Next Article in Journal
Motion-Control Strategy for a Heavy-Duty Transport Hexapod Robot on Rugged Agricultural Terrains
Next Article in Special Issue
Do Clean Toilets Help Improve Farmers’ Mental Health? Empirical Evidence from China’s Rural Toilet Revolution
Previous Article in Journal
Cultivation of Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) on Light Soils in Transitional Temperate Climate to Produce Biomass and Seeds
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Agritourism Value Chain: An Application to the Dehesa Areas of Extremadura
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture13112130
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Long-Term Survival of Investments Implemented under Endogenous Rural Development Programs: The Case Study of La Vera Region (Extremadura, Spain)

by
Francisco Javier Castellano-Álvarez
1,* and
Rafael Robina-Ramírez
2
1
Economy Department, University of Extremadura, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
2
Business Management and Sociology Department, University of Extremadura, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(11), 2130; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112130
Submission received: 25 September 2023 / Revised: 8 November 2023 / Accepted: 8 November 2023 / Published: 11 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Rural Areas Facing the Challenge of Economic Diversification: Threats and Opportunities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the main objectives of rural development programs is the economic diversification of rural areas. In the context of the European Union, the application of the Leader Initiative (referred to today as the Leader Approach) is perhaps the best example of this type of policy. Based on the case study methodology, the objective of this work is to analyze the viability of the projects promoted by this type of program. A long-term scenario is taken as a reference, and this is precisely one of the main methodological innovations of this research in relation to most of the analyses focused on the impacts of rural development programs. The results of the research show (a) an orientation of the development strategy towards the promotion of rural tourism and (b) differences in the survival of the projects according to the type of productive measure under which they have been implemented: agricultural valorization and marketing projects offer better results than those promoting rural tourism or the promotion of SMEs and crafts and services. These results call into question the notable concentration of investment in projects aimed at creating tourist accommodation.

1. Introduction

In the European Union (EU), the goal of the economic diversification in rural areas took on new meaning when, in the early 1990s, the European Commission (EC) approved the first call for proposals under the Leader Initiative [1]. Since then, the European commitment to rural economic diversification has been a constant in the implementation of EU policies. The origins of this European interest in rural areas lie in the significant internal and external imbalances in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. This made CAP reform a real priority. Throughout the 1980s, the EC made this need clear in various documents [10,11,12] and reported about some of the most negative consequences (loss of agricultural jobs, falling farm incomes). To counter these effects, the EC considered it necessary to reduce the dependence of rural areas on primary activity and promote alternative activities to provide new income sources supplementing rural and agricultural incomes.
From the outset, implementing the Leader Initiative led to unprecedented mobilization of the European rural environment [13]. In fact, some countries (like Spain) had to draw funds from the Community Support Framework (CSF) to implement complementary rural development programs applied in territories unable to access management of Leader II [14] or Leader + [15] initiatives. In Spain, these programs were called Proder I [16] and Proder II [17]; they had minor differences in their management systems but similar characteristics to the development model proposed by the Leader Initiative.
Also from the very beginning, applying the Leader Initiative and other programs mentioned above aroused great interest in the scientific and academic community, both among those trying to characterize the Leader Approach from a theoretical standpoint [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] and those interested in quantifying its impacts from different perspectives [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34].
In its aim to achieve rural economic diversification, tourism is one of the activities in which implementing rural development programs generated the highest expectations. Bryden [35], Lane [36], Butler et al. [37], Sharpley and Roberts [38], Patmore [39] and Perdue et al. [40] are some of the pioneers of studying this subject. Their research is essential for those interested in the potential of this sector in rural areas. However, beyond these conceptual works, most researchers are interested in quantifying the impacts of rural development programs on the tourism sector. It is common for these works to refer to a specific geographic area, whether a region, province, natural area, etc. For example, García [41] examines the Leader Initiative’s impact on the tourism in the northwestern regions of Murcia; Toledano and Gessa [42] study the tourism projects created under Leader II and Proder I in Huelva province; Candela et al. [43] and Hernández et al. [44] look at the strengthening of the tourism sector in mountain areas of Valencia through the Leader Initiative; and García and De la Calle [45] analyze the importance of rural development programs in transforming tourism in the Tiétar Valley (Ávila). Along the same lines are the works of Pérez and López [46], Mondéjar et al. [47], Márquez et al. [48] and Nieto and Cárdenas [49], which refer, respectively, to the Galicia, Castilla La Mancha, Andalusia and Extremadura regions.
In order to achieve the desired economic diversification, rural development programs consider it essential to reactivate the resources available in the territory. To this end, they place great importance on involving the population in defining development strategies. Although authors such as Guiberteau [50], Alberdi [51], Navarro et al. [52,53] and Esparcia et al. [54] are skeptical about real participation of the population in development processes, it is true that from a sociological perspective, many are interested in the ability of these programs to boost the social capital of rural areas. As with analyzing the contribution of rural development programs to the tourism sector, research on this issue also tends to focus on quantifying impacts and on a specific geographical area. Examples include the work of Buciega [55] analyzing social capital within rural development program implementation in Valencia province; Saz-Gil and Gómez-Quintero [56] studying the same subject in Teruel province; and Garrido and Moyano [57] taking Leader II and Proder I implementation in Andalusia as a reference.
Therefore, reviewing the literature on some of the challenges faced by rural development programs leads to the conclusion that much of the research is characterized by: (a) a quantitative vision focused on measuring impacts; and (b) taking official evaluations produced by local action groups (LAGs) as the main analytical source. Without diminishing the value of these contributions, their characteristics limit the scope, as they offer a “static” vision of what they aim to study. Using LAGs’ final evaluations as the main information source introduces bias, as these documents refer to when program implementation concludes, thus offering a “fixed picture” of results. This research aims to go further, offering a dynamic and long-term vision of the footprint left on the territory by rural development program implementation [58], focusing, in this case, on the economic viability of investments made under programs implemented in La Vera. To achieve this goal, the following research questions are posed:
  • What is the importance of each of the productive measures? Is investment spread across different activities, fostering desired economic diversification?
  • What are the numbers of operational, failed and carried-over projects in different productive measures, and how much investment has been committed to each?
  • For operational projects, how do promoters assess viability, and are there differences depending on the productive measure?
The long-term perspective is not trivial; analyzing real impact requires going beyond the subsidy eligibility period (five years, after which non-operational projects must return aid). This interest in analyzing the long-term rural development program impact is shared by Navarro et al. [59], evidenced by their study on the continuity of enterprises created under Leader I and II in Granada; and Cañete et al. [60] and Cejudo et al. [61] in their analyses of program implementation and failed projects in Andalusia.
With its approach, this research shares Navarro et al.’s [62] (p. 349) criticism that official evaluations “do not sufficiently consider the impacts these programs generate in the territory”. It also follows previous studies by Castellano-Álvarez et al. [63] comparing tourism development in La Vera and Tajo-Salor; and Castellano -Álvarez et al. [64], also based on the La Vera case study, analyzing the application of Proder I (1996–1999) and Proder II (2000–2006). This new contribution aims to update those results and extend the research time horizon to a new programming period in which the Leader Approach (2007–2013) was implemented [65]. These works add to extensive research where the authors studied La Vera’s development strategy from different perspectives [66,67,68,69,70].
As shown by Álvarez-García et al. [71] in their bibliometric study on cultural heritage and tourism as bases for regional development, there is extensive international literature that analyzes rural development and economic diversification without the aforementioned biases. Many of these contributions are case studies that this research takes as references. For example, Quaranta et al. [72] use a case study of a southern Italy region to analyze tourism’s potential in activating rural social capital; Iakovidou et al. [73] and Apostolopoulos et al. [74] study rural tourism conditioning factors in Greece; Marques [75] and Gatti et al. [76] analyze wine tourism’s capacity as an element of rural development through case studies of regions in northern Portugal and Emilia-Romagna (Italy), respectively; perception of the rural populations regarding tourism development impacts is addressed by Milano et al. [77], Muresan et al. [78,79], Andereck et al. [80], Kayat et al. [81], and Brankov et al. [82]; Robina et al. [83] study the intangibles driving rural tourism; and Ciolac et al. [84] examine agritourism’s potential as a rural development tool.

