Tenerife's Territorial Management Plan

ANALYSIS OF THE ISLAND TERRITORIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (PIOT) OF TENERIFE FROM THE REGIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE This message seeks to provide an overview and analysis of the Tenerife Island's PIOT, a territorial planning document that is scaled at the island level. This is one of the iterations of the plan that has been circulating for the past fifteen years, outlining the island's medium-term territorial growth. This is the final proposal of the aforementioned paper in its most polished version, even if permission has not been confirmed. Its significance stems not only from its high level of formalization but also from the fact that the majority of its planning recommendations are either already being implemented or will be implemented shortly, making it an unquestionable roadmap for the territorial policy that the Tenerife council is defining for the island. The report is divided into three sections: Standards & Guidelines, Report, and Previous Studies. Since the Report goes into great depth about the Standards and Guidelines, both of these topics have been included in section B of this message. A) A number of topic studies on the issues facing the island territory were used to create the document's previous research. B) Report and Standards and Guidelines: B.I. Information (geographical environment, population change and residential distribution, tourism and its effects on the economy and on the territory, business and industry, infrastructure and territorial planning, machinery, and agriculture) conclusions. B.2. The diagnosis, goals, and criteria for management. B.3. Features and Rationale for Planning (the island planning system's configuration, planning's implementation, the Territorial Planning Model (MOT), the basic distribution of uses, urban areas, the preservation of the natural and cultural heritage, the equipment, infrastructure, and the regulation of primary uses, mining activities, industry and tertiary activities, tourism management, and residential areas Building on the preceding division, we will analyze the PIOTs formal benefits and deficits as well as whether or not it should be adjusted to the way the island is currently organized. A) ABOUT THE PREVIOUS STUDIES: The paper appears to have been developed with a number of topic studies on the island territory's challenges in its opening pages, although this is not made clear later on. neither in the processes' measurement nor in their justification, as stated in the first section of the report that refers to the information's conclusions. A strong territorial plan may also result from accurate information. It's unclear if these comprehensive earlier research have been applied or not. B) ABOUT THE REPORT: We will now address three components of the report: B.I. Information conclusions; B.2. Diagnosis, criteria, and management objectives; and C.3. Plan content and management characteristics. B.I. CONCLUSIONS ON THE INFORMATION: This section's interpretation of the information's content is incorrect. Rather than providing conclusions on the information, the issue should be directed toward the information and its analysis, as the diagnosis must include the information's conclusions. Because of this, the diagnostic portion consists just of a subpar summary and a restatement of the information's findings. Going on to the content of this section of the report, which is titled Conclusions of the information, it is necessary to mention that it is broken down into eight sections: the physical environment; population evolution and residential distribution; the implications of tourism, industry, and commerce on the territory and economy; the equipment; the space is adapted to its functions; agriculture is an economic activity that shapes the landscope; and the problems pertaining to natural resources. Owing to the level of focus on each of them, it is already evident which are the areas and activities that the PIOT will prioritize (tourism, large infrastructure, and planned land supply); which it will attempt to address (the residential dispersion problem); which it will ignore (equipment and agriculture); and which are those that are mandated by law (the Insular Plan as PORN) but which it incorporates but lacks substance or coherent, integrative proposals (the physical environment and the issues of natural resources). The sections on criteria and objectives (B.2) as well as the content and attributes of the organization (B.3) will then both clearly reflect this. Let's move in phases, trying to refute the earlier findings. B.I.I. First, regarding the physical environment, it is unclear why the issue of natural resources (B.I.8.) is not included in this subsection, given the clear connections between the two concepts. Moreover, the inclusion of the PORN instrument from Law 12/94 on Natural Spaces of the Canary Islands- which is also perfectly included in the Consolidated Text 1/2000 of the laws of Territorial Planning of the Canary Islands and Natural Spaces of the Canary Islands-into the Island plans gives them more content when it comes to the territorial and environmental planning of natural resources. In actuality, it appears that both subsections were more the product of legislative imposition than of the law's own "gift" of island design. The paper presents the environmental and physical issues in a clear and concise manner, without making any connections between them; yet, it omits to identify the root source of the issues. And it is precisely this understanding of the root causes causes of environmental degradation that will enable island planning to direct solutions. B.I.2. Population evolution and residential distribution: In just one page, a variable as significant as population evolution is covered. In order to determine different social needs, such as housing, infrastructure, and equipment, to name a few, there is no analysis of future population projections with various scenarios (decrease, stagnation, moderate growth, and high growth), which is crucial in any territorial planning document (especially if it is comprehensive as the one proposed by the PIOT editors). We thus turn rapidly to the issues of settlement dispersion and