Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Depopulation of Toledo's historical centre in Spain? Challenge for localpolitics in world heritage citiesBeatriz Larraza,⁎, Enrique García-Gómezb,1a University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spainb Royal Academy of Fine Arts and Historical Sciences of Toledo, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords:Historical CentreWorld Heritage CityTuristizationTown Centre managementToledoGentrification

A B S T R A C T

The historical centre of the city of Toledo (Spain) was declared a World Heritage City by UNESCO in 1986. Sincethen, it has lost almost a quarter of its population in favour of the city outskirts, outside the city walls. There area number of reasons for this population abandonment. Like many cities around the world which share the similarcharacteristics of being a popular tourist attraction with a historical centre, Toledo is threatened by the sameproblems: gentrification, loss of shops for residents in favour of tourist shops, tourist rental properties stillwithout effective regulations, and so on. A greater proportion of the older population live in the historical centrecompared to outside the city walls and the proportion of children continues to decrease. This article analyses thissituation in detail, offering alternatives for its recovery. The main novelty of the manuscript is the proposal of ahigher level of citizen participation than there is to achieve the objective of population recovery, with colla-boration among citizen associations, residents and local authorities.

1. Introduction

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) seeks to encourage the protection and pre-servation of cultural heritage identified around the world because theyare of outstanding value to humanity (UNESCO, 1972). World Heritagesites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territoryon which they are located. Nevertheless, nowadays there are somethreats to them. In particular, World Heritage cities normally sufferfrom touristization2 and gentrification3 (Picascia, Romano, & Teobaldi,2019) with the serious consequences that this may have for the citizensof the city.

To be more precise, Picascia et al. (2019) talk about the tour-istization and social desertification of Italian historical centres. Popu-lation has been lost, and city residents increasingly tend to perceivethese areas with a certain detachment, as no longer belonging to theirdaily experience of the city (Rossi, 2003). In fact, in Venice (Italy),there is already some evidence of the relationship between tourismpressures and depopulation in its historical centre (Zanini, 2017). In

particular, the demands of world heritage have created an emphasis onpreserving Venice's historic built environment, at the expense of theneeds of the local population (Casagrande, 2016). These issues seem tobe also happening in the historical centre of Toledo (Spain), a citydeclared a World Heritage City by UNESCO in 1986, where the socialand political debate about whether it is in a process of depopulation ornot and why arises regularly. Note that Toledo is a world reference forits historical-artistic heritage, with more than 100 monuments of greatcultural interest. But not only touristization seems to be at the origin ofpopulation loss. Also, the gentrification process, briefly defined as thetransformation of inner-city working-class to middle- and upper-middle-class residential, recreational and other uses (Smith, 1987),suggest the need of a new way of doing local politics.

Due to its physical characteristics, living in Toledo does not seem aseasy as in a modern and flat city, with the city centre being located ontop of a rugged promontory washed on three sides by the river Tagus.With its medieval character attracting many tourists, the conservationof the resident population is a constant topic of debate. Citizens areconcerned that the renewal of the population living in the centre may

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102841Received 23 September 2019; Received in revised form 23 March 2020; Accepted 8 June 2020

⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Castilla-La Mancha, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Cobertizo San Pedro Martir, s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain.E-mail address: beatriz.larraz@uclm.es (B. Larraz).

1 C/ de la Plata, 20, 45001 Toledo, Spain.2 Young (1983) coined the term “touristization” to denote the impact of tourism development and landscape change in the same vein that industrialization and

urbanization reflect the impact of industrial development and urban development, respectively (Poh Poh, 2003).3 Tourism gentrification refers to the transformation of a middle-class neighbourhood into a relatively affluent and exclusive enclave marked by a proliferation of

corporate entertainment and tourism venues (Gotham, 2005).

Cities 105 (2020) 102841

0264-2751/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

not be sufficient and they are unclear as to how the population structureis evolving, whether the presence of children or elderly people is in-creasing or decreasing. These concerns are compounded by the questionof the level of services provided in this enclave of the city (health,education, telecommunications, etc.), the abandonment or recovery ofreal estate, the proliferation of tourist apartments, the loss of traditionalshops and the perception of the historical centre as a “city-museum”rather than as a “living city”. As well as Venice or Florence in Italy orBarcelona in Spain, Toledo is a popular tourist destination which risksbeing overwhelmed by its own success.

Following Guillaumont (2001), the (smallness of) the populationsize can be used as a proxy for (structural) exposure to the economicvulnerability. In view of this situation, this article studies the evolutionof the demographic structure of Toledo's historical centre to achieve abetter understanding of the reality of the population structure. Thisknowledge lets know which are the demographic problems to face with.As a consequence, the article is able to focus on the challenges that themunicipality and local policy strategy face to attract young residents.The intention of this analysis is to lay the foundations to facilitatingdecision-making in favour of safeguarding the historical centre usingobjective data. The paper suggests the need to a higher level of activecitizen participation than there is to achieve this goal, identifying thestakeholders that should participate in the local policies that should beimplemented to stop the phenomenon of population loss. The idea isbased on the fact that citizen engagement in the consultation and de-cision-making process along with local governments is a key factor instrengthening and supporting modern democracy (Naranjo-Zolotovet al., 2019). Ianniello, Iacuzzi, Fedele, and Brusati (2019) recommendsestablish ongoing interactions between government bodies and theirstakeholders to achieve this goal. Likewise, this must go hand in handwith sustainable development, the implementation of which, in a worldheritage city, is made even more urgent due to its historical nature(Guzmán, Pereira Roders, & Colenbrander, 2017).

The relevance of this study lies on the fact that the hypotheticaldepopulation of the historical centre of Toledo has never been clearlydocumented in the literature until now, despite the fact that in an urbanheritage context the population is considered a fundamental componentof urban authenticity (González, 2016). In particular, for the residentsand local authorities, depopulation is a matter of great significance.That is why this article aims to provide a rigorous analysis of theevolution of its demographic structure. The focus is on both the ne-cessary business and retail trade and on the residents, who live, enjoyand actively participate daily in the revitalization of the town centre. Aswith other historical cities such as Venice (Casagrande, 2016), greatefforts are being made in Toledo to maintain high levels of qualitytourism, but this must go hand in hand with an appreciation of the citywithin its demographic context.

After analysing the population evolution as well as the currentstatus, this paper proposes some ideas to avoid what seems to be thebeginning of depopulation, suggesting key points to an active publicparticipation in order to fix the population and make the life of thecurrent residents of the historical centre easier. These could help toprevent their displacement to the outskirts of the city.

2. Study site: Toledo's historical centre

2.1. Brief historical background

Toledo is located in the center of the Iberian Peninsula (Fig. 1). It isuniversally known as the City of Three Cultures, because Christians,Muslims and Jews lived together for centuries during the Middle Ageswithin its walls. This made it cradle of knowledge throughout theMiddle Ages. The city had a prominent role as an urban center at theend of Prehistory and was erected as one of the great Roman me-tropolises of the Peninsula. In addition, it was the capital of the Visi-gothic kingdom, the first of a truly Hispanic kingdom. Subsequently, it

was the capital of one of the most powerful Muslim Taifa kingdomspolitically, militarily and culturally. At the time of the Reconquest, itwas the first great city that fell (in 1085) into the hands of a WesternChristian king in the Middle Ages. Later, it became the capital of theempire led by Carlos V in the 16th century.

As a consequence of its past, having been a political, religious andcultural reference of the Hispanic past, the city of Toledo has a greatwealth of heritage (see Fig. 1). It comprises 109 buildings of greatcultural interest protected as historical heritage. In fact, the historicalcentre of the city of Toledo was declared a World Heritage City byUNESCO in 1986. This monumentality annually attracts a large influxof tourists: In 2017 and 2018 overnight stays in the city reached almostone million people each year in its more than 60 hotel establishments(INE, 2019).