2. Research Methodology

From a methodological perspective, many authors have explored the usefulness of case studies as a research tool [85,86,87]. Yin [88] advocates applying this methodology when there is interaction between the element being studied and its environment. This occurs in this research: it is impossible to separate the longevity of the projects implemented under rural development programs from the resources and characteristics of the La Vera region; there is interaction between the two factors. Additionally, Coller [87] states that one of the requirements for applying the case study methodology is that the area under study should have well-defined boundaries. La Vera (Figure 1) meets this condition; made up of 19 municipalities, it has a deep-rooted sense of regional identity [89] and clearly defined borders: to the south by the river Tiétar; to the north, by the foothills of the Sierra de Gredos and the Jerte Valley; to the west by municipalities in the Plasencia region; and to the east, by the border between Cáceres and Ávila provinces.
La Vera is a paradigmatic example for evaluating rural development program impact. This is because it possesses all necessary potential for the successfully implementing of such programs, and it is located in the Extremadura region of Spain, considered by González Regidor [90] as an ideal framework for studying this issue.
The region’s remarkable environmental and scenic resources derive from its location in the Sierra de Gredos, which shapes its orography and climate. La Vera enjoys milder temperatures than its latitude would indicate, both in winter months (when Gredos protects it from cold Castilian plateau winds) and summer months (when the mountain massif’s proximity mitigates high temperatures). In the summer, Sierra de Gredos and its many gorges offer one of the area’s most prized tourist resources in the form of countless bathing spots with icy, crystal-clear waters that visitors greatly appreciate [91]. In addition to its natural and scenic resources, La Vera boasts enormous cultural and artistic heritage, as evidenced by the Monastery of Yuste, its five municipalities declared Historic-Artistic Sites, and its many festivals and traditions classified as being of regional tourist interest. All this makes the region ideal for tourism promotion investments.
Also justifying the region’s suitability as a case study is, its proven experience processing characteristic agricultural products (paprika, goat cheese, tobacco, etc.). This type of activity (agricultural valorization) is an important component of development programs.
The main part of the research is fieldwork in which (a) projects implemented by ADICOVER over the three programming periods constituting the research time horizon are analyzed; (b) a project sample is drawn; (c) promoters of selected sample projects are interviewed in person at project sites to provide context for interviewee responses and reflections; and d) an attempt is made to correct any biases that may have been incurred during the interviews by triangulating the results.
Prior to fieldwork, ADICOVER’s technicians were contacted to study the development strategy, program management applications, project lists, etc.
As is well known, rural development program structure [92] consists of six measures, three “non-productive” measures used for small infrastructure, public facilities, finances for the operation of the LAG, and cross-cutting training activities. The other three measures are of a productive nature and are aimed at: (a) rural tourism development; (b) SME and, crafts and services support; and (c) agricultural marketing and development. Private promoter projects under these last three measures are the fieldwork focus. However, the productive nature of these measures does not preclude financing public actions for general interest like regional tourism promotion, trail restoration, business fairs, etc. To select a project sample in the aforementioned productive measures, criteria used by Castellano-Álvarez et al. [63,64] in previous studies were followed. These are: (1) primarily private investment; (2) minimum €12,000 subsidy; and (3) the subsidy representing at least one-fifth of total investment. Table 1 shows results of applying these criteria to total projects implemented in the three programming periods constituting the research time frame.
Table 2 complements the above information with an overview of sample project importance within the productive measures. In the third section, analyzing development strategy will show that, over the three six-year periods, the sample project distribution correlates with the weight of each productive measure in the development program.
Table 1 and Table 2 show that applying the aforementioned criteria to the 169 private projects implemented under the productive measures allows selection of 82 actions whose investment represents 72.98% of total investment in these measures. However, in all cases it is impossible to interview the original promoters, as discussed earlier, since some projects ceased activity or were transferred; moreover, some operational promoters declined participation. Table 3 reflects these factors and filters the sample to determine interview numbers conducted in each productive measure.
Table 4 displays the characteristics of the promoters interviewed. Broadly summarizing the profile, the promoters interviewed tended to be male, between 40 and 60 years old and native to the region and to have a basic level of education.
As the table shows, male promoters outnumbered females by three to one and were predominantly 40–60 years old across productive measures. The majority were also native to the region, while those of neo-rural origin were concentrated more in rural tourism projects, specifically new accommodation establishments. These promoters also had higher education levels, contrasting with those modernizing existing accommodation or catering projects who had lower education. The training level of SMEs and crafts and services promoters was heterogeneous. Agricultural valorization project promoters were characterized by basic level education and very few women.
Regarding interview structure, semi-structured interviews were chosen as an intermediate option between a closed model (unable to incorporate promoter observations of interest) and an open model (with difficulties focusing attention on research-relevant questions and information processing). In his work on qualitative research, Yin [93] highlights the value of interviews as a research tool, considering them a valuable information source that allows interviewee interaction and proper response contextualization.
Beyond analyzing budget execution and impacts, methodologically, conducting these interviews enriches the research with qualitative analysis tools. This followed Esparcia [94], Viladomiu and Rosell [95], and Esteban et al. [96] who, regarding analysis of regional, rural and local development policies, advocate using such research instruments to transcend the often excessively quantitative results provided by official evaluations.
As a final phase of fieldwork, the initial results were triangulated to correct any biases that may have arisen during the interviews and to reinforce the methodological rigor of the research. For this purpose, working meetings were conducted with key personnel involved in implementing the development program, including technical managers from the LAGs and public representatives.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of the Development Strategy Implemented by La Vera Region

