Exploring mass tourism impacts on locals: A comparative analysis between Barcelona and Sevilla

Mass tourism is growing uncontrolled in many destinations worldwide. Negative impacts emerge from it, transforming the city and influencing on locals’ lifestyle and well-being. However, debates and contradictions emerge on the real impact on communities. From that, a deeper analysis of this issue is needed to understand how people perceive tourism and its effects. A quantitative study was conducted in two mature destinations in Spain: Barcelona and Sevilla. One of the major findings from this research is the importance of locals’ support to manage tourism. Practical and managerial implications are suggested in order to promote more sustainable and participative development of destinations.


Introduction
The tourism sector continues strong growth and seems it will not stop. According to UNWTO (2019), there were 1.4 billion international tourist's arrivals worldwide in 2018. Tourism, as one of the principal economic activities, has equal or superior business volume than food or the car industry. When looking for reasons to explain this phenomenon, it is necessary to analyze the increasing economic and cultural globalization, which has transformed the tourism sector (Bramwell & Lane, 1993;Mowforth & Munt, 2003;Theng, et al., 2015;Sharpley & Harrison, 2017). Indeed, the democratization of travels, the development of information technologies and the free movement of resources, people and goods (Čerović et al., 2015) have changed the way tourists behave before, during and after their trips.
However, negative consequences also arise from globalization and tourism. Barcelona, Venice, Berlin, Palma de Mallorca, Amsterdam or Paris are just some examples of cities affected by mass tourism and overtourism. Thus, the number of tourists sometimes is not synonymous of success. As researchers explain, many destinations worldwide are worries about these issues (Colomb & Novy, 2016;Harvey, 2001;Sorkin, 1992;Zukin, 1995). Regarding Spain, 82.8 million international tourists visited the country in 2018 (INE, 2019), positioning it as one of the most popular destination worldwide in tourism rankings. Nevertheless, Spain is not an exception regarding the negative impacts of overtourism. Cities like Barcelona or Sevilla face problems that come up from mass tourists and solutions are urgent. Although in the last years a great number of tourists is looking for new, experiential (Pine & Gilmore, 1999) and sustainable forms of tourism, away from famous places and from other tourists (Hyde & Lawson, 2003;Mowforth & Munt, 2003), many destinations are still increasingly struggling with problems such as gentrification or commodification (Sorkin, 1992;Colomb & Novy, 2016).
Discussions on the implications of tourism for destinations have more than 40 years and it is still a hot topic. Debates about the effects of overcrowding start from 1975 (Doxey) to the last ones in 2018 (Koens et al 2018or Andriotis, 2018. Governments or private sector, researchers or professionals, residents or tourists, each stakeholder can have an opinion on it. In general, research on these issues has widely considered both sides: positive and negatives on the phenomenon. However, it is still a deeper analysis of how people perceive both sides of the same coin is necessary. Synergies between antagonistic perspectives when analysing the phenomenon are needed as conflicts on local communities keep coming up without clear answers. On the one hand, tourism can be considered as a global force capable of promoting innovation, peace and development. On the other hand, the tourism industry can be perceived as a machine that reproduces the capitalist and neoliberalism principles (Lapointe, Sarrasin, Benjamin, 2018). Literature explains how tourism has a capitalistic nature in production, consumption and expansion (Britton, 1991), being mass consume, overproduction, over-accumulation and unsustainability inherent consequences of the tourism activity (Fletcher, 2011). This paper explores local's perceptions on the impacts of tourism in a mature destination such as Barcelona and Sevilla. The research is to understand how sustainable long-term development is possible, bearing in mind community-centricity: including locals on destination planning and managing and adapting the offer to more personalized and unique tourism experiences.

Literature review The Phenomenon of Mass Tourism
The phenomenon of mass tourism started in the mid-twentieth century and was very popular until about two decades ago. Many destinations worldwide are massive destinations. When analysing the lifecycle of a destination (Butler, 1980(Butler, , 2006, the growing of the curve at the beginning of the lifecycle of a destination is exciting for everyone. Local governments and private sector focus on growth and only positive consequences of the increase in the number of tourists appear in the collective consciousness. Society does not consider tourism as a threat in those early stages. Analysing resident's attitude by the Doxey Index (1975), euphoria and excitement are common feelings. Mass tourism can be considered as a fast way to increase revenues and promote destinations, a powerful tool for easy development.