Until 1940, the city of Toledo consisted exclusively of what is nowcalled historical center, the city inside the walls. But from that date thecity expanded outside the walls, forming urban centers for residentsoutside the walls (Fig. 2). This article focuses on the population loss inthe historical centre, in the old town, which is completely located insidethe walls and represents the main tourist attraction of the city.

2.2. Particular characteristics of the historical city

From a demographic point of view, the key fact is that since 1986the area has lost almost a quarter of its population. Town centre re-sidents are trying to reach a difficult balance between their feelings ofidentity as citizens of the historical centre and the comfort of day to dayliving. This difficulty persists despite actions taken by the authorities toimprove the city centre which, in light of the results, seem clearly in-sufficient. The Special Plan of the Historical Centre of Toledo has beenin existence since 1997, when it was approved, and aims to protect thearea declared the Historical Centre. This plan ensures the maintenanceof the urban and architectural structure of the old city.

The gradual pedestrianisation of the historical centre from the ´80sonwards has been a great step forward in the improvement of livingconditions for residents and visitors to the city. In this sense, the lit-erature on the benefits of pedestrianisation in health, transport, en-vironment and economic and social perspectives for a historical centreis very extensive, although its effect on the increased prices of housingand commercial units is also recognized. This can drive some residentsaway and cause the closure of more traditional shops (Özdemir &Selçuk, 2017).

Although the reason cannot be placed solely on pedestrianisation,there has been a moderate process of gentrification in Toledo's histor-ical centre. This is understood as the process of converting old andrundown homes into middle-class neighbourhoods through the re-habilitation of the housing stock, thus preserving the authenticity of theneighbourhood. Indeed, up until 2008, the process of rehabilitation ofold houses increased the price of housing, making the environmentmore attractive for residents. The space was mainly occupied by socialclasses with an economic capacity that enabled them to meet the sig-nificant costs involve in rehabilitation. However, there are still areas ofthe historical centre with a high percentage of abandoned homes. Inaddition, from a commercial point of view, the arrival of large multi-national stores in the outskirts of the city has had a negative effect onsmall businesses, further affecting the authenticity of the historicalcentre.

In the revitalization of the historical centre of Toledo, it is essentialto take into account the importance of heritage conservation. To thisend, the Royal Board (Real Patronato) was created in 1998 with the aimof promoting the execution of works, services and facilities as well asinitiatives and cultural projects oriented towards the conservation ofthe historical heritage. Subsequently, in 2000, the Consortium of theCity of Toledo (Consorcio de la ciudad de Toledo) was formalized as themanagement body of the said Royal Board (Toledo Consortium, 2019).However, in addition to this conservation of heritage, certain actions

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

2

have also been taken aimed at facilitating the lives of residents andbusinesses in the city, such as the introduction of fibre optics. Thismodernization is crucial, as advocated by Nyseth and Sognnæs (2013);“collaborative forms of governance combined with management toolsadopted locally and practised with flexibility to allow for the changesnecessary to modern living have been more important than the pre-servation plans for the conservation policy to succeed”.

3. Literature review

Since the late 1980s, concern for the revitalization of historical citycentres has been growing. The concept of Town Centre Management

(TCM), understood as “a comprehensive response to competitive pres-sures, which involves development, management and promotion ofboth public and private areas within town centres, for the benefit of allconcerned” (Wells, 1991), has been well documented in the literature(e.g. Coca-Stefaniak, Parker, Quin, Rinaldi, & Byrom, 2009; Coca-Stefaniak & Shanaaz, 2015; D'Alessandro & Salaris, 2011; Guimarães,2013; Guimarães, 2018; Guy, 1993; Hogg, Medway, & Warnaby, 2004;Warnaby, Alexander, & Medway, 1998; Warnaby & Bennison, 2005;Whyatt, 2004). Active management of the town centre that combinespublic and private management in a cooperative manner (Guy, 1993) issought with the aim of ensuring that city centres are desirable and at-tractive places to live, work and visit.

Fig. 1. Image of the historic city of Toledo.Note: own elaboration.

Fig. 2. Location of the city of Toledo (Spain) showing the historical centre and the rest of the city.Note: own elaboration from Escudero (2018).

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

3

Though there are two different approaches to this TCM concept, theBritish perspective and the European one, both agree on a commonpurpose; working in partnership and the presence of a mix of stake-holders (both public and private) for urban revitalisation (Coca-Stefaniak et al., 2009). Unlike in the UK, where out-of-centre and edge-of-centre shopping centres and retail parks were the basis of the TCM(Dawson & Burton, 1999), most Spanish, Italian and French TCMschemes were led from the beginning by small and medium sized in-dependent retailers (Molinillo Jiménez, 2001). In relation to thisscheme, Rovira Lara (2000) points the importance of the necessarycooperation that must exist between retailers, other small businesses inthe tertiary sector and local authorities to successfully achieve the goalof getting a friendlier city.

The drive to revitalize a town centre focuses not only on retail in-terests, which have tended to dominate many schemes (Reeve, 2004),but also on reserving the abandonment of the centre by its residents.According to Håkansson, Lagin, and Wennström (2017), the propertyowner plays a key strategic role in enabling town centre development.This role is broader than that suggested by the original TCM literatureand is based on the aspects of resource coordination and distribution. Intheir opinion, in order to create the opportunity for long-term devel-opment of a town centre, it is of strategic importance that the propertyowners agree with the development plans. In this updated framework,where the residents play a key role in the progress and sustainabledevelopment of their historical centre is where this paper fits.

As far as public participation is concerned, according to Smith(1983), it encompasses a group of procedures designed to consult, in-volve, and inform the public to allow those affected by a decision tohave an input into that decision. In this analysis, “input” is the keyphrase, differentiating participation methods from other communica-tion strategies (Rowe, 2000). Back in 1995, Thomas and Thomas (1995)stated that more and more, citizens were demanding and were beinggiven a voice in the decision-making process of such diverse publicinterests. Later, King, Feltey, and O'Neill Susel (1998) stated that manycitizens, administrators and politicians were interested in increasingpublic participation in public decisions.

Following Rowe (2000), involvement may be achieved in differentways: at the lowest level, the public may be targeted with enhancedinformation; at higher levels, public views may be actively solicitedthrough such mechanisms as consultation exercises, focus groups, andquestionnaires. And at still higher levels, members of the public may beselected to take part in exercises that provide them with a degree ofdecision-making authority. The lowest level involves just top-downcommunication and a one-way flow of information, while the highestlevel is characterized by dialogue and two-way information exchange.

Though at the beginning of the active public participation someproblems arose, as citizen discouragement and apathy (Box, 1996;Putnam, 1995; Thomas & Thomas, 1995; Timney, 1996) and both ci-tizens and their leaders noticed that participation through normal in-stitutional channels had little impact on the substance of governmentpolitics (Crosby, Kelly, & Schaefer, 1986), nowadays an active publicparticipation is constantly demanded by citizens when making deci-sions that improve their quality of life. King et al. (1998) stated that weneed to move away from static and reactive processes towards moredynamic and deliberative processes.

Turning to the issue of public participation on World HeritageCities, according to Faulk (2006), having a citizen organization whosesole function is to advocate the interests of the city centre is key.Kopackova (2019) states that public opinion is essential for carrying outthe design of city strategies and Plevoets and Sowińska-Heim (2018)believes that community initiatives for the recovery of a historical cityare essential. Also, Buffel and Phillipson (2016) state that, until now,there has been not enough focus on elderly people when creating anddeveloping age-friendly policies and initiatives. Due to the importanceof this new and more participatory plan, all these suggestions areconsidered in the discussion section.

In particular, this article identify certain problems, issues affectingand worrying residents, identify the stakeholders that could be involvedin the public participation process, and suggest some alternatives to bediscussed by the actors and the local authorities in the study site ofToledo's Historical Centre. The scope of the proposals should not belimited only to this case study but may be considered in other WorldHeritage cities.