Table 5 shows the investment distribution across measures in the three programs constituting the research time frame. The analysis shows the tourist specialization inherent in this region’s development strategy. Resources for rural tourism promotion account for 41.56% of total investment executed by the three programs and 61.63% of the investment in productive measures. Throughout the three programming periods, this specialization, far from diminishing, intensified under the Leader approach, with 45% of the resources allocated to tourism promotion.
At the other extreme is the scant importance given to agricultural development projects in the strategy. This measure accounts for barely a tenth of the total implemented investment and 15% of productive measure resources.
Throughout the three periods, non-productive measure importance remains constant at around one third of program resources. This is despite a clear increase in the LAG’s operating costs with Leader approach implementation (due to training actions and technical report preparation).
Figure 2 shows investment distribution in productive measures by project type. Blue depicts tourism project investment. The concentration of investment in the rural tourism measures the conditions of the program’s contribution to its economic diversification objective. Above any other, investments in accommodation creation or modernization stand out, accounting for almost 50% of all productive investment. This unequal investment distribution could hamper tourism development itself, as it minimizes resources for other equally necessary tourism projects like complementary activities or catering services. Interviews with promoters will reveal whether the applied strategy has succeeded or introduced a bias hindering sector and regional development.
Neither other productive measure shows such high concentration in a single project type. Figure 2 distinguishes investment under the SME and crafts and services promotion measure in orange; and project types financed under the agricultural development measure in green. Resource distribution in these measures aligns with the desired economic diversification objective. An example is investment aimed at strengthening the business fabric and service provision in rural areas, promoting highly heterogeneous businesses (physiotherapy clinics, garages, taxi services, consultancies, training centers, driving schools, local shops, renewable energies, carpentries, paint shops, photography studios) that provide basic services for rural living quality.
Investment distribution for agricultural valorization benefits all the county’s production, with projects improving goat cheese production processes standing out; investments in oil mills, pickle factories, paprika factories, poultry farming, etc. are also worth mentioning. The minimal importance of investments in tobacco cultivation (very important in some regional municipalities) is because these productions channel projects through the regional Department of Agriculture. Agricultural cooperatives in the region use program resources to modernize facilities and improve the services for members.

3.2. Operational Projects, Carryovers and Failures

Table 2 breaks down sample investments by productive measure. Table 6 details operational, failed and transferred projects and the importance of investment linked to each. Distinguishing between failed and transferred projects is significant: although neither allows interviewing the original promoter, a transferred project forms part of the program’s contribution to regional development; the original promoters life circumstances may have changed but the project driven by the LAG continues operating.
Table 6 shows that relative investment importance associated with operational projects is higher for agricultural marketing and development compared to the other two productive measures. It also shows that investment committed to failed projects is less important in this measure than in rural tourism or SMEs and crafts and services; this represents a paradox since this measure commits the fewest resources (Table 5). On the other hand, of the 12 transferred projects, 8 are tourism projects, potentially evidencing greater mobility among these promoters or lower profitability. Interviews with promoters should help clarify this issue.
Table 7 provides an analysis of operational, failed and carried over projects according to the programs under which they have been implemented. As Table 1 shows, sample project numbers vary between programs, with some noticeable differences. Therefore, the percentage of investment linked to operational, failed and transferred projects could be a more reliable indicator here. On this basis, Leader approach results seem more positive across all three parameters, possibly due to the shorter time elapsed since implementation ended. However, Table 7 also seems to show that the time elapsed since the program end is not a major determinant of long-term project success or failure; evidence is the clearly higher percentage of investment associated with operational projects under Proder I compared to Proder II.