However, the (high) number of tourists visiting a certain area also defines mass tourism. Many years may pass until uncontrolled growth provokes ruinous consequences and positive impacts of tourist activity are imperceptible. When carrying capacity levels and saturation points are reached or exceeded, overtourism occurs. In the last stages of the Doxey Irritation Index (1975), residents experience the pressure put on their daily life by the high number of tourists (Abdool, 2002). Rude behaviour, drunk, noisy, dirty vandalism, crowds, party, insecurity and crime are some of the mentioned reasons why residents feel irritation (Alvarez-Sousa, 2018). Annoyance and resentment are common feelings among locals. Tourists will get blamed for making daily life unpleasant and the relation between residents and tourists will go from bad to worse (Abdool, 2002). Increase in rents and housing prices (Garcia-López et al. 2019), building speculation, gentrification, deterioration of the physical and social environment, traffic jams, strikes, tourism-centred activism, are some of the negative impacts that arise from overtourism (Manning & Powers, 1984;Van der Borg, et al., 1996, Milano et al. 2019. Thus, having "too many visitors" lead to overcrowded destinations. It represents a state in which tourism flows are too high with reference to local dimension (size of the interested area, number of residents, etc.) (Theng, et al., 2015). The measure of what can be considered as "too many tourists" it is not simple to determine. Different stakeholders such as residents, local companies, the public sector, and tourists themselves should define it (Francis, 2019). When mobility is limited, when public spaces and services can't be used by locals because of tourism, when there is a psychological pressure on residents caused by tourist activity, when tourists cannot enjoy a cultural monument because of the crowds or when environment become damaged, then researchers suggest that is too much.
There are no universally accepted indicators to evaluate when is 'too much'. Academia suggests different indicators to consider. For example, the tourism intensity (the visitor to resident ratio). It is related to the carrying capacity and to the residents' perceptions of tourism. According to UNWTO, carrying capacity is "the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time without causing destruction of the physical, economic or socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in tourist satisfaction" (2018:3). Carrying capacity is a multidimensional measure that considers environmental, economic, psychological and also perceptual dimensions (Muler Gonzalez et al 2018). According to literature, the number of tourists should be lower than the threshold of carrying capacity to avoid negative impacts (Russo, 2002).

Denialms vs Antagonism: Different Perspectives On Tourism Impacts
When analysing discourses on the effects of tourism, two conflicting positions can appear: denialism and antagonism. The first one does not consider that tourism provokes relevant negative consequences, the second one points out the tourism industry as a dangerous phenomenon (García, 2017). Different interest groups have different perspectives on what tourism destinations must prioritize (Alvarez-Sousa, 2018).
Positive perceptions of the phenomenon emerge from seeing tourism as the gold industry that increases revenues and contributes to the economy of destinations and countries. It is synonymous of economic progress and development. Tourists are always welcome. Tourism as an opportunity to create employment (Alvarez-Sousa, 2018), revitalize regions and generate wealth. It is an industry that creates one out of 10 jobs worldwide (WTTC in Miller Farr, 2018). Residents can have a positive perception of tourism when they understand that the activity is key for the economic development of the city. For example, when residents of Mediterranean cities were interviewed on their perceptions on cruise tourism, they showed a global positive attitude regarding tourism impacts on social, cultural and economic areas (Brida et al (2014). Added to this, it is a way to enhance cultural communication and mutual understanding. If we educate tourists in these values, we will have citizens that are more conscious and responsible. Finally, tourism as a promoter of preservation and conservation of natural and cultural resources. Thus, the tourism industry is a generator of tempting positive externalities on social and cultural dimensions (Brida et al., 2014).
Besides, there are people that consider tourism as a threat. Mass tourism has provoked controversial debates on tourism growth, resident's well-being, limits and impacts. Excessive tourism leads to the over usage of the host destination's natural and socio-cultural environments (Lupoli, 2013;. Tourism can sharpen environmental damage. As Brida et al (2014) explain, residents also perceive negative impacts provoked by tourism on the environment such as marine pollution or damages on the flora and fauna. Added to this, the tourism industry can be the cause of commodification of natural and cultural resources (Fletcher, 2011). Also, the commodification of urban and daily life (Bélanger et al 2020). It can provoke a loss of identity and trivialization. It transforms the socio-economical relationships to bring into market exchange attractions that were not market-based before, such as landscape, culture, fragile ecosystems, and even ethnic minorities, social problems and poverty (Jeannite & Lapointe, 2016). The commodification of community resources provokes an unfavourable reaction of residents and negative effects on local customs and sense of identity (Greenwood, 1977;Moscardo & Pearce, 2003;Ryan & Aicken, 2005). Added to this, overtourism affects resident's perceptions of belonging and it can reduce the authenticity of the tourist offer (MacCannell, 1973; Martín Duque & Morère-Molinero, 2019), transforming it into a form of staged or pseudo authenticity (Cohen, 1988).
