Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas: Sociocultural Changes and Crucial Policy Issues

Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas: Sociocultural Changes and Crucial Policy Issues Paris Tsartas University of the Aegean, Michalon 8, 82100 Chios, Greece The paperanalyses two issuesthat have characterised tourism development inGreek insularand coastalareas in theperiod 1970–2000. The firstissue concerns the socioeco- nomic and culturalchanges that have taken place in theseareas and ledto rapid– and usuallyunplanned –tourismdevelopment. The secondissue consists of thepolicies for tourismand tourismdevelopment atlocal,regional and nationallevel. The analysis focuseson therole of thefamily, social mobility issues,the social role of specific groups, and consequencesfor the manners, customs and traditionsof thelocal population.It also examines the views and reactionsof localcommunities regarding tourism and tourists.There is consideration of thenew productive structuresin theseareas, including thedowngrading of agriculture,the dependence of many economicsectors on tourism,and thelarge increase in multi-activityand theblack economy. Another focusis on thecharacteristics of masstourism, and on therelated problems and criti- cismsof currenttourism policies. These issues contributed to amodel of tourism development thatintegrates the productive, environmental and culturalcharacteristics of eachregion. Finally, the procedures and problemsencountered in sustainabledevel- opment programmes aiming at protecting the environment are considered. Social and Cultural Changes Brought About by Tourism Development in the Period 1970–2000 The analysishere focuseson three mainareas where these changesare observed:sociocultural life, productionand communication. It should be noted thata large proportionof all empirical studies of changesbrought aboutby tourism development in Greece have been of coastal and insular areas. Social and cultural changes in the social structure The mostsignificant of these changesconcern the family andits role in the new ‘urbanised’social structure, social mobility and the choicesof important groups, such as young people and women. The firstchanges were registered in areassuch as Mykonos(Loukissas, 1982; Stott,1973), Crete (Kousis,1989; Tsartas et al.,1995),Corfu (Tsartas,1991; Tsartas et al.,1995),the Cyclades(Loukissas, 1982; Tsartas, 1992), Samos (Galani- Moutafi,1993– 4, parts I &II; Haralambopoulos& Pizam,1996), and Rhodes (Kasimati et al.,1995)and concern the specialfeatures and functions of atypical family.Gradually, the paternalmodel, in which the fatherwas the one who decided onthe mainchoices of the family members (such asin relationto profession,education and savings), started to lose its dominant position. The gradual socialand financial independence of othermembers of the family,owing to 0966-9582/03/02 0116-17 $20.00/0 © 2003 P.Tsartas JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 11, No. 2&3, 2003 116 Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas 117 revenue fromtourism, led toanew type offamily,in which individualismand collectivismcoexist in decisionmaking. In thiscontext, the roleof the younger – andusually moreeducated – members ofthe family,who have been socialisedin the period ofrapidtourism development, isbeing upgraded. The family now operateson the basisof strategies(Kousis, 1989; Stott, 1973; Tsartas 1992) forthe expansionof thissmall ‘ economicunit’ , withthe aimof takingadvantage of opportunities arising from the ‘touristification’ of the social structure. Adifferent socialstructure is being formed,which isdirectly, but notexclu- sively,affected by the ‘urban-type’social and economic relationships imposed by tourism.In thisstructure, one mayfind the socialmodels of the ‘closed’agri- culturalstructure typical of the Mediterraneantogether with urbanised consumptionmodels which, especially in the firstphases of tourismdevelopment,are restricted to the urban centres,leading toasuperficial ‘modernisation’ (Galani-Moutafi,1993; Tsartas et al. 1995).In thiscontext, the roleof customs(e.g. festivities),as elements thatreconfirm the traditionand the historyof the region, startsto be downgraded.Their place istaken by new ‘urban-type’entertain- ments(e.g. going torestaurants, tavernas and bars). At the sametime, the pressing speed ofemployment andthe new productionrelationships of all people living in these areas(Kousis, 1989) become the key argumentfor the gradualabandoning – especially by the younger population– ofawayof life where the relationshipbetween workand leisure timewas more balanced and where social and professional mobility was less intense (Tsartas, 1991). The socialstructure of these areasis gaining othernew characteristics,the most importantof which arean acceleratingsocial mobility and a change