Sustainable Tourism Development in the Greek Islands and the Role of Tourism research and Education G. ZAHARATOS P. TSARTAS 1. Tourist development and labour market features - in relation to education - in the Greek islands1 In the post-war period, Greek islands have been one of the most important tourist poles of the country. Their development features, which vary considerably and form different tourist development patterns, constitute an interesting research subject, especially in the context of sustainable tourism. In the first part of our paper, we shall examine the tourist development features in the Greek islands and the characteristics of the tourist labour market in conjunction with the education level of people employed in the tourist sector. In the second part we shall elaborate on those factors which contribute towards more sustainable development patterns in the Greek islands. Finally, in the third part, we shall suggest a set of measures and interventions in tourist research and education, which can shape a positive framework for the sustainable tourism development in the Greek islands. (a) Tourist development features in the Greek islands Tourist development in the Greek islands is characterised by a wide variety of types and models of infrastructure and services supplied. The most important factors which have contributed in shaping this insular tourist development are the following:

• The non-coherent nature of tourist development together with the lack of programming and planning in the islands. • The effort to adjust infrastructure and services to different demand requirements - especially those of international demand. • The post-war tourist policy at both national and regional revels. • The role of individuals, e.g: professionals, local representatives, groups of residents, people employed in the tourist sector2 who contribute to local development. • The tourist resources of each island, which determine the infrastructure it offers.

1 See Vernicos N, The Islands of Greece, in Beller W., D’ Ayala P., Hein P. (editors) Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small Islands, pp 141-161, 1990; Loukissas Ph., Tourism Regional Development Impacts: a comparative analysis of the Greek islands, Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 4, 1982, pp. 523-542; Sophoulis M.K., Spilanis I., Cadre conceptuel pour une strategie d’ un developpement insulaire, Revue d’ Economie Meridionale, vol. 41, no. 163, pp. 33-44; Tsartas P., Socioeconomic Impacts of Tourism on Two Greek Isles, Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 3, 1992, pp. 516-533; Coccossis H. and Parpairis A., Environmental and Tourism Issues: Preservation of Local Identity and Growth Management: Case Study Mykonos, in Konsola D. (editor), Regional Development Institute, Athens, 1993. 2 On the issue of sustainable tourist development see De Kadt Em., Making the Alternative Sustainable: Lessons from Development for Tourism, in Smith V.L. - Eadington R. (editors), Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism, Philadelphia, University of Pensylvania Press, 1992, pp. 47-75; McIntyre G. et al, Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners, WTO, Madrid, 1993; Tsartas P., Sustainable Development and Tourism: Speculations and Proposals for a different type of tourist development in Laskaris C. (editor) Sustainable Development: Theoretical Approaches of a Crucial Notion, Papasotiriou, Athens, 1996, pp. 121-156.

- 643 - After the Second World War and, more specifically, after 1970, Greek insular tourism was developed through existing patterns and models. Their predominant tendencies are:

1. Development heavily characterised by infrastructure and services for organised and individual mass tourism demand. This type of demand is characterised by seasonality (2- 7 months), the linkage of travelling with vacationing and the large number of foreigners in total tourist arrivals. In most islands which have adopted this model their whole development depends on tourism, influencing the local socio-economic structure. Quite often, this model has been developed in an unprogrammed way, with considerable consequences in local socio-economic and environmental structure.

2. Development in which tourist infrastructure and services are gathered in specific - spatially - clusters (settlements or regions) which either have tourist resources or organised infrastructure. It mainly concerns areas with geographical comparative advantages. In most cases, tourism follows the “mass” model and is linked with holiday making. However, there are islands with different types of development patterns (mass tourism, holiday tourism, cultural tourism, etc). The lack of planning and the dominant role of tourism, constitute a characteristic feature of this model.

3. Development in which tourism constitutes a structured production activity and a special feature of the island’s overall development, without affecting or competing with the other production sectors. In this case, tourism is developed in parallel to and complements the other sectors of the local economy. In most cases, tourism is the most dynamic sector in the island, while in some cases it is merely one of the sectors making up the local production structure. In this model, tourism is more “integrated” to the local structure, either because there were elements of programming or because different factors contributed towards this direction.

4. Development in which different types of infrastructure and services co-exist and are addressed to different types of demand. A characteristic feature of this model is that it constitutes either a combination of special and alternative forms of tourism, or a mixed model where both infrastructure of these forms and mass holiday tourism infrastructure can be found. In most cases, this development model is “integrated” to local socio- economic and environmental structure. It was developed either because there were elements of programming, or as an effort to adapt to competition or, finally, because different factors contributed towards this direction. In conclusion, we would like to note that the aforementioned models usually relate to one island. However, there are cases where more than one of these patters or models co-exist in an island. Some demonstrate a larger number of sustainability elements, while others only a few. The role of research and education is decisive not only in supporting these elements but also in shaping a structured sustainable development framework. (b) Characteristic features of the tourist labour market - relating to employees’ education - in the Greek islands Most of these features are also found in regions where tourism is characterised by: mass development, organised infrastructure and services, seasonality in demand, production dynamism and variety in development models. The main characteristic features are: A small or medium share of employees having some kind of tourist education; they are usually employed in medium or high class hotels and organised tourist agencies.

• A small share of tourism entrepreneurs having some kind of tourist education. • A small share of executives in tourist enterprises with university or post-graduate degrees in tourism or other disciplines.

- 644 - • Considerable differences in employment patterns for men and women, especially those employed in hotels and agencies; these differences concern the posts, the education level and the period of employment during the tourist season. • High percentage of unqualified - and often “underground” - employment in all types and sizes of tourist enterprises, which usually concerns women and young persons. • Empirical knowledge in small-medium tourist enterprises (hotels, rooms to let, hostels, etc.) with a parallel lack of employees with tourist education or training. • Considerable lack of local administration executives trained in tourism; this lack is also apparent in other public services and private enterprises which are indirectly related to tourism (commerce, transport, services, restaurants, etc.). • The continuous specialisation and diversification of tourist services offered has led to a relevant demand for executives or employees with specialised tourist education in: organisation and planning of tourist development, group leaders for alternative forms of tourism (ecological tourism, excursions, cultural tourism, etc.). Generally, the lack of such executives bears upon the Greek tourist labour market and, especially, areas - e.g. islands - where the tourist product is characterised by variety and specialisation. • Tourist education of the majority of employees concerns mainly secondary education or vocational training programmes. The conclusion which can be drawn is that the level of education of people employed in the tourist sector has considerable weaknesses; measures have to be taken in order for the sector to be able to respond to the special features of demand. 2. Factors influencing the elements and procedures of sustainability in the Greek islands3 The period after 1980 could be considered as an interesting transitional period in tourist development of the Greek islands, as regards the diversification in their development features. Our analysis focuses mainly on issues which support the “sustainable” features of this development. We shall point out that this has not been the result of an organised attempt or a structured policy, but rather a series of developments which, directly or indirectly, have supported the procedures of sustainable tourist development in Greece and, in particular, its islands. The lack of organisation and planning poses threats similar to those of “spontaneous” and unprogrammed mass tourism development which took place in the Greek islands in the ’60s and ’70s. This caused many problems in tourist development and the tourist “product” Greece offered at the time. This does not reduce the importance of factors supporting sustainability; it merely records the framework in which these factors are manifested. The most important of these factors4 are:

3 For sustainable development in the islands, see Farrel B., Tourism as an Element in Sustainable Development in Hana Maui in Smith V.L. - Eadington W.R. (editors) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism, Philadelphia, University of Pensylvania Press, 1992; Wilkinson P., Strategies for Tourism in Island Microstates, Annals of tourism Research, 16, 153-177, 1989, McElroy J. and Albaquerque K., Sustainable Alternatives to Insular Mass Tourism: Recent Theory and Practice, Paper presented at the Conference on Sustainable Tourism, University of Malta, Valleta, November 18-20, 1993. 4 For an approach to these issues, see Tsartas P., The Economic, Social, Environmental and Cultural Impacts of Tourism in the Process of Socio-Economic Development of the Greek Society, Paper presented at a Conference of the London School of Economics (1995); “Greece: Prospects for Modernisation” in Kassimati K., Thanopoulou M., Tsartas P., Women’s Employment in the Tourist Sector: Study of the Greek Labour Market and Identification of Future Prospects, EEC, Brussels, Athens, 1993, pp. 123-132.

- 645 - a) Efforts made by enterprises and local authorities to support competitiveness of the local tourist product We refer to efforts aiming at supporting activities - and developing infrastructure - in order to create a product with “sustainable” features. These efforts are evident in many islands and mostly concern: organisation of alternative tourism activities, services and infrastructure for special or new tourist products, professional training in services which support the diversification and specialisation of the tourist product. b) The policy of the European Union After 1990, EU tourist policies and initiatives support sustainable tourist development, especially at a local level. Such developments are apparent in: development of special and alternative forms of tourism; tourist development programmes in the countryside linking tourism to other production sectors; training programmes for the unemployed; programmes for the protection of the environment and cultural heritage. One of the geographical areas where such policies have been implemented is insular Greece. c) Greek policy on tourism The effort to diversify and improve the tourist product through the specialisation of supply and the development of new services (special and alternative forms of tourism) constitutes a constant parametre of tourist policy, especially after 1970. Even though this policy cannot be assessed as a whole, it has contributed in supporting elements of sustainable tourist development in the country. Two parametres which should be assessed in parallel are: linkage of this policy with European Union policies (one of the most interesting examples is the programme “Tourism- Culture”) and efforts to upgrade the country’s tourist product in view of the more intensified international competition. d) Local tourist development plans and programmes In the past years, a large number of local development plans and programmes - designed and promoted at regional, prefectural or settlement level, e.g. seaside zones, regions with special environmental/cultural resources, etc. - were based on sustainable tourism and its elements. Islands benefited from such programmes, while local authorities, public entities and the European Union played an important role in assigning, promoting and monitoring them. e) Certain parametres of tour-operators’ policy It is a factor which, indirectly, has contributed towards supporting sustainable tourist development. They concern: i) the turn of tour-operators to new or specialised tourist products and services, mainly related to cultural, educational, scientific, ecological, sea tourism, etc., ii) the effort to support entrepreneurial policies which aim at a balanced “integration” of tourist activities into the local social and environmental structure. f) Changes in motives of both Greek and foreign tourists In the past decades, Greece has responded to the new demands by gradually developing the necessary infrastructure and services related to modern tourist motives: cultural travels, travels to the countryside, excursions, travels to traditional settlements, travels with a naturalist content, etc. These travels shape a new, dynamic tendency of foreign and domestic demand. This demand contributed to the development of infrastructure and services with sustainable features in many areas and islands of the country.

