Crete: Endowedby Nature, Privilegedby Geography, Threatenedby ?

Helen Briassoulis Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Lesvos, ,the fifth largest island in theMediterranean and thelargest Greek island, is a highly heterogeneousregion which hasexperienced rapid tourism development since themid- to late1960s when thegrowth ininternationaltourism and broadersocioeco- nomic changesdisturbed past equilibrium patterns. Tourism hasbecome a leading economicsector but hasalso caused several unwanted economic,environmental and socioculturalimpacts and, currently,it appearsto threatenthe island’ s sustainability. The principalgoal of officialdevelopment plansis the achievement of sustainable development and thepromotion of tourismin theisland. To makerealistic suggestions forthe transition to sustainabilityit isessential,however, to identifythe two-way rela- tionship betweentourism and thecontext within which itdevelops. The paperoffers a broad-brush, integratedanalysis of tourismand localdevelopment in Cretein three timeperiods since the late 1960s. It presents its impacts, evaluates them with a consis- tentset of sustainabilitycriteria and probesinto theessential requirements for securingthe sustainability of development of theisland and of itstourist sector. It concludeswith a briefaccount of theoreticalissues related to tourismdevelopment in heterogeneous destinations.

Introduction Crete,the fifth largestisland in the Mediterraneanand the largestGreek island,has experienced rapidtourism development since the mid- tolate-1960s. Tourismhas become aleading economicsector and its promotion features prom- inently in recent officialdevelopment plansfor the islandwhose overarching goalis the achievement ofsustainabledevelopment (RegionalOperational Plan (ROP), 2001).At the sametime, tourism is blamed asone ofthe culpritsof the recent seriousenvironmental and socioeconomic problems that threaten the island’s sustainability.Advocates of tourism development in Crete donot usually questionwhether thisis congruent withthe goalof sustainability, perceiving tourismas adevelopment optionthat is easy to achieve (while thisis notalways the case)and assuming that development will occuras conceived. Frequently, particularinterest groups promote such claims that are rarely (if at all) basedon integratedanalyses of local/regionaland tourism development or employ acomprehensive setof sustainability criteria to evaluate future develop- ment options. Crete represents aninteresting caseof a large,heterogeneous islandtourist destination,located at the periphery ofa countrythat is at an intermediate level of development. Ithas a historicallystrong and regionally diverse economicbase, a strategicposition, abundant natural and cultural resources, a spatio-temporally differentiated patternof tourismdevelopment anda unique value system.The highs oftourism growth between mid-1980sand mid-1990s coincided with

0966-9582/03/02 0097-19 $20.00/0 © 2003 H. Briassoulis JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 11, No. 2&3, 2003

97 98 Journal of Sustainable Tourism broadersocioeconomic developments thatboosted its economy and tourism – migrationand the influx of European Union (EU) funds tothe islandbeing centralamong them. The challenge in the analysisof tourism development in Crete isto single out,from among a myriadof other factors, the influence of tourismon the island’s past,present andfuture development aswell astoassess the influence ofthese otherfactors on tourism; in otherwords, to identify the two-wayrelationship between tourismand the contextwithin which it develops. Towardsthis purpose, itis necessary to adopt an integrated methodological frameworkand to employ acomprehensive setof sustainability criteria. The present paper makesa modestattempt towards this aim as well assuggesting someessential requirements forsecuring the sustainabilityof development of the island and its tourist sector. The next sectionbriefly reviewsthe literature,while the thirdoutlines the methodologicalframework adopted. The fourthsection presents tourism devel- opmentin Crete,its impacts and an appraisalof the sustainabilityof localand tourismdevelopment in three timeperiods. The fifth sectionsuggests critical requirements tosecure the sustainabledevelopment ofthe islandand its tourist sector.A brief accountof the theoreticalissues related to tourism development in heterogeneous destinations concludes the paper.

Brief Review of the Literature Several theoreticalmodels of tourismdevelopment exist,most of which employ the notionof stagesin the lifecycle ofdestinations(Butler, 1980;Forster, 1964;Greenwood, 1972; Miossec, 1977; Noronha, 1979). Butler’ s (1980)remains the mostinfluential anduniversal descriptive conceptual device amongthem, althoughits applications have revealed severallimitations. Reviews of lifecycle models,in general, andButler’ s model,in particular,suggest that, although most areasdevelop in acyclicand stage-related manner (van den Berg, 1987;van der Borg,1991), a general lifecycle theorycannot apply toallareas and spatialscales (Loukissas,1982; Nash, 1977). Tourism development mayskip certainstages in someareas (de Kadt,1979), while elements ofseveral stages may existat adesti- nationin anygiven period oftime(Hovinen, 2002).More generally, insteadof being linear,ordered and deterministic, tourism development isa non-linear, complexand non-deterministic process (McKercher, 1999;Russell & Faulkner, 1999).Because the touristproduct is ‘ anamalgam of different activities’ (Lundtorp &Wanhill,2001: 962), most destinations have multidimensional productseach exhibiting their ownlifecycle (Agarwal,1994, cited in Hovinen, 2002);particularly, heterogeneous andspecial destinations such as heritage cities (Russo,2002). Moreover, planning regulations,public investment,partnerships andfinancial incentives areimportant influences onlocaland tourism develop- ment (Stough & Feldman, 1982, cited in Lundtorp & Wanhill, 2001: 949). Lifecycle modelsare supply-oriented, focusing onthe touristproduct, whereastourist demand is alsocritical particularly because itis not uniform andfixed (Lundtorp &Wanhill,2001). Demand fluctuateswith changes in touristprofiles, marketevolution, political and business decisions,the interests ofinternationaloligopolies and tourism entrepreneurs, competitionfrom other destinationsand in the spatialorganisation of production(Debbage, 1990; Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 99