4. Data and methodology

With regard to the origin of the data used in this analysis, this articleworks with historical data on the resident population in the city ofToledo from the sixteenth century to the nineteenth century to give thereader the appropriate historical perspective. We also use decennialpopulation censuses from 1900 onwards which have been prepared bythe National Institute of Statistics (INE, 2018). The historical centre isofficially the zone within the walls of District 1 of the city of Toledo.

The annual data of the Municipal Register has been available since1986 (City Council of Toledo, 2018; INE, 2018). Using these data, it ispossible to carry out a detailed analysis of the evolution of the popu-lation inside and outside the walls of the city. However, to carry out ananalysis of the evolution of the demographic structure of the populationof the historical centre and its comparison with the population outsideof the walls, the population data needs to be disaggregated according tothe age of the citizens. This has been possible from 2005 to 2017. Thestarting point is set as 2005 since the data disaggregated by neigh-bourhoods for the city of Toledo is not available prior to this date.

It is worth emphasizing the current demographic structure, as of 2017,to give an idea of the present state with reference to the main age groups.With regard to the aforementioned period 2005–2017, the analysis of thedemographic structure of Spain is included as a benchmark, with the aimof being able to compare and understand the figures obtained in thehistorical centre and in the city outside the walls. These national data areavailable as far back as 1971, which therefore offers a greater temporaland spatial comparative framework within which to work (Fig. 3).

Finally, a detailed analysis of the housing stock is carried out fromthe data of the Population and Housing Census4 of 2011, which gives amore current idea of the situation of the historical centre. This parti-cular year is selected because it is the most recent Census (the next onewill be done in 2021).

From the methodological point of view, an analysis of the popula-tion data available through the study of time series is carried out. Acomparative analysis between the series for the historical centre andthat of the city outside the walls is carried out in order to obtain reliableconclusions by comparison. Finally, through the calculation of theseries of demographic indicators collected in Table 1, we present thehistorical evolution and the current and potential future status of thepopulation structure of the historical centre of Toledo in comparisonwith outside the walls, and with Spain overall.

5. Results

The analysis of the population figures begins on XVI century andcomes to our day (Section 5.1) being analysed with more detail from1986 to 2017 (Section 5.2). After that, Section 5.3 deeps on the struc-ture of the demography rates in the period 2005–2017 and in Section5.4 the most recent demography rates are compared to those of the restof the city. Finally, Section 5.5 analyses the housing census.

4 The Housing Census is a statistical operation that aims to determine, at areference date, the different types of places destined for human habitation thathave been conceived as such (family and collective dwellings) and to list thosethat, although not conceived for this purpose, are in use as such (accom-modation). In addition, it provides detailed information on the most importantcharacteristics of conventional occupied housing.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

4

5.1. Historical review (XVI-XX centuries)

For over 500 years, reliable data has been collected on the numberof inhabitants living in Toledo. All the population of the city, up untilthe 1930s, lived within the city walls in what is now known as thehistorical centre. The population reached a maximum during the secondhalf of the sixteenth century, with 50,000 people. At that time, Toledowas the capital of the Spanish empire, with political, military and re-ligious powers based there. This population remained stable for severaldecades even after the city lost its status as the capital. Thereafter, untilpractically the 20th century, the population more or less dropped to20,000 inhabitants (Fuentes Lázaro, 1975; Gutiérrez García-Brazales,1981; Kagan, 1994; Martínez Gil, 1997; Ponz, 1776; Porres Martín-Cleto & Martz, 1974; Rodríguez de Gracia, 1997). From 1940, the citybegan to expand, and data was recorded by district; this enables com-parisons to be made between the historical centre and the rest of thecity outside the walls.

Toledo was no exception to the demographic change throughoutSpain during the twentieth century, experiencing a growth that reachedalmost 70,000 inhabitants by the end of this period in the whole city,including inside and outside the walls (Fig. 4). As the total populationof the city grew, the number registered in the historical centre dimin-ished until dropping from 31,000 inhabitants inside the walls in 1940 to11,372 inhabitants in the year 2010. In other words, the population inthe historical centre went from representing 90% of the population tojust 13.73%. In the year 1970, the number of people living outside thewalls was the same as the number that remained in the historicalcentre, as shown in Fig. 4.

5.2. Detailed analysis of the period 1986–2017

The data analysed on registered population facilitated by the CityCouncil of Toledo show us a population decrease of 23.5% in the his-torical centre in the period 1986–2017 (figures referred to January 1 ofeach year), with the population decreasing from 13,599 inhabitantsregistered in 1986 to 10,400 registered as of January 1, 2017 (see Fig. 5and Table A1 in Annex 1). This decrease contrasts with the increase of43.9% observed in the same period in the city of Toledo overall, wherethe population went from 58,198 to 83,741 inhabitants (see Fig. 5 andTable A1 in Annex 1). But, given that the data for the whole city isaffected, among other things, by the particular behaviour of the his-torical centre, the comparison should be made with the evolution of thepopulation in the rest of the city of Toledo excluding the historicalcentre. Thus, an even greater behavioural difference in population dy-namics could be observed, since the population growth in the outskirtsof Toledo, outside of the historical centre, is 64.5% for this same period.

However, the behaviour over these 31 years is not the same in bothareas: while the historical centre sees its population decline in 20 of the31 interannual periods considered, the rest of the city sees a continuedincrease in its population, every year, with the exception of the year2013 when there were 64 inhabitants less and in 2014 when there were106 less (Fig. 5).

The population in the historical centre presents two moments thatcould qualify as critical, the periods 1990–91 and 1995–96; moments inwhich the population decreased more than 12% in just one year (seeFig. 6). These two specific events led to an accumulated population de-crease of 23.4% in the first 10 years of the series considered (from 1986to 1996). These two critical moments for the historical centre, from thepoint of view of a shrinking population, is not reflected in the populationoutside the walls since in both periods this population increased (1.7% in1990–91 and 4.5% in 1995–96), making up 24.7% of the total increaseexperienced in the first 10 years. Nevertheless, there were three mainsurrounding neighbourhoods (Avda. Europa, Polígono and Buenavista)that began to grow in that dates attracting a lot of people. The reason wasthat new dwellings were offered there, in front of the old city centre ones,at a time when still not many (official and particular) buildings wererenovated in the city centre. People preferred to live outside the walls inthat date. And new dwellings were still more attractive than the en-deavour to renovate one. But during those years, a very important effortto renovate the official buildings was done. As a consequence, the his-torical city centre was dignified, thus becoming a very charming city.

From 1996 until 2004, there was a period of population stagnationin the historical centre, during which time the rest of the city continuedto experience an increase in the number of registered citizens, up by asmuch as 13.7%.

Fig. 3. Periods of analysis.Note: compiled by the authors.

Table 1Definition of demographic rates used in the study.

Rate Definition

Dependency ratio ×+ 100number of people aged 0 to 14 number of people aged 65 and overnumber of people aged 15 to 64

Child dependency ratio × 100number of people aged 0 to 14number of people aged 15 to 64

Old-age dependency ratio × 100number of people aged 65 and overnumber of people aged 15 to 64

Longevity ratio × 100number of people aged 75 and overnumber of people aged 65 and over

Maternity rate × 100number of people aged 0 to 4number of women aged 15 to 49

Trend or progressive rate × 100number of children aged 0 to 4number of children aged 5 to 9

Replacement rate × 100number of people aged 20 to 29number of people aged 55 to 64

Note: own elaboration.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

5

This flat trajectory is interrupted between 2004 and 2008, wheninterest in living in the historical centre is reflected in a populationgrowth of 12.0% according to the Municipal Register figures (Fig. 6).This period coincides with a period of real estate boom, price rises andmortgage concessions at low interest rates throughout Spain. However,if we compare the growth in population registered in the historicalcentre with that in the rest of the city, we can see that the former is twoand a half percentage points higher (12% versus 9.6%), which mayindicate a greater interest in living in the historical centre than outsideduring moments of economic boom. These data could also indicate thatthere are people interested in living in the historical centre but onlywhen access to housing occurs in an adequate economic context and theprices of the houses -normally in ruins or in need of total renovation-are affordable for the majority of the interested parties, when theproper financial and economic conditions are held. In addition, duringthis period, the percentage of immigrants settling in the historicalcentre was greater than in the rest of the city.