residential building. Here, we get to some intriguing findings, which we will mention here: Residential building does not keep up with population requirements (p. 28). A large portion of the island's residential construction was done outside the bounds of urban planning low and is scattered around the area (p. 29). Another unintended consequence of the ability of building on any property in any section of the island is that land prices are influenced by the much greater levels of their capacity to be built upon rather than by the agricultural value of the land, with the exception of very particular locations (p. 30). Positive a priori, it appears that the issue of island colonization is recognized. Even more so when one considers that one of the primary "tools" at the island plans' disposal, along with the PORN, is the ability of the PIOT to act on rural property. Territorial analysis is once more absent from this issue, though. The Plan's drafters acknowledge this: "Without comprehensive research, it appears that economic considerations hold the greatest weight, and the landowner anticipates that his property will eventually become urbanized at no expense to him" (p. 31). However, how can the issue be resolved using the many PIOT recommendations- guidelines, laws, and regulations-in the absence of a territorial analysis? And this in spite of the fact that it was acknowledged from the outset that: Dispersion is unquestionably one of the main issues facing the Tenerife region (p. 28). Why then are there no credible studies? For two reasons: first, the dispersion problem is complicated; second, it impacts more than just the landowners; it is a separate real estate transaction. In terms of the intricacy of the dispersion of the home, it is necessary to acknowledge that there are several ways in which the rustic is occupied. It will thus be challenging to create remedial measures unless these forms, or typologies, and the processes that give rise to these forms, be characterized. The reality that PIOT editors know or should know, but do not dare to redirect, is that expanding the cause of the building occupation of the rustic from the land's ownership to the real estate process as a whole (changes in ownership, place and agents that invest in the construction of the rustic, the building occupation of the rustic land as a revaluation of the land of the surrounding areas, the construction present in the rustic as an intermediate process between the initial vocation of this land - the old non- developable land - and the gradual introduction of urban functions and forms). As a preliminary assessment or rash hypothesis, the PIOT actually reflects the opinions of the principal articulation actors of the island territory regarding Tenerife's future growth. Therefore, while rural urbanization is recognized to be a territorial issue, it also presents an incredible opportunity for future financial gain. Large portions of the island have been acquiring "proto-urban" forms that were and are entering the real estate market. On the one hand, this has been a traditional formula for small farmers and workers to reduce housing costs, escaping from the areas planned for this purpose. Real estate brokers are interested in limiting "self-construction" and steering the whole residential development process toward regions under their control since they require the largest potential territory to grow. The PIOT lays out its criteria in two ways: first, a lot more land is made available on the outskirts of consolidated metropolitan areas; second, a lot more stringent guidelines are developed for the construction of rural buildings (small property is still expropriated in this manner). It is instructive to note that, in contrast to the section on the physical environment and natural resources that came before it, the primary courses of action in this case are suggested in this section of the information's conclusions: as a result, a coordinated action is suggested to address the various fronts of the issue. determined by the accompanying standards: -Involvement in regions of high interest for the establishment of large-scale residential activities. -Intervention in the land market to provide reasonably priced urbanized parcels. -Taking action to improve the requalification of major cities. -The broad implementation of the discipline of urban planning, the general restriction of the ability to construct on rural property, and the imposition of urbanization fees on private parties on all kinds of land (p. 33). B.I.3. tourist and its Territorial and Economic Implications: There has been a reasonable amount of in-depth research done on the hazards and issues found as a result of the growth of the tourist industry. This is especially true when it comes to the activity that drives the island economy. in recent decades (the North's aged lodging supply, the connection between real estate and tourism, the lack of professionalization and heterogeneity in the industry, and the distribution of capital used in tourism operations). However, we point out two procedural shortcomings: one is analytical in form, referring to an incorrect conclusion drawn from an incomplete study, and the other is proactive in nature, referring to the PIOT's apparent clear perception of the tourist problem in this case. with the plan's rules and specifications. But first, using passages from the Plan document, let's start with the suggestions that are undoubtedly more constructive. The extensive authority of the PIOT in topics related to tourism: Given its strategic character, the PIOT is required to take decisive action by means of its powers, which essentially pertain to the physical arrangement of the offer and the control of its entrance and maintenance conditions. in the Tenerife tourist sector's structure (in the market for tourism exploitation) (p. 35). The dangers of a tourist monoculture: In any event, the hazards associated with the existing model of economic growth should not be concealed by the seeming optimism that may be inferred globally from the progression of the enormous statistics. Any monoculture has a vulnerability, and Tenerife has plenty of historical experience with this one: when the circumstances that sustain it go, the economy is