Haywood,1991, bothcited in Lundtorp& Wanhill,2001: 949; Russell& Faulkner, 1999; van der Borg, 1991). The identificationof lifecycle stagesand their turning pointsusing the number oftourists and available infrastructure only isnot unambiguous especially in heterogeneous destinations.The broadergeographical context, unit ofanalysis, tourismpolicy ofthe hostcountry, local socioeconomic structure, quantity and qualityof environmental and cultural resources, informal activities, migration andlong-term structuralchange alsoinfluence the balancebetween tourist demandand supply and,consequently, the turning pointsbetween stages (Agarwal,1997, 2002; Cooper & Jackson;1989; McKercher, 1999;Russell & Faulkner, 1999;Tsartas et al.,1995).Because most of these internaland external factorsremain unspecified andarerevealed post facto (Agarwal,2002; Lundtorp &Wanhill,2001), the usefulness oflifecycle modelsfor analysis, explanation and forecasting in real world situations is limited (Hovinen, 2002). Finally, mostsuch models are tourism-centric, focusing ontourism and disre- gardingthe possibilitythat other development optionsand functional shifts awayfrom tourism are not necessarily bad; instead, they maybe moresuitable forthe sustainabledevelopment of adestination(Agarwal, 2002: 27; Collins, 1999;Hunter, 1995). In fact,the questfor sustainable tourism development, that hasbecome adominanttheme in the tourismliterature since the early 1990s necessitatesa holisticview ofadestinationwithin its broader socioeconomic, political and cultural context. The discourseon sustainable tourism development hasmoved gradually from anarrowfocus on tourismto a broaderview ofa destination’s stateof develop- ment,where tourismis one of the sectorsmaking up itseconomic structure. Despite diverse conceptionsand interpretations by different stakeholdergroups, ageneral consensusseems to exist on what constitutes sustainable tourism development andwhat are the essentialrequirements toachieve it.These include the economicwelfare ofhostcommunities, conservative use ofnatural andhuman resources, intra- and intergenerational equity, localself-reliance (low dependence onexternalinputs andassistance), local control and participation in development andtourism decision-making, sectoral coordination and integra- tion,tourist satisfaction and balanced achievement ofsocial, economic and environmentalgoals (Ahn et al.,2002;Bramwell& Lane,1993; Butler, 1991; Eber, 1992;Hunter, 1995, 1997;Collins, 1999; Ko, 2001; Mowforth & Munt, 1998;WTO, 1996).These featuresshould characterise all but the stagnationstage of tourism development; however,their achievement andmaintenance is most critical for mature destinations.

The Methodological Framework of the Study Thisstudy adopts a ‘stagesof development’framework to examine tourismin anintegratedand holistic fashion within an area’s particularand unique socio- economicdevelopment trajectory(Massey, 1984; cf.Agarwal, 2002). It focuses on strategicissues related to sustainable development; namely,the interaction between demandand supply, internaland external factors impinging ondevel- opment,the roleof foreign andlocal, tourist and other, formal and informal actors, and the state, and the use of local natural and cultural resources. 100 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

EXTERNAL SYSTEM AGENTS individualand collective tourist& nontourist public& private ECONOMIC national& international TECHNOL’L SOCIAL POLITICAL TOURIST CONDITIONS INSTITUTIONS national& intern’l DEMAND

INSTITUTIONS LOCAL ECONOMY AGENTS Agriculture individual &collective Manufacturing tourist &nontourist Construction public &private Tourist TOURIST Services Resources Infrastructure facilities SUPPLY Other ENVIRONMENT (natural&cultural) LOCAL SYSTEM Sinks

Figure 1 A scheme for the analysis of tourism development

Crete comprisesthe localsystem to be studied,and this is embedded withina broaderspatial hierarchy – the externalsystem, which includes Greece, the Euro- pean Union andother countries. The studyperiod –late1960s to the present –is divided intotime segments. Within eachsegment, the localand the external systemand their interactionsare analysed using the scheme shownin Figure 1, withthe impactsbeing identified andthe sustainabilityof the localsystem being evaluated using selected criteria. Figure 1isa simplified representationof the interactionbetween tourist demandand supply withinthe broadersocio-spatial system, and it depicts only thosecomponents on which the present analysisfocuses. The localsystem comprisestourist supply, the economy,the environment,institutions, and agentswho are vectors of its sociocultural traits. Tourist supply intersectswith the localeconomy and the environmentbecause itcomprises, in additionto tourist facilities,local facilities, infrastructure and the naturaland manmade resources ofhostareas. The localeconomy comprisesall economic sectors and activities. The environment comprisesthe natural,manmade and socio-cultural resources of the destinationthat provide inputs andsink servicesto tourism and the economy. The agents areindividuals and public orprivate collective bodies engaging in touristand non-tourist activities. Their decisionsconcerning the use ofresources (capital,labour, land, natural resources), are influenced by formaland informal Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 101

Table 1 Criteria of sustainable local (and tourism) development

Criterion Operational measure Economic welfare Economic conditions – GDP, employment, unemployment rate (total, by sector, tourism) Sectoral coordination and integration Integration among sectors Complementarities between sectors Economic diversification Relative shares of primary, secondary and tertiary sectors Economic monocultures State of natural and human resources Environmental conditions and impacts (conservative use) (pollution and resource shortages) Social and cultural conditions and impacts Infrastructure – availability and conditions Intra- and intergenerational equity Regional inequalities Changes in inequalities over time Local self-reliance Dependence on external inputs and assistance Local and non-local investment Public and private investment Local control and participation in Participation of local and foreign capital development and tourism decision Participation of locals in decision making making Balance between tourism demand Degree to which tourism supply and supply – total and spatial (accommodation) meets tourism demand (arrivals) Degree of spatial concentration Tourist satisfaction Assessment of tourist satisfaction (personal/ subjective, survey results, interviews) Balanced achievement of economic, Comparative and combined assessment of social and environmental objectives relative valuation of economic, social and environmental conditions

local institutions (land tenure andownership being particularlyimportant), and they determine touristsupply, localeconomic structure and their relationships. The externalsystem comprisestourist demand, and the prevailing supra-local economic,technological, social and political conditions, institutions and agents. Tourist demand isinfluenced by allthe otherthree componentsand it interacts withtourist supply. The prevailingconditions (nationallyand internationally), withcompetition from other destinations figuring importantlyamong them, are influenced by nationaland international, and formal and informal institutions andthey influence touristdemand, the localsystem and various types of agents. The latterare national and international, public andprivate, individual or collec- tiveentities – nationaland foreign investorsand tour operators, national policy-makers,etc. – thatcontrol resources and, thus, influence the functioning ofthe localand external economic system as well astouristsupply anddemand. The strengthof the relationshipswithin and between the componentsof the local 102 Journal of Sustainable Tourism andthe externalsystems varies by period andit influences accordinglythe sustainability of local (including tourism) development. Several ofthe variablesuse todescribe the localand the externalsystem and the impactsof development serve alsoas operationalexpressions of the (aggre- gate) sustainabilitycriteria adopted (Table 1).These drawon the featuresof sustainable local (and tourism) development presented previously. The present applicationof the methodologicalframework was constrainedby dataavailability, especially forpast time periods. Official, published datawere used where possible (Katochianou et al.,1997;(National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG)), 2001;Regional Institute on Tourism, 1998; Regional Operational Plan,2001; Tourism and Economy, 2001, 2002). However, the mostcrucial infor- mationneeded fora thorough,informed analysiswas obtained from interviews withkey informants,participant observation and the author’s personalknowl- edge and experience.