in the wayin which socialpositioning is measured. For many generations, social mobility used tobe very restrictedin these areas,since wealthand political power were usually concentratedwithin a relativelysmall social group (Tsartas,1991, 1992). However,the spreadof tourist income to larger groups of the populationhas led tothe creationof an‘expanded’middle class,with high levels ofconsumption anddynamism in investment.In thiscontext, social positioning has started to be measuredmore on the basisof incomeindices (levels of income) andless on socialindices (such aseducation,family traditionand profession). This trend is mostprobably alsorelated to the downgrading,mainly on the partof men, of educationas ameansof socialmobility. In thisnew socialreality, employment in tourismand the subsequent risein incomeare considered to be amoresecure way to gain upward social mobility. Youngpeople andwomen constitute the twogroups in the populationthat play increasingly importantroles in these insularand coastal areas (Stott, 1973; Tsartas et al.,1995).Young people tend tobe thoseinitially pressing forrapid tourismdevelopment, consideringit to be the ‘ticket’to modernisationand to change in their wayof life. They tend toparticipateactively in allprocesses of socialand economic change brought aboutby tourismin their areas,while, more recently, they havealso taken the leadin forming groupsseeking tochange the masstourism development model,which they nowconsider to be problematic forlocal development. Women,too, are benefiting fromtourism development, which improvestheir positionnot only in the field ofproductionbut alsoin the socialstructure of these areas.The economicside ofthisimprovement is more important,as in manycases women become employed forthe firsttime, they 118 Journal of Sustainable Tourism earnincome and they havea significantpresence in the creationof businesses. Onthe socialside –althoughtheir statusis improved – women,and especially the olderones, are often left aside,having at the sametimeto dealwith the quite different and complex reality of their social and family relationships. The ‘meeting’ of tourists and locals: Changes in customs and manners, preferences and stereotypes Researchersin Greece andelsewhere haveargued thattourism is not the only causeof change in aregion’s customsand manners. Other social changes have movedin the samedirection, such as the spreadof massmedia, expanding urbanisation,better communication,and extended use ofinformationtechnolo- gies. However,in the caseof the Greek coastal,and especially insular,areas where tourismhas developed, the historicphase ofthisdevelopment hasbeen a very importantinfluence. In mostcases, tourism development tookplace before the above-mentioned socialchanges (Galani-Moutafi, 1993; Labiri-Dimaki,1972; Stott1973; Tsartas, 1992) sothatit functioned asastrongtransmitter of messages andit clearly contributed to the change in socialrelationships. At thispoint it is useful toconsider the viewsand positions of people living in these insularand coastalareas, as they havebeen examined in tworesearch studies carried out by the Greek TourismOrganisation for the period 1979–1986 and by EKKE for 1980 and1989. Aspects of these viewsand positions are presented in Tables1 and2. One maysee thatthe viewsabout tourism among residents of islandsat the initialstages of tourismdevelopment areoften morepositive (Naxos, Kalymnos, Lerosand Kythira in Table 1,andSerifos andLasithi in Table 2).On the other hand,people living in islandswhere tourismhad already been developed seem moresceptical and their viewsare divided between positiveand negative assess- mentsof tourism(Mykonos, Paros, Santorini, Ios and Corfu). Asregards residents’assessments of the ‘bad’or adverse impacts of tourism,it is worth mentioning someof the answersgiven tothe EKKE researchers.These relatedto ‘Problemsof moralsand nudism’ , the ‘Lowquality of tourism’, ‘Vagrancyand badinfluences onthe young’, ‘Changesin customsand manners’ , the ‘Destruc- tionof families’ , increased‘ Freedom of the young’, ‘Disputes’, and ‘Drunkenness’. Such answerswere alsoregistered morefrequently in the caseof islands where tourism had already been developed. Thus,a conflictingsocial situation arises, as the one alsoidentified by Green- wood(1972: 90), whereby atthe end of the touristseason the localpopulation is gladto see the touristsgo, but atthe sametime they alsoworry in casethe tourists donot come back next year.This situation is related to the manychanges in social customs(derived fromthe rapidurbanisation brought by tourism),which have affected socialrelationships, including relationshipsbetween the sexesand withinfamilies. The resultis a new andoften conflictualsocial reality. In this context,there isevidence ofachange in socialrelationships due tothe dominance ofindividualistmodels

Load more