- 646 - g) Local socio-professional groups and agencies It is a factor which functions indirectly, by supporting initiatives and procedures which contribute to sustainable tourist development. Some examples are: programmes supporting activities and infrastructure related to special forms of tourism, programmes relating to the environment or the protection of countryside settlements; promotion of production and handicraft activities relating to tourism; activities and infrastructure promoting local tradition and culture. Quite often, such initiatives are generated by local development agencies, which can be found in islands, as well. h) The contribution of specialised scientists This factor functioned widely - at the country as a whole - and indirectly supported the tendency to search for sustainable development models. We consider that the contribution of specialised scientist is important, especially in the following issues:

• The promotion of the need to have balanced tourist development models, integrated in the local socio-economic and environmental structure. • The special features of the insular area, as regards its social, cultural and environmental structure and its geo-morphology. • The critic assessment of the dominant mass tourist development model in all areas which have the relevant resources. • The promotion of the view that tourism, culture and environment should coexist in efforts aiming at developing tourist regions. The aforementioned factors support sustainable tourist development in the islands and other regions. However, the non-coherent nature and the lack of co-ordinated development in the islands hinder the shaping of structured “sustainable tourist products”. The third part of our analysis examines the issues in which tourist research and education must focus, in order to accelerate sustainability procedures in the islands. 3. Tourist research and education in the islands: a framework of interventions and measures supporting sustainable development a) Tourist research i) Registering tourist resources connected to sustainability An analytical and complete registering of these resources aims at the following:

- To reveal geographical entities (region, island, group of islands) offering comparative advantages and which could be developed as “sustainable tourism areas”. - To promote the characteristic features of these resources in order to lead to the formulation of a special promotion policy of the areas offering such resources. - To register the special needs that these resources require in terms of local organisation and management and the development programmes required. ii) Research of the potential and the needs of the islands’ labour market This research constitutes a basic parametre in investigating the medium-term potential of sustainable development in the islands. It aims at:

- Registering the labour market needs to promote sustainable tourism programmes.

- 647 - - Pointing out to the potential of some islands over others where specific factors (number of residents, demographic composition etc.) hinder the formulation of sustainability. iii) Examination of existing development models in the islands, in order to assess the possible relation with sustainable tourist development This will allow to assess some of the development features directly connected with the possibility to support sustainable development. It aims at analysing the following:

- Which development models are potentially related in a sustainable tourism context. - Which are the necessary terms and conditions in order for areas offering special and alternative tourism infrastructure and services to acquire a structured and organised sustainable development framework. - To what extent is it possible to achieve “co-existence” of areas where the dominant development pattern is mass tourism with areas where this pattern is the sustainable one. - Which are the local production branches and sectors which can be linked to tourist development by promoting the necessary interlinking of the area’s production structure. - Which are the possible necessary adjustments of tourist supply - based on the sustainability targets - in the medium-term characteristics of demand. b) Tourist education i) Education and professional training structures in the islands: upgrading and specialisation aiming at sustainability The problems of tourist education in the islands are multiple and are directly related to the “tourist product” offered. To achieve sustainability, measures and interventions in the following areas are required:

- Upgrading the educational level of all employees in the tourist sector. This can be achieved through tourist education and training programmes. Emphasis should be placed on the increase in employees with higher and post-graduate tourist education. - Specialisation of tourist education by enacting curricula focusing on sustainable tourist development requirements. These are: studies on special or alternative forms of tourism; studies in organising tourist enterprises; studies in planning and programming tourist development; studies in environmental management in tourist areas and enterprises. - Upgrading the role of the Aegean University as regards both Tourist Studies programmes offered and their systematic interrelation with tourist research. ii) Innovative tourist education programmes in the islands Sustainable development is supported by innovative programmes which aim at creating a tourist product with long-term production features. In this context, the following tourist education and sustainable development training programmes are suggested:

- Distance learning curricula of three types: a complete tourist studies programme, continuous training programmes for people already employed in the sector and training programmes in tourism. - “Polyvalente”5 education programmes in tourism for businessmen and people employed in tourist enterprises. This kind of education offers different courses within a thematically coherent education programme; it aims at offering knowledge on the operation of a tourist enterprise. It can improve the quality of services offered, especially in this area which is dominated by unqualified and empirical employment.

5 See Zaharatos G., Tourism: Employment and Tourist Professions, Industry, Commerce, Transport and Agriculture, Paper presented at the conference “Tourism: The Great Challenge”, March 1993, pp. 16-18.

- 648 - - Training programmes in tourism for those indirectly employed in the sector, e.g. traders, individuals employed in transport, services, etc. This way, the educational level of people employed in a growing branch of the wider tourist sector will improve. In conclusion, supporting the elements and procedures for sustainable tourist development in the Greek islands is directly linked with the quality upgrading and the specialisation of tourist research and education.

- 649 - - 650 - 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 popula- tion.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 largeproportion of 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 ⅈ Haralambopoulos& Pizam,1996), and Rhodes (Kasimati et al.,1995)and concern the specialfeatures and functions of atypical family.Gradually, the paternalmodel, in whichthe fatherwas the one who decided onthe mainchoices of the family members (such asin relationto profes- sion,education and savings), started to lose its dominant position. The gradual socialand financial independence ofother members ofthe 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 is directly, 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 tourismdevelop- ment,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 are an acceleratingsocial mobility and a change in the wayin whichsocial positioning 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 income indices (levels ofincome) 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 mass media, 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 morals and 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 ofthe 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 and of modernising views in the touristsettlements (as againstthe ruralareas) of Corfu andLasithi. In these twoareas there havealso been problems in the relationshipsbetween the sexes,usually due tothe short-livedrelations between men andforeign tourists(the kamaki phenomenon) anddue toconflicts within the family resulting fromthe autonomyof the young and the adoption of more modern ways of living. ors Tourism eeomn Development Table 1 Views about tourism among residents of selected Greek insular and coastal areas (in percentages) Question: ‘What does Tourism bring?’

Mykonos Naxos Kalymnos Leros Paros Santorini Kythira 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 nin

Money and 93.9 100.0 100.0 94.2 96.8 97.4 98.0 96.4 87.6 92.7 98.1 80.7 100.0 93.8 Greek employment

Modernisation 68.2 73.7 70.0 78.3 52.3 89.6 76.0 86.1 51.4 54.9 74.5 73.7 92.3 89.1 Insular Corruption of 40.9 52.6 46.7 59.4 25.4 53.9 24.0 33.3 67.6 74.4 60.8 47.4 57.7 62.5 morals n and High prices 51.5 52.6 36.7 47.9 42.9 57.4 18.0 35.1 37.1 23.2 41.2 70.2 53.9 56.3 osa Coastal Note: 1. The percentages shown refer to positive answers. The research in Mykonos and Naxos was carried out in 1979, in Kalymnos and Leros in 1980, and in Santorini, Paros and Kythira in 1986. ‘1’ refers to answers given by professionals (in their shops), while ‘2’ refers to answers given by the general public (in their house- holds).

Sources: Stavrou (1979), p. 3 (Naxos), p. 2 (Mykonos). Stavrou (1980), Table V (Kalymnos), Table V (Leros); (1986) pp. 13, 33, 65. Areas 119 120 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Table 2 Views about tourism among residents of Ios, Serifos, Corfu and Lasithi (in percentages)

First study (1980)Second study (1989) Questions Ios SerifosCorfu Lasithi 1.Do you consider that tourism in 15.7 60.3 22.3 42.0 your area has a good impact? 2.Do you consider that tourism in 1.4 9.5 4.5 3.8 your area has a bad impact? 3.Do you consider that tourism in 82.9 30.2 72.9 53.8 your area has both good and bad impacts at the same time?

Note:Inthe 1989survey apercentage ofthe population replied ‘Idonot know/ Noreply’(0.3% in Corfu and 0.4% in Lasithi). Sources: Tsartas (1989: 159–68); and Tsartas et al. (1995: 166–73).

The localshave also been found toprefer touristsof specific nationalities.This hasundoubtedly been affected by the processof stereotyping touristsand also by the economicdynamism of tourism which in mostareas is associated with foreign tourists.The viewsof the localsabout differing nationalitiesof tourists areclearly affected by the relatedperceived economicbenefits (positiveattitudes andexpectations) and social issues (both positiveand negative attitudesand socialissues raised). Here itis worthexamining the viewsof the localpopula- tions as identified in the two research studies used previously (Tables 3 and 4). Greek touristsare mainly preferred by the residentsof the insularand coastal areaswith less tourism development, suchas Leros,Kalymnos, Kythira, Serifos andLasithi (with the exclusionof Naxos).On the otherhand, people living in areaswith high tourismdevelopment aremore likely toprefer foreign tourists (Mykonos,Paros, Santorini, Corfu andIos). These preferences arejustified by commentssuch as, ‘ Greeks arequieter, you candiscuss with them, they have families’, while ‘foreigners aremore easy going, they donot complain, they spend more’. Thus,choices are commercialised and what counts most are the economiccharacteristics of touristsas acommodity.This trend is increased if we addto itthe high percentage whodeclare that nationality makes no difference, especially when they goon tosay that they areonly interestedin ‘howmany touristscome, irrespective oftheir nationality’. The shaping ofnationalstereo- types hasbeen registered quite clearlyin researchconducted in the Cyclades (Tsartas,1989: 166), where localscommented that, for example, ‘Germansand Scandinaviansspend moreand are just in their transactions’, andthe ‘French spend enough, but quite often they aredemanding andarrogant’ . Itis very inter- esting tonotethat the economicelement isvery importantin these preferences. A goodexample isthe caseof Corfu,where the Britishtourists have been acatalyst forthe island’s tourism(50– 70% of arrivalsper annum). However,only afew of the inhabitantsseem toprefer them,since the Britishare often consideredto be ‘cheap tourists’. Views abouttourists among locals seem tobe positivelyaffected by factorssuch as age (younger age groups), workties with tourism and acquain- tancewith tourists (a high percentage ofinterviewees inCorfu andLasithi noted ors Tourism eeomn Development Table 3 Views about tourists of different nationalities among residents of selected Greek insular and coastal areas (in percentages) Question: ‘What is your order of preference of tourists?’

Mykonos Naxos Kalymnos Leros Paros Santorini Kythira

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 in

Greeks 4.6 7.9 30.0 21.7 46.0 31.3 66.0 24.9 32.4 45.1 27.5 43.9 53.8 67.2 Greek Foreigners 63.6 56.6 46.7 34.8 44.4 19.1 22.0 18.2 51.4 47.6 56.9 29.8 38.6 26.6 nua Insular Makes no difference 13.6 21.0 – 29.0 4.8 2.6 8.0 29.7 14.3 7.3 15.6 26.3 7.6 6.2 Both Greeks and 18.2 14.5 23.3 14.5 4.8 47.0 4.0 27.3 1.9 – – – – – foreigners and

Note: The research on Mykonos and Naxos was carried out in 1979, in Kalymnos and Leros in 1980, and in Santorini, Paros and Kythira in 1986. ‘1’ refers to answers Coastal given by professionals (in their shops), while ‘2’ refers to answers given by the general public (in their households).