Tourism Development in Crete Since the Late 1960s Crete,the southernmostisland of Greece, hasan areaof 8335 km 2.Itis predom- inantlymountainous, three-fifths ofits area lying 200mabove sea level. A mountainrange extendsfrom east to west with peaks above2000m. Crete is divided intofour administrativedepartments (prefectures) (Figure 2).Its popu- lationgrew by 31.65%between 1971and 2001. The prefectures ofIrakleion and Rethymnonexhibited the highest growthrates, 40.36% and 34.12%respectively. Populationchange resulted fromnatural increase and the reversalof outmigrationtrends that occurred in the 1950sand 1960s. Internal migration contributedto urbanisation of its major towns. Migrants from the Middle East, Balkan and Eastern European countries have also settled in the island. The urban–rural composition of itspopulation changed from55.76% rural and 44.24%semi-urban andurban in 1971to 46.2% rural and 53.8% semi-urban and urban in 1991.The prefecture ofRethymnonremained the mostrural of allfour prefectures throughoutthe period (70.23%in 1971,52.17%in 1991).By the end of the 1990s,inequalities in the urban–rural composition among the four prefec- tures had diminished. Crete isrenowned forits fabulous naturalbeauty, diversityof landscape, 1040km-longcoastline, mild climate and numerous cultural resources (Minoan palacesand other archaeological and historical monuments and sites) that constitute its principal tourist resources. The studyperiod isdivided intothree timesegments: (a) mid/late-1960sto mid-1970s,(b) mid-1970sto mid-1980s and (c) mid-1980sto late 1990s/ 2002 (present) forthe followingreasons. Tourism development proper startedin the mid- tolate-1960s in Crete,while the mid-1970smark a period ofaccelerating tourismgrowth and, at the sametime,a period ofimportantpolitical changes in Greece. In the mid-1980s,as aresultof Greece’ s accessionto the European Union in 1981,significant amounts of funds startedflowing tothe islandthat pushed its economyforward. The late1990s tothe present marka period ofmounting prob- lemsin tourism(and more generally) andthe generationof severalinitiatives to check the negative repercussionsof these trends.The followingsections analyse Tourism andSustainable Development in Crete 103 104 Journal of Sustainable Tourism localand tourism development in Crete atan aggregateand selective level of detail due to space and data limitations.

Mid/late-1960s to mid-1970s period Tourist demand and the external system Thisfirst period coincideswith a period ofdictatorship(1967– 74) in Greece andthe gradualemergence ofthe countryas a popular touristdestination, mostlyfor upper-income tourists.Tourists were attractedto Greek destinations renowned fortheir naturaland cultural attractions (, Delphi, Kerkyra, Rodos)that possessed adequate and developed touristfacilities, with Greek tourismpolicy mostlytargeting traditional destinations and providing strong economicincentives forprivate investment. In 1972,internationaltourist arrivals by charterto Crete were only 4.1%of the nationaltotal. In 1975,overnight stays were 7.95%of the nationaltotal, 81.1% of whichwere in the prefectures of Irakleion andLassithi that possessed developed touristaccommodation and infrastructure. Upper- to middle-income tourists prevailed. Tourism development and the local system Tourismdevelopment in Crete startedfrom the east,as reflected in the 1971 distributionof hotelbeds andhotel beds per 1000inhabitants among the four prefectures. Itwas based on localcapital that took advantage of state-provided economicincentives andwas invested in large,luxury hotelsin AgiosNikolaos andIrakleion, the capitalsof the respective prefectures (Papadaki-Tzedaki, 1999).These localitieswere basicallyat the involvementstage and they formed the nuclei offuture, mostlymass, tourism development alongthe northerncoast . The rest of the island was entering the involvement stage. In 1970,Crete’ s GrossDomestic Product (GDP) was10.550 million Drs (1970 prices), 4.09%of the nationalGDP andunemployment wasonly 1.86%(3.135% in Greece). Mostof the 182,644persons employed in 1971were concentratedin the primarysector, especially in the prefectures ofRethymnon and Lassithi. The mainagricultural products of the islandwere oliveoil, grapes and dairy prod- ucts.In the 1970s,greenhouse cultivationwas introduced in southeastCrete (Ierapetra), andthis gradually became very competitive.Trade was well devel- oped andlarge, locally owned shipping andsea transport companies controlled a large share of the market. The hinterland was relatively undeveloped. Directemployment in tourismtotalled 4206 persons in 1971,5% ofthe national totaland 10.7% of Crete’ s tertiarysector employment (nationalaverage 8.2%). The island’s development wasbased on local(and national) capital. The most importanteconomic actors of thisperiod were ,trade and shipping company owners. In thisfirst period, Crete did notexperience seriousenvironmental problems suchas pollutionand resource shortages. Culturally, it remained,overall, a tradi- tionalsociety. In sum,economic welfare washigh andthe economywas relativelywell integratedand diverse. Social and environmental conditions were satisfactoryand below their criticalthresholds. Available infrastructure needed improvement.Regional inequalities did exist,with most development concen- tratedin the three urban centresof the island.Self-reliance andlocal control of development were significantand satisfactory. Tourism development waslow, Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 105 highly concentratedspatially and supply wasmeeting demandsatisfactorily. Overall,development wason a sustainabletrajectory as economic, social and environmental conditions were in relative balance.

Mid-1970s to mid-1980s period

Tourist demand and the external system In 1974democracy was restored and in 1981Greece accededto the EU.A period ofsignificantfinancial flows for development purposes commenced.In the meantime,Greece hadbecome apopular touristdestination in the Mediterra- nean.Although tourismcontinued todevelop in traditionaldestinations, new onesemerged including Crete.Foreign touroperators substantially influenced touristdemand. In 1981,452,375 international tourists arrived by charterin Crete,representing 20.7%of the nationaltotal. Their averageannual growth rate was32.5% between 1972and 1982. Total tourist arrivals reached 953,898. Over- night staysin 1981increased three-fold over1975 reaching 6,042,583,14.72% of the country’s total.Their highest concentrationswere stillin Irakleion and Lassithibut their growthwas highest in Rethymnon(517.3% between 1975and 1981!). Middle- to lower-income tourists prevailed.

