Beach facilities: How public concessions can drive sustainable local development

The legal debate over Italy's system of public concessions for beach facilities has overshadowed the most important aspect of the issue: these concessions should be reimagined not simply as rights to use public maritime property, but as instruments for local development. Concession holders should not merely acquire the right to operate a beach facility. Instead, they should commit to protecting the environment, ensuring safe bathing conditions, and creating measurable, long-term, sustainable value for the broader community.

For the past twenty years, the debate over Italy's beach concessions has focused almost entirely on legal issues: the Bolkestein Directive, repeated extensions, rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and infringement proceedings. The deadline established by the Italian legislature—tenders must be launched by June 30, 2027, while existing concessions will remain valid until September 30, 2027—finally closes a long season of postponements and opens a far more interesting one. The real question now is how to use this transition to generate lasting value for local communities.

Three ways of looking at the issue

Public maritime property belongs to the state. A concession does not transfer ownership; it simply grants the right to use a public asset. European law requires competitive tendering, limited concession terms, and prohibits automatic renewals. Italy is far from an isolated case. Spain, Portugal, Croatia, and Greece have all sought their own balance between competition and continuity.

Once it is accepted that competitive tenders will move forward, however, three dimensions become central: economic, policy, and identity.

• The economic dimension concerns the sustainability of businesses and, above all, generational renewal. The sector includes approximately 7,200 registered companies and more than 15,000 concessions for tourism and recreational activities, generating average annual revenues of around €260,000 and an estimated €2.1 billion in direct value added. It remains a sector dominated by family-owned businesses, with owners concentrated in the 40–64 age group and educational backgrounds that are more technical than managerial. Only one entrepreneur in five holds a university degree, below the national average. This profile creates a structural vulnerability. Successfully navigating complex tenders, preparing credible business and financial plans, and securing financing without substantial collateral require capabilities that many microenterprises simply do not possess. If managed well, the transition could become an opportunity to encourage generational turnover, attract younger entrepreneurs and women into the sector, and strengthen managerial skills. If managed poorly, it will simply force many operators out of the market.
• The policy dimension concerns tourism. Public concessions are not an isolated issue; they are an integral part of a destination's tourism strategy. Extending the tourist season, strengthening connections between coastal and inland areas, improving and diversifying the visitor experience, and ensuring accessibility in its broadest sense—including social inclusion—are all decisions that are either embedded in tender design or overlooked altogether. Rimini, for example, has chosen to frame concession reform within a broader transformation of its tourism model.
• The identity dimension is the most delicate and represents the real point of tension: finding the right balance between attracting investment and preserving the identity of local businesses. While it is reasonable for concession fees to reflect concession holders' business activity, it is equally important to recognize and enhance the distinctive tourism and entrepreneurial characteristics of local communities.

Attracting investment without changing the character of local communities

Investment is already flowing into the sector—not after the tenders, but before them and regardless of their outcome. Forte dei Marmi offers the clearest example: a significant share of the town's beach facilities has changed ownership in recent years, acquired by international funds and investors from long-established family operators.

This development should not be viewed ideologically. Large investors bring capital, redevelopment, the capacity to extend the tourist season, and the ability to move the market up the value chain. They can play a positive role, particularly for premium assets and neglected or underused areas where family businesses often lack the resources to invest. Elsewhere, however, the growing financialization of concessions presents real risks. In some locations, it could lead to the gentrification of beach areas, price middle-income visitors out of the market, and gradually homogenize the tourism offering around luxury experiences.

The appropriate response is differentiation, combined with targeted support. Dividing beach areas into homogeneous concession lots could become the key policy tool. In some areas, maximizing concession fees and private investment may legitimately be the primary objective. In others, different priorities should prevail: affordability, inclusion, stewardship of public beaches, and partnerships with nonprofit organizations and schools. This reflects a value-based approach, recognizing that public value is not uniform but depends on the specific characteristics and needs of each location.

For the same reason, concession fees should vary according to the type of investment required. Commercial investments that generate cash flow can justify higher fees; environmental and social investments that do not produce direct financial returns cannot. Fees could also combine fixed and variable components. Finally, the investments encouraged—and rewarded during the tender process—should not be limited to financial commitments, which often require access to credit beyond the reach of many microenterprises. Intangible investments, such as collaborative initiatives, new services, and partnerships, should also be recognized and rewarded.