As researchers explain, tourism can cause destruction of traditional lifestyles but also social precariousness and economic dependence (Russo & Scarnato, 2017). Many destinations worldwide are facing an economic dependence on the tourism industry with impacts on labour structure and community roles (Cervantes Borja et al., 2007;Pizam, 1978).
Excessive visitants can also influence negatively on the tourist experience or provoke that they do not want to go to an oversaturated destination. As Osorio García (2010) explains, although mass tourism practices remain dominant and still have many advocates, it is a reality that alternative ways to do tourism are growing and mark the way forward. Tourists behaviour has changed tremendously in recent years, not only on how they search for information, book or interact with tourism companies but on also what people look for when travelling. Visitors are looking for authenticity in their trips (Noyola Aguilar & Campón Cerro, 2016). They want to meet and interact with locals. They want unique activities, unique places to visit, unique moments to remember. These alternative tourists are exigent and they are looking for more flexible and heterogeneous ways to travel, practices opposed to those of mass tourism.
Moreover, travellers are aware of everything that happens in any destination. For example, CNN published a list of destinations to avoid in 2018 and Barcelona was placed in the second position with other cities such as Dubrovnik, Venice or Santorini. The reasoning behind this recommendation was the conflicts that the city residents are experiencing due to overcrowded areas and mass tourism (Minihane, 2018). In recent times the term 'Tourismphobia" has appeared in mass media many times to remark the bad relationship between residents and tourists, for example in Barcelona. Although many researchers and professionals have criticized the use of this inadequate word to describe the real social situation, it is a fact that social issues with locals appear with mass tourism and tourists are aware of that (Milano & Mansilla, 2018).
When analysing tourist destinations evolution, Butler's tourism life cycle model appears as an extensively recognized framework. The model was widely debated and academics have made many suggestions on how to complement and enhance it (Hovinen, 2002). However, it remains being a valid model due to its predictive value that can help destinations to forecast system dynamics, plan corrective strategies and make effective decisions (Diez, 2019;Valdés et al. 2017). Based on this, researchers explain that unless tourism mature destinations such as Barcelona rejuvenate, many of them will enter the Butler's Life Cycle phase of decline (Custodio Santos, et al., 2014). This phase will occur in case of increasing competition or irreversible environmental and social damages (Cole, 2007). If no action is taken, interest in the destination will keep declining. In case of re-launch of the destination, the destination should put a lot of energy into rejuvenating the offer, repositioning the destination and reinvolving local inhabitants to attract new and unique niche markets (Kozak & Martin, 2011).

Denialism vs Antagonism: Is There a Possible Reconciliation Through Responsibility?
Diverse interests are involved in this discussion and as researchers explain, solutions will work differently for each interested party (McKinsey & Company and WTTC, 2017). Conflict situations can be considered inherent in every social system and they can give rise to creative processes and innovative changes (Dahrendorf, 1966;Bacallao Pino & Sanz Hernandez, 2017).
Growth advocates are frequently international agencies, the private sector and government. Civil groups are usually excluded from growth benefits, planning and debates on tourism. Locals claim for more citizen participation (Milano et al 2019). From that, it is necessary to think about cooperation and negotiation among different stakeholders in the tourism system. Consensus and collaboration to find solutions, stability and social cohesion. As Alvarez-Sousa (2018) says, reach consensus through effective and inclusive governance. Initiatives that promote citizen-well-being and tourists-well-being will lead to sustainability and enhance society (Pyke et al 2016;Garcês et al 2018). One clear example of this approach is the Barcelona Declaration (based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that focus on better places to live, to then have better places to visit. One of their slogans is "What is good for residents is good for visitors" (NECSTOUR, 2018) Thus, to find win-win solutions is a constructive way to resolve conflicts, negotiate and cooperate (Spangler, 2003).