Finally, from 2008 to the latest data available for 2017, there is adecreasing trend in the number of residents registered in the historicalcentre, totalling a decrease of 9.5%. Conversely, the population outsidethe city increased by 5.8% over the same period.

On numerous occasions, it has been suggested that the reboundand/or decrease in the population of the historical centre is linked tomilestone events or actions that encourage/discourage people fromliving in the centre. For this reason, the dates of some of the most re-levant actions that have occurred in recent decades have been in-corporated into the population graph of the historical centre to see ifthey coincide with changes in the population trend (see Fig. 7). Thepedestrianisation of the historical centre does not mark a significantchange in population despite being a relevant fact because of its gradualimplementation from the ´80s until nowadays and, therefore, any im-pact cannot be seen at a particular point in time.

From Fig. 7, several aspects can be interpreted. The implementationof the Parking Regulatory Ordinance (ORA) in the historical centre

Fig. 4. Population evolution in the historical centreand outside the walls from the beginning of the 20thcentury until the year 2017.Note: compiled data from the Population Censuses ofthe city of Toledo from 1900 to 1981 (INE, 2018)and from the Municipal Register from 1986 to 2017(City Council of Toledo, 2018). Data between dec-ades until 1985 have been interpolated for bettergraphic visualization.

Fig. 5. Population registered in Toledo city, outside the walls and in the historical centre, during the period 1986–2017.Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and the City Council of Toledo.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

6

coincides with a stabilization of the population registered in this area,after a sudden downturn seen particularly in the year before the im-plementation of ORA in the first zones of the centre. However, as can beseen in Fig. 7, it is important to determine what effect the socio-economic situation in general has on the registered population in thehistorical centre. The years prior to the economic crisis, in the economic“boom”, the population within the walls grows at an unprecedentedlevel not seen for many decades. However, as the economic crisis be-gins, the historic centre population begins to decrease. The latter mayhave occurred because, in spite of a renewed interest on the part ofmany people in living in the historical centre, at a time of greatereconomic difficulties many of these people could not afford housing inthe old part of the city.

5.3. Evolution of the demographic structure in the historical centre andoutside the city walls from 2005 to 2017

In this section, we analyse the evolution of the demographic struc-ture of the population of the historical centre as well as its comparisonwith the rest of the city of Toledo in the 12 years to 2005 to 2017. Acomparison of this demographic data with that of Spain (1971–2017)also gives a useful insight. This will help to show what the real parti-cularities of the population structure of the historical centre of Toledoare which give it its singular characteristics.

Firstly, the proportion of children (from 0 to 14 years old) and theelderly (aged 65 or over) of the total population (from 15 to 64 yearsold) in Toledo, known as the dependence rate, is seen to remain below

Fig. 6. Population registered in the historical centre of Toledo during the period 1986–2017.Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and the City Council of Toledo.

Fig. 7. Population evolution of the historical centre from 1983 to 2017 in relation to the main relevant events that occurred during this period.Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and the City Council of Toledo.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

7

50% for both in and outside the city walls during the whole period,although each area shows a different evolution (Fig. 8). In the historicalcentre, this rate decreases from 2005 (49.02%) until 2011 (42.36%),only to then increase later by 46.54%, to its current level. However, therate outside the walls remains practically constant at around 41% from2005 to 2011, thereafter increasing to over 49% to the present level.While in the historical centre the dependence is mainly due to the el-derly, outside the walls it is due to the child population. In other words,in the historical centre the adult population maintains a proportionallygreater number of older people while outside the centre the adult po-pulation maintains a proportionally greater number of children.

However, in comparison with the whole of Spain, as shown in Fig. 8,the proportion of children and elderly compared to the population agedbetween 15 and 64 is lower in Toledo from 2007 to the present, in globalterms. But, since 2012, the historical centre has had proportionally thesame number of elderly per adult as the whole of Spain, although theopposite is true for outside the city walls (Fig. 9 and Fig. 10).

Note that the decrease in the dependency ratio of the elderly com-pared to adults in the historical centre decreases from 2005 to 2008due, in part, to the influx of the young and adult population into thecentre during that period (Fig. 10).

If we focus on the maternity rate, which compares the proportionof children under 5 and women between 15 and 49 (Fig. 11), we see thisrate is much higher outside the walls than in the historical centre overthe whole period analysed, being between 19% -23% over the firstperiod and between 14%–16% over the second period. The maternityrate in the historical centre is also around 5 percentage points lowerthan in Spain, generally.

Of those children born in the last two decades in Toledo, the pro-portion of children under 5 years of age versus those between the agesof 5 and 9 years gives us the so-called trend or progressivity rate. Arate higher than 100% is indicative of a process of replacement, to someextent, due to the greater presence of young children in society. Thisrate shows a rebound in both areas of the city in the first part of theperiod analysed (until 2010), with a greater proportion of children aged0–4 to those aged 5 to 9 years, particularly in the historical centre. Thisis due to the attraction that the centre held for young couples at thattime. However, from 2010 this rate drops sharply in the historicalcentre. In addition, note that Fig. 12 shows a greater proportionalpresence of children under 4 years old compared to those aged between5 and 9 in the historical centre, which is also significantly highercompared to the national average. Throughout the period 2005–2017,these rates in the historical centre surpass the national rates.

Moving on from the analysis of infants, the analysis of the degree ofyouth, which studies the proportion of children under 15 years of agecompared to the total population, Fig. 13 shows that the proportion isbetween 5 and 7 percentage points higher in the area outside the wallscompared to the historical centre for almost all the years of the periodanalysed. Comparison with the national average leads us to affirm thatthe degree of youth in the historical centre is between 4 and 5 per-centage points below that of Spain.

A review of the elderly population indicates that the longevity rate,which compares the proportion of people aged 75 years or more withthose of 65 years or more, is significantly higher in the historical centrethan outside the walls throughout the period. However, as Fig. 14shows, this has been decreasing in both areas in recent years although

Fig. 8. Dependency ratio in the historical centre and outside the city walls forthe period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

Fig. 9. Child dependency ratio in the historical centre and outside the city wallsfor the period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

Fig. 10. Old-age dependency ratio in the historical centre and outside the citywalls for the period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

Fig. 11. Maternity rate in the historical centre and outside the city walls for theperiod 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

8

to a greater extent outside the walls. This has resulted in the differencebetween the two being doubled since 2005, when the proportion was50% outside the walls compared to 57% in the historical centre while,in 2017, the difference was 45% compared to 58%, respectively.

Fig. 14 shows that the longevity rate has been increasing progres-sively from 1971 to the present time, nationally; in 2005, those over74 years of age represented around 50% of the total of those over 64 inall the regions analysed. In the historical centre of Toledo, however, thisfigure reached 62%. It seems clear, therefore, that in the historical

centre there is a greater proportion of people aged 75 years or morethan in the rest of the areas compared.

This translates into a degree of ageing (Fig. 15), which measuresthe proportion of people aged 65 or over compared to the total popu-lation, which is lower outside the walls than in the historical centre forthe entire period. In addition, since 2005, it is visibly higher in thehistorical centre than in Spain.