Tourism development and the local system Touristaccommodation units attained their highest growthduring this period.By 1981the number ofhotelbeds andhotel beds per 1000inhabitants had almosttripled in the island.Tourism development spreadto the west.The most dramaticincrease occurred in the prefecture ofRethymnon, based significantly onlocal capital 1 (Papadaki-Tzedaki,1999), where hotelbeds increasedmore thansix-fold and hotel beds per 1000inhabitantsgrew ten-fold. Inthe prefecture ofIrakleion hotelbeds morethan tripled andhotel beds per 1000inhabitants grew five-fold. The number ofunregistered rented roomsalso increased consid- erably. Masstourism prevailed –mainlyalong the northernaxis and spreading aroundthe majortowns of the island– andthiswas operatedprimarily by small- andmedium-sized family enterprises.Miscellaneous tourist services also devel- oped markedly(car rentals, travel agencies, etc.). Overall, eastern Crete wasat the development stage,while westernCrete wasat the involvementand devel- opment stages. The Cretaneconomy kept growing.In 1981the island’s GDPwas17,510 millionDrs (1970 prices), 4.30%of the nationalGDP, and unemployment 2.389% (4.382%national average). Employment grew by 3.23%over 1971 to 188,560 persons.Primary sector employment decreasedwhile tertiarysector employ- mentincreased. The islandretained its rural character, however, especially in the prefectures of Rethymnonand Lassithi, continuing toproduce itstraditional agriculturalproducts. Greenhouse cultivationspread further, becoming an importantexport sector. Agriculture benefited fromEU subsidiesbut these were frequently diverted toother uses, such as the constructionof touristfacilities and purchaseof urban apartments.Trade continued togrow and local shipping and seatransport companies continued tocontrola largeshare of the market.The integrationof tourismwith other economic sectors was very weakand place-dependent. 106 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Directemployment in tourismtotalled 9607 persons in 1981– 7.67%of the nationaltotal and 16.1% of Crete’ s tertiarysector employment (9.2%national average).The touristproduct amounted to 8844 million Drs (current prices). The employment opportunitiesin tourismcontributed to the reversalof outmigration trends,especially fromthe ruralhinterland, and to the repatriationof locals. New economicand political migrants augmented the informallabour pool, and they were employed primarilyin tourism,agriculture and construction. In 1980gross fixed privateand public capitalinvestment in the islandwere 4.47%and 3.61% of the nationaltotal respectively. GenerousEU funding 2 contributedcrucially to the provisionof physicaland social infrastructure (ports, marinas, highways, health centres, business support, training, etc.). In the 1980sthe Universityof Crete (in Irakleion andRethymnon), the Tech- nicalUniversity of Chaniaand research centres of nationaland international standingwere established.Together withtourism, they induced residential development tomeet the housing needs ofstudents and new employees. Informally,student housing wasrented totourists in the summer,thereby securing year-round revenues for the owners. In additionto EU funding, nationalurban, regional and tourism policy devel- opments– fromthe early1980s onwards – greatlyinfluenced the distribution, quantityand quality of local and tourism development. Regionaldevelopment laws,especially Law1262/ 82,provided economic incentives forthe establish- mentof businesses,prioritising peripheral andunderdeveloped regionsof the country.New touristunits were createdvery fast.Crete received 21.8%of tourism-relatedinvestment and this generated 30,499beds (23.2%of the national total). Tocontrol haphazard urban andex-urban development, Law1337/ 83,was passedthat required masterplans for all urban areas.Its special land-use plan- ning instrument– Zonesof Residential Control – wasused todraft tourism development plans(Kalokardou-Krantonelli, 1995). However, local resistance andreaction postponed and blocked the ratificationof mostmaster plans and, in consequence, haphazardurban andtourism growth continued togetherwith their negative side effects. The combinationof development laws,EU-funding, abuse,violation and lack ofenforcement andimplementation of land-use planning andenvironmental legislationopened manyareas to (frequently illegal) unbridled urban,ex-urban, tourismand tourism-induceddevelopment. Ahostof negative impactsresulted, concentratedon the mostdeveloped northernaxis. Environmental and physical impactsincluded sea,coastal and water pollution; water shortages during peak seasons;water conflicts for domestic, agricultural and tourist uses; electricity shortages;uncontrolled solid waste disposal; ecosystem destruction; urban and rurallandscape degradation; congestion; noise; land fragmentation; develop- mentof the rural–urban fringe; high building densities;congestion and overuse of infrastructure; and proliferation of small tourist units. Socioeconomicimpacts included the development ofillegal hotellerie; the loss of high productivityagricultural land, the growthof a tourismmonoculture (and,consequently, anincreasingdependence onvolatile tourist markets) and the ineffectiveness ofofficial, rational development efforts.Tourism intensified regionalinequalities, notablythose between northand south, coast and Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 107 hinterland,urban centresand the restof the island,because tourismwas concen- tratedin placeswhere itdeveloped strongcomplementarities with agriculture, universitiesand infrastructure. Serious changesin traditionalvalues and atti- tudesalso made their wayinto local society, in particular,the unquestioning acceptance of tourism and development as panaceas for economic ills. In summary,in thissecond period, there wasfurther growthin economic welfare. Although the island’s economyremained relativelywell integratedand sectoralcomplementarities developed, tourismwas weakly integratedin the localeconomy. The environmentalcondition of coastal areas deteriorated and the socioculturalsituation generally changed forthe worse.The availabilityof infrastructureand its conditions improved. Regional inequalities diminished, althoughnot considerably. Tourism and non-tourism development depended significantlyon non-localresources and influences, andthis weakened self-reli- anceand local control of development. While tourismdevelopment intensified, itsdegree ofspatial concentration diminished but itwas stillsignificant. A rising touristdemand was being metsatisfactorily by arapidly growingsupply. Touristsatisfaction dropped. Overall,development startedto deviate from its sustainabletrajectory as there wasan emerging relativeimbalance between the improvedeconomic conditions, and the deterioratingenvironmental and sociocultural conditions.