Sources: Stavrou (1979), p. 5 (Naxos), p. 3 (Mykonos); Stavrou (1980), Table VII (Kalymnos), Table VIII (Leros); Stavrou (1986) pp. 15, 35, 59. Areas 121 122 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Table 4 Preferences for tourists of specific nationalities (in percentages) Question: ‘Which tourists do you prefer?’

Serifos Ios Corfu Lasithi Greeks 22.2 8.8 27.7 32.4 Foreigners 20.6 58.8 30.8 25.9 Makes no 57.1 32.4 40.4 41.6 difference Preferred nationalities (Serifos and Ios combined) Germans 21 Germans 19 Germans 29 Italians 21 Scandinavians 18 French 12 British 14 British 16 British and Irish 11 French, Dutch, French, Dutch, Scandinavians 10 Belgians, Belgians, Others 17 Americans, Americans, Makes no difference 21 Japanese, Swiss, Japanese, Swiss, Austrians 10 Austrians 14 Scandinavians 9 Italians 4 No difference 24 No difference 29

Sources: Tsartas (1989: 165–6); Tsartas et al. (1995: 169–71). thatthey hadbecome friends withforeign touristsand had visited their coun- tries) (Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Tsartas et al., 1995).

The new economic structure in coastal and insular areas resulting from tourism development The holisticpresence oftourismin the localproduction structure constitutes a key feature in mostcasesunder review. Indeed, the tourismsector tends directly orindirectly tobecome the mainsource of incomefor almost all social strata , irre- spective oftheir mainoccupation. This process starts with the gradualabandon- mentall other employment sectors,especially agriculture,which traditionally constitutedthe basicsource of incomein these areas.This has consolidated tourismas abasicsource of income,while occupationsin the primary(e.g. agri- culture) andsecondary sectors (e.g. handicrafts)are onthe decline. Atthispoint, itis informative to note Labiri-Dimaki’ s (1972:89) description of Mykonos, where ‘the number ofpersons who are exclusively farmersor manualworkers is decreasing,and the number ofpersonswho are “partlyfarmers” and employed in smalltourist businesses isincreasing’. Thistransition phase, from an agricul- turaleconomy to a ‘touristified’productive structure was identified atthe begin- ning ofthe 1970s,but hasgradually been consolidatedin subsequent years.In thisway, tourism has contributed, directly or indirectly,to the transformationof the localeconomy and the dominanceof the tertiarysector. The researchcarried outin Corfu andLasithi (Tsartas et al.,1995:63– 84) showed that the following occupationalgroups stated that they received incomefrom tourism (at a rateof 25%to100%).These were traders(82.6% in Corfu and55.4% in Lasithi),farmers (55.7%in Corfu and11.7% in Lasithi),builders (69.6%in Corfu and17.9% in Lasithi),manual workers (48.3% in Corfuand 38% in Lasithi),scientists and Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas 123 self-employed (30.4%in Corfu and19.4% in Lasithi),and employed persons (40%in Corfu and19.2% in Lasithi).This situation results from the increasing importanceof tourismas a sourceof income,but alsobecause itis a prestigious employment sector in the local economy. Aconsequence oftourism’s pervading presence isthe high incidence ofpeople employed in twoor three different occupations,one ofwhich is related to tourism.This multi-employment concernsboth sexes, and it is either ofanindi- vidualnature or it results from family strategies.An example ofthe firstcase is the Sithoniapeninsula in Halkidiki,which ismentioned by Bidgianis(1979: 28–9). Here afarmerusually: (1) cultivateshis own land, (2) isemployed in constructionor in the Carrasenterprise (involved in agriculturalproducts and hotels),and (3) worksin the tertiarysector (rooms to let,or commerce).In the second case, Loukissas (1975: 10) notes that on Mykonos: alocal,claiming that he isa farmer,may alsorent rooms to tourists, or fish, orrent his boat for the recreationof tourists.His wife maywork as a cleaning lady,or take care of the rooms-to-let,while atthe sametime she maysell her handicraftto local shops. Her children mayfish withtheir father, or work in restaurants as waiters. Thismulti-employment strategyhas also been notedby manyother research- ersexamining Greek insularareas, e.g. in Crete (Kousis,1998), Samos (Galani-Moutafi,1994; Haralambopoulos & Pizam,1996), Corfu andLasithi (Tsartaset al.,1995),and in Rhodes(Kasimati et al.,1995).It is characteristic that of allpeople employed in different sectors,60% in Corfu and35% in Lasithi declareda certainprofessional relationship with tourism (shop owners,or employees in roomsto let orhotels) (Tsartas et al.,1995:77– 80). This multi- employment constitutesa characteristicfeature ofthe insulartourist areas of Greece, andthe researchon Corfu andLasithi suggests it often relatedto the blackeconomy. Furthermore, especially in areaswith a significantfarming tradi- tion,employment in the farmingsector is being seriouslydowngraded, since the dynamismof the sectorhas been lost.The key sourceof income in multi- employment istourism. People residing in AgiosMatthaios village in Corfu commentedthat those having tourism as their mainoccupation and agriculture astheir secondaryoccupation maintained this second occupation for ‘ tradition’, for ‘preserving the family property’ and as a ‘hobby’ (Tsartas, 1991: 128–32). The social,cultural and economic changes that have been discussedcame aboutvery quickly in these insularand coastal regions, and they havehad impor- tantresults. There hasbeen atwo-wayrelationship between these changesand the tourism-relatedpolicy exercised in these regionsover the pastthree decades (asexplained in the secondpart of thispaper). In thisanalysis it is assumed that a largeshare of the problems in the socialand cultural field isattributable to the state’s decisionto promotemass tourism in these regions.The problems arealso due tothe acceptanceof thismodel by the locals,as they havebelieved itwasthe bestanswer to their regions’low level of development. Thissituation has changed overrecent years,as people startedto recognise the associatedprob- lems.The influences onthischange in people’s viewsinclude: (1) the shaping ofa new institutionalframework which allowsfor participation by localsin the plan- ning process,(2) the upgrading ofscientificdialogue ontourismdevelopment, 124 Journal of Sustainable Tourism and(3) agrowingsensitivity to the need toprotectthe environment.Changes in the basicpriorities for tourist policies havealso contributed to thisdirection, as they emphasisedevelopment modelsdrawing on localcharacteristics. In recent yearsthere hasbeen asearchfor development modelsdesigned onthe principle ofsustainabilityand that upgrade the touristproduct offered in the insularand coastal regions.

The Search for Locally Integrated Development Models and the Protection of the Environment and Sustainable Development

The organised mass tourism model as the dominant model of growth: Questions and challenges The 1980swere crucialfor the country’s nationaltourist policy, since new development modelsbegan tobe sought.The coastaland insular areas of Greece havebeen developed onthe basisof the masstourism model. Starting with the economicsuccess of the islands,where thismodel was developed in the 1960s and1970s (in Rhodes,Corfu, Mykonos etc.), mass tourismhas sprung up inmost regionsof the country.The basicarguments behind thisdecision were thatit produced importanteconomic gains for Greece in termsof foreign exchange, thatit increasedincomes in the touristregions, and the touristresources of the countrycould keep pace withthe demandfor this type oftourism (Bouhalis, 1998;Tsartas, 1998a; Varvaressos, 1987). It was also pointed outby the Greek TourismOrganisation (1985: 23– 4) that Greece adoptedthis basic model followingthe suggestionof internationalorganisations, with a view toincreas- ing itsforeign exchange reserves.However, investment was not evenly or rationallydistributed among the regions,and the sameapplied toplanning controls.As a result,there aremany important problems related to land-use planning and the evolution of this model. The firstproblem isthe intense seasonalityof demandfor this type oftourism (Arthur Andersen, 2002;SETE, 2002).In the 1970–2000 period mosttourists (35–40%) arrivein Greece in July orAugust.Hence the infrastructureis not used toitsfull capacityand it is difficult toachieve full returnson the investmentwhen in most regions the tourist season does not last more than 2–3 months. Asecondproblem isthe progressivereduction of the economicbenefits ofthis model.After afirsthistorical phase when importantincreases in incomeswere observedat the locallevel ( EKKE,GNTO),there followeda phase ofstagnation ordiminishing incomes.This is clearly related to the life cyclesof the productsin manyregions, which were progressivelybeing downgraded(Andersen, 2002; Patsouratis,2002; Tsartas, 1998a). It is also related to the intense competition amongenterprises andamong different areasin the sameregion (e.g. onthe same island), among different regions of the country, or between countries. Athirdproblem isconnected with the frequent disregardfor land-use plan- ning andurban planning provisionsin mostregions with a developed and organisedinfrastructure (Konsolas & Zaharatos,2001; Spilanis, 2000;Zacharatos, 1989;Zacharatos, 2000a). This fact is connected with the intense pressuresthat tourismdevelopment hascreated in manyareas in termsof the continuing constructionof buildings in coastaland island regions. It is also related to the Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas 125 state’s failure toset up the mechanismsneeded toimplement the agreed tourism policies. Finally, the downgradingof the naturaland built environmentconstitutes a further significantproblem forall the regionsthat have adopted the mass tourismmodel. The economicdimension of touristgrowth is jeopardised by this when the qualityof the environmentconstitutes a key attractionof Greece for Europeans,who constituted the largemajority of foreign visitorsin the period 1970–2000 (Tsartas, 1998). Fromthe beginning ofthe 1980s,these problems contributedto the wider questioning ofthistype oftourism and led tothe searchfor different develop- mentmodels or tothe searchfor policies tohelp upgrade thisparticular model. Thisquestioning camefrompeople living in touristregions who were directlyor indirectly involvedin the processof planning tourismdevelopment, aswell as frommany researchers who were involvedin the touristsector. The criticismwas initiallyfocused on the inability ofthe touristpolicies to setlimits and to manage the growthof organisedmass tourism (Buhalis, 1998; Konsolas and Zacharatos, 2001; Tsartas, 1998b). In the 1980sand 1990s, there were the firststudies of the social,economic and politicalimpacts of thistype oftourist growth, with these being discussedin the firstpart of thisanalysis. These studiesdemonstrated that many problems exist atthe locallevel andthey alsoidentified the intense scepticismof the localsabout thisdevelopment model.Another side ofthis criticism is that mass tourism was the only type oftourismoffered by the countryfor many decades. This itself has contributedto the downgradingof the Greek tourismproduct, especially ata timeof intense internationalcompetition (Arthur Andersen, 2002;Patsouratis, 2002)when manycountries have enriched their tourismproduct with new prod- uctsand services (mainly relatedto special interest and alternative forms of tourism).One commondenominator in these criticisms,on one side,was the need tofind new modelsof growthin the coastaland insular regions which wouldbe integratedinto the localsocioeconomic and environmental realities; and,on the otherside, the need forthis particular model to be upgraded with concrete measures and interventions.