Consequently, the replacement rate, which includes the proportionof people aged between 20 and 29 compared to those aged between 55and 64 has fallen in both areas over the whole period, reaching around90% in 2017. The fact that it has declined from 100% is indicative ofgenerational replacement in both areas, since those people who reachedretirement age over the decade that followed already outnumberedthose who reached working age. This downward behaviour is also ob-served in the whole of Spain (Fig. 16).

5.4. Demographic structure in the historical centre compared to the situationin the rest of the city in 2017

In order to understand the present demographic structure, we needto know the proportions of each one of the main age groups of theinhabitants. To do this, the population is first divided into the threemain age groups: children (up to 14 years old), adults (15 to 64) and theelderly (over 65). Fig. 17 shows the proportion of children in the his-torical centre is 5% less than outside the walls, while the proportion ofolder people is 4% higher within the historical centre (see Fig. 17 andTable 2).

Fig. 12. Trend rate (or progressivity) in the historical centre and outside thecity walls for the period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

Fig. 13. Degree of youth in the historical centre and outside the city walls forthe period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with from the Municipal Register of the INE and the CityCouncil of Toledo.

Fig. 14. Longevity rate in the historical centre and outside the city walls for theperiod 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

Fig. 15. Degree of ageing in the historical centre and outside the city walls forthe period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

Fig. 16. Replacement rate in the historical centre and outside the city walls forthe period 2005–2017, compared to Spain (1971–2017).Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the INE and theCity Council of Toledo.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

9

The analysis of children according to their age, from 0 to 4 year oldand from age 5 to 9, does not show great differences inside and outsidethe historical centre, with both percentages being similar to 50% inboth parts of the city (see Fig. 18).

On the other hand, after analysing the population aged over64 years, inside and outside the historical centre, it is clear that agreater proportion of people aged over 80 live in the historical centre(42.34%) than in the rest of the city of Toledo (29.21%), a 13 per-centage points proportional increase on the number of elderly people(Fig. 18).

In order to better understand the demographic structure in thehistorical centre and outside, the population figures are analysed inmore detail through the comparative analysis of the rates selected(dependency, longevity, maternity, trend and replacement).

Analysis of the rates calculated on the demographic structure ofToledo shows, in principle, a lower proportion of children and adultscompared to the population between 15 and 64 years old in the his-torical centre than outside the city walls, which would mean that thedependence is less in the historical centre than outside it. However,analysing both age groups separately, there is a clear asymmetry inboth parts of the city: in the historical centre, the older adults have agreater percentage load while outside the walls, the children do. Also,in the historical centre there are almost 6 people over 74 years old forevery 10 people over 64, while outside the walls this figure is 4.5. Thisrate demonstrates a greater degree of ageing in the historical centrethan outside it. Regarding the age group of children, in particular theyoungest of 0 to 4 years old, there is a greater proportion per woman ofchildbearing age outside the walls than in the historical centre.However, despite the fact that the percentage of children under15 years of age in the historical centre (11.9%) is 5 percentage points

lower than that of children outside it (17.2%), the trend or progressionrate shows a greater proportion of children under 5 years of age com-pared to children between 5 and 9 years in the historical centre thanoutside it. This fact suggests some optimism about the possible re-juvenation of the population of the historical centre. Finally, the re-placement rate in the historical centre shows the presence of 9.1 adultsin their twenties for every 10 aged between 55 and 64 years, comparedto a figure of 9.3 outside of the walls (Table 3).

5.5. Housing and population density in 2011

Analysis of the data of the Population and Housing Census of 2011gives us a better idea of the situation of the historical centre in recentyears. This particular year is used because it is the last existing Census(the next one will be done in 2021). In 2011, the analysis of housing5

(see Table 4) showed a very high percentage of empty dwellings withinthe historical centre, 19.89%, in contrast to 8.78% in the rest of the city.Furthermore, rental properties within the historical centre made up16.95% of the total, a figure noticeably greater by seven percentagepoints than outside the walls.

An explanation for the high percentage of empty homes in the his-torical centre is, indisputably, their price. According to data obtainedfrom one of the real estate portals with the greatest presence in the city(idealista.com), the average sale price per square metre in the historicalcentre is 1677 €/m2, while in the whole of Toledo city it is € 1553/m2.Rehabilitated houses attract a higher price due to the higher cost ofbuilding, the higher price per square metre of urbanisable land, thedemand for houses in good condition within the city walls and the at-traction and charm that this neighbourhood offers. Those houses with alower price are usually in a poor state and many of them lack thestandard of living conditions demanded these days. The high price ofabandoned houses, many of which are practically in ruins, togetherwith the cost of rehabilitation or construction makes the price of new orrehabilitated housing inaccessible to most.

The fact that there is a higher percentage of empty housing in thehistorical centre than outside the city means that the number of peopleregistered only represents 12.73% of the total even though the per-centage of homes in the historical centre is 16.60% compared to thetotal city. Furthermore, the greater proportion of elderly people in thehistorical centre, many of whom already live alone, means that 37.86%of the households in the centre are occupied by a single person, com-pared to 20.70% of households outside the walls (Table 5).

This analysis shows population densities6 which are all lower in thehistorical centre compared to outside, as can be seen from the data inTable 5. The average number of inhabitants per household in the his-torical centre stands at 2.26 compared to 2.71 outside. In the case ofoccupied dwellings, that proportion drops to 2.10 compared to 2.52outside the centre, with an average of 1.68 people per dwelling com-pared to 2.29 outside (see Table 6).

Depopulation occurs when the level of a population drops alar-mingly and there is a dangerous demographic dynamic of ageing, withvery low maternity rates, shortage of services, neglect by the autho-rities, among others. This would be the most extreme case but beforereaching this situation, demographic rates can warn us. Summarizingthis section, this article shows that there have been 2 periods of great

Fig. 17. Distribution of the registered population in the historical centre andoutside the city walls in 2017 according to age.Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the City ofToledo.

Table 2Demographic structure of the historical centre and outside the city walls in2017.

Age range (years) Historical centre Outside the walls

N° inhabitants Percentage N° inhabitants Percentage

Under 15 1241 11.93% 12,641 17.18%15 to 64 7097 68.24% 49,343 67.07%65 and over 2062 19.83% 11,587 15.75%Total 10,400 100% 73,571 100%

5Housing: Structurally separate and independent space that, by the way inwhich it was built, rebuilt, transformed or adapted, is designed to be inhabitedby people or, although it was not initially conceived, it constitutes the habitualresidence of one or more persons in the reference period of the StatisticalOperation. As an exception, the spaces that, despite being initially designed forhuman habitation, in the period of reference of the Statistical Operation arenow totally dedicated to other purposes (for example, those that are being usedexclusively as premises such as a medical consultation or a law firm).6 In the calculation of population densities, the total population is obtained by

aggregating census sections of the 2011 Census.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

10

population loss (1990–91 and 1995–96) and that population have de-creased almost a quarter in the lasts 30 years, but the population loss isnot constant along the years. There have even been periods of popu-lation growth. Though ageing and maternity rates are worrying,nevertheless there are still no other signs of depopulation. So, theproblem is not still very alarming, but of course it is time to take action.Following Pinilla and Sáez (2017), depopulation tends to generate aself-sustaining vicious circle that complicates the future of the areassuffering from it.

6. Takeaway for practice

In order to reverse ageing dynamics and attract young people andfamilies to historical centers, this article proposes the necessity of anactive public participation process from where a set of initiatives wouldderive. It also contributes to identify the stakeholders.

Specifically, the essential coexistence between residents and touristsstarts with the implementation of some type of control to tourist rentalapartments, due that create pressure on the permanent rental housingsupply. This control should avoid the expulsion of the residents and, bythe way, minimize the growing concern over tourist behaviour in re-sidential neighbourhoods and apartment buildings. The agreementshould prevent noise, people congestion in the streets and take care ofcitizen safety. This compromise should be arranged among neigh-bourhood associations, vacation rental homeowners and local autho-rities. Housing shortages at affordable prices could be agreed betweenyouth and neighbourhood associations and empty home owners in ac-cordance with local authorities to agree rental and house-buying in-centives for young people and fix a reduction in taxation for ownerswho rent a house in the historical center. An increase in public aid forthe rehabilitation of old buildings is needed.