3.3. Assessment of the Viability of the Investments Made: Interviews with Promoters

One of the most interesting aspects explored in promoter interviews was their perception of investments viability. Table 8 provides an initial approximation, classifying the promoter responses by productive measure of project implementation.
As the table shows, the promoter responses vary by productive measure. In all cases, these are operational projects, but the tourism promoters’ assessments of businesses’ profitability are more negative than those in other productive measures. Over 60% of tourism promoters admit their projects do not offer enough profitability to allow them to make a living from them; in fact, 11 of the 20 interviewed combine businesses management with other economic activities.
Table 9 classifies these promoters’ responses by type of project, showing that only one of eleven new rural accommodation promoters is satisfied with business economic viability (although they admit complementing their income with other agricultural activity). This project type was chosen by the three neo-rural promoters and two returnees, none of whom are satisfied with the profitability (although neo-rural promoters admit their aim was not profit but lifestyle change).
In contrast, most promoters are satisfied with viability when modernizing rural accommodation. All these investments are by regular residents dedicated exclusively to businesses management. Furthermore, most combine accommodation and catering activities (a circumstance often highlighted by this promoter type to justify their investment’s economic viability).
The valuations of tourism promoters necessitate reinterpreting the Table 4 data.It was found then that the percentage of investment associated with operational tourism projects was similar to the SMEs and crafts and services measure (and, in both, lower than the agricultural valorization measure). However, despite remaining operational, tourism promoters’ negative viability assessments are not shared by promoters in the other two measures.
However, a distinction should be made between SME and craft and service projects and agricultural valorization projects: the former are more modest in scale and provide promoter self-employment, while the latter have greater income generation potential by enhancing raw materials also produced by farmers and livestock breeders who indirectly benefit from the investment. Given the different viability assessments, average investment for operational sample projects in the productive measures was: €176,687.74 for the rural tourism measure; €93,488 for SMEs and crafts and services; and €88,851.03 for the agricultural valorization and marketing measure.
Regarding the interview content [63,64], analyzing promoters’ viability assessments requires focusing on those investing in accommodation creation, since viability is not controversial for other promoters. Guaranteeing anonymity, some of their most interesting reflections are transcribed to identify factors they believe jeopardize project viability.
Most interviewees agree in denouncing the low demand. Promoter 1 reflects this feeling, stating “official statistics speaking of over 20% occupancy are false”. Similarly, Promoter 2 considers, “data used by the administrations regarding occupancy levels are totally wrong”. In addition to low demand, this promoter blames these low occupancy levels on excessive supply, not hesitating to blame what he sees as “erroneous development program execution”; in fact, he justifies his opinion by referring to the latest Leader Approach aid call, stating: “where most projects have been presented is in the tourism sector; we are changing tobacco monoculture for tourism monoculture, and rural tourism is not a panacea”. Very similarly, Promoter 3 considers, “initially, the development program was fundamental for accommodation creation, but once that first phase was over, it did not reorient its role. More accommodation kept being created, meaning the sector became oversized; there is now more supply than demand”. Promoter 4 complains “we went from a situation with no accommodation capacity to one of oversupply; and this happened before demand decreased due to the economic crisis (…) if I didn’t have to meet subsidy requirements, I would consider closing down”. This idea is fairly widespread among the interviewees; for example, Promoter 5 insisted that “there is an oversupply of accommodation places and yet the development program continues to subsidizing more and more rural tourism projects, oversizing the sector”.
Another noted factor conditioning this project type’s viability is investments scale. The promoter is a professional architect acknowledging participating in creating many other accommodation projects. Regarding their architectural characteristics, he admits that “all projects I’ve designed have had quality and scale far superior to the expected return. Investments are not justified and will hardly be recovered”. A good example is Promoter 7, who, states, “many things have been done; real project viability is another matter. I will never recover the investment made in the rooms”. Similarly, Promoter 2 considers, “a bubble was created around rural tourism and the truth is you can’t demand the impossible; you can’t ask for wonderful accommodation, with huge investments that can’t be maintained, and what about profitability?” This promoter continues: “the investment made was not justified by the existing demand. We did not consider the project as a business and now we are paying the consequences; we have reduced all expenses to the max and still the numbers don’t add up”.
Other ideas emerging from interviews conditioning viability are seasonality inherent to tourist activity and the necessarily complementary nature of the income derived. Promoter 8 summarizes this, stating “it’s not possible to live exclusively from the rural tourism business. The winter is very long and the season almost depends on August”. This assessment is widely shared by other interviewees, who would also agree with Promoter 1 when he considers that:“if a study was done on rural tourism businesses viability, the vast majority of them are unviable”. Promoter 2 states that “tourism is not what it seems and profitability is very limited. It’s a complementary income source, but you cannot live on it alone”. Promoter 7 states that “whoever wants to make money with rural tourism is wrong”; and Promoter 9 concludes “if someone thought tourism would be the rural remedy, they were wrong”.
The interviews also explored neo-rural and returnee promoter motivations and perceptions. Regarding the first, the profit motive is often not the main one. For example, Promoter 1 acknowledges that “creating a Rural Hotel was the way to change my life, and that was the objective”. Similarly, Promoter 5 considers, “a Rural House is not a business; it’s more a lifestyle”. Like these interviewees, when asked about motivations for undertaking his project, Promoter 9 replies, “I’d lived in Madrid my whole life. I did it for a lifestyle and personal reasons”. For none of these interviewees was the subsidy received a relevant factor in project execution. In fact, Promoter 1 states: “those who decided to start a business thanks to a subsidy are already closed because ultimately the numbers don’t add up (…) we carried out our project without going into debt and thanks to this we survived”. Similarly, Promoter 9 considers, “if someone gets into an investment like this because of the subsidy, they don’t know what they’re doing”. Regarding his project’s viability, this last promoter says, “if you have the mortgage paid, maybe you can continue living modestly from your rural house, but not as a business”.

4. Discussion

This work shows that not all private projects promoted by rural development programs have the same long-term survival expectations. In line with conclusions by Castellano-Álvarez et al. [63,64], the results question the viability of tourism projects aimed at creating new rural accommodations. Therefore, territories orienting their development strategy towards rural tourism promotion due to their characteristics must address this challenge without renouncing necessary investment diversification. Even within tourism projects, there are investments whose profitability is not questioned by promoters, such as catering projects or those combining catering and accommodation. In this sense, Quaranta et al. [72] consider it necessary to connect different tourism projects, proposed in rural areas, also referring to complementary activities.
If a choice had to be made between creating new accommodation (with the inherent risk of oversizing the supply) and modernizing existing accommodation, research results seem to favor the second option. But, above all, as the Leader Initiative [1] stated in its first call for proposals, those responsible for implementing these types of programs must bear in mind tourism income’s complementary nature in rural areas.
Authors like Martins [97] and Leal-Solis and Robina-Ramírez [98] highlight the need for continuous monitoring in implementing these programs. Beyond official evaluations linked to EU fund execution, oversized tourist accommodation supply and viability criticisms from projects would demonstrate the absence of such monitoring mechanisms in implementing La Vera’s development strategy.
In the future, it would be interesting to complement this research by focusing on failed and transferred projects. Interviews with these promoters could shed light on the importance of poor project definition or changes in promoter personal circumstances as reasons for project closures or transfers.
It would also be worthwhile to analyze the role of public tourism promotion projects financed by development programs and their real contribution to stimulating demand. As noted by the promoters interviewed, they identify low demand as a fundamental factor jeopardizing private initiative viability in this sector. Finally, it seems necessary to rethink the role of rural development programs in stimulating tourism in areas where this activity has already consolidated. Support should probably focus on innovative and differentiating projects, avoiding potential distortion by subsidizing new accommodation in mature destinations. The technology and sustainability challenges facing the tourism sector open up interesting opportunities in this regard.

