Localization in Europe's Periphery: Tourism Development in Sardinia

European Planning Studies, Vol. 11, No. 6, September 2003

Localization in Europe’s Periphery: Tourism

Development in Sardinia

GERT-JAN HOSPERS

[Paper first received, August 2002; in final form, October 2002]

ABSTRACT As a part of the south Italian Mezzogiorno the island of Sardinia is one of the most peripheral

and least favoured regions in the European Union (EU). This article deals with the strategies that have been

pursued to restructure the Sardinian economy during the post-war period. In particular, focus is on experiences

with local tourism development. After a sketch of the key features of Sardinia, the fruitless top-down strategies

of the Italian government to industrialize the island are discussed. After that, the efforts of local parties to

promote tourism that builds upon locality-specific assets are analysed. Furthermore, the effects of this localized

approach for Sardinia have been generally positive. Moreover, the growing interest among tourists for Sardinia’s

natural and cultural heritage offers perspectives for bottom-up tourism development as well. Here, however, it

is important to balance the short-run benefits of tourism with the possible costs of long-term environmental and

socio-cultural degradation. For the future development of Sardinia, therefore, ‘eco-tourism’ might be an

additional tool worth considering in the island’s present localized tourism strategy.

1. Introduction

“There is not in Italy what there is in Sardinia, nor in Sardinia what there is in Italy”, wrote

the eighteenth century monk Francesco Cetti after a visit to the Mediterranean island of

Sardinia (Facaros & Pauls, 2000, p. 54). A few centuries afterwards, Cetti’s words have lost

nothing of their relevance yet: Sardinia still differs from the rest of Italy, not only because of

its distinct history, people and culture, but also in terms of its economic development. The

high unemployment rates and relatively low per capita incomes on the island strongly contrast

with the prosperity of the often praised ‘industrial districts’ in Italy’s centre-north (Belussi,

1996; Sforzi, 2002; CRENOS, 2002). Since many years Sardinia has been a member of the

underdeveloped Italian Mezzogiorno (the south) comprising such regions as Sicily and

Calabria.1 But due to its insularity Sardinia has always been considered as a special case

within Italy’s so-called questione meridionale (southern question). In the Mediterranean Sea

Sardina is the island furthest from any mainland—and thus far away from potentially wealthy

sales and labour markets. Moreover, in the past policy-makers and big business have regarded

Gert-Jan Hospers, Department of Economics & Centre for European Studies, Faculty of Business, Public

Administration and Technology, University of Twente, Capitool, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The

Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0965-4313 print/ISSN 1469-5944 online/03/060629–17 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/0965431032000108369

630 Gert-Jan Hospers

the peripheral island as a fertile ground for several experiments. Like the other regions in the

Mezzogiorno Sardinia has been eligible as an Objective 1 region under the European Union’s

Structural Funds for many years. Although the regional economy has shown some progress

recently, it still suffers from weaknesses. In brief, Sardinia may be considered as one of the

most peripheral and least favoured areas in the European Union (EU).

Surprisingly, it is not so much the large category of such lagging regions, but rather a small

group of successful areas (e.g. Baden-Wurttemberg, Emilia-Romagna and Cambridge) that

have been studied the most in the literature. In an effort to characterize these ‘success stories’

many concepts have been put forward, such as ‘learning regions’, ‘innovative milieux’ and

‘new growth spaces’. Most of Europe’s less favoured regions, however, simply do not have the

preconditions that are needed for learning, innovation and growth. They often face a

precarious future, mainly due to structural problems and institutional specificities (Rodrıguez-

Pose, 1998). It has been suggested, therefore, that policies to upgrade these areas preferably

should depart from their local economic and institutional particularities. Such ‘localization’

may contribute to regional renewal, as it offers chances for local empowerment in ‘mobilizing

all a region’s assets’ (Cooke et al., 1992; Cooke, 1995). It is from this perspective that the

present article has been set up. The article deals with the development chances of Sardinia,

particularly when it comes to tourism development. By departing from the island’s unique

geographical, historical and socio-economic characteristics, the strategies that have been

pursued to restructure the Sardinian economy over the post-war period are discussed and

assessed. To this end, the article is organized as follows. First there is a brief sketch of Sardinia

and its socio-economic performance. Next, the focus is on the industrialization strategies that

the Italian government applied in Sardinia after World War II. Then, the article turns to the

region’s experiences with ground-up, cooperative initiatives in tourism development. After an

assessment of this strategy, the article ends by presenting ‘eco-tourism’ as an additional

development tool within Sardinia’s present localized tourism approach.

2. A Sketch of the Island of Sardinia

After Sicily Sardinia is the second largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. The territory

covers about one twelfth of Italy’s surface and is marked by a variety of coastal landscapes,

such as cliffs, dunes and beaches. The Sardinian climate is typically Mediterranean with ‘7

months of summer’ from April to November as well as mild winters. Sardinia has four

provinces, namely Sassari, Nuoro, Cagliari and Oristano, each one named after its provincial

capital. Figure 1 shows their locations. Although the population density in Sardinia is low, the

1,700,000 inhabitants are unevenly distributed over the island: 40% of the Sards live in

urbanized zones in the north (Sassari) or in the south near the island’s capital Cagliari

(Rural-Europe, 2002). The interior of Sardinia is still relatively isolated; especially Nuoro,

covering the mountainous heart of the island with the Gennargentu range, is sparsely

populated. In history, Sardinia has been frequently invaded and exploited, but never really

conquered (Floris, 1999; Andrews, 2000). After domination by the mysterious Nuraghic

culture in the Bronze Age and subsequent invasions by Phoenicians and Carthaginians, the

Romans occupied the island and brought it Latin, to which the modern Sardian language

(Sardo) is still very close. From the fall of the Roman Empire onwards, there was a coming and

going of tribes and peoples who tried to control Sardinia, such as Arabs, Pisans, Genoeses,

Spanish and finally the Italians. In the eighteenth century the ‘Kingdom of Sardinia’ took

shape, and as such the region played a significant role in the Unification of Italy (1861).

Since then, Sardinia’s role as a part of the modern Italian nation state has not always been

easy: the rural island was poor and its people and culture maintained a separate identity from

il Continente (the mainland). Especially after World War I the demands in the Sardinian

Tourism Development in Sardinia 631

Figure 1. A map of Sardinia. Source: I&O-Research, Enschede.

community for political independence increased. This ‘regionalism’ culminated in the creation

of the Partito Sardo d’Azione (Sardian Action Party), that soon became the island’s second biggest

party and whose manifesto demanded autonomy for Sardinia (Floris, 1999; Andrews, 2000).

Under the 1948 Constitution the post-war Italian government granted Sardinia autonomy

indeed. Within this process of ‘regionalization’, i.e. the decentralization from powers from the

State to the region, Sardinia got a special treatment. Just like four other Italian regions (e.g.