Mid-1980s to late 1990s/2002 (present) period Tourist demand and the external system After the mid-1980s,Crete hadbecome anestablished tourist destination. Foreign touroperators controlled the largestpart of touristdemand. Competi- tionfrom other Mediterranean destinations frequently threatenedtourist flows toGreece andto Crete. Tourism in Greece spreadover more destinations. Between 1981and 2001, internationaltourist arrivals by charterto Crete grew by 9.08% annually,reaching 2,575,010in 2001,this being about30% of the national total.By 1994total tourist arrivals were 50%above their 1981levels, reaching 1,423,987.Overnight staysby 1990had increased almost five-fold over1975, reaching 9,709,937,which was 19.86%of the country’s total.In 2001they roseby 30%to 12,579,897.In Irakleion they equalled the sumof stays in the otherthree prefectures. However,the highest growthbetween 1981and 2001 occurred in the prefectures ofChania and Rethymnon. The occupancyrate of the registered touristaccommodation units in late1990s/ 2002was 75– 80 % (Tourismand Economy2001, 2002), a high figure asmanytourists stayed in unregistered units. Tourism development and the local system The supply oftouristaccommodation units kept growing,although at aslower rate.By the late1990s, the number ofhotelbeds andhotel beds per 1000inhabit- antshad almost doubled over1981. Tourism development intensified in the west withthe prefectures ofRethymnon and experiencing the mostdramatic increaseas hotelbeds andhotel beds per 1000inhabitantsgrew three-fold. In the prefecture ofIrakleion the correspondingmagnitudes doubled. Masstourism stillprevailed, althoughalternative and more diverse types andqualityclasses of accommodationunits were being offered tosatisfy shifting touristpreferences toward individual and/or family-based holidays. 108 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Greek andforeign entrepreneurs erected luxurioustourist complexes and nowcontrol significant proportions of the touristaccommodation and services. The behaviour oflocaltourism-related capital has become morevariegated. In termsof number offirms,family-based businesses dominatebut someof them havebeen transformedinto corporate-based businesses thathave extended their operationsbeyond the island.Several othershave succumbed toglobalisation andcompetition and have transferred their managementto foreign multina- tionals.It is unofficially estimatedthat foreign touroperators control 70% of the availabletourist beds throughvarious arrangements. Unregistered tourist accommodationhas increased considerably. Diverse recreationfacilities, such as golf courses,marinas, ports, water parks and miscellaneous tourist services are now available. The islandas awhole isapproaching the consolidationstage but individual localitiesare at different stagesof development. The northernaxis is in the growth(west) andconsolidation (east) stages, with pockets at the stagnation stagein the overdeveloped areas.The northernaxis is congested, concentrating four-fifths oftotaltourist activity and most hotel and transport infrastructure, producing 79%ofthe island’s tourism-relatedGDP andserving 74%ofthe popu- lationof the region (ROP,2001). By contrast,the southernaxis is in the involvementand development stages,with the accelerationof tourismdevelop- mentthere being facilitatedby the constructionof new infrastructure.The hinterland remains largely undeveloped touristically. The Cretaneconomy has kept growing.The 1991GDPwas3.48%up from1981 at23,610million Drs (1970 prices), 4.77%of the nationalGDP andunemployment was5.545%(8.085% national average). In 1997unemployment dropped to4.6%, well below the nationalaverage (10.3%). In 1996Crete produced 5.7%of the nationalGDP, with31% in the primarysector (15% country), 13% in the secondarysector (25% country) and 56% in the tertiarysector (60% country). Irakleionproduced 51.1%of the island’s GDP, Chania23.4%, Lassithi 13.7% and 11.8% (ROP, 2001). Employmentgrew by 5.79%to 199,475 persons between 1981and 1991. Primarysector employment decreased.Lassithi and Rethymnon retained the highest sharesof agriculturalsector employment. Tertiarysector employment increaseddramatically due totourism and public sectorgrowth (local and regionaladministration, universities, army, etc.) and the sectortook the leadin the economy (50% of total employment). Direct(official) employment in tourismtotalled 17,068 persons in 1991–9.49% ofthe nationaltotal. Its contribution to the island’s tertiarysector employment in 1990further improved(17.1%) while the nationalaverage remained atits1981 level (9.2%).The 1991tourist product was 13,863 million Drs, rising to 15,933 millionDrs in 1994(ROP, 2001). Economic and political migrants continued to flowto the island,thus augmenting the informallabour pool. Informal labour is conservatively estimated at 50% of the officially reported employment. The primarysector continued toreceive EUfinancialsupport, contributing significantly totheisland’s GDPdespite structuralproblems hindering itsfull development. In additionto traditional products, Crete isa leader in the dynamicsector of greenhouse cultivation,possessing around 50% ofthecoun- try’s greenhouses. Strongcomplementarities between tourismand agriculture Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 109 havedeveloped in severalplaces. Farmers are involved as ownersor workersin touristenterprises (Tsartas et al.,1995).Informal complementarities have also developed asin the previousperiod. However, tourism still remains weakly integrated in the local economy. The physicaland social infrastructure improved further throughgenerous EU funding (IMP, RegionalDevelopment Programsand other EU initiatives)and nationalfunding. In the 1994–99 period,investment in infrastructureamounted to56billion Drson the northernaxis, 13 billion Drson North–South roads,and 2.8bill. Drson the southernaxis. Funds fortourism are allocated under EU programmes for ‘competitiveness’ and ‘culture’. Businessactivity increased due toconsiderable private investment and financing providedthrough development Laws.Cooperation between busi- nessesand local universities and research institutes intensified andhelped to boostthe economyfurther. Tourismhas benefited fromthe use ofinnovative, touristproduct-enhancing technologies,such as electronic commerce, adver- tising,tele-working, medicaltourism and sea parks. Local shipping and transportcompanies maintain their strongposition in the economy,producing 7.6%of the island’s GDPaswell asinvesting in touristfacilities. Various business associationshave been formedtogether with public– private sector partnerships relatedto local and tourism development, banking andshipping. However, public sectorbodies, and notably the LocalGovernment Organisations, are frequently captiveof localinterests (Regional Institute on Tourism,1998), thus blocking the achievement of more equitable, long-term local development. The mountingproblems ofenvironmentaldegradation caused by unplanned andhaphazard tourism and tourism-induced development haveled tothe reori- entationof nationaltourism policy towardsdiscouraging or even barringfurther development of‘congested’tourist destinations (Kalokardou-Krantonelli, 1995). Urbanand regional development legislationof the 1980swas used forthis purpose, in combinationwith economic instruments. Special RegionalPlans – a new instrumentemphasising environmental protection – were andare prepared formany municipalities and regions in Crete.However, political pressures by bothformal groups (such aslocal development corporations)and informal groups(such asthe ‘Union of smalllandowners and small investors’ ) have blocked the completionof these plansand also their practicalimplementation (Vogiatzakis, 1995). The modeof, mostly unplanned, haphazard,and frequently illegal, develop- mentof the previousperiod hasintensified inthe currentperiod causingsimilar ormoreserious negative impacts.Environmental protection and management hasprogressed but hassucceeded in practicein only afew sectors(biological sewagetreatment and solid waste disposal). The problemsexhibit astrong regionaldifferentiation, with most of them occuring on the northerncoast. Spatial andaesthetic conflicts are frequent in the mosthighly developed areas.Incompat- ible landuses are mixed together,thus generating economicand environmental externalities(mixtures of greenhouses, ,bars, industrial installations, university premises,airport, landfills, biological treatment plants, quarries, fuel storagetanks, monasteries, army fields, etc.).Pockets where there areserious degradationsof the touristresources face problems withtheir image.In the south,the constructionof roads and other infrastructure has led tothe invasion, 110 Journal of Sustainable Tourism fragmentationand alteration of ecologicallysensitive areas by agricultureand tourism.In the hinterland,fires, overgrazing and rural abandonment degrade the naturalenvironment (ROP, 2001). The level ofculturaland architectural heri- tage preservation is generally moderate. Despite the significantcontribution of localcapital to vital economic sectors, foreign capital(private and EU) nowplays an important role in the island’s development. Foreign controlof touristflows, accommodation and services has intensified the unequal distributionof tourismbenefits andthe lossof self-reli- ance.This is more serious in areaswhere tourismis the only viable development alternative.Where tourismdevelops complementaritieswith other activities, then the relatedeconomic diversification offers brighter prospects,although this stillexacerbates regional inequalities. Landvalue appreciationin touristareas frequently prohibitsthe localsfrom acquiring land for development. Lastly, culturalalteration, such as the lossof traditional values and authenticity, the commercialisationof culture, andattitudes that are pro-development whatever the costs, has become deeper and widespread. In thismost recent period,economic welfare in Crete hasremained high, with particularimprovements in the ruralhinterland, and with a growingeconomic convergence withinthe country.Although itseconomy is still diverse andthere aresignificant sectoral complementarities, economic simplification seems to haveset in asthe islandrelies heavily ontourismand it specialises in agricultural productssubsidised by the EU.There isgrowing environmental degradation andsimplification, as well asspatial conflicts and cultural alterations. Infrastruc- ture isadequate and keeps improving.Regional inequalities havediminished further. Dependence onexternal sources of funds ishigher thanin the pastand localparticipation in decision-makingis problematic.Tourist supply mayalso be exceeding demand.Territorial specialisation in tourismis observed, although the degree oftourism’ s spatialconcentration has dropped. Touristsatisfaction is generally high but fluctuating.The imbalanceamong the objectives ofsustain- able development thatstarted in the previousperiod hasgrown further andthis trend will continue if Crete’s limits to development are not respected.