The progressive shift towards locally integrated tourism development models Again fromthe 1980s,tourism development hasincreasingly triedto promote‘ locality’(Tsartas, 1998a; Varvaressos, 1999). Measures, interventions andpolicies havesought to achieve asofterintegration of tourismat the local level, aimedat a morebalanced tourism development whichcombines mass tourismwith the development ofspecial interest and alternative forms of tourism.Clearly thiswas nota concreteand coordinatedpolicy. It was madeup moreof individual policies (national,regional and local), which together contributedto thepromotionof modelsof balancedlocal development, partic- ularly in islandsand coastal regions. In manycases the policies led tothe adoptionof new methodsand the realisationof development projects,while in othercases the policies were only partlyimplemented, mainlydue toalackof coordination.Initially,the shifttowards ‘ locality’is located in the planning and managementof development, where emphasisis given toprogrammesof soft 126 Journal of Sustainable Tourism tourismdevelopment, mainlyaimed at the promotionof the localenviron- mentaland cultural resources of the region. Thus,the type of holidayis combined withinfrastructure and activities originating from the specific specialinterest, such as culturaltourism, rural tourism, marine tourism, confer- ence tourism,golf tourism,health tourism, agrotourism, adventure tourism, ecotourism,and sports tourism (Anthopoulou et al.,1998;Athanasiou, 2002; Installationsfor Naval Tourism, 2000; Spathi, 2000; Tsekouras, 1991; WWF, 2000).Considerable amounts of public andprivate sector funds havebeen invested in these formsof tourismover the past20 years.A key aspectof this planning, which isrecorded in almostall the studiesof tourismdevelopment carriedout in thelast20years,is thatplanners haveadoptedthe specialinterest andalternative forms of tourismas abasictool for local tourism development. Theargumentis related to thespecialiseddemand for these productsas well as tothe need topromote local tourist resources – anintegralpart of the local tourismproduct. In reality,it isashifting perception ofholidaytourism in a countrywhere suchresources were previously ignored ordowngraded,often consideredas asecondaryelement ofatourismproduct consisting of only the seaand the sun.A moresystematic effort todevelop these forms,especially in coastaland insular areas, is best locatedat the locallevel (through localdevel- opmentprogrammes) or atthe regionallevel (prefectures ortouristareas). Fromthe 1990s,all insular prefectures andprefectures withcoastal regions in Greece haveoffered asignificantamount of infrastructure,services and organ- ised activitiesrelated to specialinterest and alternative tourism. The varietyand the largeincrease of this infrastructure is evidenced in the twotourist fairs (Panoramaand Philoxenia) organisedin Greece eachyear, which mainly address the domestic tourist market. Asecondelement thathas enhanced localtourism development hasbeen the progressivedecentralisation of competencies to the locallevel (tothe local authorities,prefectures andregions) thathas allowed for the directinvolvement ofrepresentatives of local interests in decision-makingprocesses (Hatzinik- olaou,1995; Varvaressos, 1999). Institutionally, the upgrading ofthe roleof local authoritieshas facilitated this process. The municipalitiesand prefectures now havemore competencies in planning, programmedevelopment andthe management and promotion of local tourism product. Asa result,the number ofrepresentatives of professional and institutional bodiesinvolved in localtourism development hasincreased considerably in the 1990s.Another feature ofthatdecade has been the largeincrease in the number of institutionsdealing withthe protectionof the environmentor the promotionof the culturalheritage in touristregions all over Greece. These institutionshave been establishedthrough the activitiesof locals– mainlyyoung representatives ofthe localauthorities and scientists – whoare interested in upgrading the tourismproduct offered by their region,or they represent the supra-localorgani- sationsthat deal with the protectionof flora,fauna and the culturalheritage, such asWWF,MOM andICOMOS. In bothcases, the presence andinterventions of these institutionsconstitute a new feature ofthe Greek reality,particularly in regions with ‘sensitive’ environmental resources. Athirdaxis for interventions and policies thathave strengthened localtourism development hascome from the European Union (Sotiriadis,1994; Tsartas, Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas 127

1998a).Since 1985there havebeen aconsiderablenumber ofinitiatives,funding schemesand development programmesfinanced by the European Union that havefocused onlocaltourism development oronfacilitating the completionof infrastructureand activities required forspecial interest and alternative tourism, suchas ecotourism,agrotourism and cultural tourism. Different institutionsand organisationshave promoted these policiesfrom the European Union,and a largenumber ofdifferent institutionshave implemented themat national and regionallevels in Greece, andthis makes their complete andsystematic assess- menta very difficult task.It is suggested thattheir contributionhas been very positivefor many sectors and activities, and that they havebeen directlyor indi- rectly related to local tourism development. Afirstadvantage of these developments hasbeen the transferof know-howin planning andthe realisingof localdevelopment programmesin the countryside. Much progresshas been madethrough collaborations and the completionof programmesfor the upgrading ofthe countryside,such as throughLeader, Life, Envireg andInterreg. Anotherpositive effect wasthe implementationof training andeducation activities for employed andunemployed people in occupations relatedto tourism (and particularly with alternative forms of tourism).In many touristregions of the countrythe beneficiaries ofthese programmeshave been primarilyyoung people andwomen. Such activitieswere financed by the Euro- pean SocialFund orby specialisedprogrammes (e.g. Leonardo)and initiatives (NOW,Youthstart, etc.). A thirdadvantage has been the financing ofcompleted localdevelopment projectsthat emphasised the protectionof the culturalheri- tageand the environment,maintaining employment, developing the country- side andpromoting balanced tourism development. These projectswere undertaken by ministriesinvolved in development andplanning issuesand by localauthorities (municipalities andprefectures). Asaresultof the above,new infrastructurewere createdand new serviceswere offered, thusshaping ‘new’ touristproducts, such as ecotourism, health tourism, rural tourism, marine tourism and sports tourism. All ofthese policiesand actions that have contributed to the emergence ofa new type oftourismdevelopment in coastaland insular regions of the country havemade people realisethat new modelsof viable andintegrated tourism development shouldbe sought.These modelsshould play apartin the protec- tion of the natural, the built and the cultural environment of these regions.

From the protection of the environment to sustainable development Amongall of the different consequences oftourism in insularand coastal areas,the mostimportant for the qualityof the touristproduct offered isthe envi- ronment(both naturaland man-made).This is primarily explained by the special characteristicsof the traditionaldevelopment modeladopted by these areas: tourismboth takes up spaceand downgrades the environmentas itconsumes resourcesand it involves large numbers ofvisitors.As a result,many problems of pollutionand aesthetic degradation become apparentin manyinsular and coastalareas of the country(Briassoulis, 1993; Chiotis and Coccossis, 2000; Kousis,2000; Loukissas, 1975). This development hascausedmany problems in Greece because researchon the motivesof foreign touristsvisiting the country suggeststhat a key parameterfor their choiceis the environment(see Tsartas, 128 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

1998a:74– 5, Table 20,calculations based on EOTdatafor the 1977–1994 period). Furthermore,the negative effects onthe environmenthave been one ofthe basic reasonsfor the forming oforganisedmovements in touristareas (analysed in the caseof Crete by Kousis,2000). These negative consequences oftourismdevelop- ment,and the policiesadopted for the protectionof the environment,have pointed totwo significant issues for tourism development policy atthe local level. The firstis the need toprotect the environmentthrough specific actionsand policies undertaken by boththe privateand the public sectors.The secondis the need topromotesoft and environment-friendly tourisminfrastructure and activ- ities, such as those of alternative tourism. Asregards the protectionof the environment,we shouldnote that there has been substantialinvestment in the constructionof waste treatment networks in Greece’s coastaland insular areas, while their use hasnow been extended tothe hotelsector. At the sametime, the number ofenterprises using qualitymanage- mentstandards has increased, and these standardsare also related to environ- mentalmanagement and protection. A characteristicexample isthe Grecotel chain(Middleton &Hawkins,1998: 155– 60) which usesa structuredprogramme ofenvironmental management and protection in itshotels. Apart from the implementationof environmentalquality standards, this chain also promotes the trainingof bothits employees andtourists, together with the promotionof local cultural heritage. Alternativetourism has been consideredthe opponent ofthe dominantmass tourismmodel and, at the sametime, a kind ofenergetic protectionof the envi- ronment.Its demand, from both foreigners andGreeks (Tsartas et al., 2001), has increasedover the years,as stressedpreviously here, andit is not by chancethat itis proposed as a development modelin areaswith special environmental resourcesthat need tobe protected.Skopelos andNaxos offer twocharacteristic examples.After studieshave been completed,it was proposed that different infrastructureand activities of alternativetourism should be developed basedon ecotourism,such as trekking trails,birdwatching, ecotourism information centres,environmental training seminars and programmes for the management of specific areas (Vlami & Zogaris, 1997; Zogaris et al., 1996). Fromthe 1990s,the crucialissue for tourism policy in Greece –directlylinked tothe need toprotect the environment– wasthe effort topromote policies and actionsaiming at sustainabletourism development (Andriotis,2001; Coccossis & Tsartas,2001; Pridham, 1999). During thisperiod, the internationalscientific debate hasbeen centred onsustainability(Bramwell & Lane,1999; Hunter,1997), andthis issue has become aconstantparameter of tourism development policies suggested by suchorganisations as the WTOandEU (Ruzza,2001; WTO, 1993). In the sameperiod, the insularand coastal areas in Greece havebeen aconstant reference pointin researchand analyses carried out on the issueof sustainable development. The mostimportant policy issuesthat arise concern the selection ofappropriate scientific tools and methods in orderto control the courseof tourismdevelopment andto forma frameworkfor its management, so that it couldbe sustainable.In thiscontext, the carryingcapacity of islands and coastal areaswith different featuresand different levels ofdevelopment hasconstituted afield forimportant scientific research in Greece (Coccossis& Parpairis,1993, 1996,2000). On the basisof specific examples,the limitsof tourismdevelopment Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas 129 were assessedand actions and policies necessary to achieve itssustainability were pointed out.A secondissue is related to the promotionof appropriatepolicy measures(for the privatesector, the public sectorand local authorities) at the local level, sothat a touristarea could gradually acquire and maintain sustainable characteristics.Many studieshave been carriedout in thiscontext, mainly in insularareas (Buhalis, 1999; Butler &Stiakaki,2000; Spilanis, 2000;Stott 1996) withconsiderable tourism development. These studieshave demonstrated the problemsand also suggested solutions,especially in relationto planning, educa- tion,the institutionalframework, and appropriate policy measures. The basicparameters in these analysesin the contextof sustainabletourism development isthe protectionof the environment(through aspecific institu- tionalframework), the promotionof localculture, the localdimension in planning, andfinally, the linkage oftourismdevelopment withother production sectors of the economy.