ruthlessly destroyed. This is how the quantitative size of its effects sets tourism apart from the industries that dominated the economy in previous historical periods. The population of the island, its standard of living indicators, the rate of economic relations' expansion, and their distribution cannot be directly compared to any other historical period in terms of scale. This fact simply indicates that a future tourism disaster would result in far more catastrophic outcomes than earlier crises and monoculture abandonment (p. 41). The quotations above lead to two significant conclusions. First off, the PIOT is a tool with precise authority for controlling tourism-related activities. Secondly, an issue that arises from the unsustainable expansion of an economic subsector like tourism is the risk it poses to the island community and the territory. To put it briefly, the issue is recognized, and a tool exists to either address it or at least divert it. So, how can we accomplish this goal within Tenerife's existing framework? Here's where our concerns start. First, an analytical criticism regarding the nature of the processes involved in the creation and development of tourism areas. This is the now-cliched theory on the fact that the real estate dynamic has dominated over the tourist dynamic in the formation of these leisure areas. The PIOT makes the following assumption: In contrast to growth, both in terms of new visitors and new locations, the conclusion must be that a shift in mindset is required in the organization of tourism development. This shift consists of the stabilization of the activity of exploitation of tourist services (not just lodging), as well as the consolidation of demand. This entails subjecting real estate procedures to the goals of creating and redefining a tourist area that will be sufficiently profitable to support its upkeep in the future (p. 44). Thesis that extends from real estate to land ownership: Any ability to react in a way that would adjust supply to demand is hindered by the model's previously noted rigidity, which is more severe in practice than what is required under the requirements of the law as it stands. Classified land enters a highly saturated market where effective urbanization may take ten years or longer. This reality creates a precarious economic situation because the ability to produce the supply is determined a priori without considering the demands of the market (p. 47). In summary, the PIOT assumes this concept, which applies to all Spanish tourist destinations including the Canary Islands, and it indicates that real estate agents-and occasionally real estate speculators-and tourism agents themselves are the two categories of agents involved in the creation of tourist destinations. Furthermore, the PIOT suggests refocusing real estate interests on tourism- related activities. We have attempted to refute this thesis in the book Tourism in the South of Tenerife: from agricultural income to urban income. It contains multiple examples of the same agent handling property, promotion, construction, and tourism exploitation (including lodging and ancillary services). Additionally, the agent may be local, peninsular, or foreign. In this debate about the dynamics of real estate versus tourism-which has historically given precedence to real estate-what matters most is that the proposal is not to reclassify the current offer, but rather to justify future growth in tourism by arguing that new, sustainable, and high-quality tourism initiatives on the island territory are feasible given the parameters and provisions of the PIOT (in other words, the predominance of tourism over real estate). Because of this, the primary goal of the PIOT suggestions is not to improve the present tourist model (requalify the current offer), but rather to improve the growing future-which is unachievable because of the nature of the major tourism agencies. The remark "An immediate question would be whether it is possible (or convenient) to set a ceiling or maximum tourist capacity for the island, a subject of closed determination by some island plans and which is even indicated in the LOT demonstrates this point quite well. The PIOT recognizes that Tenerife's tourism-accommodation capacity has a maximum limit and that this limit cannot be determined without conducting a thorough analysis of the offer during the consolidation phase in order to adjust the growth expectations to the actual needs of the industry and demand. In order to develop a viable tourist model for the island, it is necessary to reevaluate the existing model, which has been produced by the facts via general and partial planning. If necessary, corrective actions should be established. Fixing ceilings has such significant social and economic ramifications that it should be treated differently from the existing document, which concentrates its goals and the administrations' efforts on a matter of such importance (p. SO). As a result, the main goal of changing the model's growth is to divert it rather than making any explicit changes to it. For this reason, the proposals-which on an island just storting to grow its tourism industry would be more or less reasonable and acceptable-represent an authorized extension of the same tourist model of occupying the terrain in Tenerife via planning. This becomes even more problematic when one notes that, in any event, it is thought that, at least in terms of numbers, the supply has already grown to a point where it can support a business volume that is sufficient to meet the demands of Tenerifé's socioeconomic growth (p. 50). Again, in the diagnostic, criteria, and objectives part before the information's findings, measures are suggested for one of the main areas of island development, namely tourism. A significant portion of the PIOT measures therefore seek to influence the management mechanisms that are part of the framework that authorizes new tourism products (p. 52). If some of these measures could actually be implemented in a real framework of requalification of the special existing tourism activities (and not future ones), they would represent advancements to accentuate the competitiveness of the island tourism product. The PIOT explores the conceptual definition of tourist