Sicily) the island obtained the status as a ‘special statute region’ within the Italian republic,

implying that it got greater power and self-determination than ‘ordinary statute regions’.2 Due

to this position Sardinia traditionally has had more competencies and specific earmarked

spending responsibilities in such areas as police, health care, transport and regional develop-

ment (Desideri & Santantonio, 1996; Committee of the Regions, 2001; Cooke, 2002). In these

matters the island’s regional authority, the Regione Sardegna, has played the most important

part. It is to this authority that Sardinia’s four provinces (Sassari, Nuoro, Cagliari, Oristano)

and about 370 communes (cities, towns and villages) at the local level are subordinated

(Thieme, 2002). In short, regionalization in Sardinia has been substantial, thus offering

possibilities for regional-level policies that could benefit from the islanders’ strong expressions

of regionalism. In the past, however, lobbies by a small group of Sardinian political elites on


Table 1. Per capita income in Sardinia com-

pared with other EU-regions, 1996

Regions 1996

Richest 25 regions in the EU 143

Total regions in the EU 100

Sardinia 73

Total Objective 1 regions 68

Objective 1 regions in Italy 67

Poorest 25 regions in the EU 59

GDP per head in PPS (EUR15� 100).

Source: European Commission, 1999.

the central State level in Rome generally have been more important in governing the region

than the democratic process of regionalism, as has been suggested in the literature on the

questione meridionale (Pasquino, 1989; Sykes, 1998).3

In economic terms, Sardinia shows ambivalent performances, at least from a regional

comparative perspective (European Commission, 1999; CRENOS, 2002). This is illustrated

by Tables 1 and 2 which map gross domestic product (GDP) per head in Sardinia among

other regions in Europe (1996) respectively Italy (several years over the period 1970–1999). In

Table 1 we can see that the island has had an Objective 1 status, implying that its

development is lagging behind compared with the total of EU-regions (European Com-

mission, 1999). With a per capita income lower than 73% of the EU-average the Sards are

still relatively poor. At the same time, this level is slightly below the threshold figure for

eligibility for Objective 1 status (75% of EU-average) and well above the average in Objective

1 regions as a whole (68%). Even more, when compared with the 25 poorest EU-regions (per

capita income 59% of EU-average)—including such diverse areas as Andalucia (Spain),

Magdeburg (Germany), Calabria (Italy) and Thessalia (Greece)—Sardinia is performing well.

Not only within the group of Europe’s less favoured regions, but also within Italy Sardinia

occupies a rather intermediate position in terms of GDP per head (Table 2) (CRENOS, 2002).

Still being a part of the Mezzogiorno, Sardinia has a higher standard of living than southern

Italian regions like Sicily, Calabria and Campania. But the per capita income of the Sards is

nowhere up to the Italian average, let alone that of the ‘industrial districts’ in Italy’s

centre-north. Such a gloomy picture also emerges when turning to the level of unemployment

in Sardinia (CRENOS, 2002): the island’s unemployment rate has risen from 15.8% in 1980

(Mezzogiorno: 11.5%; Italy: 7.6%) to 19.7% in 1990 (Mezzogiorno: 20.5%; Italy: 11.4%) and

finally to 21.0% in 1999 (Mezzogiorno: 22.0%; Italy: 11.5%).

The regional-economic structure of Sardinia is still handicapped by weaknesses (Paci,

Table 2. Per capita income in Sardinia compared

with other Italian regions, 1970–1999

Region 1970 1980 1990 1999

Mezzogiorno 73 70 69 68

Sardinia 89 78 76 77

Italy 100 100 100 100

Centre-north 115 117 118 118

GDP per head in PPS (Italy� 100).

Source: CRENOS, 2002.


Table 3. Sardinia’s economic structure compared with

other Italian regions, 1970–1999

Region 1970 1980 1990 1999

(A) Sardinia

Industry 33.4 28.7 24.3 21.4

Agriculture 9.3 5.7 3.9 5.0

Services 57.3 65.6 71.8 73.5

(B) Mezzogiorno

Industry 28.8 25.5 23.2 21.3

Agriculture 10.0 7.6 4.9 5.5

Services 61.2 66.9 72.0 73.2

(C) Centre-north

Industry 37.4 35.6 33.1 31.7

Agriculture 4.3 3.4 2.7 2.7

Services 58.3 61.0 64.2 65.6

Sector shares in percentage of total value added (total� 100%).


1999; CRENOS, 2002; Rural-Europe, 2002). This can be illustrated by recent sector data on

the importance of industry, agriculture and services in terms of employment (Paci, 1999) and

value added (CRENOS, 2002). The island’s industry sector (i.e. manufacturing/mining/con-

struction), employing 22.6% of the labour force in 1998 (Mezzogiorno: 23.2%; Italy: 32.0%

of total employment), is neither well-developed nor diversified, as it is still highly specialized

in heavy industries with large sunk costs (e.g. petrochemicals) and in the construction industry

(Rural-Europe, 2002). Simultaneously, agriculture in Sardinia—including such traditional

activities as sheep breeding, olive growing and wine making—remains relatively important,

accounting for 10.7% of total employment in 1998 (Mezzogiorno: 11.7%; Italy: 6.6%). The

proportion of both private and public services in the local economy is relatively large as well.

Over the years, services employment in Sardinia has risen to 66.6% of total jobs in 1998

(Mezzogiorno: 65.0%; Italy: 61.4%). Interestingly, as Table 3 shows, in terms of value added

both agriculture and services have grown in importance in the island’s economy over the

period 1990–1999 (CRENOS, 2002). The same is true for the rest of the Mezzogiorno, but

contrary to the trend in Italy’s wealthy centre-north. Furthermore, at least a part of the growth

of value added in the Sardinian agricultural and service sector over the last decade might be

explained by the rise of tourist activities building upon the rural character of the region. As

will be shown later, such ‘new combinations’ of tourism and agriculture might be future

growth sectors that offer opportunities for the restructuring of the Sardinian economy.

Over the years, Sardinia certainly has not been the worst performing region within the

Mezzogiorno. Nevertheless, the island is still a ‘full member’ of it and highlights many of the

key features that have been attributed to persistent socio-economic backwardness of southern

Italy (Leonardi, 1995; Fohrer, 2000; Barca, 2001). Just like other areas in the Mezzogiorno

Sardinia traditionally has disposed of institutions which are not conducive to individual and

collective action. In his famous study on social norms in southern Italy Banfield (1958) has

referred to this poor institutional structure as ‘amoral familism’, i.e. the inability of people to

work together for a common goal that is beyond the interest of their own family. According

to Putnam et al. (1993) the differentiation of these social norms—labelled as low levels of ‘social

capital’—is highly correlated with varying levels of performance of Italian regions. Social

capital refers to those “… features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks


that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions” (Putnam et al.,

1993, p. 167). A recent empirical study building on Putnam’s work even suggests that within

a cross-section of 54 European regions over the period 1950–1998 the lowest scores on social

capital in the form of mutual trust and active associational activity can be found in Sardinia

(Beugelsdijk & Van Schaik, 2001): on the island only 5.5% of the respondents answered that

most people can be trusted (mean sample score: 35%), while only 3% of them is member of

at least one voluntary association such as a church or youth work (mean sample score: 26%).