If communication and collaboration are key to face tourism impacts, the search for common points between antagonistic perspectives must be deeper and compromising. It is also necessary to mention that between extremes positions such as denialism and antagonism, there are intermediate positions many people are supporting. They are citizens, public institutions and private companies that have understood that it is essential to move towards the responsible management of tourism (García, 2017). The term "sustainable tourism" came into use in the late 1980s because of the growing awareness of the impact of tourism development and it was mainly seen as the exact opposite of "mass tourism" (Clarke, 1997;Mowforth & Munt, 2003;Swarbrooke, 1999). Yet, the concept has evolved over time. Today it aims to promote the expansion of an area without destroying its resources for future generations, minimising environmental negative aspects, maximising the positive ones and distributing value in a balanced way (Miller, 2001;Molina-Azorín & Font, 2015;Spangenberg, 2002;Stoddard et al., 2012). In the early 1990s, the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro pressured the tourism industry to focus more on its environmental performance and on sustainable forms of development (Pigram & Wahab, 2005). Today the term sustainable tourism "encompasses an approach to tourism which recognises the importance of the host community, the way staff are treated and the desire to maximise the economic benefit of tourism for the host community" (Swarbrooke, 1999: 19). Thus, sustainable tourism should maintain and preserve natural resources and biodiversity but also ensure long-term economic benefits for all the stakeholders and respect locals, preserving authenticity and well-being of residents (Hernandez-Maskivker, Ferrari & Cruyt, 2019).
Sustainable tourism discourse has been also criticized and has sparked an extensive debate on its scope, its implications and ethical considerations. Responsible tourism (although it is often used as a synonym, it is not), incorporates a key aspect: the responsibility of different stakeholders towards the future in concrete actions to achieve sustainability. Responsible tourism pay attention and give answers on the specific circumstances and local contexts (Goodwin, 2011;. Thus, the term responsible tourism comprehends the different steps everybody should follow to reach the maximum goal, a sustainable tourism. Numerous reports show how the tourism industry is moving to a more responsible paradigm to satisfy demanding and involved customers but also to satisfy locals and improve their lives. Many destinations are now working on programs to limit the impact of tourism on their resources and the inhabitants' daily life (Edwards, 2017). The challenge is to keep working on tourism development but in a way that enables tourism to positively face the changing global environment and societal structure while respecting ecological, social, economic, and political sustainability.
Put on sale a city as a commodity for tourism purposes is what is happening in different places worldwide, but there is hope. Alvarez-Sousa (2018) suggests different categories to work on to achieve a responsable development: quality tourism (to avoid mass tourists), authenticity (to avoid loss of identity and gentrification), political confrontation (to have active citizen participation), inclusion and benefits (to avoid inflation, work intrusion), and disruptive innovation (to avoid unfair competition, and oligopolies). For example, years ago media focused on promoting Barcelona as a tourism destination (boosterism discourse) and now the Catalan media legitimate new and critical discourses based on a more and responsible sustainable model where cities can be liveable (Russo & Scarnato, 2017). Milano et al. (2019) explain that in the case of Barcelona, political parties and social movements born from neighbourhood associations have had a great impact on the media and on the public agenda. Degrowth alternatives as a solution for overtourism come from social movements and the public sector has helped to foster the debate.

Methodology
A quantitative study was conducted to explore local's perceptions towards mass tourism on mature destinations. The research was made in a period from September 2018 to December 2018 on a random sample of 647 residents (395 from Barcelona and 252 from Sevilla). A pilot study was also conducted in both destinations with 20 participants in each destination by face to face interviews.
The questionnaire counted with two parts: one with the profile of the respondent (age, place of residence and work (city centre/outside), employment) and a second part composed of 20 items, in which the respondent should indicate, on a Likert scale, the level of agreement or disagreement with each variable (from 1 totally disagree to 5 totally agree). This scale is used by many authors in the study of perceptions of the local population towards tourism (Gutierrez, 2010;Azpelicueta, Cardona and Serra, 2014;Brida et al. 2014). Items were formulated as Positive or Negative Impacts and grouped in different dimensions: economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions.

Findings & Discussion
The results obtained in the investigation have demonstrated that the impacts of the tourist activity influence on the perceptions of the host community towards tourism. Table 1 and Figure 1 shows the results for Sevilla. Regarding economic dimension and its negative impacts on housing prices, access to a home and prices in bars and restaurants in the city centre, Sevilla residents show discontent on these issues (3, 31 mean). People perceive that tourism in their city increase prices in bars and restaurants in the city centre, increase housing prices and provokes difficulties to access to homes in the city centre. However, people also perceive positive impacts for the economic dimension, related to the creation of jobs and macroeconomy of the destination. Barcelona residents show a mean of 3,2 on those issues. They agree that tourism creates job positions, that economic benefits reach locals and that it impacts positively on the city economy.