Conclusions The considerablecultural, social and environmental impact of tourism in insularand coastal areas has led tochangesin twokey areas:changes of asocial nature(social changes in touristregions) andchanges of an institutionalnature (prioritiesand choices of tourism policies). The 1980swere acrucialdecade for Greece because itwas then thata stableand dynamic questioning ofthe domi- nanttourism development modelwas registered. Tourism policy nowsearches forsofter and locally integrated models of tourism development. The need to protectthe environment,the gradualexpansion of alternativetourism and the promotionof ‘ locality’in planning constitutebasic priorities of tourism policy. Ata sociallevel, these policies,in combinationwith the scientificdialogue concerning the repercussionsof tourism,have helped the localpeople torealise thatthey shouldpromote new modelsof tourismdevelopment. However,the powerful presence ofmassorganised tourism often functionsas anobstacleto these effortsat the locallevel. The increasein the number of successfullocal examplesof sustainabletourism development in insularand coastal areas consti- tutesa positivedevelopment, andis attributable to the combined effect of institutionalchanges, scientific debate andsocial changes at the locallevel in touristregions. Two crucialtourism policy issueswill arisein the yearsto come: (1) the abilityof asustainabledevelopment modelto survive,constituting a basic element ofthe localtourist product; and (2) the operationallinkage between this model and the classic model of mass tourism found in many areas.

Correspondence Any correspondenceshould be directedto AssociateProfessor Paris Tsartas, BusinessAdministration Department, University of the Aegean, Michalon8, 82100 Chios, Greece ([email protected]).

Notes 1. EKKE: the National Centre of Social Research. 2. ‘A kamaki is aharpoon forspearing fish, butthe word is alsoused metaphorically in Greece. Itdescribes the actofaGreek man pursuing aforeign woman with the inten- tion of having sex’ (see Zinovieff, 1991: 203). 130 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

References Andriotis, K.(2001)Tourism planning and development in Crete: Recent tourism policies and their efficacy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (4), 298–316. Anthopoulou,T., Iakovidou, O., Koutsouris, A.and Spilanis, G.(1998)Spatial and devel - opmental dimensions ofagrotourism in Greece [in Greek]. Paperpresented atthe Fifth Panhellenic Congress of Agricultural Economy, Thessaloniki. Arthur Andersen (2002) ConsultativeStudy Relative to the Formation of Strategies for the Development of Greek Tourism [in Greek]. Athens: SETE. Athanasiou,L. (2002) CongressTourism in Greece:Evolution, Problems, Potentials and Policy [in Greek]. Athens: ITEP. Bidgianis, K.(1979)The effectsof the Carrascompany intervention in SouthSithonia [in Greek]. Economy and Society 7, 25–35. Bramwell, B.and Lane, B.(1999)Sustainable tourism: Contributing tothe debates. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7 (1), 1–5. Briassoulis, H.(1993)Tourism in Greece. In X.Pompland P.Lavery (eds) Tourism in Europe: Structures and Developments (pp. 285–301). Oxford: CAB International. Buhalis, D.(1998)Tourism in Greece: Strategicanalysis and challenges forthe new millen - nium. Centre International de Recherches et d’Etudes Touristiques 18, 1–48. Buhalis, D.(1999)Tourism onthe Greek islands: Issues ofperipherality, competitiveness and development. International Journal of Tourism Research 1, 341–58. Butler, R.and Stiakaki,E. (2000)Tourism and sustainability in the Mediterranean: Issues and implications from Hydra. InD.Ioannidis, Y.Apostolopoulosand S.Sommez(eds) MediterraneanIslands and Sustainable Tourism Development Practices, Management and Policies (pp. 282–9). London: Continuum. Chiotis, G.and Coccossis,H. (2000)Tourism development and environmental protection in Greece. In H.Briassoulis and J.V.der Straaten(eds) Tourismand the Environment: Regional,Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues (pp.331– 44). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Coccossis,H.N. and Parpairis,A. (1993)Environment and tourism issues: Preservation of localidentity and growth management: Casestudy ofMykonos. In D.Konsola (ed.) Culture,Environment and Regional Development (pp.79– 100). Athens: Regional Develop- ment Institute. Coccossis,H.N. and Parpairis,A. (1996)Tourism and carrying capacityin coastalareas. In G.K.Priestley and H.Coccossis(eds) SustainableTourism (pp.153– 75) . Wallingford: CAB International. Coccossis,H.N. and Parpairis,A. (2000)Tourism and the environment: Someobserva- tions on the conceptof carrying capacity.In H.Briassoulis and J.V.der Straaten(eds) Tourismand the Environment: Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues (pp.91– 106). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Coccossis,H.N. and Tsartas, P.(2001) SustainableTourism Development and the Environment [in Greek]. Athens: KRITIKI. Galani-Moutafi,V. (1993)Part One. From agriculture totourism: Property, labour,gender and kinship in a Greek island village. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 11, 241–70. Galani-Moutafi,V. (1994)Part Two. From agriculture totourism: Property, labour,gender and kinship in a Greek island village. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 12, 113–31. Greek Tourism Organization (1985) Tourism’ 85.DevelopmentParticipation, Quality of Life . Athens: GTO. Greenwood, D.J.(1972) Tourism asan agent ofchange: ASpanish Basque case . Ethnology 11, 80–81. Haralambopoulos,N. and Pizam,A. (1996)Perceived impactsof tourism: The caseof Samos. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (3), 503–26. Hatzinikolaou,E. (1995) TouristPromotion at PrefectureLevel – TheNew Institutionof Prefec - tural Committees for Tourist Promotion [in Greek]. Athens: EETAA. Hunter, C.(1997)Sustainable tourism asanadaptiveparadigm. Annals ofTourismResearch 24 (4), 850–67. Installations for Naval Tourism (2000) Athens: ICAP. Kasimati,K., Thanopoulou,M. and Tsartas, P.(1995) FemaleEmployment in theTourist Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas 131

Sector:Investigation of the Labour Market and Prospects [in Greek]. Athens: Social Morphology and SocialPolicy Centre, Pantion University, Equal Opportunities Office. Konsolas, N.and Zacharatos,V. (2001)Regionalisation oftourism activityin Greece: Problems and policies. InH.Briassoulis and J.V.der Straaten(eds) Tourismand the Envi - ronment:Regional, Economic, Cultural and Policy Issues (pp.319– 30). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Kousis, M.(1989)Tourism and the family in arural Cretan community. Annals ofTourism Research 16 (3), 318–32. Koussis, M.(2000)Tourism and the environment: The localsocial protest in Crete. In P. Tsartas (ed.) TourismDevelopment: Multidisciplinary Approaches [in Greek]. Exantas: Athens. Labiri-Dimaki, I.(1972)Sociological analysis. InA.S.Kalliga and A.N.Papageorgiou (eds) Mykonos-Dilos-Rinia,Land-planning Study [in Greek]. Athens: Governmental Policy Ministry. Loukissas, P.(1975)Tourism and environmental conflict:The caseof the Greek island of Mykonos. Paperpresented atthe Symposium in Tourism and CultureChange, Amer - ican Anthropological Association, San Francisco, California, December. Loukissas, P.(1982)Tourism’ s regional development impacts:A comparativeanalysis of the Greek islands. Annals of Tourism Research , 9, 523–43. Middleton, V.T.C.and Hawkins, R.(1998) SustainableTourism: A MarketingPerspective . London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Patsouratis,V. (2002) TheCompetitiveness of the Greek Tourism Sector [in Greek]. Athens: ITEP. Pridham, G.(1999)Towards sustainable tourism in the Mediterranean? Policyand prac - tice in Spain, Italy and Greece. Environmental Politics 8, 97–116. Ruzza,C. (2001)Sustainability and tourism. In K.Eder and M.Koussis (eds) Environmental Politics in Southern Europe . Dordrecht: KLUWER. SETE (2002) Greek Tourism 2010. Strategy and Aims [in Greek]. Athens: SETE. Sotiriadis, M. (1994) Tourist Policy [in Greek]. Heraclion: TEI of Heraclion. Spathi,S. (2000) CurativeTourism and the Development of HealthTourism in Greece [in Greek]. Athens: KEPE. Spilanis, G.(2000)Tourism and regional policy:The caseof the Aegean islands. In P. Tsartas(ed.) TourismDevelopment: Multidisciplinary Approaches [in Greek]. Athens: Exantas. Stavrou,S. (1979) SocialIdentification of Tourismin theIslands of Mykonosand Naxos . Athens: Research and Development Department, Greek Tourism Organisation. Stavrou,S. (1980) SocialIdentification of Tourismin theIslands of Kalymnosand Leros . Athens: Research and Development Department, Greek Tourism Organisation. Stavrou,S. (1986) SocialIdentification of Tourismin theIslands of Paros, Santorini and Kythira . Athens: Research and Development Department, Greek Tourism Organisation. Stott,A.M. (1973) Economic transition and the family in Mykonos. GreekReview of Social Research 17, 122–33. StottA.M. (1996) Tourism development and the need forcommunity actionin Mykonos, Greece. In L.Briguglio, R.Butler, D.Harrison and W.L.Fillio (eds) SustainableTourism in Islands and Small States: Case Studies . London: Pinter. Tsartas, P.(1989) Socialand Economic Consequences of TourismDevelopment in thePrefecture of the Cyclades and Especially the Islands of Ios and Serifos [in Greek]. Athens: EKKE. Tsartas, P.(1991) Researchon theSocial Characteristics of Employment, Study III, Tourismand Agricultural Multi-activity [in Greek]. Athens: EKKE. Tsartas, P.(1992)Socioeconomic impacts of tourism ontwoGreek isles. Annals ofTourism Research 19, 516–33. Tsartas, P.(1998a) La Grèce: Du Tourismede Masseau TourismeAlternatif .Série Tourismes et Société s. Paris: L’Harmattan. Tsartas, P.(1998b)Un cadre d’analyse des relations sociales et des caractéristiques de la rencontre touristes–autochtones: le cas de la Grèce. Revue de Tourisme 4, 47–55. Tsartas, P.(ed.)(2000) TourismDevelopment: Multidisciplinary Approaches Athens, Exantas. Tsartas, P.,Theodoropoulos, K.,Kalokardou-Krantonelli, R.,Manologlou, E., Maroundas, 132 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