In our view, these results should be interpreted with care though. Apart from problems in

defining and measuring the multidimensional concept of social capital in general, the data

used for Sardinia are based on the year 1990. This is important to bear in mind as especially

the last decade saw a rise of entrepreneurship and collective initiative in Sardinia and other

regions within the Mezzogiorno (Barca, 2001).

Although Sardinia still may be characterized as a rather ‘innovation averse society’ (cf.

Rodrıguez-Pose, 1999), in the 1990s more and more exceptions to this generalization have

come, both in the island’s cities and villages. In cities such as Cagliari, Alghero and Sassari

there has been a growth of new technology-based firms and public–private high-tech

initiatives over the last years. It was the Sard business man Renato Soru, for example, who

founded the Cagliari-based internet firm Tiscali, one of Europe’s largest internet providers

(Helbert & Vitiello, 2002).4 The recent growth of investments in information technology,

biotechnology and medical research has led to some leading centres of excellence. To take an

example: near Alghero in the north-west of the island an innovative molecular genetic

research institute has been set up that is studying the genetic particularities of the relatively

homogeneous Sardinian island population (Thieme, 2002). Often, initiatives to stimulate R&D

and company development are supported financially by public programmes stemming both

from the EU (e.g. the Operational Programme for Research within the Community Support

Framework) and the regional government (e.g. the Consorzio Venuto, a programme aimed at

the development of small and medium sized enterprises). Last but not least, especially during

the 1990s Sardinia has experienced a rise of local business start-ups in the agro-food industry

and the tourism sector. In a sense, both sectors complement each other: more and more

farmers have turned to agriturismo (tourism on farms) while simultaneously specializing in

making culinary specialties for which Sardinia traditionally has been famous, ranging from

pecorino (sheep’s milk cheese), cannonau (strong red wine), carasau (parchment-like bread) to local

pastas, pastries and aperitifs (Andrews, 2000; Thieme, 2002).

These recent developments in the field of innovation and entrepreneurship on the island

have not stopped the decreasing and ageing of Sardinia’s population though. Since many

years young Sards have migrated to the Italian mainland (il Continente) or beyond in their

search for a more favourable future (Fohrer, 2000). The Sards staying on the island, however,

increasingly are determined to keep up their longstanding Sard customs, traditions and

language, perhaps because this Sardita (Sardness) contributes to the strengthening of their

identity. In particular in the island’s remote interior, also called Barbagia (from the Latin for

‘barbarian’), there remains a strong element of isolation and connection to old Sard customs.

In small shepherd villages in the Nuorese province, it is common to see people still wearing

typical local costumes and celebrating heartland community festivals that often have roots

going back long before Christianity. Sardita as found in the ‘Real Sardinia’ has also its limits

though (Facaros & Pauls, 2000): it is also associated with less decent practices such as banditismo

(banditry) and has contributed to the ‘institutional lock-in’ that can be found in remote inland

villages (cf. Grabher, 1993).5 In other parts of Sardinia, however, the last decade has witnessed

a rediscovery of the rather harmless aspects of Sardita. Especially in the coastal cities and

villages a ‘Sard Renaissance’ can be observed (Facaros & Pauls, 2000): more and more books

in Sard are published and there is a growing interest in Sardinian history and folklore. Within


Italy this modern expression of ‘regionalism’ makes Sardinia not only different, but also proud

to be different.

3. The Failure of Top-down Industrialization Strategies

One of the priorities of the post-war Italian government was to create opportunities for the

development of the country’s lagging southern part, the Mezzogiorno (Trigilia, 1992; Leon-

ardi, 1995; Signorini, 2001). For that reason, in 1950 reputable public servants and engineers

were set to work in the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno (i.e. the Southern Development Fund) in

Rome. For many years this central regional development agency has tried to restructure the

south until the fund was dissolved in 1992 due to the Maastricht Treaty that asked for a

re-design of Italian regional policy. The main focus of the Cassa has been the stimulation of

industrial investments in the Mezzogiorno. Because only a few private companies in the north

wanted to move to the south, most of the investments were made by State-owned concerns,

such as ENI (chemicals), EGAM (mining) and ITALSIDER (steel). Inspired by Perroux’s

growth pole approach, the Italian government expected that public investments in these

‘national champions’ would set into motion a self-reinforcing process of regional economic

development. Thus, they interpreted Perroux’s notion of a growth pole as an argument to

integrate industrial and regional policy.6 Consequently, in the 1960s and early 1970s huge

amounts of money from the Cassa as well as from the special Sardinian Piano di Rinascita

(Renaissance Plan) were spent for the establishment of large industrial complexes in the island

(Fohrer, 2000). These complexes in heavy industry, varying from oil refineries, aluminium

mines to chemical factories, were mainly concentrated near the island’s coast, e.g. around

Cagliari and Iglesias in the south, Porto Torres in the north and Arbatax in the west.

Although most of these complexes are closed now, they have left scars in the Sardinian

landscape. Consequently, while the island has the cleanest beaches in Italy, its industrialized

areas are highly polluted (Facaros & Pauls, 2000). Still, there are a few industrial complexes

in operation, employing only a limited number of workers.

When reviewing the post-war centralized industrialization efforts in Sardinia, we may

conclude that these strategies entirely failed (Trigilia, 1992; Sykes, 1998). This policy failure

is due to a combination of economic, political and institutional factors. From an economic

perspective, the heavy industries that should bring wealth to Sardinia were at odds with the

local economic structure (Floris, 1999; Hospers, 2001). By starting the heavy industries just

from scratch, policy-makers totally ignored Sardinia’s traditional agricultural base. For many

shepherds and farmers the transition from working in open air to the rigid rhythm of

factory-work turned out to be simply too large. Consequently, some factories, such as the

chemical plant in Ottana, were confronted with high sickness absence rates and voluntary

redundancies among their workers (Fohrer, 2000). Moreover, the industries that were thrown

up ex nihilo in the island derived only a few raw materials from the region itself and hardly

produced for the home market: almost 100% of the output was exported to the mainland of

Italy (Bausenhart, 1995). In brief, the lack of embeddedness of the industrial complexes in the

regional-economic structure prevented the start of the cumulative causation process the

policy-makers hoped for. Instead, the plants that were meant as Perrouxian ‘growth poles’

mostly ended as cattedrali nel deserto (cathedrals in the desert), changing the island’s landscape

rather than its economic structure (Bausenhart, 1995). The poor industrial performance of

Sardinia became even worse during the oil and steel crisis in the 1970s. Many plants in the

island were forced to restructure or to close down, the result being a large number of

compulsory redundancies.

The failure of industrial planning in Sardinia is also related to the complex political and

institutional context—both at the national and regional level—in which the Cassa per il


Mezzogiorno pursued its industrialization policy (Pasquino, 1989; Trigilia, 1992; Sykes, 1998).