Operational challenges: evaluation criteria, compensation, and the demolition debate

The technical core of the transition lies in the award criteria and in the monitoring of concession performance. Contracts will be awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender, combining technical and financial components. In practice, however, the technical proposal often accounts for 70–80% of the total score. This approach will work only if evaluation committees are genuinely capable of distinguishing among proposals on the basis of quality.

Otherwise, there is a real risk that the concession fee will become the deciding factor, because technical proposals will converge around standardized solutions that reward everyone equally—or favor operators able to commit to larger investments, which require substantial capital and easier access to financing.

Clear, measurable, and verifiable performance indicators are therefore essential, such as those discussed by Tomasi et al. in Six dimensions for evaluating performance in beach concessions ( Economia & Management , No. 1, 2026). Evaluation committees must also be multidisciplinary, bringing together expertise that goes well beyond administrative and technical competencies in order to assess the broader quality of competing proposals.

A closely related—and particularly sensitive—issue concerns compensation for outgoing concession holders. The future of existing facilities, restoration obligations, and compensation for investments that have not yet been fully depreciated will largely determine whether the transition is perceived as fair and whether it can avoid prolonged litigation. A pragmatic approach would be highly desirable, particularly during this first round of competitive tenders.

One emblematic example is the demolition of existing facilities. The Municipality of Rimini has decided in favor of removing all existing structures as part of its broader strategy to regenerate the waterfront and reshape the city's tourism model. It is a bold decision supported by a coherent strategic vision. At the same time, it deserves careful scrutiny. Demolishing every existing facility entails a significant waste of resources, substantial demolition costs, and raises obvious concerns from the perspective of circularity and resource efficiency. Not every existing structure is obsolete; some could be upgraded rather than demolished. A comprehensive demolition strategy may be justified by an ambitious redevelopment vision, but it should be applied selectively. Distinguishing between what should be removed and what can be regenerated is itself an important criterion of both environmental and economic sustainability.

A transition that requires public support

If one of the objectives of public concessions is to generate measurable value for society as a whole, the public sector must play its part on two fronts.

First, regional governments—and the national government—could establish dedicated guarantee schemes and subsidized financing programs. Without financial instruments tailored to the specific characteristics of these businesses—seasonal cash flows, limited collateral, and uncertainty surrounding concession renewal—lowering barriers to entry will remain largely theoretical and generational renewal will fail to materialize. Existing European funding programs that already support access to credit, women-owned businesses, and both tangible and intangible investments, including skills development, could easily be adapted through targeted measures designed specifically to support this transition.

Second, municipalities need to invest in strategy before focusing on procedure. Participatory planning—defining the public values to be pursued and engaging residents, visitors, and business operators—is not an optional exercise. It is the essential precondition for ensuring that tender evaluation criteria genuinely reflect a shared vision rather than a bureaucratic checklist.

What is needed is a balanced approach: attracting investment where redevelopment is most needed while helping local microenterprises become stronger and more competitive through generational renewal and improved managerial capabilities. The coming months will be critical for rebuilding the trust and cooperation needed to make this transition successful. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the entire process will become mired in litigation, with outcomes that are already largely predictable.

Launching multiple tenders tailored to different geographic areas and based on differentiated evaluation criteria could offer the right balance between free competition and local identity, between large investors and microenterprises, and between innovation and tradition. The next chapter in the history of Italy's coastline will then be written by time, market dynamics, and sound regulation.

This article draws on discussions held during a meeting organized by SDA Bocconi, which brought together the key stakeholders involved in beach concessions: those responsible for regulating the system ( Marco Penna of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport); those responsible for designing and launching tenders (the Municipality of Rimini, represented by Catia Caprili and Fabio Cassanelli , and the Municipality of Santa Margherita Ligure, represented by Mayor Guglielmo Caversazio , among the first local governments to publish tender notices); and those who experience the system firsthand as entrepreneurs ( Roberto Santini of Bagno Piero in Forte dei Marmi, a family business established in 1933). The composition of the panel was intentional, because the strongest message to emerge from the discussion was precisely this: the future of Italy's beach facilities cannot be addressed from a single perspective. 

The issues discussed in this article are explored further in SDA Bocconi's executive education programs Partnership pubblico-privato per investimenti e servizi e PPP per investimenti e servizi pubblici . (in Italian).