourist city. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020,19(1), 113–131. [CrossRef] 15. Cristiano, S.; Gonella, F. ‘Kill Venice’: A systems thinking conceptualisation of urban life, economy, and resilience in tourist cities. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2020,7, 1–13. [CrossRef] 16. Ortega, B.; Sanjuán, J. A measure of the economic dependence of countries on tourism. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tourism and Business, Lucerne, Switzerland, 25–27 August 2022; pp. 1–3. 17. Moonga, M.S.; Namafe, C.; Chileshe, B. Sustainability model for integrating green concepts and practices into the curricula of tourism and hospitatily training institutions in Zambia. Int. J. Res. Sci. Innov. Appl. Sci. 2022,6, 709–715. 18. Iglesias-Iglesias, R.; Fernandez-Feal, M.C.; Kennes, C.; Veiga, M.C. Valorization of agro-industrial wastes to produce volatile fatty acids: Combined effect of substrate/inoculum ratio and initial alkalinity. Environ. Technol. 2021 ,42, 3889–3899. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 19. Choi, W.M.; Chan, A.; Wu, J. A qualitative and quantitative assessment of Hong Kong’s image as a tourist destination. Tour. Manag. 1999,20, 361–365. [CrossRef] 20. Stylidis, D.; Biran, A.; Sit, J.; Szivas, E.M. Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tour. Manag. 2014,45, 260–274. [CrossRef] 21. Özgit, H.; Akanyeti, I. Environmental regulations versus sustainable tourism indicators: A pathway to sustainable development. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2022,14, 393–402. [CrossRef] 22. Tsaur, S.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Lin, J.H. Evaluating ecotourism sustainability from the integrated perspective of resource, community and tourism. Tour. Manag. 2006,27, 640–653. [CrossRef] 23. Woosnam, K.M. Using emotional solidarity to explain residents’ attitudes about tourism and tourism development. J. Travel Res. 2021,51, 315–327. [CrossRef] 24. Ribeiro, M.A.; Pinto, P.; Silva, J.A.; Woosnam, K.M. Residents’ attitudes and the adoption of pro-tourism behaviours: The case of developing island countries. Tour. Manag. 2017,61, 523–537. [CrossRef] 25. Vengesayi, S.; Mavondo, F.T.; Reisinger, Y. Tourism destination attractiveness: Attractions, facilities, and people as predictors. Tour. Anal. 2009,14, 621–636. [CrossRef] 26. Campos Herrero, C.; Laso, J.; Cristóbal, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Albertí, J.; Fullana, M.; Herrero, A.; Margallo, M.; Aldaco, R. Tourism under a life cycle thinking approach: A review of perspectives and new challenges for the tourism sector in the last decades. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,845, 157261. [CrossRef] 27. Ribeiro, M.A.; Woosnam, K.M.; Pinto, P.; Silva, J.A. Tourists’ destination loyalty through emotional solidarity with redents: An integrative moderated mediation model. J. Travel Res. 2018,57, 279–295. 28. Galician Institute of Statistics. Municipal Population Census. Statistical Exploitation. 1998–2021. Available online: http: //www.ige.eu/web/mostrar_actividade_estatistica.jsp?idioma=gl&codigo=0201001002 (accessed on 15 July 2022). Sustainability 2022,14, 13253 18 of 18 29. Galician Institute of Statistics. Municipal Gross Domestic Product. Statistical Review 2019. Available online: https://www.ige. eu/web/mostrar_actividade_estatistica.jsp?idioma=gl&codigo=0307007007 (accessed on 19 July 2022). 30. Lopez, L.; Pazos Otón, M.; Piñeiro Antelo, M.A. Is there overtourism in Santiago de Compostela? Contributions for an ongoing debate. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2019,83, 1–48. 31. Galicia Institute of Statistics. Travelers, Nights and Average Stay in Hotel Establishments by Tourist Points-Municipalities. Monthly Data. Available online: http://www.ige.eu/web/mostrar_actividade_estatistica.jsp?codigo=0305002&idioma=es (accessed on 19 July 2022). 32. Rede Galabra. Impacts of the Camino on the Local Community of Santiago de Compostela. Available online: https://redegalabra. org/impactos-caminho-comunidade-local-santiago-compostela/ (accessed on 15 August 2022). 33. Tournois, L.; Rollero, C. “Should I stay or should I go?” Exploring the influence of individual factors on attachment, identity and commitment in a post-socialist city. Cities 2020,102, 102740. [CrossRef] 34. Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. Am. Sociol. 1944,9, 139–150. [CrossRef] 35. Feleki, E.; Vlachokostas, C.; Moussiopoulos, N. Characterisation of sustainability in urban areas: An analysis of assessment tools with emphasis on European cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018,43, 563–577. [CrossRef] 36. Barata-Salgueiro, T.; Guimarães, P. Public policy for sustainability and retail resilience in Lisbon city center. Sustainability 2020 ,12, 9433. [CrossRef] 37. Gössling, S.; Garrod, B.; Aall, C.; Hille, J.; Peeters, P. Food management in tourism: Reducing tourism’s carbon “foodprint". Tour. Manag. 2011,32, 534–543. [CrossRef] 38. Shahmohammadi, S.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Tambjerg, L.; Van Loon, P.; King, J.M.H.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Comparative greenhouse gas footprinting of online versus traditional shopping for fast-moving consumer goods: A stochastic approach. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,54, 3499–3509. [CrossRef] 39. Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S.; Hoffman, A.; Giovannini, E. Handbook of Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2008. 40. Egger, S. Determining a sustainable city model. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006,21, 1235–1246. [CrossRef] 41. González-García, S.; Rama, M.; Cortés, A.; García-Guaita, F.; Núñez, A.; Louro, L.G.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Embedding environmental, economic and social indicators in the evaluation of the sustainability of the municipalities of Galicia (northwest of Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 2019,234, 27–42. [CrossRef] 42. Handy, S.L.; Clifton, K.J. Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 2001 ,28, 317–346. [CrossRef] 43. Carral, E.V.; Del Río, M.; López, Z. Gastronomy and tourism: Socioeconomic and territorial implications in Santiago de Compostela-galiza (NW Spain). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 6173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Lenzen, M.; Sun, Y.Y.; Faturay, F.; Ting, Y.P.; Geschke, A.; Malik, A. The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018 , 8, 522–528. [CrossRef] 45. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Spurr, R.; Hoque, S. Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010 ,18, 355–376. [CrossRef] 46. Rico, A.; Martínez-Blanco, J.; Montlleó, M.; Rodríguez, G.; Tavares, N.; Arias, A.; Oliver-Solà, J. Carbon footprint of tourism in Barcelona. Tour. Manag. 2019,70, 491–504. [CrossRef] 47. Sharp, H.; Grundius, J.; Heinonen, J. Carbon footprint of inbound tourism to Iceland: A consumption-based life-cycle assessment including direct and indirect emissions. Sustainability 2016,8, 1147. [CrossRef] 48. Becken, S. The Carbon Footprint of Domestic Tourism; LEaP Research Centre: Wellington, New Zealand, 2009.