Local authorities could promote local commerce for basic productsand small traditional businesses in accordance with small businessowners and neighbourhood associations. In addition, children's play-grounds, fibre optic network, local transport, and many other small butvery important issues could be dialogued among these stakeholders toimprove the quality of live in a historical city. Do not forget the elderlypeople, who can provide suggestions about their necessities to promotean “age-friendly” environment. Finally, local authorities should putpressure on the relevant authorities on water management to improvethe ecological status of Tagus river. All these proposals would improvethe residents' quality of life of any of the World Heritage cities aroundthe world.

7. Discussions and conclusions

The historical centre of the city of Toledo, declared a WorldHeritage City by UNESCO in 1986 and of unquestionable importance asa tourist attraction, suffered a 23.5% reduction in population by 2017.This population decline is a worrying indicator that points to a de-population of the historical city, a situation which gives cause forconcern for the resident population and the local authorities alike. Inorder to throw light on this situation, this article rigorously analyses therecent past of the centre through the demographic indicators of pre-vious decades and its current state and makes comparisons with themodern city located outside the walls which, during the same period,saw its population increase by 64.5%.

The analysis concludes that, since 1940, when the population of thehistorical centre had reached its peak of the twentieth century with31,000 inhabitants, the centre was losing its population almost con-tinuously until 2017, when it had 10,400 inhabitants. This abandon-ment of the historical centre had two critical moments in which thedecline of the interannual population in those years was higher than12%: the years 1990 and 1995. This is in contrast to the growth of thepopulation in the rest of the city.

There was, however, an exception to this continuing decline. Itoccurred during the period of economic expansion in Spain, between2004 and 2008, in which the population of the historical centre in-creased by 12% in a period marked by the real estate boom and the risein the influx of immigrants. But after 2008, with the beginning of theeconomic crisis in Spain, there was a downward trend that led to a 9.5%decrease in the population by 2017. This is due to both the abandon-ment of the centre by the immigrant population and the lack of influx ofnew residents, in a period in which the rest of the city experienced agrowth of 5.8%.

This process translates into a higher degree of ageing in the his-torical centre than outside the walls. It is also slightly higher than inSpain overall for the whole period of time analysed. Furthermore, thelevel of youth in the historical centre is much lower than both outsidethe walls and nationally. In other words, we are facing a populationwhere proportionally there are more elderly people and less youngpeople, and which reflects a very low maternity rate. This maternityrate, which is considerably lower than that of the whole country, is veryconcerning.

Knowing the above, it is crucial that measures are adopted to attractyouth. It is true that, until the real estate boom, many young peopledecided to make their home in the historical centre but, with the onsetof the crisis, they could not continue doing so because of the high price

Children aged 0 to 9 Adults over 64 years old

Fig. 18. Percentage ratio of children aged between 0 and 9 and over 64 years old by age groups in the historical centre and outside the city walls in 2017Note: Own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the City of Toledo.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

11

of housing. Therefore, it is essential to put systems in place which offerrental and house-buying incentives for young people. This problem mayhave its solution in another worrying issue for the city: the 20% ofunoccupied homes in the historical centre. The local government shouldtake measures to force the owners to maintain them properly and tooffer for sale all those houses that are empty or abandoned. Along withthis measure, a further recommendation would be to offer an increasein public aid for the rehabilitation of old buildings and a reduction intaxation on housing within the historical centre.

These revitalization measures have been applied in towns in theUSA, such as Jeffersonville and New Albany, in Indiana, and have re-sulted in several vacant or underutilized buildings being returned toproductive use. The development of housing is essential to a healthytown centre since residents provide a demand for shops and restaurants(Faulk, 2006).

The recovery of the area for residents could be achieved with abalance of these measures with tourism, by paying special attention tothe control of rental apartments (Abella, 2016). In the case of the his-torical centre of Toledo, residents are already being forced out bydrastic rent increases or non-renewal of rental contracts because thehousing is destined for tourist use. Some are being moved out of theirhomes to less popular buildings so that the former can be converted intotourist apartments, while others are suffering from problems of coex-istence between neighbours and tourists. However, despite the fact thatenlightened local authorities have begun to make proposals, one ex-ample being that tourist apartments need the approval of occupants ofthe rest of the building before their implementation, Camarena (2018)proposes various recommendations after a detailed analysis of theproblem. One such recommendation is that Toledo become part of theNetwork of Cities of Southern Europe before Turistization (SETnet),designed to raise public awareness and pressure the authorities intoimposing certain limits to tourism activity in favour of an economic,social and environmentally sustainable development in the territories.

On the other hand, support for small traditional businesses andbasic consumer needs is essential to creating a friendly and accessiblearea for residents. This situation appears in the literature as an alter-native to gentrification. The local government of Beijing (China), forexample, while supporting the arrival of new business also fostersconventional tourism and inner city development strategies (González,2016; Markusen, 2006; Pendlebury, Short, & While, 2009).

As shown by Coca-Stefaniak et al. (2009), the role of global trends inconsumer behaviour and trade also makes it necessary to address theproblem of local commerce versus large out-of-town shopping centres(Fernández Güell, 2006). This is one of the competitive pressures thatmost affects the small traditional business found in the historical centreof Toledo, with retail trade in the centre of the city being reduced to atype of commerce oriented towards tourism and basic services gradu-ally disappearing. This is why local government should encourage theopening and maintenance of core businesses through different mea-sures: less bureaucracy, tax discounts, support for repair and moder-nization of commercial premises, etc. Following Tomé (2007), there isno other option that the multiple use of space, reducing the weight ofintensive leisure activities to implement small and medium enterprises.

Along with these measures, other incentives should be introduced,such as creating playgrounds and giving aid to schools already opera-tional, to facilitate the arrival of new young neighbours. Much awaitedby the residents is the arrival of fibre optic internet to the historicalcentre. This improves the communication of residents and facilitates theimplementation of professional offices and businesses.

In terms of transport, the facility of parking in favour of residentsrather than visitors has recently been increased. With tourists in mind, anon-stop microbus service has been implemented that connects thehistorical centre with the area outside the walls and there are also twomoving escalators to facilitate access from outside the walls.

With regard to the measures taken by local authorities, in additionto the realization of a plan, such as the Special Plan of the HistoricalCentre that was approved in 1997, it is essential to adopt measures toregularly re-evaluate the effect of the actions implemented. Onlythrough the continuous correction of these actions can improvementsbe effective in the area. All these proposals could help and encourageyoung people to reside in the historical city centre, which would resultin a rejuvenation of the population, thus ensuring local life.

But what this article suggests, being the most important key for along-term solution, is the residents' participation. Citizen associationsare fundamental in the city, and the interaction between them and localauthorities essential for a direct response to their concerns. In recentyears, an active citizenship movement called ‘Historical Centre, OurNeighbourhood’ (Casco Histórico, Territorio Vecinal) has emerged inToledo which highlights the concerns of residents for improving theenvironment of their neighbourhood and proposes measures to re-cuperate the quality of residential life (Camarena, 2018). This fact isespecially relevant in the case of the elderly. Because of populationageing, Toledo's town centre presents specific challenges for improving

Table 3Indicative rates of the demographic structure of the historical centre and out-side the city walls in 2017.

Rate Historical centre Outside the walls

Dependency ratio 46.5% 49.1%Child dependency ratio 17.5% 25.6%Old-age dependency ratio 29.1% 23.5%Longevity rate 57.9% 44.9%Maternity rate 16.6% 23.3%Trend (or progressivity) rate 102.4% 97.5%Replacement rate 91.0% 93.0%

Table 4Distribution of housing in the city of Toledo according to its typology in 2011.