K.,Pappas, P. and Fakiolas, N.(1995) SocialImpact of Tourismin thePrefecturesof Corfu and Lasithi [in Greek]. Athens: EKKE. Tsekouras, G.and Associates (1991) Changein theMass Tourism Model: New Formsof Tourism [in Greek]. Athens: ETBA. Varvaressos, S.(1987)Le tourisme en Grèce: Problé matique, étude du marche, structure du produit,impact é conomique, tendances futures.Unpublished PhD thesis, Paris VIII university. Varvaressos, S.(1999) TourismDevelopment and Administrative Decentralisation [in Greek]. Athens: Propompos. Vlami, V.and Zogaris, S.(1997) EcotouristDevelopment in Skopelos:Trails and Trekking [in Greek]. Skopelos: Municipality of Skopelos. WTO (1993) Sustainable Tourism Development Guide for Local Planners , Madrid. WWF (2000) Planning Actionsof Pilot Character to Develop Ecotourism .Greek Tourism Organisation, Ministry of Development. Zacharatos,G. (1989)Simple empirism, tourist policy and the time forjudgment [in Greek]. Synchrona Themata 11 (34), 21–6. Zacharatos,G. (2000)The required scheme and institutional framework forthe conductof tourist policy in Greece today [in Greek]. In P.Tsartas (ed.) TourismDevelopment: Multidisciplinary Approaches (pp. 39–68). Athens: Exantas. Zinovieff, S.(1991)Hunters and hunted: Kamaki and the ambiguities ofsexualpredation in aGreek town. In P.Loizos and E.Papataxiarchis(eds) ContestedIdentities, Gender and Kinship in Modern Greece (pp. 203–20). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zogaris, S.,Vlami, V.and Promponas,N. (1996) TheNaxos’ Aliki Lagoon: Preparatory Study ofEnvironmental Assessment and Management [in Greek]. Naxos:Greek Bird Society, Agios Arsenios Community. Crete: Endowedby Nature, Privilegedby Geography, Threatenedby Tourism?

Helen Briassoulis Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Lesvos, Greece Crete,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 (Athens, 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 hotel,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 Chania 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 Rethymno 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, hotels,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, Mytilene 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. Sustainable Tourism Indicators: Pilot Estimation for the Municipality of Hersonissos, Crete.

Yianna Farsari, Poulicos Prastacos

Regional Analysis Division Institute of Applied and Computational Mathematics (IACM) Foundation for the Research and the Technology Hellas (FORTH) P.O. Box 1527 711 10 Heraklion Greece

Phone: +30-81-391763 Fax: +30-81-9-391761 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The topic of the present research is the pilot estimation of sustainable tourism indicators for the Municipality of Hersonissos in Crete. Indicators definition is based on the principles of sustainable development. Data sources, their format and functionality as well as limitations imposed by them regarding indicators estimation, are elements of this research. Moreover, indicators were examined in terms of their functionality, resulting in certain cases, in the definition of surrogate indicators in order to compensate the lack of data and complement their meaning respecting the needs of the application area. 1. Introduction

In the last ten years after the publication of “Our common future” (W.C.E.D., 1987) sustainability has become a prominent concern in the development literature and has been applied in all fields of economic activity. In tourism, the concept of sustainability has been initially established as a notion that there is a need to account for the interrelationships between tourism and the environment, that there must be a compromise between the various conflicts and that planning must be exercised in such a way so that the long term viability of the industry is safeguarded. Since then, academic debate has grown and different considerations on what the term implies as well as the means of implementation have been developed. However, the interpretation of the term remains vague not to mention the implementation methods.

One of the problems that arise when applying the concept of sustainability to tourism is that there is not any exact and accepted methodology for measuring it. One way of accomplishing this is through the use of indicators. Although several indicators for sustainable tourism have been proposed no effort has been made to propose or estimate indicators for existing destinations. The focus so far has been on proposing and estimating indicators for new destinations, that is tourist resorts in the early phases of their development, rather than existing ones.

In a previous work Farsari and Prastacos (1999) have proposed a set of sustainable tourism indicators based on the principles of sustainable. The aim of the present research is to perform a pilot study and attempt to estimate these indicators for the Municipality of Hersonissos in Crete, Greece. This application has an explorative role on the existence of a framework for indicators estimation, as well as, to explore the applicability and functionality of the proposed indicators on the pilot area.

More specifically, the goal is to identify potential data sources, their format and their adequacy in order to determine which indicators can be easily estimated and are meaningful for planning. The next goal is to investigate whether the proposed indicators are functional, in other words whether they could serve on a local application scale or there is a need for complementary or surrogate indicators. The overall objective of this research effort is to develop a framework for tourism development evaluation that follows the sustainable development prerequisites.

2. Sustainable Tourism Indicators

Indicators have been used for many years to provide with brevity and clarity parameters which might be of interest. Although they have been used for many years, particularly in describing the state of the economy, their use has mushroomed recently because of the need to compare and monitor changes through time.

On their advantages could be included the immediacy on the presentation and evaluation of different parameters, the guideline on matters which are considered to be important and therefore should be taken under consideration in planning and the developmental process, and the comparableness of the results. Their functions are several and include description of a situation, identification of potential problems, support to decision making, and monitoring and evaluation of actions taken (U.N., 1998; World Bank, 1997).

However, their use is not without problems; too often lack of data affect their selection and can result in indicators which are rather general and not very meaningful for planning purposes. Their use can be also considered subjective both in respect their choice and their evaluation once they have been estimated. As Meadows (1998) points out this subjectivity is stronger with the qualitative ones rather than the quantitative ones.

Sustainable tourism indicators are a tool which could be used for sustainable tourism development. Resulting from the expansion of the notion of sustainability and the need to implement it in practice, indicators are being developed for evaluating choices which are being made during the developmental process and impacts made upon the natural and socio-economic environment. They provide a framework for evaluating existing situation, as well as, future developmental activities in the field of tourist services production.

Indicators for existing destinations

The development of sustainable tourism indicators for existing destinations necessitates special approach. This is because they are to be applied in areas where tourism development is at an advanced stage, and usually tourism is associated with mass tourism. These areas have developed most of the necessary infrastructure and networks and have specific problems, which are the result of many years of tourism development. Overcrowding, poor planning and saturation phenomena are typical problems in most Mediterranean resorts which have been developed for several years. Of course the particularities of each country, region or resort should not be underestimated and should be taken into account when defining the appropriate indicators.

Existing literature on sustainable tourism indicators (WTO, 1993; 1995) has focused on the definition / estimation of indicators for newly developed destinations. In these places sustainable tourism planning has been an issue since the very early stages of their development and the proposed indicators are defined and monitored continuously. The early definition and continuous evaluation result to better organized available data that permit the monitoring and comparison of various parameters before, after and during the developmental actions, as well as, to a differentiation of the parameters to be measured which would be of interest. Additionally, these indicators focus on destinations located in developing countries where there are substantial differences on their natural and socio-cultural environment, on organizational and infrastructural matters compared to developed Mediterranean destinations.

Hence, although there is definitely common ground between existing and new destinations when considering sustainability there is a need for research efforts focusing on identifying indicators for existing destinations. In this research the effort is to identify such indicators for Mediterranean destinations.

3. Application in the Municipality of Hersonissos

Short description of Hersonissos

The municipality of Hersonissos is located on the north coast of Crete, about 25 km from Herakleion, the capital and largest city of Crete (Figure 1). It is highly accessible through the main entrance gates of the island: the port and the airport of Herakleion, and is also very close to the archeological site of Knossos and other points of interest. The municipality consists of five communities, namely Limenas Hersonissou, Hersonissos, Potamies, Abdou, Gonies and Kera. Limenas is the coastal part of the municipality and is the area where tourism is concentrated. Part of Hersonissos is also on the coast, while the other three areas are located inland and have a strong agricultural profile.

Until the mid sixties the economic activity was almost completely in agriculture. However, since then, the situation has changed dramatically. There is an enormous shift to the service sector and tourism is nowadays the predominant activity (YPESDDA, 2000).

Hersonissos is one of the most popular destinations in Crete. In 1999 there were almost 20,000 hotel beds, representing about 18% of all hotel beds in Crete and 3% of the total of Greece. Thus, it is quite clear the importance of tourism in the area as both an economic activity and a factor of environmental and socio-cultural changes. Hersonissos was selected for the pilot estimation of sustainable tourism indicators because it is representative of existing destinations in Greece and in the Mediterranean region broadly speaking. Moreover, the local government is well organized and it was anticipated that datasets would be available for indicators estimation.

It should be stressed that each country –or even each region- has its own features concerning the administration and the characteristics of its tourist product, its environmental and socio-cultural settings. However, it is believed that the present case study could contribute to an integrated approach on sustainable tourism development in general and on the needs of indicators development and application.

Methodology followed for the definition of indicators

The Pressure-State-Response System (PSR) proposed by OECD (1994) is the best known framework for the definition of sustainable development indicators and the one which was later adopted –slightly differentiated in some cases- by different international organizations. This system proposes three kind of indicators: a) pressure indicators which refer to activities having an impact on the environment (UN, 1998); b) state indicators which describe the current situation of the issue (pressure) to be measured (WTO, 1996); and c) response indicators which measure action and policies taken to changes in the state of sustainable development (UN, 1998).

The approach chosen in the present research for defining the indicators for sustainable tourism is to relate them to the principles of sustainable tourism (Farsari and Prastacos, 1999). According to this methodology indicators are proposed for each principle. The set of principles proposed by WWF & Tourism Concern (1992) was chosen to guideline the definition of indicators. The result was a set of indicators for each principle representative enough to cover the different parameters which each principle may include. The set of indicators defined on the basis of this approach are focused on the needs of existing destinations in the Mediterranean region. Although, some of the indicators proposed are similar to those identified in the three categories mentioned above, it is believed that the methodology followed assures that the indicators are persistent to the notion of sustainable development while there is an emphasis on the response actions for sustainable tourism management.

The later is of major importance in existing destinations as they have an established situation resulting from an era when holistic approach and responsible management were not considered. Therefore, for existing destinations the actions and policies taken towards a more sustainable form of development is the key to overcome the accumulated undesirable conditions of the past. Finally, tourism is examined as an integral part of the interrelations that take place between different sectors of the economy and the society, as a result although considering tourism indicators, tourism would not be examined in isolation to the rest of the activities.

From the list of proposed set of indicators a selection was made for this pilot study based on their representativenes and suitability for application in Hersonissos. Potential data availability was another factor that influenced indicators choice. Several indicators could not be estimated since there no data were available. In these cases, as well as in situations where it was considered that some parameters were not taken fully into account, new indicators where proposed in order to replace or supplement the ones suggested in the original study.

The spatial level, local, regional or national, was another factor considered during the definition and the selection of indicators. This was addressed because some impacts of tourism are localized, while some other affect the whole region and not just the municipality examined. Some of the indicators proposed can be applied on both local and regional level while others address only one of the two. Regarding the Municipality of Hersonissos, although it is perceived as a local application, the broad area which it covers –rising from the unification of the former communities- suggests the use of indicators suitable for measuring sustainability at the regional level.