The Role of Tourism in a Sustainable Future for Crete Crete iscurrently in ahigh growthperiod, its growth frequently occurring outsideof the formalsystem owing to atraditionof informalsector activity. Its development trajectoryexhibits adeparture fromsustainability as a booming economycoexists with serious environmental and sociocultural problems, dependence onexternal sources and weakening self-reliance. If the forcesunder- lying thisimbalance are left unchecked andthose that may counteract it are not encouraged tointervene, then the timemay be approachingwhen Crete’s sustainabilitywill be seriouslythreatened and its irreplaceable naturaland cultural resources and valuable tourist resources will be irreversibly damaged. Regionalauthorities and business circlesare deeply concerned aboutthe sustainabilityprospects of the islandand about the particularrole of tourismin this.It is generally agreed thatthe period ofextensive tourismdevelopment is overand that little space has been left fordevelopmen ttoaccommodatethe 3.5–4.5 million tourists that are projected for2010 (ROP, 2001). To secure a Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 111 sustainableincome from tourism and Crete’ s niche in the touristmarket, producttransformati onand product reorganisatio n(see Agarwal,2002) are proposedin orderto reduce seasonalityand toincreasethe length ofthetourist season,the length ofstayand tourist spending by 40%.Proposals include: the development ofnewfacilities;new poles oftouristattraction (e.g. mountainous areas);integrated tourist packages and alternative forms of tourism;alliances amongtourist and non-tourist businesses, local government bodies,corpora- tionsand association s;themodernisationandimprovement of touristfacilities andbusinesses;improved education and trainingof personnel; theprovisionof consultingservices for small- and medium-sized touristenterprises; infrastruc- ture improvement;the protectionand enhancement ofnatural and cultural resources;and a focused promotionof the islandfor particular types oftourists (ROP, 2001; Tourism and Economy, 2001). These aresupply-side solutions,however, that disregard the criticalrole of touristdemand and of the broadersocioeconomic context. Moreover, they mostlyaddress the supply-side symptomsof unsustainability rather than the essentialcauses and mechanisms at work (cf. Agarwal,2002). Drawing on the preceding analysis,two groups of essentialrequirements tosecure sustainability in the development ofthe islandand of its tourist sector are outlined here: (a) decoupling development fromthe factorscausing its current imbalance; and (b) capitalisingon factors favouring long-term sustainabledevelopment. Both externaland internal factors are involved here that,on the one hand,shape demandfor the island’s products,services and resources and, on the other, provide the necessaryfinancial, human and other resources for development. Internalfactors obtain a particular,deeper importanceas sustainabilityis deter- mined cruciallyby localchoices about the preferred development patternsand courses of action. Development shouldbe decoupled fromexternal factors that are uncertain, volatileor beyond effective localcontrol,although these alwaysremain critical forthe viabilityof anydevelopment option.These include EUandnational funding, foreign privateinvestment, in-migration, tourist demand, tour opera- torsand other tourism intermediaries .Development shouldbe decoupled also frominternal factors that hamper the enforcement andimplementatio nof urban,regional and environmental planning andlegislation. These include strongpolitical pressures associated with particular local cultural traits, 3 the unquestioning adoptionof short-term,high-revenue (e.g. tourism)development opportunities,weak or non-existentenvironmental awareness, a diffuse percep- tionof powerlessness (e.g. againsttour operators) and risk aversion. Under such conditions,the prescriptionof the sustainabledevelopment literaturefor formal local participation in decision-making should be viewed with scepticism. Instead,development shouldcapitalise on such external factors as Crete’ s mildclimate and strategic position and, more selectively, onEU andnational funding, foreign privateinvestment, in-migration and favourable future socio- economicdevelopments. It should also capitalise on internalfactors that have been instrumentalin itspast and recent growth.Its inherent potential,due toits physiographicand economic diversity and heterogeneity, forforms of develop- mentother than tourism should be protectedagainst current overexploitation. Development shouldbe managedso as tointegrate the economyand the tourist 112 Journal of Sustainable Tourism sectorand to differentiate the touristproduct, thereby providing long-term safetyvalves against the uncertaintyof suchexternal factors as competitionfrom other destinations and unfavourable future socioeconomic developments. Entrepreneurship, localcapital and extant collaborations and partnerships – especially between businesses andeducational institutes – arecrucial, locally controlledassets that should be orientedtowards long-run development options in orderto increasethe island’s self-reliance, bargaining powerand resilience to future stress.Finally, the traditionof informality, if handled properly, couldbe turned intoa valuable touristresource and a promisingmechanism for flexibility and adaptation to changing socioeconomic circumstances. The aggregatelevel ofthe analysisin thispaper permitsonly broadsugges- tionshow to satisfy these requirements. An absolutepriority is the activation– implementationand enforcement –ofintegratedspatial planning 4 to guide and orchestratethe rationaland effective use ofCrete’s naturaland human resources andto provide forforeseeable contingencies;with fluctuations in tourism demandbeing importantamong them. Ideally, spatialdevelopment plans shouldbe adaptedto the island’s environmentaland sociocultural traits and shouldinvolve local actors in the development process.Institutionalising informaltourist and other arrangements and developments isa parallelaction to containthe current‘ tyrannyof smalldecisions’ (Khan, 1966)and to ensure minimumimplementation. Lastly, education remains always the longer-term mechanismfor the value change needed tosupport sustainable development choiceswhere tourismdevelops harmoniouslywith the othersectors of the Cretan economy.