In the Cassa’s largely discretionary policy partitocrazia, i.e. ‘party government’ with its

attendant clientilist practices and party-political bargaining, undoubtedly played a role

(Pasquino, 1989). The politicization of the administrative apparatus implied that there was

ample room for lobbies from a small group of party-political elites from the Mezzogiorno-

regions, including Sardinia. In their lobbies in Rome the Sardinian party elites often pursued

personal rather than regional goals. The authorities did not take much responsibility and

accountability for the large public investments (Barca, 2001), which may have frustrated

‘localization’, i.e. the mobilization of the region’s assets by civic and entrepreurial spirit in

Sardinia’s local communities. From this perspective, the usual institutional explanations for

the backwardness of the Mezzogiorno, such as ‘amoral familism’ (Banfield, 1958) and low

levels of ‘social capital’ (Putnam et al., 1993), get a different meaning: perhaps, the discretion-

ary policy of the Cassa in combination with the regional lobbies have more explanatory power

here than the social norms of the population in local communities themselves. Thus, it may

well be that not so much the local institutional structure as such, but rather the functioning

of the overall political system in Italy during the Cassa’s work has produced the ‘perverse

effects’ of industrialization policy in Sardinia (cf. Trigilia, 1992). In his analysis of the Cassa’s

policy Sykes (1998, p. 91) even suggests: “If disaster it was and is, then perhaps we should see

it as a political, rather than a policy, disaster”. If anything, it may be concluded that the failed

industrialization of Sardinia is not only about economic factors, but should be seen against the

background of a complex political and institutional context in Italy at that time.

4. The Turn to Bottom-up Tourism Development

Before the 1960s, Sardinia only disposed of a few holiday resorts. In 1961, however, the

island’s north-eastern coast was exploited by the Ismaelitic prince Aga Khan, who considered

this part of Sardinia as an exclusive alternative for the crowded Cote d’Azur in France

(Bausenhart, 1995). The prince founded a consortium of millionaires that bought up coastal

wasteland in Gallura from largely ignorant Sardinian farmers. Thereupon, an international

team of architects and planners transformed the beaches and bays along the coast, that was

renamed the Costa Smeralda (Emerald Coast), to a high-quality and fashionable holiday

landscape for the titled and wealthy. At the same time, this ‘sale of Sardinia’s coast’, as it has

been called, has contributed to subsequent high-income tourism and the island’s gradual

economic development (Fohrer, 2000). Even more, while the Sards at large had disapproved

of the earlier industrialization attempts, most of them were favourable disposed towards the

adoption of tourist activities. Since the 1970s the island has attracted a growing number of

Italian and foreign tourists with slogans like ‘Sardinia is Different’. Over the years, however,

tourists have visited also other coastal locations in the island. Besides the Costa Smeralda—

that has grown into a kind of ‘Disneyland at sea’ now (Facaros & Pauls, 2000)—in particular

the eastern coast of the island has been discovered by tourists. Consequently, in this area the

development of hotel accommodations, camping sites and complementary tourist facilities has

taken place at a large scale. Thus, after the example of the Emerald Coast, within 40 years

a significant part of Sardinia’s north and east coast has grown into a popular sun-drenched

holiday destination.

Recently, however, one can observe a growing interest among tourists for other aspects of

Sardinia than its sun-sea-and-sand image (Paci, 1999; CRENOS, 2002). Increasingly, visitors

are coming to the island to experience the ‘Real Sardinia’ that besides its coasts also is

characterized by its spectacular nature, mysterious culture and traditional folk life. The trend

among visitors to look beyond the island’s coast line has offered perspectives for Sardinia’s

remote inland areas as well. This has been especially the case for the Nuoro-province, which


Table 4. Stays by tourists in registered accommodations in Sardinia, 2000

Italian Foreign Total number of

Province tourists tourists tourists (2000)

(A) Cagliari

Hotels 1,750.912 529.119 2,280.031

Camping sites 597.140 135.612 732.752

Total accommodations 2,348.052 664.731 3,012.783

(B) Nuoro

Hotels 906.487 241.965 1,148.452

Camping sites 327.598 104.046 431.644

Total accommodations 1,234.085 346.011 1,580.096

(C) Oristano

Hotels 145.331 25.689 171.020

Camping sites 90.087 33.135 123.222

Total accommodations 235.418 58.824 294.242

(D) Sassari

Hotels 2,563.306 1,054.388 3,617.694

Camping sites 1,186.082 487.820 1,673.902

Total accommodations 3,749.388 1,542.209 5,291.597

Total Sardinia

Hotels 5,366.036 1,851.161 7,217.197

Camping sites 2,200.907 760.613 2,961.520

Total accommodations 7,566.943 2,611.775 10,178.718


covers most of the island’s interior, and that might be characterized as ‘one big outdoor

museum’ (Facaros & Pauls, 2000). For centuries, this mountainous and rural area was the

domain of shepherds living with their flocks in almost complete isolation, which may have

helped to preserve the area’s traditional cultural and natural heritage. With its rock forma-

tions, caves, wildlife and archaeological remains this lesser-known part of Sardinia has

attracted those types of tourists who love walking, trekking, mountain sports (e.g. rock

climbing and canyoning), spelunking, geology, archeology, bird watching and other outdoor

activities. The development of cultural and natural heritage tourism in Sardinia’s rural interior

has been significant over the last years (CRENOS, 2002). In terms of numbers of visitors,

however, this kind of tourism (particularly to be found in Nuoro and parts of Oristano) still

cannot compete with mass tourism along Sardinia’s coast lines (Sassari and Cagliari). This is

shown in Table 4 that lists the number of tourists in the island over the year 2000, their travel

destinations, the type of accommodations they booked (hotels versus camping sites) and their

country of origin (Italy or abroad). Finally, it is noted that in addition to the coast and the

‘Real Sardinia’ also the island’s industrial heritage is increasingly visited by tourists (Helbert

& Vitiello, 2002; Thieme, 2002). In particular the remnants of the ‘cathedrals in the deserts’

that have been closed down in the south-west (e.g. mines and factories around Sulcis and

Iglesiente) have turned out to be popular attractions for day trippers interested in Sardinia’s

industrial past. If anything, these observations indicate that there are also other paths for

tourism development in Sardinia than mass tourism according to the Emerald Coast model.

Among the islanders, tourism development is widely seen as the strategy of how to

restructure the Sardinian economy (Paci, 1999, 2000). Both public and private local actors

have tried to capitalize on the fact that visitors see Sardinia as a combination of both a sunny

holiday destination and an ‘outdoor museum’. The Sardinian model to stimulate tourist


activities might be characterized as a ‘cooperative approach’ in which local parties have

fulfilled a ‘developmental role’ (cf. Cooke, 1999). The parties involved in tourism development

include a variety of local actors: besides the island’s regional government (Regione Sardegna),

especially partnerships at the local level have played a pivotal role here. These local

partnerships are often small-scale networks and include informal relationships between

villagers, business men and authorities (e.g. mayors and local civil servants) as well as more

formalized network structures such as public and private local institutions (e.g. tourist agencies

(Pro Loco) and cooperatives in certain crafts) and social-cultural cooperatives. This ‘bottom-up’

approach in the island’s tourism development places the general image of Sardinia as a region

with low levels of social capital in a different perspective (Putnam et al., 1993; Beugelsdijk &

Van Schaik, 2001). As a matter of fact, when it comes to developing initiatives in the field of

tourism, the local Sardinian communities have shown organizational capacity and collective

action. Later some examples of this ‘localization’ in the field of Sardinian tourism develop-

ment are discussed.