Data sources

Identifying the appropriate datasets was a serious problem since no organized databases were available on the Municipality or the contacted organizations. The main sources of information were:

• The finance, public works, environment offices of the Municipality and the development company of the Municipality,

• Private companies responsible for garbage collection and the management of the wastewater treatment plant,

• Regional Energy Agency of Crete,

• National Statistical Office of Greece,

• Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works, Water Quality Department,

• National Tourism Organization, • Cretan Tourism Co.,

• Hotel Association of Crete

Information on the demographics of the area and the training seminars were obtained from the “Athena 91” (Prastacos and Kogxylakis, 1998) and “Antheia” (Loulakis & Manioudakis, 1999) databases respectively. Both of these databases were developed by the Regional Analysis Division of FORTH.

Other potential data sources could be the Employment Office for Hotel employees, Agricultural Cooperatives, the Ministry of Agriculture and other professional associations.

4. Proposed indicators and their estimation

One major problem that was encountered was related to the lack of times series on most available datasets. It would have been preferable if all indicators were estimated for the same year and also for several years in order to measure the changes through time. However, this was not feasible as data were available for different time periods, resulting to indicators estimated for different time.

The results of the indicators estimation are shown in Table 1. Indicators are grouped according to the guiding principle in order to clearly present the definition methodology, as well as, the thematic field on which each one refers. Undoubtedly, some of the indicators refer to more than one thematic field and therefore they can be found in more than one principles. Likewise, there is a notional overlapping in some of the principles resulting in some cases in a joint examination.

Table 1 includes information on the results of the estimation, the data available and some comments on the functionality and the characteristics of each indicator. For the sake of completeness indicators which could be not be estimated because of the lack of data, but which were considered significant are included as well. It is hoped that in the future data will become available so that they could be also estimated. Although, data availability was considered when choosing indicators and thus influenced their selection to some degree, of major importance was the persistency on the notion of sustainable development. Therefore, despite the possible need for “better” indicators, it is believed that the present methodology and the approach followed are contributing to the establishment of a framework for the definition of sustainable tourism indicators.

One issue that must be stressed is that choice and evaluation of indicators is closely tied to the criteria used for defining sustainable development. That is indicators have a meaning for planning purposes only after what constitutes sustainable development has been defined. This becomes more clear if one was to consider the issue of the extension of the tourist season.

The extension of the tourist season was one of the issues which came into question during the definition and estimation of indicators –an issue often discussed in every tourist destination in Greece. According to the Mayor of Hersonissos the effort of prolonging the season during the winter months did not succeed in Hersonissos during the two years this initiative was undertaken by local entrepreneurs, merchants and the local authorities. The reason appears to be the intensity of work during the season –7- 9 months in Crete while most of the tourist businesses are small to medium family character entrepreneurships- which results to an unwillingness to work with small if any profits for a couple of “winter seasons” until the market becomes established. Moreover, it could be argued that these 3-5 “winter” months offer the chance to locals and their families to rest and strengthen their family, friend and social relationships, contributing in this way to the conservation of the social and the cultural nets and thus, to sustainability.

Another issue related to the length of the tourist season is the seasonality of employment. Seasonal employment with all the economic and social implications is considered to be a negative aspect. However, it should be examined in combination to the total annual income of the residents and the possible complementary occupation during the winter months. Although no income data are available there is a perception that incomes in Hersonnissos exceed the regional average. Most residents in the area during the “summer” months are employed in tourism related jobs, while in the winter months most are involved with agriculture in their own farms (olive trees mainly). In this way, it could be argued, that traditional activities as well as the diversification of local economic activities are supported.

Thereupon the need for the determination of the parameters considered to be essential for implementing sustainable tourism development should be clarified. Case studies at a local scale could have a significant contribution on this direction as they are focused on specific issues which generalization misses.

Table 1. Estimation of Indicators

Αρχές Indicator Estimation Comments 1. Using The term “resources” includes natural resources (water, energy, landscape, biodiversity etc), as well as, socio-cultural resources. For natural resources, water and energy are the key resources in a concerns for sustainability since both are extensively used by the tourism industry in the host areas. Additionally, in the Mediterranean area these two resources are in scarcity. Biodiversity sustainable is examined on the third principle “Maintaining Diversity”. way Renewable resources (solar, wind, etc.) used in No available data It is an indication of measures taken to protect the tourist accommodations as a percentage of total natural resources and the impacts from the use of non- fuels used In general, 8-10% of electric consumption in Crete is generated from renewable resources of energy. wind farms while 20% of total energy consumption is generated from A surrogate for this is the following indicator biomass. The Chairman of the Hotel Association of Crete estimates that 90% of tourist accommodation have established solar collectors for warm water and some have established photovoltaics (covering approximately 5% of their energy needs) Number of tourist businesses in the area which 9/30 = 0,3 Similar to the previous one. Additionally, offers an have renewable energy sources compared to all (1996-2000) indication of responsible management of the tourist tourism businesses in Crete Compared to the ratio of beds in Hersonissos / beds in Crete which is 0,18 businesses compared to other economic activities. indicates a good proportion for Hersonissos

Amount of water recycled as a percentage of total N/A data Offers an indication for sustainable resources water that could be potentially recycled A Waste treatment plan is under construction. Once operational 100% of management the waste water will be treated and used for irrigation in agriculture. Many of the hotels treating their waste water use it for watering their gardens Water consumption per tourist (or bed or night) N/A data More meaningful when compared to: The Chairman of the Hotel Association of Crete estimates that: a) some standard norms of consumption Hotels 250 lt/bed/day b) the relative redundancy of the resource in the region Rooms for rent 150 lt/bed/day c) the consumption before and after the implementation Energy consumption per tourist (or bed or night) N/A data of reduction policies d) As the following indicator Ratio of water consumption for domestic, tourist The available data do not permit to distinguish the consumption between It indicates the competitiveness over the resource from and agricultural use the different uses different activities Existence of procedures for continuous monitoring A computerized system has been installed from the University of Patras This is an indicator of the dominant perception of the quality of water supply which detects the concentration of chlorides in the water and concerning the value of the resource as well as of the consequently intercepts the water pumping from certain drill when it is existence of procedures for monitoring it (action taken) raised. This is the only monitoring taking place while no systematic measurement of various parameters is contacted. Existence of procedures for continuous monitoring Sea water quality is sampled in 10 of the 55 beaches, that is about 1/5 Similar to the previous one and measuring of the quality of the swimming Timing of samplings follows EU regulations (two samplings per month water during the swimming period and one sampling before the start of the swimming season) Number of samplings of swimming waters In 1999 results obtained were good It is a measurement of the quality of the swimming exceeding safe limits, as these are defined by the water related to EU standards and time EU Ratio of beaches with Blue Flag awards 5/55 Æ 1/10 (approximately) It is an indication of the quality of swimming water (more general than the previous one) and of the beach management as well as rising environmental awareness of the visitors Square meters of beach (park or other site) per N/A data Indicates the dominant perception on landscape as a tourist (average and peak) natural resource as well as the quality of tourist “Open” space as percentage to that built for tourism N/A data experience infrastructure Ratio of “winter” to “summer” population 6620/49720 = 1/7,5 It is an indicator of the pressure on the environment and “Summer population”=peak season. Source: Municipality the society Number of bars/discos per population 1 bar per 350 residents It is an indicator of the pressure on the environment and (population = peak season) the society Number of employed females per 100 of employed 30 It is an indicator of the pressure on the environment and males In Limenas the indicator is just 24 the society Source: Census Data 1991. There is a need for more recent data as well for different periods than one every ten years or even better for different periods within the same year. Comparing this indicator to the corresponding for the Region of Crete as well as to each community of the Municipality on its own appears to be very low Rate of population growth 1961-1971 = -15,7% Measures population retention 1971-1981 = +56,6% 1981-1991 = +42,7% 1961-1991 = +88,4% Limenas has a substantially greater growth rate than the other communities; some communities have negative growth rate. Since Limenas is the main tourist attraction in the area it could be argued that the retaining –in a period of abandonment of the Greek countryside- and even raising of the population in the area is the result of tourism development. Unemployment rate in the off-season periods N/A data This is an indicator of both social and economic well- being A surrogate for this is the following indicator Municipality’s unemployment compared to Municipality’s unemployment = 3,36% This is an indicator of both social and economic well- Region’s unemployment Region’s unemployment= 5,54% being MU / RU = 0,6 Source: Census Data 1991. Once more there is a need for more recent data as well for different periods than one every ten years or even better for different periods within the same year. However Limena’s unemployment is one of the lowest among the municipality’s different communities. 2. Reducing over- This principle has a two-fold dimension: a) saving the resources from over-consumption and b) reducing the pressure on the environment resulting from the waste disposal and treatment. consumption Focus is given on sustainable practices used and responsible behavior and waste Summer / winter waste generation Limenas (1997-1999) It is obvious that waste generation during the summer is March – May= 25-30 tn/day much higher than the one during winter months June– Sept.= 40 th/day accordingly to the growth of population. What is of Oct.– Nov.= 25-30 tn/day importance is the responsible management practices Dec.– Febr.= 6 tn/day used as the following indicators imply. Hersonissos 1,5 tn/day in “winter” time 10-12 tn/day in “summer” time Abdou-Gonies-Potamies-Kera 2 tn/day all year around Municipality of Hersonissos (2000) July– Sept.= 60 tn/day * *except August = 80 tn/day

Winter /summer waste production = 1/7 approximately (peak season) Æ proportional to population raising Meaningful when compared to other tourist areas or to measure the success of waste reduction policies. % of materials which can be recycled and receive Recycling took place just in Limenas during the period 1997-1998 This an indicator of action taken towards reduction of this kind of treatment 1/6/97 – 31/12/97 = 10,05% the waste generated (Æ less impacts on the 1/1/98 – 31/8/98 = 11,64% environment) % of water recycled As in the previous principle Same indicator as on the first principle

Number of hotels, restaurants and other places N/A data Indicates action taken by the tourism businesses for offering tourist services which have enacted reducing pressure on natural resources environmental sound systems for eliminating over- consumption of resources and waste generation as a percentage of all establishments % generated solid waste treated with the landfill 0 These two indicators reflect the two extremes (positive method Under construction. Will be in use by 2003 and negative) of solid waste management. The Municipality of Hersonissos can be found % generated solid waste in dump 0 somewhere in-between.