Total housing Main housing Secondaryhousing

Emptyproperty

Rentedproperty

Historicalcentre

6285 4675 370 1250 1065(16.60%) (74.38%) (5.89%) (19.89%) (16.95%)

Outsidethewalls

31,600 26,720 2100 2775 3770(83.40%) (84.56%) (6.65%) (8.78%) (11.93%)

Toledo 37,885 31,395 2470 4025 4835(82.87%) (6.52%) (10.62%) (12.76%)

Table 5Analysis of householdsa in Toledo in 2011.

Total households Households with 1 person

Historical centre 4675 1770(14.89%) (37.86%)

Outside the walls 26,720 5530(85.11%) (20.70%)

Toledo 31,395 7300(23.25%)

a Household: a human group made up of one or more people who habituallyreside in a family home all year round or for most of it, not necessarily havingfamily ties between the members of the group.

Table 6Densities of population in the city of Toledo in 2011.

inhab./dwelling

inhab./occupieddwelling

inhab./household

Historical centre 1.68 2.10 2.26Outside the walls 2.29 2.52 2.71Toledo 2.19 2.45 2.65

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

12

the urban environment for the older population. Older residents shouldbe seen as spokespeople for identifying those issues that are to do withimproving their neighbourhood. They should be encouraged to presentproposals from their perspective, with ideas that promote an “age-friendly” environment. In this way, we can benefit from their wideexperience, their skills and knowledge and it would stimulate partici-pation in the creation of age-friendly initiatives. In the historical centreof Toledo there are also some social initiatives, such as the existence ofneighbourhood groups like the Citizen Initiative Association or thedisinterested involvement of experts in studies aimed at strengtheningcoexistence in the historical centre, as illustrated by Manzano (2018).In accordance with the literature review section, this paper suggeststhat deeping into these courses of action we could contribute to moreliveable cities.

Finally, the city of Toledo has a huge natural heritage due to itslocation, and has the longest river on the Iberian Peninsula, the TagusRiver, which hugs three sides of this historical city. This offers thepopulation of Toledo access to a diversity of flora and fauna and anoutstanding area for recreation and sport. However, this natural re-source is untapped due to the poor quality of the surrounding water(Larraz, 2016).

In summary, the current situation of the historical centre of Toledois concerning due to the loss of almost a quarter of its population since1986 but, against all odds, it still maintains an active daily life: re-sidents, offices, public administrations, business, etc. Despite reachingrecord figures of 1 million overnight stays in 2017, tourism is still seenby most citizens as positive and necessary for the city, although op-position is growing. This is why coexistence between tourism and theresident population must be regulated as soon as possible. We believethat now is the time to take the measures proposed by the authors, or

other more creative ones (as a survey-based study), in order to attract agreater number of residents. Inaction could gradually lead to analarming scenario which would be difficult to turn back from. Only asan open-air museum will we fail to preserve the city; if the residentcitizens disappear, the authenticity and survival of any historical city islost, not just that of Toledo's Historical Centre. It would be a tragedy ifToledo became another Venice, where “the Venetian people are notmigrating from their island city motherland to a foreign mainland outof necessity or for convenience's sake; rather, they are trying to reach adifficult balance between their island and mainland identity”(Casagrande, 2016). Currently, in Florence and Venice just like inBarcelona, the risk to turn the historic centres into “cathedrals of con-sumption” is a very present one (Picascia et al., 2019). In view of thisarticle, perhaps Toledo could be the next in this list.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financialinterests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-ence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

To the Royal Academy of Fine Arts and Historical Sciences of Toledo(Real Academia de Bellas Artes y Ciencias Históricas de Toledo), whichbefore its interest and concern for the city of Toledo has commissionedthe authors to carry out a study from which the results of this articlehave been obtained.

Annex 1

Table A1Population data registered in Toledo from 1986 to 2017.

Year Toledo city Historical centre Outside the walls

1986 58,198 13,599 44,5991987 58,297 13,416 44,8811988 59,551 13,652 45,8991989 60,142 13,691 46,4511990 60,684 13,446 47,2381991 59,802 11,771 48,0311992 60,798 11,919 48,8791993 62,183 12,178 50,0051994 64,040 12,053 51,9871995 65,104 11,924 53,1801996 66,006 10,413 55,5931997 66,267 10,318 55,9491998 66,989 10,386 56,6031999 67,617 10,277 57,3402000 68,537 10,352 58,1852001 69,450 10,332 59,1182002 70,893 10,193 60,7002003 72,549 10,489 62,0602004 73,485 10,257 63,2282005 75,533 10,600 64,9332006 77,601 10,925 66,6762007 78,618 11,069 67,5492008 80,810 11,488 69,3222009 82,291 11,460 70,8312010 82,489 11,372 71,1172011 83,108 11,275 71,8332012 84,019 11,148 72,8712013 83,593 10,786 72,8072014 83,334 10,633 72,7012015 83,226 10,455 72,7712016 83,459 10,447 73,0122017 83,741 10,400 73,341

Note: own elaboration with data from the Municipal Register of the City of Toledo.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

13

References

Abella, M. (2016). Transformación de Ciutat Vella de Barcelona (1985-2015): del olvido ala recuperación y al peligro de la sobrexplotación. Conservación y desarrollo sustentablede centros históricos (pp. 137–178). Balandrano: Valero y Ziccardi. UniversidadNacional Autónoma de Méjico.

Box, R. C. (1996). The institutional legacy of community governance. AdministrativeTheory and Praxis, 18(2), 84–100.

Buffel, T., & Phillipson, C. (2016). Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban de-velopment and ageing populations. Cities, 55, 94–100.

Camarena, M. (2018). Turistificación o vida de barrio. El problema de las viviendas deuso turístico en el Casco Histórico de Toledo. In J. Manzano (Ed.). Casco Histórico deToledo (Construir la convivencia. Ed. Toletum Rovolutum Ediciones. Toledo).

Casagrande, M. (2016). Heritage, tourism, and demography in the Island City of Venice-depopulation and Heritagisation. Urban Island Studies, 2, 121–141.

City Council of Toledo (2018) Evolución de la población por barrios y distritos. https://www.toledo.es/servicios-municipales/padron-de-habitantes/.

Coca-Stefaniak, A., & Shanaaz, C. (2015). Traditional or experiential places? Exploringresearch needs and practitioner challenges in the management of town centres be-yond the economic crisis. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 9(1), 35–42.

Coca-Stefaniak, J. A., Parker, C., Quin, S., Rinaldi, R., & Byrom, J. (2009). Town centremanagement models: A European perspective. Cities, 26, 74–80.

Crosby, N. J., Kelly, M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizen panels: A new approach to citizenparticipation. Public Administration Review, 46, 170–178.

D'Alessandro, L. and Salaris, A. (2011) Retail as an instrument for the revitalization of citycenter: Considerations from two Italian medium-sized cities. In T. Salgueiro & H.Cachinho (Eds) Retail planning for the Resilient City, 299–315.

Dawson, J., & Burton, S. (1999). Evolución del comercio minorista en Europa. Distribucióny Consumo, 43, 25–47.

Escudero, L. A. (2018) Procesos de urbanización difusos y estructuras urbanas fragmen-tadas: el caso de Toledo (Castilla-La Mancha, España). Ciudad y Territorio. EstudiosTerritoriales L(197), 517-538.

Faulk, D. (2006). The process and practice of downtown revitalization. Review of PolicyResearch, 23(2), 625–645.

Fernández Güell, J. M. (2006). Planificación Estratégica de Ciudades. Barcelona: Reverte.Fuentes Lázaro, J. (1975) Toledo, crisis y propiedad urbana en la segunda mitad del XVIII.