Regarding cultural dimension, mean of 3,76 demonstrates that many residents perceive positive aspects: tourism increased leisure's offer, enhance cultural exchange, promotes local cultures and values such as gastronomy, traditions and folklore and contributes to heritage conservation. However, locals also highlight (mean 3,32) that tourism hinders the heritage access to locals. Concerning social dimension, tourism saturates the public space, hinders mobility in the city centre and affects negatively the lifestyle of the neighbourhood (mean 3,58). As Brida et al (2014) also demonstrated, people, are worried about social issues such as congestion or insecurity. However, when other issues such as infrastructures and public services were analysed, we can see how locals have a more optimistic view. They perceive (mean of 3,23) that tourism can contribute to enhancing these aspects of the destination. People who perceive benefits from the tourism industry have a positive perception of tourism. Finally, when the environmental dimension is analysed, residents perceive that tourism doesn't help to preserve the environment (mean 2,27). For Sevilla, there are no significant differences between the perceptions of people who live downtown/works downtown and those lives downtown/ work outside. Perceptions tend to be more optimistic for those who live outside/ work downtown. As Del Chiappa et al. (2019) demonstrated, locals, do not perceive the positive effects of tourism when they live close to tourists spots.  Figure 2 shows the results for Barcelona. Regarding economic dimension and its negative impacts on housing prices, access to a home and prices in bars and restaurants in the city centre, Barcelona residents show discontent on these issues (3, 18 mean). People perceive that tourism in their city increase princes in bars and restaurants in the city centre, increase housing prices and provokes difficulties to access to homes in the city centre. Foreign capitals and not local investors are the key players, provoking dissatisfaction among residents (Brida et al 2014). However, people also perceive positive impacts for the economic dimension, related to the creation of jobs and macroeconomy of the destination. Barcelona residents show a mean of 3,51 on those issues. They agree that tourism creates job positions, incomes reach locals and impact positively on the city economy.
Regarding cultural dimension, mean of 3,75 demonstrates that many residents perceive positive aspects: tourism increased leisure's offer, enhance cultural exchange, promotes local cultures and values such as gastronomy, traditions and folklore and contributes to heritage conservation. However, locals also highlight (mean 3,53) that tourism hinders the heritage access to locals. Concerning social dimension, tourism saturates the public space, hinders mobility in the city centre and affects negatively the lifestyle of the neighbourhood (mean 3,80). However, when other issues such as infrastructures and public services were analysed, we can see how locals have a more optimistic view. They perceive (mean of 3,28) that tourism can contribute to enhancing these aspects of the destination. Finally, when the environmental dimension is analysed, residents perceive that tourism doesn't help to preserve the environment (mean 2,26). Alvarez-Sousa (2018) explores Barcelona resident's perceptions of tourism. His results show that depend on the neighbourhood, perceptions change. Those residents that live in crowded areas, they had negative perceptions towards tourists. However, this study shows that there are no significant differences between the perceptions of people who live/ work downtown or outside and those who do not. Tourism, as an overpowering phenomena, does not distinguish between gender, social class, downtown or periphery neighbourhoods (Russo & Scarnato; According to the results, people that live in the metropolitan area of Barcelona perceive negative and positive impacts such as people that live in downtown. People who live outside/ work outside highlight more the negative impacts compare with other groups. People who live outside/ work downtown highlight more the positive impacts compare with other groups. Finally, people who live downtown/ work downtown demonstrated the lowest perception of positive impacts compares with other groups. This group show also greater dissatisfaction with negative impacts on the environment dimension compares with other groups.

. Barcelona analysis
Hence, results demonstrate that attitude towards tourism on the different dimensions is pretty homogeneous for both destinations studied. Findings agree with literature that explains that residents' attitudes depend on objective and subjective factors, in particular on costs and benefits perceived in reference to economic, social and environmental aspects (Gursoy et al., 2002) and above all on the impact which the tourism phenomenon has on the place. In addition, it is influenced by the community attachment of each host, in other words by the level of involvement and social integration in the life of the community and the emotional attachment to the community itself (McCool & Martin, 1994). As Minca & Oake (2006) explain, paradoxes and contradictions can arise from the relationship between locals, tourists and destinations such as the situation where residents can feel they are intruders in their own space due to the tourism phenomena. On the one hand, the market demand authenticity, experiences and connection with the community. On the other hand, they are forced to change their way of living, to be tourists in their own places, or to move out of the city due to the gentrification process (Bélanger et al 2020). Barcelona, as other mature destinations, should deal with the social costs that tourism growth carries, being these costs sometimes so high that they can be irreparable (Russo & Scarnato, 2017).