% of wastewater receiving treatment N/A data It is a measurement for responsible and sustainable Within the next months when facility will be in use potentially all the wastewater management urban wastewater generated in the area could be treated 3. Maintaining Diversity is a multifaceted aspect and includes biodiversity, socio-cultural diversity as well as, diversity in terms of products offered to the tourists. The later is examined on the next diversity principle. Focus is given on protection actions and research taken. Number of special interest natural sites under “Koumarodasos” has been identified by the Ministry of the Environment It is an indication for action taken protection Vs to those without any protection as area of nesting of wild animals but no action has been undertaken in this direction

Number of special interest cultural sites under N/A data It is an indication for action taken protection Vs to those without any protection Number of endangered/threatened species on the No one known This is a measurement for the pressure posed and the region The occurrence of harrier eagles in Rosa’s gorge is speculated without need for action any further exploration Number of research projects concerning the area’s 12 natural interest sites have been identified in the area. Studies were This is an indicator for the interest for the natural natural environment prepared by the Forestry Department for 4 of them and there is one more environment study currently under preparation. These 4 studies were at the Mayor’s request in order to act as the basis for their recreational development rather than a mean of protecting them in itself. No study has been carried out by an established educational or research institute. 4. Integrating On this section are examined jointly two principles –“Integrating tourism into planning” and “Marketing tourism responsibly”- as marketing is a part of integrated tourism planning. tourism into planning & Tourists perception for the place they are visiting – N/A data This indicator reflects the existence of planning and Marketing questionnaire based There is a research (SETE, 1995) which included a few relevant questions responsible tourism marketing tourism but with a small sampling and no extended questionnaire related to this responsibly subject. Number of different products/activities supplied There are no specific data concerning this indicator but the common It is a measurement of the diversification on the product locally (historic-cultural tourism, sports based, observation of the recreational activities offered such as water sports. No offered conference, explorative tourism etc as well as data available from some organization on new forms of tourism recreational opportunities) developed in the area.

The 4 following indicators can be considered surrogates % of beds operating during winter 0 It is a measure of the diversification on the product offered as well as of the extension of the tourist season Number of beds in accommodation with I1 = 29,6% It is a measure of the capacity of the accommodations conference facilities as a percentage of the I2 = 20,9% offering conference facilities municipality’s bed capacity I3 = 21,3% I1 = as a percentage of all MAIN tourist accommodation offered in Municipality of Hersonissos I2 = as a percentage of ALL types of tourist accommodation offered in Municipality of Hersonissos. There is a problem in I2 as available data concerning tourist accommodation have some inconsistency (rental rooms data are available for the year 1997 while conference facilities and main accommodation data for 1999) I3 = as a percentage of all MAIN tourist accommodation in Crete % of municipality’s conference capacity to that of 20,9% This is a measure of the capacity of conference facilities the Region offered on the area % of short term courses in new forms of tourism N/A data in a local scale This indicator is more meaningful on a regional –or even compared to the short term courses offered in on a national scale- since it is not easy to differentiate tourism in general 32 / 97 = 0,33 between the area where training took place and the area (1990-1999) of work Data for the Region of Crete It is an indication of policy for future development % of tourists having booked in four major T.O. N/A data in a local scale This indicator is more meaningful on a regional scale According the Chairman of the Hotel Association of Crete it is about 50- It measures the dependence of the market on promoting 60% and selling tourism

Existence of legislation or zoning regulations There are some studies but nothing has been enacted yet It is an indication of planning for development and determining the land use and the impregnated environmental protection tourist areas Existence of research concerning the area’s A study was prepared in 2000 by the University of Cincinnati This indicator reflects the awareness on developmental sustainable development issues however, it does not provide that action is taken 5. Supporting Supporting local economy is believed to be essential in any economic activity. Issues such as over-dependence on tourism and revenues for the locals should be under consideration. local economies Employment in tourism as a percentage of total 65,23% in the service sector This indicator illustrates the local economy’s profile and employment 30,34% in hotels, restaurants and commerce its dependence or not on tourism. It would be of interest in Limenas the corresponding percentages are as follow: to measure its alteration through the time if data were 76,33% in the service sector available for time series. 35,11% in hotels, restaurants and commerce Source: Census Data 1991 Number of “locals” employed in tourism as a N/A data It indicates the local retention of tourism related income percentage of total employment in tourism The Mayor estimates that employees and owners (apart from a couple of large establishments) in tourist accommodation, restaurants, café-bars and stores are mainly residents while the rest live in the broader area.

Revenues generated by tourism as a percentage of N/A data This indicator reflects the relative weight of tourism total revenues generated in the area compared to other economic activities on the area To be surrogated by the following indicator

Hotel and restaurant taxes Since 1999 municipality taxes are 2% of the gross revenues practically of Compared to overnight staying (if data were available) it all kind of businesses related to tourism. Total tax revenues for the would be a good indication of the economic Municipality (mostly from Limenas) were 800 million drs in 1999. This effectiveness of tourism implies that total revenues were about 40 billion drs. Business establishments offering tourist services N/A data It indicates the local retention of tourism related income and owned by locals as a percentage of all business The Mayor estimates that the majority of the tourist businesses belong to establishments locals To be complemented by the following indicator % of self employed or family businesses in tourism 22,8% It measures local SME’s participation Source: Census Data 1991 Employment was examined in commerce, hotels and restaurants Change in Gross Regional (Local) Product by N/A data at the local level It indicates the change of local economy through time sector 6. Involving “Involving local communities” is examined along with the principle “Consulting stakeholders and the public” as they are actually expressions of the need for communication, information local and experience exchange. Applying this kind of methods, it is believed to better succeed in implementing sustainable development, rising awareness and spreading of information. communities Existence of educational/informational programs No This indicator reflects implementation of procedures for & for the public involving, advising and informing the public Consulting Number of local meetings to discuss issues before No This indicator reflects implementation of procedures for stakeholders policies are implemented involving, advising and informing the public and the and the Public-private partnerships/investments 1) Golf It is an indication of awareness and joint problem public 2) Expansion of tourist season solving 3) Extreme sports (paraglading) (some substructure by the Municipality) 4) Hotel and restaurant owners are currently financing the planning for the coast road management which later on the local authority will enact. 7. Training Training staff ensures better performance contributing this way to sustainability. Indicators representing this principle are more meaningful on a regional or even on a national scale since it staff is not an easy task to differentiate between the place of training and the place of work. Moreover there are no data available on tourism education and training on a local scale. The data used to estimate the indicators in this principle refer to the whole region of Crete % of employees that are graduates of tourist N/A data More meaningful on a broader scale schools This indicator measures the educational level of those involved in tourism services % of hours of short term training courses in 12% More meaningful on a broader scale tourism to those of all available short term courses (1990-1999) It reflects the emphasis given on tourism regarding in the Region of Crete training Change of short term training courses hours in 536,7% More meaningful on a broader scale tourism Shows the alteration through time and therefore the intensity or not of actions taken Number of short term courses realized in the 0 Municipality concerning tourism 8. Undertaking Undertaking research is essential to help solve problems, create new products, make efficient use of the resources and after all, better implement sustainable development in practice. research Number of surveys made concerning tourist In a survey contacted in 1995 by SETE there were a few questions It indicates some provision for responsible management preferences and perceptions concerning tourist preferences and perceptions and marketing of tourism The same as in a previous principle Number of surveys made concerning locals No official survey concerning local perceptions It is an indication of inclusion of local’s input in perceptions for tourism planning decisions

Number of research studies on the profitability of University of Cinccinati has undertaken research on the area’s prospect on Same as the previous principle the industry / number of research studies on the sustainable development impacts of tourism

Conferences and other activities attracting interest 0 This indicator reflects relative weight given on a in tourism and sustainable development research integrated approach for sustainable development. organized locally 5. Conclusions

One of the most striking problems estimating the indicators was the lack of proper data. This is relatively common in Greece since no special provision is taken regarding the availability and quality of necessary data other than those resulting from certain official surveys. Although tourism is one of the major economic activities in the country, lack of data, especially at a local scale, is striking. Moreover, since sustainable development indicators necessitate data other than those gathered for classical statistics, the problem is even worse. The need of identification and systematization of data for sustainable tourism development appears to be imperative.

In order to compensate the lack of data, surrogate indicators were introduced where possible. Undoubtedly, when an integrated evaluation of an area’s tourism development is the target, there should indicators representative for each parameter related to sustainable development. It is believed that the evolution of research on the field of sustainable tourism indicators will contribute to the improvement of the quality and the quantity of data available.

Another problem concerning data relates to the time of their collection and therefore to the time on which the evaluation is referring. Although the right thing to do would be the indicators estimation for the same period of time, this didn’t happen as available data were segmented in different years. Nevertheless, all estimated indicators do not refer strictly to a given period of time.

Finally, another problem encountered relates to the vagueness the concept of sustainable development implies as long as its prerequisites, parameters and criteria are concerned. This is even more apparent when dealing with a local scale of application where specific measures are necessary. Inevitably, this vagueness is projected to the indicators as well. However, it is believed that further research on defining the criteria of sustainability would result in better-formed indicators. Conversely, because of the interrelation between indicators and criteria, further research on the topic of sustainable tourism indicators would have a positive impact on this definition.

In any case, as long as a local scale of application is considered, the need for a thorough analysis over the parameters which define sustainable practices, becomes apparent.

6. Bibliography

Loulakis, N. and Manioudakis, N. (1999) “Antheia” Crete’s Training Seminars Database. IACM/FORTH, Greece.

Prastacos, P. and Kogxylakis, G. (1998) “Athena 91” Census Database. IACM/FORTH, Greece.

YPESDA (Ministry of the Interior Public Administration and Decentralization) (2000) Report II: Developmental Profile of Hellenic Municipalities, Municipality. Municipality of Hersonissos

SETE (Hellenic Tourist Business Association) (1995) Quality Rejuvenation of Tourist Areas. Pilot case study: Hersonissos. SETE, Athens.

Farsari, Y. and Prastacos, P. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Indicators for Mediterranean Destinations; Definitions According to the ST Principles. Proceedings ERSA's XII Summer Institute "Tourism Sustainability and Territorial Organisation", Portugal.

Meadows, D. (1998) Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. A report to the Balaton Group. The Sustainability Institute.

OECD (1994) Environmental Indicators – OECD Core Set, Paris, OECD.

Tourism Concern and WWF (1992), Beyond the Green Horizon: A Discussion Paper on Principles for Sustainable Tourism, (ed. Shirley Eber). London: WWF and Tourism Concern.

U.N. (1998) Indicators of Sustainable Development www.un.org/esa/sustdev/indi6.htm

W.C.E.D. (1987) Our Common Future, New York, Oxford University Press,.

World Bank (1997) Expanding the Measure of wealth. Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development”, environment department, The World Bank, Washington D.C. http://www-esd.worldbank.org

W.T.O. (1993) Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Tourism. Report of the International Working Group. W.T.O., IISD and ISTC.

W.T.O. (1996) What Tourism Managers Need to Know: A Practical Guide to the Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. Spain, W.T.O. Development and Use of Indicators of Sustainable Tourism. Spain, W.T.O.