Throughout the island local parties have cooperated to take advantage of the growing

interest among tourists for the region’s culture and nature, i.e. the ‘Real Sardinia’. Especially

during the 1990s, bottom-up processes in the local tourism sector have been facilitated and

coordinated by the Regione Sardegna, authorities on lower government levels and local

business people.7 To start, this joint action has resulted in growing investments in quality

resorts beyond Sardinia’s coast line. Furthermore, the local cooperative efforts have led to the

development of so-called agriturismo, i.e. organizing holidays for tourists on the many farms

Sardinia still has. To this end public and private parties have established specialized local

tourist agencies and consortia, such as the Consorzio Agriturismo di Sardegna. For one thing,

this organization links Sardinian farmers and advises them on how to set up and run a

business in agriturismo (e.g. bed and breakfast and additional facilities such as catering). For

another thing, the consortium’s staff advertises and offers visitors lists of accommodations and

any other information on farm holidays in Sardinia (Dedola, 1998). In the interior’s remote

villages the rising tourist demand for outdoor activities has been picked up as well: villagers

have worked together in starting little hotels, camping sites and rifugi (refuges in the mountains)

for walkers. Moreover, local guides have set up networks (e.g. the Cooperativa Ghivine,

Barbagia Insolita and Societa Goroppu) that offer excursions in the Sardinian wilderness

(Gillman et al., 1998; Fohrer, 2000). Another example of local tourism development has been

the revival of the island’s former ‘Green Railway’. In this ground-up project local railway

enthusiasts, tourist agencies, authorities and school kids have jointly renovated old steam

trains, tracks and stations. Thus, they managed to re-open a railway connection of 600 km for

tourists in the hilly inland of Sardinia (European Commission, 1997).

As a complementary strategy in tourism development local actors have also promoted the

production, distribution and marketing of region-specific agricultural products and traditional

handicrafts that are sold to tourists as souvenirs (Thieme, 2002). Local cooperatives in the

agro-food industry, for example, have been founded by farmers in rural communities to

control and guarantee the quality of the Sardinian pecorino-cheese and regional wines (e.g.

the tasted white wine named Vermentino di Gallura) (Helbert & Vitiello, 2002). In the field

of handicrafts, it is the Instituto Sardo Organizzazione Lavoro Artigianato (ISOLA) that

illustrates the importance of localization in Sardinia. Confronted with growing imports of

cheap souvenirs from Asia since the 1980s, the Regione Sardegna together with public and

private local actors established this organization in order to preserve and revive the centuries-

old tradition in making typical Sard products, such as carpets, wall hangings, shawls, baskets,

ceramics, metals, jewelry and corks (Bausenhart, 1995). ISOLA’s most important task has

been the establishment and sponsoring of craft cooperatives in many of Sardinia’s villages.

There are now over 50 of such ‘craft networks’ in the island, each providing what can be


called ‘real services’ (Pyke, 1994) to local craftsmen. The services provided to the artisans vary

from support in administrative and business organization to advisory services in matters of

joint purchasing, production, marketing and innovation. Apart from managing the local craft

cooperatives, ISOLA registers weaving patterns, organizes exhibitions and fairs and arranges

formalities (e.g. customs and VAT-dispenses) for tourists buying Sardinian products (Bausen-

hart, 1995). To implement these tasks, ISOLA has several administrative offices and runs

boutiques in six of Sardinia’s greater cities (e.g. in Cagliari, Alghero and Castelsardo). At the

moment, ISOLA sells traditional Sard handicrafts not only to tourists searching for souvenirs,

but it also exports to galleries in Milan and even New York. This development is a striking

case in point for the paradoxical trend of ‘global localization’ (Cooke et al., 1992): globalization

and localization do not essentially exclude each other, but may well go hand-in-hand.

5. An Assessment of Sardinia’s Tourism Development Strategy

The recent turn to tourism on Sardinia seems to be a promising strategy for the island’s

economic renewal. Interestingly, Sardinia is another example which demonstrates—just like

case studies on North Rhine Westphalia, Wales and Valencia do (Cooke, 1999)—that

cooperative, bottom-up solutions on the local level also may work in achieving growth in

Europe’s less favoured regions. When turning to the specific context of Sardinia, one can say

that until now the development of its local natural and cultural heritage for tourist purposes

has been successful, not only in the island’s cities and villages along the coast line, but also in

its remote inland areas. By building on unique regional assets local public and private actors

and institutions have managed to set up alternative tourist facilities like agro-tourism, guided

walks and complementary services. As a matter of fact, apart from a temporary regression of

visitors due to a general downward economic trend the number of tourists coming to Sardinia

for holiday purposes has been growing over the last decade (Paci, 1999; CRENOS, 2002).

Table 5 shows the number of Italians and foreigners that chose the island as a holiday

destination in the period 1990–1998 as well as the annual variation of this number. It must

be noted here that the growth of tourism is not restricted to regions like Sardinia, but can be

observed almost everywhere in Europe. Generally speaking, since the 1990s the tourism sector

in Europe has been growing (IPTS, 1999; Hospers & Steenge, 2002). After all, the current

European economy is experiencing an aggregate structural change towards services and

within this general trend of ‘tertiarization’ especially the demand for tourism is rising

(Feinstein, 1999). According to some commentators, this trend might even result in a

structural change of Europe’s economic geography: ultimately, the industry-oriented, metro-

politan ‘Blue Banana’ from London to Milan, which has been Europe’s core area since a long

time, might have to give way to a new growth axis in the southern part of Europe along the

Mediterranean coast (RECLUS, 1989; Delamaide, 1994). The idea is that this emerging

‘Sunbelt’ from Milan to Barcelona might grow on the basis of service-related activities

resulting from the area’s pleasant climate, nature and cultural heritage. If this prediction

proves correct, Sardinia perhaps may profit from its location at the boundaries of the Sunbelt

and face a favourable economic future as well.