Concluding Remarks The caseof Crete demonstratesthat the particularmodel of tourismdevelop- mentof large and heterogeneous destinationsresults from the historiccoincidence of combinations ofdiversefactors rather than from changes in the balancebetween tourismdemand and supply only.Lifecycle modelsdo apply in thiscase, in general, but descriptionand explanation of a destination’s lifecycle cannotbe dissociatedfrom its inherent diversityand broadercontext. Scale (relative sizeof the areaanalysed) and degree ofheterogeneity influence the relativecontribu- tionof internal and external, tourism-related and other socioeconomic and culturalfactors that determine the particularfeatures of each stage, rate of tourismdevelopment andtimingof the lifecycle turning points(Agarwal, 1997, 2002; Cooper & Jackson, 1989). When aheterogeneous destinationenters the involvementstage, the degree of spatialconcentration of tourismis high. Development startsin thoselocalities where capital(local in the caseof Crete) choosesto invest in tourismfor place-, time- andperson-dependent reasons.The restof the destinationis essentially intact.As tourismspreads to otherlocalities, again where capitalfinds itprofit- able toinvest, the destinationas a whole movesto the development and subsequent stagesand the degree ofspatial concentration diminishes. But, withinany destination-wide stage, different localitiesare at various stages of development asthe caseof Crete illustrates.At moreadvanced destination-wide Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 113 stages(e.g. development, consolidation)the diversityof stages of development of individual localities seems to increase. Crete entered the development stagewhen growthin internationaltourist demandcoincided with the decline ofolder,traditional destinations in Greece, the accessionof Greece tothe EU,the influx ofgenerous development funds – thatreinforced itseconomic structure – andplace-specific developments.More- over,this development wouldnot have occurred in the absence ofavaluable stockof activelocal financial and social capital (entrepreneurship) andthis was mobilisedto invest in tourismwhile developing complementaritieswith agricul- ture,trade and localeducational institutions. The combinationof availablelocal capitaland favourable national tourism and regional policy shapedthe island’s tourismsupply andstimulated foreign investmentand international tourism demand. Atthe consolidationstage, heterogeneous destinationsexhibit morecomplex patternsof development thanless heterogeneous ones(Hovinen, 2002).The causesand impacts of this development aresimilarly complex and the roleof tourismbecomes less clear unless thoroughand informed analysesthrow light onitscomplex interactions with other sectors as well asthe internaland external factorsat work.In Crete,tourism supply keeps ongrowing– frequently autono- mously,without consideration of active demand (and its fluctuations), haphazardlyand mostly informally (not officially planned). The behaviourof localtourism-related capital is more variable. In comparisonto earlier periods, localcapital has less power but stillremains instrumental for future tourism development. The island’s self-reliance hasweakened overall,pressures from tour operators andcompetition from other destinations have increased, and national and EU policy developments maybecome morestringent in the nearfuture. Itsoverall spatialdevelopment patternfollows no formal plan. These andmany other socioeconomicdevelopments raisethe questionas to whether tourism,from a development motor,will become asourceof unsustainability if itcontinues developing unchecked in sucha broadercontext. The complexityof the consoli- dationstage hinders the specificationof solutionsthat will assistthe areato avoid the stagnation stage and to stay on the sustainable development path. The broadertheoretical issues that emerge fromthe present analysisare the pathdependent andcontingent nature of tourism development in heteroge- neous destinationsand the importanceof externalfactors in thisprocess (Agarwal,2002; McKercher, 1999).From the perspective ofintegratedanalysis there isa need tocouple destinationlifecycle modelswith more holistic accounts ofthe destination’s complexdevelopment historyin orderto provide amore meaningful and useful basis for tourism planning and decision-making.

Acknowledgements The authoracknowledges the assistanceof George Chamakos,Association of Greek TouristEnterprises (SETE), andAris Stratakis, Directorate of Tourism, Region ofCrete (Irakleion), whoprovided relevant information, and of Panagiotis Stratakis,researcher, Department of Geography,University of the Aegean, who prepared the map. 114 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Correspondence Any correspondenceshould be directedto Professor Helen Briassoulis, Departmentof Geography, University of Aegean, UniversityHill, 81100, Lesvos, Greece ([email protected]).