5. Concluding Remarks

The La Vera case shows that rural development programs’ commitment to economic diversification does not always involve a balanced investment distribution across different economic activities. This territory’s tourist vocation means resources concentrate on rural tourism, particularly projects aimed at the creation and/or modernization of rural accommodations. This comes at the detriment of other action types, especially those aimed at agricultural valorization, which, paradoxically, have the highest percentage of operational investment and lowest unsuccessful investments percentage.
When analyzing project economic viability assessment by promoters, it is seen that none questioning operational status are agricultural valorization or SME and craft and service promoters. However, over 60% of tourism promoters recognize profitability does not allow them to devote themselves exclusively to management; these responses concentrate among new rural accommodation promoters, where only one of eleven interviewed is satisfied with business evolution. However, those modernizing rural accommodation or undertaking catering projects are satisfied with viability. Therefore, a tourism project’s economic viability is not questionable from a sectorial perspective, but doubts refer to the project type implemented.
Questionable tourism investments viability may be one reason these actions have the highest number of transferred projects. Moreover, new accommodation creation projects attract developers of neo-rural and returnee origin. The motivations for this promoter type to invest could help explain why economically unviable projects remain operational long-term; these promoters recognize their priority was lifestyle change and that the project, despite modest return, enabled them to achieve this.
Depending on the productive measure under which it was implemented, differences between projects also affect employment generation or income increase capacity. Although average investment in agricultural valorization actions is the lowest of the three productive measures, this investment type has the greatest impact on increasing incomes, benefiting both processors and agricultural producers. The average investment in SME and, craft and service projects would be at an intermediate level, guaranteeing promoter self-employment, while tourism projects (especially new accommodation creation) have the highest average investment and lowest employment impact, since promoters often admit to moonlighting to supplement income.
This research has limitations inherent to the methodology employed. Its results are useful for explaining the rural reality but are not universally extrapolable and must always be interpreted in their context.
However, some reflections can be made that may be of interest when designing rural development strategies, especially in areas with strong tourism appeal. Investment diversification seems necessary to ensure profitability in both primary and service sectors. Within tourism, support should focus on modernization and complementary projects, while monitoring supply evolution to avoid potential distortion. The low viability of some tourism projects also leads to questioning accommodation oversizing and rethinking incentives once the sector reaches maturity.
Finally, the role of these programs should be re-evaluated once rural areas have overcome deficiencies in basic infrastructure and services provision. The sustainable development challenges facing rural environments open up opportunities for support to pilot innovative and differentiating projects with greater local impact.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors wrote, reviewed and commented on the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the promoters for their time and availability for the interviews, as well as the kindness shown at all times by ADICOVER’s technical staff.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. Notice to Member States Laying Down Guidelines for Integral Global Grants for Which the Member States Are Invited to Submit Proposals in the Framework of a Comunity Initiative for Rural Development (91/C 73/14); DOCE, no.73/33; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. García Álvarez-Coque, J.M. Las propuestas de liberalización del comercio mundial agropecuario: Una aproximación cualitativa. Rev. Estud. Agrosociales Pesq. 1991, 155, 11–40. [Google Scholar]
  3. Flores Paredes, J. Las reformas de la PAC y la Ronda Doha. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2006, 15, 155–177. [Google Scholar]
  4. Massot, A. La reforma de la Política Agraria Común de junio de 2003: Resultados y retos para el futuro. ICE 2004, 2817, 35–55. [Google Scholar]
  5. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J. Claves del actual proceso de reforma de la PAC: Un análisis de su evolución histórica. In Sistemas Territoriales y Recursos Para la Sostenibilidad; En Mora Aliseda, J., Loures, L., Garrido, J., Eds.; Thomson Reuters, Aranzadi: Pamplona, España, 2022; pp. 197–221. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonete, B. Condicionamientos Internos y Externos de la PAC; MAPA: Madrid, Spain, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  7. García Álvarez-Coque, J.M.; Compés, R. Las reformas de la Política Agrícola Común en la Unión Europea ampliada: Implicaciones económicas para España. Papeles Econ. Española 2005, 103, 230–244. [Google Scholar]
  8. Massot, A. La PAC, entre la Agenda 2000 y la Ronda del Milenio: ¿A la búsqueda de una política en defensa de la multifuncionalidad agraria? Rev. Estud. Agrosociales Pequeros 2000, 188, 9–66. [Google Scholar]
  9. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Parejo-Moruno, F.M.; Rangel-Preciado, J.F.; Cruz-Hidalgo, E. Regulation of Agricultural Trade and Its Implications in the Reform of the CAP. The Continental Products Case Study. Agriculture 2021, 11, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Commission. Guidelines for European Agriculture; COM (81) 608 Final; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  11. European Commission. Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy; The Green Paper of the Commission; Green Europe News Flash 33, COM (85) 333; Communication of the Commission to the Council and the Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  12. European Commission. The Future of Rural Society; COM (88) 501; Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 4/88; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  13. Asociación Europea de Información sobre el Desarrollo Local. La Financiación Local en Los Territorios Rurales; Cuaderno 9; Observatorio Europeo Leader: Bruselas, Bélgica, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  14. European Commission. Communication Setting out Guidelines for Global Grants to Integrated Operational Programs, for Which States Are Requested to Submit Applications for Assistance within a Community Initiative for Rural Development (94/C 180/12); Official Journal of the European Communities; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  15. European Commission. Communication to the Member States, Laying Down Guidelines for the Community Initiative for Rural Development (Leader+) (2000/C 139/05); C 139/05, Official Journal of the European Communities; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ministerio Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Programa Nacional Proder I; MAPA: Madrid, Spain, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación. Real Decreto 2/2002, de 11 de Enero, por el que se Regula la Aplicación de la Iniciativa Comunitaria “Leader+” y los Programas de Desarrollo Rural (PRODER); BOE, 11 de 12 de enero; MAPA: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cebrián, A. Génesis, método y territorio del desarrollo rural con enfoque local. Papeles Geogr. 2003, 38, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rodríguez, F. El desarrollo local, una aplicación geográfica. Exploración teórica e indagación sobre práctica. Eria 1996, 39–40, 57–73. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zapatero, J.; Sánchez, M.J. Instrumentos específicos para el desarrollo rural integrado: La Iniciativa Comunitaria Leader y el Programa Operativo Proder. Polígonos 1999, 8, 21–23. [Google Scholar]