In the case of Sardinia, a strategy of encouraging tourism-related activities is not only

useful from an economic point of view. If properly organized, tourism on the island might also

contribute to a further revival of the typical Sard culture and identity, which may be captured

by the term Sardita (Facaros & Pauls, 2000). During the years that the island was industrialized,

the local customs, folklore and Sard language were repressed as they were seen as barriers that

would frustrate renewal (Fohrer, 2000). In the modern service economy, however, these

typical Sard institutions can play an important role instead: actually, they are part of the

tourism product and make up the ‘Real Sardinia’ tourists are looking for. Thus, paradoxically,


Table 5. Number of tourists visiting Sardinia, 1990–1998

Italian Annual

Year tourists Foreign tourists Total tourists variation (%)

1990 5,679.000 1,353.000 7,032.000

1991 5,927.000 1,271.000 7,198.000 � 2.4

1992 5,721.000 1,093.000 6,815.000 � 5.3

1993 5,442.000 1,034.000 6,476.000 � 5.0

1994 5,786.000 1,316.000 7,101.000 � 9.7

1995 6,110.000 1,509.000 7,619.000 � 7.3

1996 6,118.000 1,640.000 7,758.000 � 1.8

1997 6,523.000 1,746.000 8,269.000 � 6.6

1998 6,599.000 1,837.000 8,435.000 � 2.0

Source: Paci, 1999.

tourism may enhance the islanders’ identity and encourage ‘localization’ in Sardinian com-

munities. Even more, these unique local assets combined with the structural trend towards a

service economy may bring about ‘new combinations’ in which trend and tradition are

integrated (Hospers, 2001). Such an appreciation of the local culture can be observed in the

island’s towns nowadays, where young artists and designers make innovative applications out

of centuries-old handicrafts (Facaros & Pauls, 2000). The aggregate effects of such positive

‘side-effects’ of tourism development for the local economy are difficult to measure and thus

unclear. Obviously, however, the local tourist industry has forward and backward linkages to

other businesses, including travel (e.g. tour operators and bus companies), accommodation,

catering and retail establishments (e.g. construction companies, hotels, camping sites, restau-

rants and shops), leisure and entertainment (e.g. archeological sites, theme parks and muse-

ums) as well as sports and recreation (e.g. diving clubs and guided visits). According to Paci

(1999) the impact of these tourism-induced linkages in the case of Sardinia is significant. He

argues, therefore, that the local tourism sector should be regarded now as “la principale

industria ‘esportatrice’ isolana”, i.e. the most important export industry in the island (Paci,

1999, p. 20). Even more, the increasing number of tourists spending their holidays in Sardinia

might be one of the factors explaining why the regional economy has shown some recovery

over the years (Paci, 1999, 2000; CRENOS, 2002).

Despite the favourable perspectives of tourism for the restructuring of Sardinia, there are

also potential negative sides to the further development of this sector. While tourist activities

are generating additional money and jobs for the local economy, they also may have adverse

social, environmental and cultural effects (Cater & Lowman, 1994; UNEP/TIES, 2001;

Weaver, 2001). For the local population working in the tourist sector mostly implies an

unstable income, since this branch of the economy often is subject to seasonal influences. As

a matter of fact, just as in many other sun-and-sea resorts, tourism in Sardinia is highly

concentrated during the summer months. Table 6 shows, for instance, that in 1998 as much

as 70.7% of the two million Italian and foreign tourists visited the island in June, July and

especially in August (Paci, 1999). The concentration of tourism demand in a short period of

time may lead to an imbalance in the use of the island’s natural and cultural resources for

tourist purposes. If not properly organized, ‘mass tourism’ in Sardinia during the summer

months increases the chance that ecologically sensitive areas on the island are over-used and

even damaged. Thus, Sardinia runs the risk of threatening those very natural and cultural

assets upon which the economy largely depends. Possible impacts of tourist over-exploitation

on the island’s ecosystem in the long run are waste and pollution in areas with little or no

capacity to absorb them. Ultimately, this may even result in a loss of biodiversity and wildlife


Table 6. Monthly percentages of tourists visiting Sardinia, 1998

Italian Foreign Percentage of

Month tourists tourists tourists (1998)

January 1.0 0.3 0.8

February 1.1 1.1 1.1

March 1.5 1.5 1.5

April 2.2 3.3 2.4

May 4.3 10.7 5.6

June 12.0 15.9 12.8

July 24.4 22.4 23.8

August 37.8 21.4 34.1

September 8.9 12.5 9.6

October 3.5 8.8 4.5

November 2.4 1.2 2.2

December 1.9 0.9 1.7

Total (1998) 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Paci, 1999.

habitats. Not only at the Costa Smeralda, but also in other coastal areas of Sardinia the

natural environment has been damaged by the tourist industry already now (Bausenhart,

1995). In some of these places pursuit of short-term profit has led to an unregulated

construction of holiday resorts that—as little as the industrial complexes before—fit in the

Sardinian landscape. Finally, parts of the Sard cultural components that have been revived for

the sake of tourism are not necessarily those that are valued the most in the local communities.

Thus, the danger of a gradual commercialization of traditional culture lies in wait. In sum,

tourism in Sardinia may have long-run consequences that are not necessarily in the best

interests of the local population, nature and culture.

6. Conclusion: Perspectives on Sardinia’s Future

It may be concluded that Francesco Cetti, whose words started this article, was right: his

observation that Sardinia was different from the rest of Italy is still true. Even more, having

discussed earlier efforts to develop the island’s economy, it is suggested that it is this very

difference upon which future economic strategies for Sardinia might be based. The top-down

regional industrialization policy pursued by the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno entirely failed: this

policy saddled Sardinia with ‘cathedrals in the desert’ and, combined with strong lobbies by

a small group of Sardinian political elites in Rome, frustrated collective public and private

initiative in local communities. Compared with the Cassa’s discretionary policy, the turn to

tourism has been a move in the right direction for Sardinia. Tourist activities fit better in the

island’s structure and offer opportunities for bottom-up localized strategies. Generally speak-

ing, it may be concluded that the tourist sector can improve the islanders’ standard of living,

certainly in the short term. But in the long run, tourism may also have negative effects on

Sardinia. In particular, tourist activities possibly damage the environmental and socio-cultural

elements that exactly make up the ‘Real Sardinia’ visitors are increasingly searching for. What

can be done then to bring wealth to Sardinia? The first thing to take into account here is the

importance of ‘localization’ in devising policies. In order to build on the traditional structure

of the Sardinian economy, it is thought that localized rather than centralized solutions are

needed in which regional specificities are placed in the forefront. When local actors are

intimately involved, the region can optimally make use of and build upon its unique natural


and cultural assets. Thus, it is more likely that regional development policy will be successful.

With regard to policy priorities for Sardinia local tourism development still is the most

promising strategy to take advantage of the European service economy. The sector offers

possibilities for ‘new combinations’ of global trends and local traditions, such as agrotourism,

guided excursions and innovative arts and crafts, and thus may have a considerable impact on

the local economy. Such a localized policy, however, should not only concern the stimulation

of tourist activities, but also take account for their regulation to reduce the cultural and

ecological damage tourism may bring about.

In this respect, local parties involved in tourism development in Sardinia perhaps can

draw inspiration from the concept of ‘eco-tourism’. This concept—also referred to in the

literature as sustainable, rural, responsible or environmental tourism—has been put forward

recently (see e.g. Cater & Lowman, 1994; Coccossis & Nijkamp, 1995; Weaver, 2001, for

overviews) and may be simply defined as “… responsible travel to natural areas that conserves

the environment and sustains the well-being of local people” (UNEP/TIES, 2001). On a

global scale eco-tourism has turned out to be one the fastest growing segments of the tourism

industry (WTO, 2001).8 Reviews of successful eco-tourism experiences make clear that local

authorities can play an important part in developing tourist initiatives that sustain the

well-being of the local community, while conserving the cultural and natural environment

(Herbig & O’Hara, 1997; Denman et al., 2001). Examples are regulatory controls on the

number of tourists visiting areas, education and training of local civil servants, guides and

(future) tourists, the use of local labour and materials to serve visitor needs as well as the

involvement in the decision making process of those people that are impacted by tourism.