Notes 1.The caseof Rethymnon is particularlyinteresting because,in aperiod oflocal economic crisis, localbusinessmen invested in large hotel facilities in the area, extended their activities tothe rest ofthe country, and have becomesupra-local tour- ism entrepreneurs. 2.The first EU Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP)wasthat of Crete. It commenced officially in 1985. 3.The non-cooperationof locals in formalplan preparation, their non-compliance with regulations and implementation and, consequently, their reliance oninformal social networks results from the dominance ofindividualism, familism and political clientelism and the consequent mistrust in government. This has been termed the ‘Mediterranean syndrome’ (La Spina and Sciortino, 1993). 4.National legislation exists but remains inactive for the reasons mentioned above.

References Agarwal, S.(2002)Restructuring seaside tourism: The resort lifecycle. Annals ofTourism Research 29(1), 25–55. Agarwal, S.(1997)The resort cycle and seaside tourism: An assessment ofits applicability and validity. Tourism Management 18(2), 65–73. Ahn, B.Y.,Lee, B.and Shafer,C.S. (2002) Operationalising sustainability in regional tourism planning: An applicationof the limits ofacceptable change framework. TourismManage- ment 23, 1–15. Bramwell, B.and Lane, B.(1993)Interpretation and sustainable tourism: The potentials and the pitfalls. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1(2), 71–80. Butler, R.W.(1980) The conceptof a tourist areacycle ofevolution: Implicationsfor manage- ment ofresources. Canadian Geographer 24, 5–12. Butler, R.W.(1991) Tourism, environment and sustainable development. Environmental Conservation 18, 201–9 Collins, A.(1999) Tourism development and naturalcapital. Annals ofTourism Research 26(1), 98–109. Cooper,C. and Jackson,S. (1989)Destination lifecycle: The Isle ofMan case study. Annals of Tourism Research 16, 377–98. de Kadt,E. (1979) Tourism:Passport to Development? Perspectives on theSocial and Cultural Effects in Developing Countries . New York: Oxford University Press. Eber, S.(1992)Beyond the green horizon: Principles forsustainable sevelopment. Discus- sion paperby Tourism Concern. WWF, UK. Forster, J.(1964)The sociologicalconsequences oftourism. InternationalJournal of Compara- tive Sociology 5, 217–27. Greenwood, D.J.(1972) Tourism asanagent ofchange: ASpanish Basque case. Ethnology 11, 80–91. Hovinen, G.(2002)Revisiting the destination lifecycle model. Annals ofTourismResearch 29(1), 209–30. Hunter, C.J.(1995) On the need toreconceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 155–65. Hunter, C.J.(1997) Sustainable tourism asanadaptiveparadigm. Annals ofTourism Research 24(4), 850–67. Kalokardou-Krantonelli, R.(1995)Tourism and spatialplanning in the Prefectures of Kerkyra and Lassithi. InP.Tsartas, K.Theodoropoulos, R.Kalokardou,K. Maroundas, P.Papposand N.Fakiolas (eds) TheSocial Impacts of Tourismin thePrefectures of Kerkyra and Lassithi (pp. 201–32) (in Greek) . EKKE: Athens. Tourism and Sustainable Development in Crete 115

Katochianou,D., Kavvadias, P. and Tonikidou, P.(1997) BasicData of Regional Socio- economic Development in Greece . Athens: Centre of Planning and Economic Research. Khan, A.E. (1966)The tyranny ofsmall decisions: Market failures, imperfections and the limits ofeconomics. Kyklos, 19(1), 23–47. Ko,J.T.G. (2001) Assessing progress oftourism sustainability. Annals ofTourismResearch 28(3), 817–20. LaSpina A. and Sciortino,G. (1993)Common agenda, southern rules: European integration and environmental change in the Mediterranean states. In J.D.Liefferink, P.D.Lowe and A.P.J.Mol (eds) EuropeanIntegration and Environmental Policy (pp.217– 36). London: Belhaven. Loukissas, P.J.(1982) Tourism’ s regional development impacts:A comparativeanalysis of the Greek islands. Annals of Tourism Research 9(4), 842–54. Lundtorp, S.and Wanhill, S.(2001)The resort lifecycle theory: Generating processes and estimation. Annals of Tourism Research 28(4), 947–64. Massey, D.(1984) Spatial Divisions of Labour . London: Macmillan. McKercher, B.(1999)A chaosapproach to tourism. Tourism Management 20, 425–34. Miossec, J.(1977)Un modèle de l’espace touristique. L’Espace Géographique 6, 41–8. Mowforth,M. and Munt,I. (1998) Tourismand Sustainability: New Tourismin theThird World. London: Routledge. Nash, D.(1977)Tourism asa form ofimperialism. In V.Smith (ed.) Hostsand Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press. Noronha, R. (1979) Socialand Cultural Dimensions of Tourism .Working PaperNo. 326. Washington, DC: World Bank. NSSG (2001) Population Census 2001 . National Statistical Service of Greece. Papadaki-Tzedaki,S. (1999) EndogenousTourism Development: Structured or Disintegrated Local Development? (in Greek) Athens: Papazissis. Research Institute ofTourism (1998) RegionalDevelopment of Greece and of Tourism (in Greek). Athens: Research Institute on Tourism. Regional Operational Plan(ROP) (2001) RegionalOperational Plan ofCrete,2000– 2006 (in Greek). Irakleion: Region of Crete. Russell, R. and Faulkner, B. (1999)Movers and shakers: Chaosmakers in tourism develop- ment. Tourism Management 20, 411–23. Russo, A.P.(2002) The ‘viciouscircle’ of tourism development in heritage cities. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1), 165–82. Tourism and Economy (T&E) (2001) Issue 263 (May) (in Greek). Tourism and Economy (T&E) (2002) Issue 275 (May) (in Greek). Tsartas, P.,Theodoropoulos, K.,Kalokardou, R., Maroundas, K., Pappas P. and Fakiolas, N. (1995) TheSocial Impacts of Tourismin thePrefectures of Kerkyraand Lassithi (in Greek). Athens: EKKE. Van den Berg, L.(1991) Urban Systems in a Dynamic Society . Aldershot: Gower. Van der Borg, J.(1991) Tourism and Urban Development . Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. Vogiatzakis,P.S. (1995) Experience with tourist development in Western Crete. Proceedings ofthe Conference Tourism and the Environment in IslandRegions (in Greek). Technical Chamber of Greece, Eastern Crete Section, Irakleion, Crete, 17–19 March. WTO (1996) WhatTourism Managers Need to Know. APracticalGuide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism . Madrid: World Tourism Organization.