  21. Musto, S. Endogenous Development. A Myth or a Path? Problems of Economic Self-Reliance in the European Periphery; EADE Books Series, No. 5; German Development Institute: Berlin, Germany, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cebrián, A.; García, R. El modelo LEADER, base del ordenamiento rural en la Unión Europea. Ágora 2008, 14, 22–48. [Google Scholar]
  23. Esparcia, J.; Noguera, J. Reflexiones en torno al territorio y al desarrollo rural. In El Desarrollo Rural en la Agenda 2000; Ramos, E., Ed.; Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 1999; pp. 9–44. [Google Scholar]
  24. Etxezarreta, M. Desarrollo Rural Integrado; Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación: Madrid, Spain, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cazorla, A.; De los Ríos, I.; Díaz, J.M. La Iniciativa Comunitaria Leader como modelo de desarrollo rural: Aplicación a la región capital de España. Agrociencia 2005, 39, 697–708. [Google Scholar]
  26. Asociación Europea de Información sobre el Desarrollo Local. La Competitividad Territorial. Construir una Estrategia de Desarrollo Territorial con Base en la Experiencia de Leader; Cuaderno No. 6; Observatorio Europeo Leader: Bruselas, Bélgica, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nieto, A.; Cárdenas, G. 25 años del método Leader en Extremadura. Su estudio mediante técnicas SIG y análisis multivariado. Rev. Int. Cienc. Tecnol. Inf. Geográfica 2016, 18, 125–146. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cejudo, E.; Navarro, F.A. La inversión en los programas de desarrollo rural. Su reparto territorial en la provincia de Granada. In Anales de Geografía de la Universidad Complutense; Universidad Complutense: Madrid, España, 2009; Volume 29, pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  29. Vargas, M.; Mondéjar, J.A. Análisis de la inversión de los Fondos Europeos para el Desarrollo rural en Castilla-La Mancha. Rev. Económica Castilla Mancha 2006, 9, 189–238. [Google Scholar]
  30. Alario, M.; Baraja, E. Políticas públicas de desarrollo rural en Castilla y León: “Sostenibilidad consciente o falta de opciones”: LEADER II. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2006, 41, 267–293. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nieto, A.; Cárdenas, G. Towards Rural Sustainable Development? Contributions of the EAFRD 2007-2013 in Low Demographic Density Terriories: The Case of Extremadura. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1173. [Google Scholar]
  32. Carvalho, P.; Fernandez, J.L. Iniciativas de desenvolvimiento local no espaço rural portugués. In Território, Inovaçao e Trajectorias de Desenvolvimiento; Caetano, L., Ed.; Centro de Estudios Geográficos da Fluc: Coimbra, Portugal, 2001; pp. 241–272. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruíz, E.; Frutos, L.M.; Climent, E. La iniciativa comunitaria LEADER II y el desarrollo rural: El caso de Aragón. Geographicalia 2000, 38, 71–84. [Google Scholar]
  34. Delgado, C.; De la Fuente, M.T. Las estrategias de desarrollo rural: Una valoración del PRODER en Cantabria. In Actas del X Coloquio de Geografía Rural; Asociación Geógrafos Españoles, Grupo Geografía Rural: Ciudad Real, España, 2000; pp. 623–634. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bryden, J. Tourism and Development; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lane, B. What is rural tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 2, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Butler, R.; Hall, C.M.; Jenkins, J. (Eds.) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sharpley, R.; Roberts, L. Rural Tourism: 10 Years on. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2004, 6, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Patmore, J. Recreation and Resources, Leisure Patterns and Leisure Places; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  40. Perdue, R.; Long, P.; Allen, L. Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes. Ann. Tour. Res. 1987, 14, 420–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. García, R. Turismo y desarrollo rural en la comarca del Noroeste de la región de Murcia: Los programas europeos Leader. Cuad. Tur. 2011, 27, 419–435. [Google Scholar]
  42. Toledano, N.; Gessa, A. El turismo rural en la provincia de Huelva. Un análisis de las nuevas iniciativas creadas al amparo de los programas Leader II y Proder. Rev. Desarro. Rural Coop. Agrar. 2002, 6, 107–122. [Google Scholar]
  43. Candela, A.R.; García, M.M.; Such, M.P. La potenciación del turismo rural a través del programa LEADER: La Montaña de Alicante. Investig. Geográficas 1995, 14, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hernández, M.; Moltó, E.; Rico, A. Actividades turístico-residenciales en las montañas valencianas. Eria 2008, 75, 77–97. [Google Scholar]
  45. García, M.; De la Calle, M. Turismo en el medio rural: Conformación y evaluación de un sector productivo en plena transformación. El caso del Valle del Tiétar (Ávila). Cuad. Tur. 2006, 17, 75–101. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pérez, M.; López, E. La contribución del turismo a la diversificación de actividades en un espacio rural periférico. Análisis del impacto de la iniciativa LEADER en Galicia. Rev. Estud. Agrosociales Pesq. 2005, 206, 111–135. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mondéjar, J.A.; Mondéjar, J.; Vargas, M. Análisis del turismo cultural en Castilla-La Mancha (España). El impacto de los programas europeos de desarrollo rural Leader y Proder. Estud. Perspect. En Tur. 2008, 17, 359–370. [Google Scholar]
  48. Márquez, D.; Foronda, C.; Galindo, L.; García, A. Eficacia y eficiencia de Leader II en Andalucía. Aproximación a un índice-resultado en materia de turismo rural. Geographicalia 2005, 47, 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nieto, A.; Cárdenas, G. 25 años de políticas europeas en Extremadura: Turismo rural y método Leader. Cuad. Tur. 2017, 39, 389–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guiberteau, A. Fortalezas y debilidades del modelo de desarrollo rural por los actores locales. In Nuevos Horizontes en el Desarrollo Rural; Márquez, D., Ed.; Universidad Internacional de Andalucía, AKAL: Madrid, España, 2002; pp. 87–104. [Google Scholar]
  51. Alberdi, J.C. El medio rural en la agenda empresarial: La difícil tarea de hacer partícipe a la empresa del desarrollo rural. Investig. Geográficas 2008, 45, 63–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Navarro, F.; Woods, M.; Cejudo, E. The Leader Iniciative has been a victim of its own success. The decline of the bottom-up approach in rural development programmes. The cases of Wales and Andalusia. Sociol. Rural. 2016, 56, 270–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Navarro, F.; Cejudo, E.; Maroto, J.C. Reflexiones en torno a la participación en el desarrollo rural. ¿Reparto social o reforzamiento del poder? LEADER y PRODER en el sur de España. EURE 2014, 40, 203–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Esparcia, J.; Noguera, J.; Pitarch, M.D. LEADER en España: Desarrollo rural, poder, legitimación aprendizaje y nuevas estructuras. Doc. D’anàlisi Geogràfica 2000, 37, 95–113. [Google Scholar]
  55. Buciega, A. Capital Social en el Marco de los Grupos Leader Para el Desarrollo Rural: Análisis de Casos en la Provincia de Valencia; Universitat de València, Instituto Interuniversitario de Desarrollo Local: Valencia, España, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  56. Saz-Gil, M.I.; Gómez-Quintero, J.D. Una aproximación a la cuantificación del capital social: Una variable relevante en el desarrollo de la provincia de Teruel, España. EURE 2015, 41, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Garrido, F.; Moyano, E. Capital social y desarrollo en zonas rurales. Un análisis de los programas Leader II y Proder en Andalucía. Rev. Int. Sociol. 2002, 60, 67–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Loures, L.C.; Mora Aliseda, J. Análisis de los efectos a largo plazo de los programas de desarrollo rural a partir de la metodología del Estudio de Caso. In Planeamiento Ecológico en las Iniciativas de Desarrollo; Mora Aliseda, J., Castanho, R.A., Garrido, J., Eds.; Thomson Reuters, Aranzadi: Pamplona, España, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  59. Navarro, F.; Cejudo, E.; Cañete, J.A. Balance de la Iniciativa Comunitaria de desarrollo rural tras 25 años. Continuidad de las empresas creadas con apoyo de Leader I y II. El caso de las Alpujarras. In Treinta años de Política Agraria Común en España. Agricultura y Multifuncionalidad en el Contexto de la Nueva Ruralidad; Ruiz, A., Serrano, M., Plaza, J., Eds.; Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles: Ciudad Real, España, 2016; pp. 385–398. [Google Scholar]