Among these methods, education and training of the public are perhaps the most important

instruments to stimulate eco-tourism, as they ultimately may contribute to the emergence of

a general eco-tourism ethic in society (Wright, 1993). Therefore, eco-tourism might be a

strategy worth considering in the Sardinian context. After all, for economic reasons the island

largely depends on the maintenance of its natural and cultural resources. At the same time,

it is questionable whether the practical application of eco-tourism in Sardinia fully corre-

sponds with the theoretical case that can be made for it. By its nature, eco-tourism tends to

be modest in scale (e.g. tour groups with only a limited number of people). Moreover, one can

have doubts about the appeal of eco-tourism for the public. The standard eco-tourist turns out

to be between 30 and 59 years old and has higher education and above average income

(Denman et al., 2001). Thus, only a minority of people will like and practice it. Because of its

rather elitist character eco-tourism probably will never be able to substitute ‘regular’ sun, sea

and sand tourism along Sardinia’s coasts in the peak season. In short, despite its potentials for

Sardinia, eco-tourism could be best seen as an additional rather than alternative tool for

further local tourist development.

As a matter of fact, local parties in Sardinia have seen already the importance of balancing

the economic benefits of tourism with its possible socio-cultural and environmental costs. In

the island’s remote interior, for example, local cooperative organizations of environmentally

motivated guided (e.g. the Societa Goroppu) have set up successful initiatives in the field of

eco-tourism (Gillman et al., 1998; Helbert & Vitiello, 2002). Here, competent local guides

closely cooperate to inform visitors about the particularities of rural life in Sardinia (e.g. its

traditions, landscapes, flora and fauna), they offer courses in environmental education and

organize guided nature walks in the Sardinian wilderness. This localized collective action has

worked and recently has led to regulatory policy by the government: parts of the inland areas

in Sardinia are protected now by a national park, several regional parks as well as natural

reserves (Gillman et al., 1998). Also among European policy-makers, the understanding to

preserve such vulnerable rural landscapes seems to be growing. In 2000, for example, the EU

has approved a plan for the Mezzogiorno for the period 2000–2006 that among other things


intends to develop the area’s natural and cultural resources with the aim to make them more

accessible for the public (Barca, 2001). This emphasis on the development of natural and

cultural assets for tourist purposes can be found as well in the recently approved

LEADER� rural development programme for Sardinia (European Commission, 2002).

These are promising developments; however, the short-term benefits of opening the island’s

rural areas for tourists still should be carefully balanced against the possible costs of long-term

environmental and socio-cultural degradation. In this respect, further development of eco-

tourism on the island might help. In any case, it might be an additional development tool

worth considering within Sardinia’s present successful bottom-up tourism strategy. Thus, the

long-lasting economic differences between the island and Italy’s centre-north might be

reduced—while preserving the ‘Real Sardinia’ and Sardita the eighteenth century monk

Francesco Cetti was already pointing to.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the local farmers, businessmen and policy-makers I spoke with when

conducting field research in the island of Sardinia in the spring of 2001. When writing the

article, I have benefited from discussions with and comments by Richard Kalsbeek, Sjoerd

Beugelsdijk, Marcel van Lochem, Albert Steenge, Angelo Rosati and Luca Gambini. Thanks

are also due to Edwin van de Wiel and Marcel Eggenkamp for help with drawing the map.

Last but not least, I express my thanks to two anonymous referees for their valuable comments

and observations on an earlier version of this article. The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

1. Apart from Sardinia—in Italian: Sardegna—the Mezzogiorno includes seven regions: Abruzzo, Molise,

Campania, Basilicata, Puglia, Calabria and Sicily.

2. Italy is a unitary country comprising the central state, regions, provinces and communes. The regions,

to which powers have been more fully devolved than to the 100 provinces and about 8100 communes

at the local level, are of two kinds, to which 15 ‘ordinary’ and five ‘special statute’ regions. Although

the special statute regions have more powers than their ordinary colleagues, both types of regions

complement the central state by financing, regulating, planning and monitoring the activities of the

provinces and communes (Committee of the Regions, 2001).

3. As in most European regions, regionalization in Sardinia has been a mainly ‘top-down’ impulse,

whereas regionalism clearly has been a process ‘from below’ (Cooke, 2002). Essentially, Sardinia is a

case of region in which the forces of regionalization and regionalism have gone hand-in-hand. The

possibilities for mutual reinforcement of both forces, however, have not been fully exploited as a result

of the strong lobbies of a small body of Sardinian political elites in Rome in the post-war period.

4. The company name Tiscali refers to the name of an ancient Nuraghic village in Sardinia’s remote

inland. This village is one of the remnants of the mysterious Nuraghic civilization that occupied the

island during the Bronze Age. Nowadays, it is a well-known tourist attraction in the island’s interior

(Gillman et al., 1998).

5. In some of these inland villages, such as Orgosolo, the isolated circumstances have led to a strong

cultural closeness among the inhabitants that in combination with economic problems may explain

why banditismo (banditry) has all but disappeared here. In recent years, however, in the island the rate

of crimes—varying from sheep stealing to the kidnapping of people from wealthy families (for which

Sardinia’s inland was well-known in the 1970s)—have gone down (Bausenhart, 1995; Facaros & Pauls,

2000).

6. Perroux (1955) simply defined a growth pole as a ‘propulsive unit in a determined environment’. In

his view, a ‘propulsive unit’, e.g. a key industry, could generate spread effects to the rest of the

economy through backward and forward linkages. Thus, a growth pole would emerge. Perroux saw


regional agglomeration just a special case of the growth pole concept; policy-makers, however, have

interpreted a growth pole merely in geographical terms (Cooke, 2002).

7. In addition to local actors themselves also the EU is more and more playing a stimulating part here.

One of the objectives of the recently approved LEADER� rural development programme for

Sardinia over the period 2001–2006, for example, is to further develop local resources of rural areas

by means of local partnerships (European Commission, 2002).

8. As a matter of fact, the United Nations General Assembly has designated the year 2002 as the

International Year of Eco-tourism in order to recognize the growing importance of eco-tourism and

to encourage initiatives in this field on a global scale (Toepfer, 2001).

References

ANDREWS, R. (2000) Sardinia. London: Rough Guides.

BANFIELD, E.C. (1958) The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe: The Free Press.

BARCA, F. (2001) New trends and policy shift in the Italian Mezzogiorno, Daedalus, 130, pp. 93–113.

BAUSENHART, H. (1995) Sardinien. Ostfildern: Mairs Geographischer Verlag.

BELUSSI, F. (1996) Local systems, industrial districts and institutional networks: towards a new evolution-

ary paradigm of industrial economics, European Planning Studies, 4, pp. 1–15.