A.T. X, Toledo, 1974. Historia de la Real Casa de Caridad de Toledo. Simposio ToledoIlustrado, CUT, Toledo, 1975, t II, 67-88.

González, P. (2016). Authenticity as a challenge in the transformation of Beijing's urbanheritage: The commercial gentrification of the Guozijian historic area. Cities, 59,48–56.

Gotham, K. F. (2005). Tourism gentrification: The case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre(French quarter). Urban Studies, 42(7), 1099–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500120881.

Guillaumont, P. (2001) On the economic vulnerability of low-income countries. Workingpapers 200102, CERDI-CNRS, Université d'Auvergne.

Guimarães, P. (2013). The tools for city centre revitalization in Portugal. Journal of PlaceManagement and Development, 6(1), 52–66.

Guimarães, P. (2018). Town Centre management: Outlook from Portugal. PlanningPractice & Research, 33(1), 18–33.

Gutiérrez García-Brazales, M. (1981). Clero y rentas parroquiales en Toledo a mediadosdel siglo XVIII. Toletum, 11, 191–289.

Guy, C (1993) Town centre investment and management. Papers in Planning andResearch 143. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Wales,Cardiff.

Guzmán, P. C., Pereira Roders, B. A. and Colenbrander, J. F. (2017) Measuring linksbetween cultural heritage management and sustainable urban development: Anoverview of global monitoring tools. Cities 60 (Part A), 192–201.

Håkansson, J., Lagin, M., & Wennström, J. (2017). Town centre cooperation: Changingperception of property owners. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, 45(11), 1200–1212.

Hogg, S., Medway, D., & Warnaby, G. (2004). Town centre management schemes in theUK: Marketing and performance indicators. International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing, 9(4), 309–319.

Ianniello, M., Iacuzzi, S., Fedele, P., & Brusati, L. (2019). Obstacles and solutions on theladder of citizen participation: A systematic review. Public Management Review, 21(1),21–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1438499.

INE (2018). Cifras oficiales de población de los municipios españoles: Revisión del PadrónMunicipal. (Instituto Nacional de Estadística).

INE (2019). Encuesta de Ocupación Hotelera. (Instituto Nacional de Estadística).Kagan, R. (1994) Contando vecinos. El censo toledano de 1569. Studia Histórica. Historia

Moderna XII, 115-135.King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & O’Neill Susel, B. (1998). The question of participation: Toward

authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review,58(4), 317–326.

Kopackova, H. (2019). Reflexion of citizens' needs in city strategies: The case study ofselected cities of Visegrad group countries. Cities, 84, 159–171.

Larraz, B. (2016) La gestión del agua en la cuenca del Tajo y el desarrollo sostenible. Dos

cuestiones incompatibles. Chapter in book Desarrollo sostenible en el siglo XXI:Economía, Sociedad y Medio Ambiente, Larraz, B. and Fernández, A. (Eds). EditorialIprolex, Madrid.

Manzano, J. (2018). Casco Histórico de Toledo. Toledo: Construir la convivencia. Ed.Toletum Rovolutum Ediciones.

Markusen, A. (2006). Urban development and the politics of a creative class: Evidencefrom a study of artists. Environment & Planning A, 38, 1921–1940.

Martínez Gil, F. (1997). Historia de (Toledo. ed.). Toledo: Azacanes.Molinillo Jiménez, S. (2001). Centros comerciales de área urbana – estudio de las prin-

cipales experiencias extranjeras. Distribución y Consumo, 57, 27–45.Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., Cruz-Jesus, F., Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., Branco, F., &

Xavier, N. (2019). Examining social capital and individual motivators to explain theadoption of online citizen participation. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92,302–311.

Nyseth, T., & Sognnæs, J. (2013). Preservation of old towns in Norway: Heritage dis-courses, community processes and the new cultural economy. Cities, 31, 69–75.

Özdemir, D., & Selçuk, I. (2017). From pedestrianisation to commercial gentrification:The case of Kadıköy in Istanbul. Cities, 65, 10–23.

Pendlebury, J., Short, M., & While, A. (2009). Urban World Heritage Sites and the pro-blem of authenticity. Cities, 26(6), 349–358.

Picascia, S., Romano, A. and Teobaldi, M. (2019) The airification of cities. Making senseof the impact of peer to peer short term letting on urban functions and economy.SocArXiv, November 25. doi:10.31235/osf.io/vs8w3.

Pinilla, V. and Sáez, L.A. (2017) Rural Depoplation in Spain: Genesis of a problem andinnovative policies. Centre for Studies on Depopulation and Development of RuralAreas (CEDDAR) Report, 2017-2.

Plevoets, B., & Sowińska-Heim, J. (2018). Community initiatives as a catalyst for re-generation of heritage sites: Vernacular transformation and its influence on theformal adaptive reuse practice. Cities, 78, 128–139.

Poh Poh, W. (2003) Tourism development in southern Asia. Patterns, issues and pro-spects. In Southeast Asia Transformed. A geography of chance. Chia Lin Sien (Ed.)Institute of Southern Asian Studies. (Singapore).

Ponz, A. (1776) Viage de España, en que se da noticia de las cosas más apreciables, ydignas de saberse, que hay en ella. Tomo primero, Segunda edición. Joachin IbarraImpresor. Madrid.

Porres Martín-Cleto, J., & Martz, L. (1974). Toledo y los toledanos en 1561. Toledo:Instituto Provincial de Investigaciones y Estudios Toledanos.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal ofDemocracy, 20(1), 65–78.

Reeve, A. (2004). Town centre management: Developing a research agenda in an emer-ging field. Urban Design International, 9(3), 133–150.

Rodríguez de Gracia, H. (1997) El siglo XIX: la ciudad civil. En Historia de la ciudad deToledo. Ed. Azacanes. (Toledo).

Rossi, U. (2003). La città molteplice: il processo di cambiamento urbano nel centro storicodi Napoli. Archivio di studi urbani e regionali, 77.

Rovira Lara, A. (2000). Propuestas y modelos para la gestión estratégica de los centrosurbanos desde la cooperación pública y privada. Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Publicas,19, 19–34.

Rowe, G. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science,Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.

Smith, L. G. (1983). Impact assessment and sustainable resource management. Harlow, UK:Longman.

Smith, N. (1987). Gentrification and the rent gap. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, 77(3), 462–465.

Thomas, J. C., & Thomas, F. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills andstrategies for public managers. San Francisco: Editor Jossey-Bass.

Timney, M. M. (1996) Overcoming NIMBY: Using participation effectively. Paper pre-sented at the 57th national conference of the American Society for PublicAdministration, Atlanta, GA.

Toledo consortium (2019). https://consorciotoledo.org/transparencia/?page_id=184.Tomé, S. (2007). Los centros históricos de las ciudades españolas. Ería, 72, 75–88.UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural

heritage. Adopted by the general conference at its seventeenth session Paris, 16 no-vember 1972. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Warnaby, G., Alexander, A., & Medway, D. (1998). Town centre management in the UK: Areview, synthesis and research agenda. International Review of Retail, Distribution andConsumer Research, 8(1), 15–31.

Warnaby, G, Bennison, D. and Davies, B.J. (2005) Marketing town centres: Retailing andtown centre management. Lo cal Economy 20(2), 183–204.

Wells, I. (1991) Town centre management: a future for the High Street. GeographicalPapers 109, University of Reading, Reading.

Whyatt, G. (2004). Town centre management: How theory informs a strategic approach.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(7), 253–346.

Young, B. (1983). Touristification of traditional Maltese fishing-farming village; g generalmodel. Tourism Management, 4(1), 35–41.

Zanini, S. (2017). Tourism pressures and depopulation in Cannaregio. Journal of CulturalHeritage Management and Sustainable Development, 7(2), 164–178.

B. Larraz and E. García-Gómez Cities 105 (2020) 102841

14