  60. Cañete, J.A.; Cejudo, E.; Navarro, F. Proyectos fallidos de desarrollo rural en Andalucía. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2018, 78, 270–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cejudo, E.; Cañete, J.A.; Navarro, F.A.; Capote, A. Fracaso en la implementación de los proyectos Leader en el rural profundo de Andalucía (España): Juventud y mujer. Ager Rev. Estud. Sobre Despoblación Desarro. Rural 2021, 33, 249–278. [Google Scholar]
  62. Navarro, F.; Cejudo, E.; Maroto, J.C. Aportaciones a la evaluación de los programas de desarrollo rural. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2012, 58, 349–379. [Google Scholar]
  63. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Robina Ramírez, R.; Nieto Masot, A. Tourism Development in the Framework of Endogenous Rural Development Programmes: Comparison of the Case Studies of the Regions of La Vera and Tajo-Salor. Agriculture 2023, 13, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Del Río Rama, M.; Álvarez-García, J.; Durán-Sánchez, A. Limitations of Rural Tourism as an Economic Diversification and Regional Development Instrument. The Case Study of the Region of La Vera. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3309. [Google Scholar]
  65. European Commission. Regulation 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 Laying down Detailed rules for the Application of Council Regulation 1698/2005 on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); Official Journal of the European Communities, L/368; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  66. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Fundación de Estudios Rurales. La estrategia de Desarrollo rural en la comarca de La Vera (Extremadura, España). In Agricultura Familiar en España. Anuario 2018; Moyano, E., Ed.; UPA: Madrid, España, 2018; pp. 142–147. [Google Scholar]
  67. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Nieto, A.; Castro-Serrano, J. Intangibles of Rural Development. The Case Study of La Vera (Extremadura, Spain). Land 2020, 9, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Del Rio, M.D.L.C.; Durán-Sánchez, A.; Álvarez-García, J. Strategies for Rural Tourism and the Recovery of Cultural Heritage: Case Study of La Vera, Spain. In Capacity Building through Heritage Tourism. An International Perspective; Srivastava, S., Ed.; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 53–70. [Google Scholar]
  69. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J. The Restoration of Religious Heritage as a Rural Development Strategy. In Handbook of Research on Socio-Economic Impacts of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage; Álvarez-García, J., Del Río-Rama, M.C., Gómez-Ullate, M., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 129–147. [Google Scholar]
  70. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Durán-Sánchez, A.; Del Rio, M.C.; Álvarez-García, J. Innovation and Enterpreneurship as Tools for Rural Development: Case Study Region of La Vera, Extremadura, Spain. In Enterpreneurship and the Comumnity. A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Creative, Social Challenges and Business; Ratten, V., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 125–140. [Google Scholar]
  71. Álvarez-García, J.; Maldonado-Erazo, C.P.; Del Río-Rama, M.d.l.C.; Castellano-Álvarez, F.J. Cultural Heritage and Tourism Basis for Regional Development: Mapping of Scientific Coverage. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Quaranta, G.; Citro, E.; Salvia, R. Economic and Social Sustainable Synergies to Promote Innovations in Rural Tourism and Local Development. Sustainability 2016, 8, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Iakovidou, O.; Koutsouris, A.; Partalidou, M. The development of rural tourism in Greece, through the initiative Leader II: The case of northern and central Chalkidiki. Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. 2002, 4, 32–38. [Google Scholar]
  74. Apostolopoulos, N.; Liargovas, P.; Stavroyiannis, S.; Makris, I.; Apostolopoulos, S.; Petropoulos, D.; Anastasopoulou, E. Sustaining Rural Areas, Rural Tourism Enterprises and EU Development Policies: A Multi-Layer Conceptualisation of the Obstacles in Greece. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Marques, H. Searching for complementarities between agriculture and tourism: The demarcated Wine-producing regions of northern Portugal. Tour. Econ. 2006, 12, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gatti, S.; Incerti, F.; Ravagli, M. Wine and tourism: New perspectives for vineyard areas in Emilia-Romagna. Cah. D’economie Sociol. Rural. 2002, 62, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Milano, C.; Novelli, M.; Cheer, J. Overtourism and Tourismphobia: A Journey Through Four Decades of Tourism Development, Planning and Local Concerns. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2019, 16, 353–357. [Google Scholar]
  78. Muresan, I.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.; Oroian, C.; Dumitras, D.; Mihai, M.; Ilea, M.; Chiciudean, D.; Gigla, I.; Chiciudean, G. Residents Perception of Destination Quality: Key Factors for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Muresan, I.; Oroian, C.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.; Porutiu, A.; Chiciudean, G.; Todea, A.; Lile, R. Local Residents Attitude toward Sustainable Rural Tourism Development. Sustainability 2016, 8, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Ann. Tour. Res. 2005, 32, 1056–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kayat, K.; Sharif, N.M.; Karnchanan, P. Individual and collective impacts and residents’ perceptions of tourism. Tour. Geogr. 2013, 15, 640–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Brankov, J.; Jojić, T.; Milanović, A.; Petrović, M.; Tretiakova, T. Resident’s Perceptions of Tourism Impact on Community in National Parks in Serbia. Eur. Ctry. 2019, 11, 124–142. [Google Scholar]
  83. Robina Ramírez, R.; Ripoll, R.; Castellano-Álvarez, F.J. The trinomial health, safety and happiness promote rural tourism. BMC Public Health 2023, 23, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Ciolac, R.; Adamov, T.; Iancu, T.; Popescu, G.; Lile, R.; Rujescu, C.; Marin, D. Agritourism: A Sustainable Development Factor for Improving the “Healt” of Rural Settlements. Case Study Apuseni Mountains. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Durán, M. El estudio de caso en investigación cualitativa. Rev. Adm. 2012, 3, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jiménez, V.; Comet, C. Los estudios de casos como enfoque metodológico. ACADEMO Rev. Investig. Cienc. Soc. Humanidades 2016, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  87. Coller, X. Estudio de casos. Colección de Cuadernos Metodológicos; Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas: Madrid, España, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  88. Yin, R. Investigación y Aplicaciones de Estudios de Casos: Diseño y Métodos; SAGE: Los Ángeles, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  89. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Robina Ramírez, R. La comarca como ámbito de intervención en los programas de desarrollo rural. El Estudio de caso de la comarca de La Vera. In Organización de la producción, Instituciones y Cooperación Empresarial. Estudios Aplicados Para el Desarrollo Rural; Parejo, F., Rangel, J.F., Linares, A., Eds.; Dykinson, S.L.: Madrid, España, 2023; pp. 365–378. [Google Scholar]