BEUGELSDIJK, S. and VAN SCHAIK, A.B.T.M. (2001) Social capital and regional economic growth, CENTER

Discussion Paper, 102. Tilburg: Tilburg University.

CATER, E. and LOWMAN, G. (1994) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

CENTRO DI RICERCHE ECONOMICHE NORD SUD (CRENOS) (2002) 9o Rapporto sull’ Economia della Sardegna:

Analisi strutturale e previsioni 2001–2003. Cagliari: Centro di Ricerche Economiche Nord Sud.

COCCOSSIS, H. and NIJKAMP, P. (Eds) (1995) Sustainable Tourism Development. Brookfield, Vermont:

Avebury.

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (2001) Regional and Local Government in the European Union: Responsibilities and

Resources. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.

COOKE, P. (1995) Introduction, in P. COOKE (Ed.) The Rise of the Rustbelt, pp. 1–19. London: UCL Press.

COOKE, P. (1999) The co-operative advantage of regions, in T.J. BARNES and M.S. GERTLER (Eds) The

New Industrial Geography: Regions, Regulation and Institutions, pp. 54–73. London: Routledge.

COOKE, P. (2002) Knowledge Economies: Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage. London: Routledge.

COOKE, P., MOULAERT, F., SWYNGEDOUW, E., WEINSTEIN, O. and WELLS, P. (1992) Towards Global

Localisation. London: UCL Press.

DEDOLA, S. (1998) Agriturismo in Sardegna. Subiaco, Rome: ITER.

DELAMAIDE, D. (1994) The New Super Regions of Europe. New York: Dutton.

DENMAN, R., BLANGY, S. and HAMELE, H. (2001) What does ecotourism mean for Europe?, Industry and

Environment, 24, pp. 61–65.

DESIDERI, C. and SANTANTONIO, V. (1996) Building a third level in Europe: prospects and difficulties in

Italy, Regional and Federal Studies, 6, pp. 96–116.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1997) Regional Success Stories: 36 Projects in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for the

Official Publications of the European Communities.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1999) Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of

Regions in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European

Communities.

EUROPEAN COMMISSON (2002) Go Ahead for EUR 52.6 Million Leader�Rural Development Programme in

Sardinia, Italy, Press Release, IP/02/75. Brussels: European Commission.

FACAROS, D. and PAULS, M. (2000) Sardinia. London: Cadogan.

FEINSTEIN, C. (1999) Structural change in the developed countries during the twentieth century, Oxford

Review of Economic Policy, 15, pp. 35–55.

FLORIS, F. (1999) Breve Storia della Sardegna: Dalle Origini ai Giorni Nostri. Rome: Tascabili Economici

Newton.

FOHRER, E. (2000) Sardinien. Erlangen: Michael Muller.

GILLMAN, H., BARDWELL, S., CAVEDONI, S. and TAPP, N. (1998) Walking in Italy. Hawthorn: Lonely

Planet.


GRABHER, G. (1993) The weakness of strong ties: the lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr Area,

in G. GRABHER (Ed.) The Embedded Firm: On the Socio-Economics of Industrial Networks, pp. 255–277.

London: Routledge.

HELBERT, F. and VITIELLO, G. (2002) Sardinien. Koln: Dumont.

HERBIG, P. and O’HARA, B. (1997) Ecotourism: a guide for marketers, European Business Review, 97,

pp. 231–236.

HOSPERS, G.J. (2001) New combinations: have policymakers learned from past mistakes?, New Economy,

8, pp. 139–143.

HOSPERS, G.J. and STEENGE, A.E. (2002) Structural and institutional change in Europe: an analysis

inspired by Fourastie and Perroux, in A. PRINZ, A.E. STEENGE and A. VOGEL (Eds) Agglomeration,

Population and Coordination in Europe, pp. 1–34. Munster: LIT Verlag.

IPTS (1999) The competitiveness map: avenues for growth, Futures Report Series, 12. Seville: Institute for

Prospective Studies.

LEONARDI, R. (1995) Regional development in Italy: social capital and the Mezzogiorno, Oxford Review

of Economic Policy, 11, pp. 165–179.

PACI, R. (1999) L’evolutiozione del sistema economico della Sardegna negli anni novanta, Contributi di

Ricerca CRENOS, 99/7. Cagliari: Universita di Cagliari.

PACI, R. (2000) Convergenza e divergenza tra le regioni Europee: implicazioni per lo sviluppo economico

in Sardegna, Contributi di Ricerca CRENOS, 00/1. Cagliari: Universita di Cagliari.

PASQUINO, G. (1989) Unregulated regulators: parties and party government, in P. LANGE and M. REGINI

(Eds) State, Market and Social Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PERROUX, F. (1955) Note sur la notion de ‘pole de croissance’, Economique Appliquee, 8, pp. 307–320.

PUTNAM, R.D., LEONARDI, R. and NANETTI, R.Y. (1985) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern

Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

PYKE, F. (1994) Small Firms, Technical Services and Inter-Firm Co-operation. Geneva: International Institute for

Labour Studies.

RESEAU D’ETUDE DES CHANGEMENTS DANS LES LOCALISATIONS ET LES UNITES SPATIALES (RECLUS)

(1989) Les villes europeennes, Rapport pour la DATAR. Montpellier: Reseau d’Etude des Change-

ments dans les Localisations et les Unites Spatiales.

RODRIGUEZ-POSE, A. (1998) Dynamics of Regional Growth: Social and Political Factors. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

RODRIGUEZ-POSE, A. (1999) Innovation prone and innovation averse societies: economic performance in

Europe, Growth and Change, 30, pp. 75–105.

RURAL-EUROPE (2002) Atlas Leader: Sardegna. Downloadable at www.rural-europe.aeidl.be. Brussels:

European Commission.

SFORZI, F. (2002) The industrial district and the ‘new’ Italian economic geography, European Planning

Studies, 10, pp. 439–447.

SIGNORINI, L.F. (2001) Italy’s economy: an introduction, Daedalus, 130, pp. 67–92.

SYKES, R. (1998) Italian public policy and the southern question: policy disaster or political disaster?, in

P. GRAY and P.’t HART (Eds) Public Policy Disasters in Western Europe. London: Routledge.

THIEME, W. (Ed.) (2002) Sardinien. Hamburg: Merian.

TOEPFER, K. (2001) Editorial: the opportunities of ecotourism, Industry and Environment, 24, p. 3.

TRIGILIA, C. (1992) Sviluppo senza Autonomia: Effetti Perversi delle Politiche nel Mezzogiorno. Bologna: Il Mulino.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME/THE INTERNATIONAL ECOTOURISM SOCIETY (UNEP/

TIES) (2001) Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainability. Paris/Burlington: United

Nations Environment Programme/The International Ecotourism Society.

WEAVER, D.B. (Ed.) (2001) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

WRIGHT, P. (1993) Ecotourism: ethics or eco-sell?, Journal of Travel Research, 32, pp. 3–9.

WORLD TOURISM ORGANIZATION (WTO) (2001) Tourism Highlights 2001. Madrid: World Tourism

Organization.

Documents

Localization in Europe's Periphery: Tourism Development in Sardinia