Tourists and residents are not disconnected members of a system.  (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009;Guimont & Lapointe, 2016), promoting more sustainable development of the tourism activity.
Locals help to determine both the quality of the tourism experience and the image of the destination. From this point of view, the involvement of residents in tourism planning is key to avoid negative perceptions and to carry on effective and responsible tourist strategies (Ferrari & Gilli, 2018;Kotler et al., 2003;Peng et al., 2016;Wearing & Wearing, 2001). For example, giving them the control and the responsibility as keepers of local resources. Indeed, tourism success is a function of the "goodwill of local residents" and their levels of hospitality (Gursoy et al., 2002) as well as their involvement in processes of planning, marketing and management of tourism (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Thus, the social dimension of sustainability, often overlooked, appear as fundamental for the progress of sustainability policies (Griessler & Littig, 2005).

Conclusions & Recommendations
After more than 40 years of research on the consequences of tourism on destinations, debates on this complex and dynamic issue are still needed and the results of this work contribute to expanding the academic debate. Nowadays, mass tourism and overtourism are problems for many cities worldwide and residents are worried about it. Overcrowding is a complex issue that needs early detection and long term planning with all stakeholders involved. It is not enough to just analyse or control the number of visitors that arrive at a certain destination. Deeper studies of what is really happening in the community are needed to anticipate negative consequences.
Assumption of responsibilities, synergies between the private and public sector, mutual understanding and contribution to constructive debates will lead to successful sustainable destinations. Social, cultural, economic and environmental dimensions for sustainable tourism should be analysed deeply to increase understanding of impacts and practical implications. Residents are key players detecting positive or negative, direct or indirect effects (Brida et al 2014). The success of responsible tourism models can't be disconnected from the goodwill of local residents and their hospitality (Del Chiappa et al. 2019). Communities can perceive tourism impacts from different ways and generalizations on these issues should be avoided. Tourism and the resident's perceptions have to be analysed from a holistic perspective.
The discussion so far shows the need to involve in planning and managing the main stakeholders, firstly the residents, which leads to a positive attitude on the community towards the tourism phenomenon (Ryan, 2010). As literature explains, a positive attitude on the part of residents towards tourists increases the levels of satisfaction, improving the capacity to welcome tourists and creating a favourable climate towards current and potential visitors (Harrill, 2004;Ritzer, 1999;Perdue et al., 1990). As was mentioned before, locals should perceive benefits to have a positive attitude (Alvarez-Souza, 2018). Communitybased planning and management become the only option for tourist destinations to survive (Del Chiappa et al. 2018). Thus, alliances and inclusive partnership between the public, private sector, local investors and community are essential for responsible development (Hernandez-Maskivker et al. 2018).
All the agents should be working coordinately: collectivism or failure.
Thus, to ensure a responsible management of tourism in the long term, it is suggested to (1) protect needs of residents, (2) include residents and local investors in tourism policymaking, actions plans and redistribution of benefits, (3) implement coordination mechanisms to improve governance, (4) target the right tourists and (5) communicate tourism impacts in a right way. For mature tourism destinations like Barcelona and Sevilla to ensure that they will remain an attractive destination amongst all the competition, they need to market themselves in new ways. They should offer personalized, unique and memorable experiences based on their authentic resources. Getting locals involved in activities for tourists will not only improve the feeling of authenticity, but it will also give locals a possibility of more participation, which will improve their support for tourism development. Considering communities and local's ambassadors in tourism, activities will contribute to a greater understanding and better promotion of the benefits of tourism for a destination. Moreover, one of the main recommendations is to focus more on individual marketing. Destinations should define their specific tourist target groups. Note that it is just as important, if not even more important, to define which tourists are interesting for the destination and to design strategies to attract them. Responsible marketing and communication are determinant for the sustainable success of many destinations worldwide. It is not about being naïve ignoring negative or positive externalities but being objectives, transparent and honest with the reality and the needs of each destination. Future research can advance understanding of contradictions and synergies between stakeholder's perspectives and at similar destinations.