  90. González Regidor, J. Desarrollo Rural de Base Territorial: Extremadura; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación y Consejería Desarrollo Rural Junta Extremadura: Badajoz, España, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  91. Centro de Estudios Socioeconómicos de Extremadura. Diagnóstico Ambiental y Estratégico de la Mancomunidad de La Vera; Consejería de Desarrollo Rural de la Junta de Extremadura: Mérida, España, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  92. Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Del Río Rama, M.; Durán-Sánchez, A. Effectiveness of the Leader Initiative as an Instrument of Rural Development. Case Study of Extremadura (Spain). Rev. Port. Estud. Reg. 2020, 55, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yin, R. Investigación Cualitativa de Principio a fin; The Guilford Press: Nueva York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  94. Esparcia, J. Las políticas de desarrollo rural: Evaluación de resultados y debate en torno a sus orientaciones futuras. In El Mundo rural en la era de la Globalización: Incertidumbres y Potencialidades; García, F., Ed.; MAPA: Madrid, España, 2001; pp. 267–309. [Google Scholar]
  95. Viladomiu, L.; Rosell, J. Evaluando políticas, programas y actuaciones de desarrollo rural. Rev. Española De Econ. Agrar. 1998, 182, 297–308. [Google Scholar]
  96. Esteban, M.; Rodríguez, A.; Moreno, J.; Altuzarra, A.; Larrañaga, J. La evaluación de la Política Regional Europea. Análisis empírico de las metodologías aplicadas. Investig. Reg. 2009, 14, 157–184. [Google Scholar]
  97. Martins, M. Tourism Planning and Tourismphobia: An Analysis of the Strategic Tourism Plan of Barcelona 2010-2015. J. Tour. Herit. Serv. Mark. 2018, 4, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  98. Leal-Solís, A.; Robina-Ramírez, R. Tourism Planning in Underdeveloped Regions. What Has Been Going Wrong? The Case of Extremadura (Spain). Land 2022, 11, 663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 02130 g001
Figure 1. Location of the region of La Vera. Source: Castellano-Álvarez et al. [63].
Figure 1. Location of the region of La Vera. Source: Castellano-Álvarez et al. [63].
Agriculture 13 02130 g001
Agriculture 13 02130 g002
Figure 2. Distribution by type of action of investment in productive measure. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 2. Distribution by type of action of investment in productive measure. Source: Own elaboration.
Agriculture 13 02130 g002
Table 1. Sample of private projects by programming period and their representativeness.
Table 1. Sample of private projects by programming period and their representativeness.
Development ProgramPrivate ProjectsProject SamplesInvestment Private Project Samples% Sample of Private Projects to the Total Investment of the Measure
Proder I36262,947,795.4082.24
Proder II43182,019,122.7854.85
Leader Approach90384,462,697.5278.91
Total169829,429,615.7072.98
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 2. Sample of private projects by productive measures and their representativeness.
Table 2. Sample of private projects by productive measures and their representativeness.
Development ProgramPrivate ProjectsProject SamplesInvestment Private Project Samples% Sample of Private Projects to the Total Investment of the Measure
Rural tourism67426,146,533.2777.18
SMEs, crafts and services73272,110,311.4769.96
Agricultural valorization29131,172,770.9660.44
Total169829,429,615.7072.98
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 3. Number of interviews carried out according to the measure of productivity.
Table 3. Number of interviews carried out according to the measure of productivity.
Project SamplesProject FailedProject
Transferred		Disinterest
of the Promoter		Interviews Conducted
Rural tourism42128220
SMEs, crafts and services27103212
Agricultural valorization132128
Total822412640
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 4. Characteristics of the interviewees in La Vera region.
Table 4. Characteristics of the interviewees in La Vera region.
SexAgeOriginFormation
ManWoman<40Between 40 and 60>60NativeReturnedNeorruralBasicUniversity
Rural tourism146 1821523155
Accommodation creation83 9262374
Accommodation modernization43 7 7 61
Catering2 2 2 2
SMEs, crafts and services84291102 66
Agricultural valorization8 718 71
Total3010234433432812
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 5. Breakdown by measure of the investment implemented.
Table 5. Breakdown by measure of the investment implemented.
Proder I%Proder II%Leader Approach%
Productive measures3,584,221.93663,681,236.48685,655,422.7768
Rural tourism2,157,490.16402,072,606.99383,733,694.8745
SMEs, crafts and services943,459.4317722,488.60141,350,660.9916
Agricultural valorization483,272.349886,140.8916571,066.917
Non-productive measures1,835,873.69341,764,438.74322,640,410.6032
Operating costs608,532.9811666,967.20121,297,185.4916
Recovery of the environment1,227,340.71231,097,471.54201,343,225.1116
Total5,420,095.62 5,445,675.22 8,295,833.37
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 6. Operational projects, carryovers and failures by productive measures.
Table 6. Operational projects, carryovers and failures by productive measures.
Tourism SMEs and CraftsAgricultural
Valorisation		Total
Operational projects22141046
Investment in operational projects3,887,130.351,308,831.98888,510.306,084,472.63
% of total investment in the sample63%62%76%65%
Failed projects1210224
Investment failed projects1,261,780.24580,879.99122,803.361,965,463.59
% of total investment in the sample21%28%10%21%
Projects carried over83112
Investment in projects carried over997,622.68220,599.50161,457.301,379,679.48
% of total investment in the sample16%10%14%14%
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 7. Operational, carried over and failed projects by programming period.
Table 7. Operational, carried over and failed projects by programming period.
Proder I Proder IILeader ApproachTotal
Operational projects1482446
Investment in operational projects1,794,918.21969,758.413,319,796.016,084,472.63
% of total investment in the sample61%48%74%65%
Failed projects861024
Investment failed projects697,870.94452,053.42815,539.231,965,463.59
% of total investment in the sample24%22%18%21%
Projects carried over44412
Investment in projects carried over455,006.25597,310.95327,362.281,379,679.48
% of total investment in the sample15%30%8%14%
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 8. Are you satisfied with the profitability of your business?
Table 8. Are you satisfied with the profitability of your business?
Development ProgramNoYes
Rural tourism137
SMEs, crafts and services-12
Agricultural valorization-8
Total1327
Source: Own elaboration.
Table 9. Are you satisfied with the profitability of your tourism project?
Table 9. Are you satisfied with the profitability of your tourism project?
Development ProgramNoYes
Creation of accommodation101
Modernisation of accommodation25
Restoration actions11
Total137
Source: Own elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castellano-Álvarez, F.J.; Robina-Ramírez, R. Long-Term Survival of Investments Implemented under Endogenous Rural Development Programs: The Case Study of La Vera Region (Extremadura, Spain). Agriculture 2023, 13, 2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112130

AMA Style

Castellano-Álvarez FJ, Robina-Ramírez R. Long-Term Survival of Investments Implemented under Endogenous Rural Development Programs: The Case Study of La Vera Region (Extremadura, Spain). Agriculture. 2023; 13(11):2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112130

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castellano-Álvarez, Francisco Javier, and Rafael Robina-Ramírez. 2023. "Long-Term Survival of Investments Implemented under Endogenous Rural Development Programs: The Case Study of La Vera Region (Extremadura, Spain)" Agriculture 13, no. 11: 2130. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112130

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop