Post on 28-Nov-2014
Exploring Collaborative and Community Based
Planning in Tourism
Case Study Sitia-Cavo Sidero Project
Dissertation Submitted September 2007 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M. Sc. in Tourism Management and
Marketing.
Katsouli Pinelopi
Business School
University of Nottingham
I hereby declare that this dissertation is all my own work, except as indicated in the text:
Signature ______________________
Date _____/_____/_____
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation towards my supervisor Adam Blake for his assistance and understanding. I sincerely thank my family, Katerina, Christos and Geogia for their supportiveness and special care all those years. Invaluable was the contribution of my beloved friends, Alexandros, Athina and Dimitrios who spent lots of their free time, over the summer. Finally, I would like also to thank all those who participated in my research and foremost, I owe a special thank to Ioannis Perakis who supplied me with a great variety of secondary data, retrieved from his personal database.
i
Abstract
Abstract
The present paper has explored the policy planning and development in emerging
tourism settings in Sitia. Comprehensively, this study, in the name of sustainable
development, focused on the extent of collaborative and community-based planning. For
that reason exploratory research has been used; the context and the structure of the
previous chapter aimed to uncover the socially constructed reality of Sitia’s stakeholders,
within the dynamic environment, and respond to ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions. Therein
significant was the contribution of eight different interviewees, closely related with the
field, as well as the obtained secondary data that provided valuable indeed background
information (Bryman & Bell, 2003).Briefly, a limited scope of collaboration has been
implied within the Sitia’s district, as the range of participants is not representative of all
the affected bodies by tourism development, instead it would be better to talk of a private
and public sector cooperation (Timothy, 1998). Thereby, the intensity of collaboration is
also limited; during the 15 years of negotiation about the Cavo Sidero investment limited
working groups, conferences and surveys took place that indicate low direct interaction
among stakeholders and minimal information dissemination (Bramwell and Sharman,
1999). So, whilst accepting the spatial proximity of local authorities to the domain and to
the community the need to empower them came at the forefront. Further, from a long
term perspective local authorities enriched with special skilled human resources and in
concert with the private sector should invest on building community capacity through
education and raise of self awareness, in order locals to be capable of coping with
complex and demanding issues and then “undertaking projects with independence and
skills” (Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p. 2
ii
Glossary of terms
Glossary of terms
G. N. T. O.: Greek national tourism organisation:
GDP: Gross domestic Profit
G. G. 4420/2006: Official Government Gazette
M. P. E.: Study of Environmental Impacts
OAS: Development Organisation of Sitia
O.A.E.D.: Greek Manpower Employment Organisation
O. D. E. P: Organisation Management of Ecclesiastical Fortune
S. H. O. O. A. P.: General spatial plan around the rural and urban areas of the
municipality of Sitia.
ΤΕΕ/ΤΑΚ: Technical Chamber of Eastern Crete
YPEHODE: Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works
Contents
Contents
PAGE
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Glossary of terms iii
1 Chapter 1 Introduction
1.0 Introduction- Choice of topic. 1
1.1 Collaboration and Community- Based Planning approach. 2
1.1 Research Question and Objectives. 3
2 Chapter 2 Literature review 2.0 Tourism planning and policy. 5
2.1 Tourism policy. 5
2.2 The role of government (state). 8
2.3 Tourism Planning. 12
2.4 Community based and Collaboration planning concepts. 16
2.4.1 Collaboration planning. 16
2.4.2 Community based planning. 24
2.5 Actors, Power and, Policy Networks. 32
3 Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction. 37
3.2 Research design. 38
3.3 Qualitative research. 40
3.3.1 Qualitative research (justification of choice). 42
3.4 In- depth and Semi-structured interviews (justification of choice) 43
3. 5 Format and context of interview questions. 45
i
Contents 3.6 Data Collection. 46
3.7 Secondary Data. 48
3.8 Data analysis. 49
3.9 Limitations and ethics. 50
4 Chapter 4 Findings and data analysis 4.1 Introduction 52
4.2 Tourism related overview of Crete and Sitia 52
4.3 Cavo Sidero integrated resort 60
4.3 Leading Actors of this investment 63
4.3.1 The Greek Church 63
4.3.2 State 65
4.3.3 Community 69
4.3.4 Ecologists 71
5 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 75
6 Appendices
Appendix A
Who did attend in the daily Conference in Sitia? 93
Appendix B
Personal Interviews-Questions
English Version 95
Greek Version 98
Appendix C
Written interview 101
Appendix D
Proposed terms from the representative of the Ecological group 103
Appendix E
The Inter-scientific Group that conducted the M.P.E. 104
ii
Contents
List of figures Page
Figure 2.1 Development of tourism policy objectives 6
Figure 2.2 Schematic structure of the state with reference to tourism 9
Figure 2.3 An evolutionary model of tourism partnerships. 22
Figure 2.4 The four types of cooperation 23
Figure 2.5 A Normative Model of Participatory Tourism Planning 25
Figure 2.6 Normative typologies of community participation 31
Figure 2.7 Tourism Stakeholder Map 35
Figure 2.8 Stakeholder mapping: The power/interest matrix 36
Figure 4.1 Map of Sitia’s District and Location of Cavo Sidero Investment 62
Figure 4.2 A close up to the Peninsula of Cavo Sidero. 62
iii
Contents
List of tables
Page
Table 1 Phases of Tourism Planning in Spain 14
Table 2.2 Bipolar View of tourism planning approaches 27
Table 3.1 Exploratory research 39
Table 3.2 Uses of different types of interview in each of the main research categories
44
iv
Chapter1: Introduction
Chapter 1
1.0 Introduction- Choice of topic.
This particular thesis will be occupied with issues surrounded the case study of
Sitia that is located in the North- East coast of Crete. The main focus will be Sitia, since
“tourism has a far more visible effect in rural areas, than in urban areas and consequently
a greater effect on rural residents” (Tosun, 2006, p.503). At present time, Sitia
experiences emergent tourism settings that involve the development of an integrated
resort “Cavo Sidero”, accompanied with the development of regional infrastructure, such
as the internationalization of the local airport and the further expansion of the local port-
marina. It seems likely that all those actions aimed to assist the tourism product
diversification and increase the destination’s competitiveness. However, severe frictions
and objections have been raised towards the influx of external private capital and
developers, as encouraged by the already involved government in the tourism
development (Jamal and Getz, 1995). So, this particular case has attracted the writer’s
interest, because of the unreasonable, almost a decade, postponement of those
developmental initiatives that endangers, at the end of the day, the great potentials for this
locality. In brief, this situation holds at the pre-construction phase the mega-project and
could be translated as a lack of collaboration and coordination among the enriched
tourism domain, where diverse actors with conflicting values and goals exist (Jamal and
Getz, 1995).
So far, the island in total has been characterised by regional imbalances in terms
of development, where some parts have reached the stagnation level and others have just
reached the developmental phase (Andriotis, 2003). Despite its polymorphic status, the
planning process of its tourism development is rather centralized, and controlled mainly
by the Greek Ministry of Tourism (ibid). That is often perceived from Cretans as an
external intervention, which ignores local reality and their real needs. Noteworthy, this
Page 1
Chapter1: Introduction situation contradicts with the recent decentralization tendency of decision making process
in many countries, where local governments are getting more power to direct
development and manage local tourism (Timothy, 1999).
1.1 Collaboration and Community- Based Planning approach.
Broadly speaking, tourism development goes together with some conflicting
interest groups such as “conservationists versus the developers” (Markwick, 2000). The
former prioritize conservation issues of development and the latter economic ones.
Accordingly, the biggest challenge for any proposed tourism development plan would be
to involve all the affected parties within this process (Aas et al., 2005) that seeks “to
optimize the potential contribution of tourism to human welfare and environmental
quality” (Timothy, 1999, p. 371). Under this respect, cooperation and collaboration are
major issues in tourism planning that invoke direct dialogue among participating
stakeholders, which may diminish all the apparent power imbalances (Reed, 1997).
Therein, power, as a concept, has to do not only with social actions and interrelationships
of actors, but also with negotiations of the most favourable terms of strategies (Verbole,
2000).
Therefore, collaborative planning in tourism context is “a process of joint decision
making, among autonomous key stakeholders, to resolve planning problems and or to
manage issues related to the planning and development” (De Araujo & Bramwell, 1999,
p. 369). However, for the implementation of collaborative planning approach is
imperative to identify and legitimize all the potential stakeholders (Roberts and Simpson,
1999), regardless the notion of an endless list of potential stakeholders (Robson and
Robson, 1996). Beyond this identification, it is also vital to understand and explore
stakeholders’ interests, values and existed inter-relational networks that should be all
encompassed in a congruent manner within strategic frameworks (ibid).
Meanwhile, as the tourism system is highly fragmented no single organisation or
individual can exert direct control over the destination’s development process (Reed,
Page 2
Chapter1: Introduction 1997). Accordingly, the contribution of the Greek Ministry of Tourism in Sitia remains
still debatable. Therefore, the author suggests the establishment of a democratic and
independent, from national and local elites, convener such as a DMO that could
incorporate all the involved multi-stakeholders, with the aim to secure balanced power
differentials, joint decision making and foremost a cohesive congruent planning policy.
In a manner of speaking, “if tourism is to become successful and self perpetuating
industry many have advocated, it needs to be planned and managed as a renewable
resource industry based on local capacities and community decision making” (Murphy,
1985, as cited by Hall, 2000, p. 33). Consequently, this requires the adoption of
community based planning, which proclaims collaborative and coordinated efforts,
democratization of governing processes and foremost community’s empowerment
(Ritchie, 1999; Marzano and Scott, 2006). In turn, all those together could preserve the
economic, environmental and social sustainability of a destination.
1.2 Research Question and Objectives.
Based on the aforementioned the writer aims to explore “whether exists any
democratized and coordinated approach of tourism planning and development in Sitia
that could possibly solve problems, such as conflicts and preserve its social and
environmental sustainability.” So, the objectives of this research are:
i. Explore whether organisational and non-organisational bodies share the sense of
common purpose and vision.
ii. Explore how the Greek government participates in Sitia’s tourism development
and evaluate its collaborative stance.
iii. Understand how stakeholders perceive collaboration and community- based
planning and investigate actors’ representation and involvement within the
planning and development process
Page 3
Chapter1: Introduction
iv. Explore why the tourism development and planning process have not been
democratized in this emergent tourism settings and how it could be done.
v. Understand how consensus making is affected by power differentials.
Hence, this paper, under the umbrella of tourism policy and development
planning, seeks to uncover stakeholders’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviours always though
in correlation with their legitimate power, their personal interests and lastly competitors’
actions. So, it would be interesting to explore the way that people respond to the tourism
phenomenon, especially when considering the premature status of a destination, like
Sitia, in terms of tourism.
The remainder of this dissertation will be comprised by other 4 chapters. Chapter
2 known as literature review “helps to do some preliminary thinking […] before [the
writer] begins the search itself (Hart, 2001, as cited by Silverman, 2005, p.295).
Therefore other people’s writing will be reviewed about government roles, policy and
planning concepts, collaboration and community based planning approaches and lastly
the issues of actors, power and policy networks will not be ignored. After this directive
chapter, the methodology of research follows. Chapter 3 will illustrate the research
process, the use of qualitative research stream and data collection methods will be
justified, the data collection process will be described and finally some further issues
about data analysis will be considered, meaning the limitations and ethics. Next, Chapter
4 will present the findings of this case study, where the social constructed reality (Denzin
and Lincoln, 2003) ought to be compared and applied with issues originated from
Chapter 2. Herein, valuable is the contribution of Greek bibliography as secondary data,
due to the lack of official reports and surveys. Lastly, Chapter 5 will draw the
conclusions of this study and will make suggestions for further research in the near
future.
Page 4
Chapter2: Literature Review
Chapter 2
2.0 Tourism planning and policy
2.1. Tourism policy
Nowadays and in the near future, tourism industry will experience major changes,
in the operational level and in its structure, as an aftermath of the “new tourism
revolution” (Poon, 1994, p. 91) and the emerging new consumer tastes. The success
though of tourism rests, both at micro and macro levels, on the way organisations and
destinations are planned, managed, and marketed (Costa and Buhalis, 2006). A
prerequisite will be the formulation of an adequate public tourism policy; that ought to
regulate the tourism industry as a whole and its related activities (ibid). In a manner of
speaking about the held changes within the tourism industry and before reviewing the
tourism planning and policy concepts as such, Ritchie quoted two major trends, as
outlined by the Tourism Policy Forum in the George Washington University (GWU),
which were “believed to shape the future of tourism policy in the 1990’s:
(1) The physical environment is taking ‘centre stage’ in tourism development and
management; furthermore, there is recognition that there are finite limitations to tourism
development in terms of both physical and social carrying capacity of destinations and;
(2) that resident responsive tourism is the watchword for tomorrow; community
demands for active participation in the setting of the tourism agenda and its priorities for
tourism development and management cannot be ignored”( Hawkins et al., 1991, as cited
by Ritchie, 1999, p. 206).
Page 5
Chapter2: Literature Review
Along with the two aforementioned changes, it should be also added the ‘Third
Way’, as introduced by Burns in 2004 that challenges the state of affairs of governmental
policies and highlights a more active involvement and interaction of the society with the
state. In more details, Giddens mentions that “a ‘Third Way’ refers to a framework of
thinking and policymaking that seeks to adapt social democracy to a world, which has
changed fundamentally over the past two or three decades. It is a third way in the sense
that is an attempt to transcend both old-style social democracy and neoliberalism (1998,
as cited by Burns, 2004, p. 25)”. These changes aggregately indicate a turn from the mass
tourism towards the sustainable tourism imperative or with other words from the
“Fordian Tourism to the New Age of Tourism” (Fayos -Sola, 1996). Where the focal
point of tourism policy becomes the enhancement of competitiveness, that is defined as
“the capacity to generate profits in excess of the normal benefits in a sustainable way”
(ibid, 409)(Look at Figure 2.1). Nevertheless, “Governments, which in public espouse the
fine sounding language of the sustainable and ethical high ground of local community
tourism development may be subject to external pressures, […] which dictates a policy of
economic liberalization and foreign exchange maximisation” (Mowforth and Munt, 1998,
p. 257).
Figure 2.1 Development of tourism policy objectives (Source Fayos-Sola, 1996, p.409).
Page 6
Chapter2: Literature Review
So, what is really tourism policy? Tourism policy, as with other public policies, is
a political activity that reflects society’s values and ideologies, economic conditions
distribution of power institutions, and decision making processes (Hall and Jenkins,
1995). Further, Amoah and Baum opine that “policy is a process as well as a product;
[…] it is used to refer to a process of decision making and also to the product of that
process (1997, p. 7)”. This quotation reassures indirectly Pressman and Wildavsky’s
(1973) causality of policies, for instance, towards a destination; wherein policies, as
authoritative actions, point to a chain of causation from ‘x’ conditions to ‘y’ future
consequences (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). Tourism policy, whilst being conceived as a
development strategy and despite this causality over the local resources, ought to serve
the public interest through managing and planning those resources (Andriotis, 2006).
Hence, tourism policy performs, as a sum of regulated guidelines, which determines
specific objectives and actions that aimed to meet the needs, for instance, of an emerging
tourism destination setting (Amoah and Baum, 1997; Reed, 1999). Last but not least,
tourism “public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do with respect to
tourism” (Jenkins, 1993, as cited by Hall, 2000, p.8). In every respect, public policy is the
focal point of government activity that is often vulnerable and adaptive to the economic
social and cultural conditions of a civil society (Hall, 2000).Occasionally though, severe
criticism has been raised about governments’ inefficiencies, actions and inactions with
respect to tourism and the environment (ibid).
A hallmark of those inefficiencies can be traced on government’s lack of control
of tourism development (Scheyvens, 2002) and substantially on their varying degrees of
involvement in tourism policy, from a reactive to a more passive role (Hall, 2000).
Noteworthy, “policymaking is increasingly characterised by dynamic multi-actor
interactions, complex power differentials and uneven resource and information exchange
between actors and agencies” (Dredge, 2006, p. 562). Herein, it should be added Zhang’s
et al position (1999) about policy making derived from their study about the Chinese
tourism policies; they state that policy making is a “policy arena where institutional
arrangements, values and power arrangements” [occur among different] “interest groups,
Page 7
Chapter2: Literature Review institutions, and significant individuals” (p.472-3). That is why, some countries follow a
path of tourism development dictated primarily by overseas interests and capital and
some others that seek to preserve the socioeconomic and cultural integrity of the country
itself and its population (Scheyvens, 2002). Above all, “the way in which policy
decisions are made” (Hall, 2000, p.8) and implemented should not be overridden from
this debate about inefficiencies, where all public, private and non profit sectors would be
involved and legally liable if needed. Respectively, Zhang et al. attached in their study
the tourism policy process as presented by Hall in 1994:
(1) “ policy demands from both inside and outside the political system;
(2) policy decisions by the political authority, which are authoritative rather than
routine;
(3) policy outputs; and
(4) intended or unintended policy impacts”(1999, p. 473).
Throughout this process, they suggest that the governments’ roles could be
identified-clarified, even if they reach the mismanagement levels. So what is the
government’s role in tourism policy development? The next section will seek to shed
some light on this question, even if tourism industry is complex by definition, where in
some cases the norms of chaos dominate, especially when considering the transition from
the Fordist into the more flexible, turbulent and less predictable era (Tyler and Dinan,
2001).
2.2 The role of government (state)
Although tourism is an activity sustained mainly by private initiatives,
simultaneously various other groups have played at the national level a significant role in
the development of tourism, either directly or indirectly (Gunn and Var, 2002); those
groups might be the “law enforcement executive branch, legislative branch, judiciary and
regulatory, public service quasi-public agencies, statutory authorities and government
enterprises” (ibid, p.111). Oversimplified, those set of officials, political institutions,
Page 8
Chapter2: Literature Review bureaucratic arms, laws, regulations, and public/civil servants compose the state (Hall,
2000) (Look at Figure 2.2). In order to avoid confusion, “the term ‘state’ encompasses
the whole apparatus [within a territory, whereas] the government exercises the power”
(ibid, p. 134). In this regard, governments could play an active role, to a lesser or a
greater extent, as a facilitator and promoter of tourism development, whilst they hold the
“required sociopolitical legitimacy and institutional capacity to bring together and
coordinate activities of diverse interest groups that are usually preoccupied with the
provision of tourism and hospitality services”(Akama, 2002, p.2). Therefore, it is vital to
clarify the government’s role within the tourism system and identify whether its actions
and structures encourage or discourage coordination of programmes and involved parties.
Executive and Legislature
Lower Level Government
Statutory Authorities
Public service
bureaucracy
Institutions of the state
Government Enterprises
Judiciary and Regulatory Systems
and Agencies
Law Enforcement
Agencies
Para (semi) State
Individuals and agencies
Figure 2.2: Schematic structure of the state with reference to tourism (Source: Hall and
Jenkins, 1995, p.20).
Consequently, the reasons that the states have been involved in the tourism
development are twofold. Principally, they need to investigate the cause and effect
relationship between the actual legislations and policies (e.g. taxation) upon tourism
Page 9
Chapter2: Literature Review (Jeffries, 2001). On top of that they need to introduce legislation, policies and
programmes with the aim to support and boost tourism (ibid). Apart from them, Hartley
and Hooper have given a more pluralistic position about the main objectives which
encourage the state participation. “Public sector policy objectives which may be sought
from tourism include, the creation of income and wealth; job creation; maintaining and
improving the image of an area, its environment and the quality of life; maintaining and
improving links both within and between nations; and contributing to the nation's balance
of payments position”(1990, as cited by Baum, 1994, p.185).
Nevertheless, those given reasons about government-state intervention should not
be perceived as a panacea, since the degree of intervention and the reasons that motivate
them to do so, “ vary considerably from country to country; for instance tourism in
mature destinations has less need of public involvement than elsewhere (Jeffries, 2001, p.
112). Additionally the level of government intervention might be also affected by the
political structures; “in capitalistic countries there was little intervention by government
in policy making, where laissez faire tourism development, by the private sector, has
dominated” (Gunn and Var, 2002, p. 109). Overall, “the extent of the state’s role in
tourism varies according to the conditions and circumstances peculiar to each country i.e.
political, economic, constitutional system, socio-economic development degree of
tourism development (IUOTO, 1974, as cited by Jamal, 2007, p.22)”.
Recently, though regardless of the degree of tourism development and the
political structures, the society requests via lobbying efforts some form of governmental
intervention and monitoring, due to the apparent increased environmental pressures
(Akama, 2002; Gunn and Var, 2002), since “the state’s role […] [ought to be]
indispensable for successful [sustainable] tourism development” (Bramwell, 1999, p.72).
For that reason, Hall has introduced a classification of government’s roles in tourism,
where five of them were obtained from the International Union of Travel Organisation
(1974), the coordination, planning, legislation and regulation, entrepreneur, stimulation
and then other two extra roles added, the social tourism role and the broader role of
interest protection(Hall, 2000). In accordance to these distinctive roles, the width of
Page 10
Chapter2: Literature Review responsibilities that the authoritative bodies need to take for the implementation of
tourism policies is confirmed and inevitably it could bring out the argument of possible
operational conflicts, overlaps and bottlenecks; since “policies at one level of government
may contradict policies at another level, or perhaps are implemented with little
consultation between levels” (Hall and Jenkins, 1995, p. 29). Therefore issues of
coordinated inter-organisation relationships in the public domain should be perceived
“one of the great truisms of tourism planning and policy” (Hall, 1999, p. 277).
Meanwhile, the private sector, “the catalyst for tourism development” (Fayos-
Sola, 1996, p.409), in the form of businesses and non profit organisations, should not be
excluded from the determination of policy settings; indeed they could contribute with
their actions and inactions to the fulfillment of reciprocal tourism goals and objectives
(Gunn and Var, 2002). Since, “no single organisation or individual can exert direct
control over the destination’s development process, [even at the government
level]”(Jamal and Getz, 1995, p. 193). As a proof of that. Dredge notes recently, in her
study about policy networks “the shift from government to governance” (Rhodes, 1997,
as cited by Dredge, 2006, p. 270), where the governments offset their own
responsibilities and the “increasingly blurred roles of public and private sectors, in the
policymaking” (ibid) comes into the forefront. Thus, state and non- state actors compose
networks and coalitions; where those varied parties “are bound together through either
shared beliefs or resource dependencies […] and [often compete] to influence the policy
processes and outcomes” (Costa and Buhalis, 2006, p. 158). However, Hall and Jenkins
stressed in 1995 the danger of inevitable ‘clientelistic’ relationships between the
empowered private sector and governments in the name of development, as the former
expects to become the main policy shaper, in return to the risks they took, especially in
developing countries. Therefore it is imperative for governments to play foremost a
“regulatory role rather than allowing elites or international interests to usurp or bypass
state control” (Scheyvens, 2002, p.174).
Page 11
Chapter2: Literature Review 2.3 Tourism Planning
Planning is a complex […] many-sided phenomenon with social, economic,
political, anthropological, psychological and technological [implications; as a result] the
definition and scope of planning is ambiguous (Tosun and Jenkins, 1998, p. 101).
Initially, it is commonly accepted that places adopting unplanned tourism development
face environmental and social problems, low destination competitiveness and high
conflict resolution costs (Yuksel and Bramwell, 1999). In contradiction, tourism planning
is widely known as a process that aims to maximise the positive contribution of tourism
to a destination and possibly to mitigate the subsequent problems arisen from this given
economic activity (Timothy, 1999). To do so, a precondition would be the adoption of an
ongoing monitoring system that allows “periodic or permanent revision of policies and
development plans” (Lawson and Baud-Bovy, 1977, as cited by Pearce 2000, p. 191),
after considering and evaluating a priori, the macro forces and the given set of goals. So
far, the most widely accepted goals of tourism planning have been the “enhanced visitor
satisfaction, better business, sustainable resource use and community integration” (Gunn
and Var, 2002, p.22). Hence, planning appears as a critical element for the long term
viability of tourist destinations and “determines who wins and who loses from the
tourism development process” (Hall, 2000, p.15).
Tourism planning is maturing as a discipline and its approaches have been
evolved from an uncomplicated view of tourism into a more sophisticated, decentralized,
and integrated approach (Timothy, 1998). That means planning paradigms have
eschewed from the “narrow concerns of physical planning and promotion into a more
balanced, where priority has been placed on the environment and the community’s
[participation]” (Timothy, 1999, p.372). Indeed, new paradigms emphasise on the
coordination of public and private sector organisations and bring public participation
right into the core of the decision making process(Costa and Buhalis, 2006), since
“tourism impacts are most apparent at the level of destination community”(Timothy,
1999, p. 372). While reviewing the literature, such planning approaches have been
thoroughly analysed by Getz (1987) and later on by Tosun and Jenkins (1998). Those
Page 12
Chapter2: Literature Review academics covered those approaches from the same basis but expressed slightly in a
differentiated manner.
The former has named four broad, and in some cases, overlapping approaches,
which are “neither mutually exclusive nor a reflection of a chronological evolution”
(Baidal, 2004, p.317). These are boosterism, economic, physical-spatial, and community-
oriented approaches. Baidal though, in 2004, expanded further these approaches and
added the strategic approach and planning for sustainable tourism, as partially indicated
by Hall in 2000 and keeps pace with the New Tourism Age (Fayos-Sola, 2006).
Comparatively, the latter introduced the unplanned tourism era, the beginning of partly
supply oriented tourism planning period, the entirely supply oriented tourism planning
period, the market or demand oriented tourism development planning period and finally
the contemporary planning approach(Tosun and Jenkins, 1998). This classification
differs from the previous one, on the basis that it has been “evolved continuously and
over time” (ibid, p.102). Additionally, it has been attached here a table that illustrates the
evolution of tourism planning and policies in Spain in real terms, as given by Baidal
(2004); where in the late 1950’s practices, that respond to the boosterism approach, have
been identified and later on from the 1994’s and onwards a mixture of sustainable and
physical planning have been adopted, without overriding the empowered local
community.
Page 13
Chapter2: Literature Review
Page 14
1959–1974: Indicative
planning in a centralized
State
Integration of tourism into State indicative planning. Lack
of regional- and local-scale planning. The growth of
supply is favored despite serious infrastructure deficits
and high environmental costs. Land use and Town
planning is subordinated to tourism growth.
1975–1982: Guiding
plans in the transition
towards a decentralized system
An unsuccessful attempt is made to link land use and
tourism planning. Non-compulsory tourism planning.
Plans contained recommendations not implemented.
Provincial-scale plans are prepared that can be
methodologically attributed to the physical approach, but
without a real application.
1989–1993: Reaction plans and
structural adjustment policies
Central Administration-promoted plans are replaced with
specific studies (statistics, marketing, etc.). White Books
are developed in Catalonia and the Balearics that help
design the first regional tourist policy. Urban growth
under local control thanks to municipal autonomy laws
1982–1989: State’s withdrawal
and first regional Plans
Reactive plans in which the loss of competitiveness drives
the strategic planning approach. The Mediterranean
regions with a greater specialization in tourism develop
strategic plans with a sectorial approach. The legal basis
to link tourism and territorial planning in the regional
scale is created but not implemented. Start of planning
within the European regional policy (1989–1993 EC
Support Framework).
From 1994: Regional Planning
formalized in Autonomous
Tourism Laws
Regional and sub-regional planning instruments are
regulated in tourism laws, but their elaboration takes
considerably long. Tourism plans are differently linked to
land use and town planning depending on the
Autonomous Communities, but few planning initiatives
have been developed. Rise in value of the local scale with
inter-administrative cooperation (Excellence and
Dynamization Plans). On the theoretical level,
reinterpretation of the physical approach with the
incorporation of sustainable development principles.
Chapter2: Literature Review Table 1: Phases of Tourism Planning in Spain (Source Baidal, 2004, p. 320).
At this stage, only Tosun and Jenkins’ propositions will be reviewed, due to the
world limit constraints; bear in mind though that along with this brief analysis, there will
be, in congruence, some reference to Getz’s proposed planning approaches. To start
with, the common place, for both unplanned tourism development era and boosterism, is
that every tourism action clearly lacks of planning (Baidal, 2004; Hall, 2000; Tosun and
Jenkins, 1998). Here, mass tourism has been deemed as a mean for destination’s
economic prosperity, without assessing critically its consequences (Baidal, 2004). There
is also no doubt that community has been excluded from any form of tourism planning
and decision making (Hall, 2000).
Following, the beginning of partly supply oriented and the entirely supply
oriented tourism planning signify a period of intensive development of amenities,
attractions, sources of accessibility that aimed to satisfy the continually increasing
demand, where planning has played just a minor role, without considering the challenges
of cultural and environmental degradation (Tosun and Jenkins, 1998). So, during these
planning phases the public sector place high priority to the enhancement of economic
indicators of a place, region, and nation; the same as in the economic planning approach,
but it ignores consistently the social and environmental aspects (Baidal, 2004). Next,
market or demand oriented tourism development planning meant to attract and tempt a
large number of tourists (ibid) with shifting tastes from mass towards alternative and
greener forms of tourism. At this point, planning and marketing methods might be
challenged from the so called “experience economy” (Pine and Gilmore, 1998, p.97).
Where, “the key is to win the hearts and the minds of […] [travelers within the
competitive maze] and [travelers][…] will ultimately reward you with their almighty
dollars” (Hauser, 2005,p. 104).
Finally, Tosun and Jenkins ended up with the contemporary planning approaches,
such as sustainable development, system approaches, integrated planning, community-
based tourism, comprehensive planning and continuous and flexible approach; the
Page 15
Chapter2: Literature Review overwhelming goal for those planning approaches is to sustain tourism as a vehicle for
sociocultural and economic development (1998). For instance, community planning
promotes a local tourism development control scheme where residents get benefited from
tourism development and in turn avoids conflicts, which might endanger industry’s future
viability (Baidal, 2004). Additionally, Hall comments that community planning is a
“bottom up form of planning […] and residents are regarded as the basic planning unit
(2000, p. 32). Further, Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini opine that “among these
approaches, the collaborative planning approach appears as a mean to overcome the
recognised fragmented nature of tourism development and solve the many problems that
arise when there is a lack of understanding and few shared common goals between the
many parties often involved in tourism”(2002, p.71). Certainly then, planning becomes
subject of “bargaining, negotiation, compromise, politics, and values” exchange among
the all involved parties (Hall, 2000, p.7). So, this study will elaborate upon the
community and collaboration planning concepts. This choice though, should not be
perceived necessarily as an admittance of excellence amongst the rest.
2.4 Community based and Collaboration planning concepts.
2.4.1 Collaboration planning
In the early days of the 21st century, tourism planners, managers and academics
regardless of their tourism objectives (i.e. economic, conservation etc.) and under the
complex interdependent settings of tourism industry, recognised the pronounced need and
power of collaborative actions (Selin, 1999), since individual actions are not anymore
sufficient enough (Getz and Jamal, 1995). At the same time, as the level of competition
has intensified in a global scale, significant pressures have been exerted “for an increased
democratization of governing processes at all levels […], [with] greater involvement of
the citizenry”, even within the tourism context (Ritchie, 1999, p. 208). These changing
circumstances, together with the new emerging tourism needs, ought to surround the
tourism planning concept with the sustainable ethos, norms, and principles (Timothy,
1999). However, Ryan had differentiated his position whilst he suggested instead a turn
Page 16
Chapter2: Literature Review towards the “sustained value creation for the tourist, the tourist industry and
communities” (2002, p. 22). So, social equity and responsibility (Selin, 1999) or with
other words social sustainability (Roberts and Simpson, 1999) could be attained through
the encouragement of joint management of destinations and vitally through the integrated
partnerships of multinational firms, regional planning bodies and community based
cooperatives.
From that point of view, and whilst given the diffused and fragmented world
order, collaboration, and coordination, due to their dynamic and flexible nature that
involves multiple stakeholders(Jamal et al., 2002 ), are perceived as an epitome in the
field of tourism planning and management. Both of them “have been linked to the idea of
sustainable development and in the context of community–based tourism, to integration,
and participation” (Aas et al. 2005, p.30). Therefore as context, they have been met in
various policy agendas, for instance in the ‘Tomorrow’s Tourism’, the British tourism
policy document; [wherein it was addressed the] “commitment to encourage tourism
management partnerships between local authorities, tourism operators, and local
communities” (DCMS, 1999, Bramwell and Lane, 2000, p. 2). At this stage, it would be
helpful to add the definition of collaboration as introduced initially by Gray in 1985,
despite the fact that it was addressed primarily in the field of environmental planning and
management, which is the “pooling of appreciations and/or tangible resources
(information, money, labour etc.) by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems
which neither can solve individually” (Selin and Chavez, 1995, p.190).
Later on, Jamal and Getz expanded this definition and conceptualized it in a
comprehensive and truly related manner to the tourism planning path. So collaboration is
“the process of joint decision making among autonomous key stakeholders of an inter-
organisational community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the domain,
and or to manage issues related to the planning and development of the domain”(1995,
p.188). Overall, collaboration implies a joint decision making among interdependent
multiple stakeholders that share power, resources and responsibility about purposeful
actions and outcomes that affect equally all the members-actors of a community (Jamal
Page 17
Chapter2: Literature Review and Getz, 1995; Selin and Chavez, 1995). Simplistically, collaboration is distinctive from
other types of participation in policy making, as it involves a face to face dialogue that
implies both mutual learning and shared decision making, although some of them might
not possibly occur in reality (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). In addition, Timothy states that
apart from the face to face dialogue, the enjoyment of benefits as arisen from tourism
should not be ignored, since “residents […] [could] gain economically from the industry,
and they [could be engaged] […] in awareness-building efforts and other forms of
education”(1999, p. 387).
In line with the aforementioned, Bramwell and Lane (2000) summarised in their
paper some key points that placed collaboration and partnerships at the forefront in
tourism development and planning field. Mainly, they drew the argument against the
‘oligopolisticaly’ made tourism policy decisions from few actors, known as local,
economic, and political elites (Andriotis, 2006). Consequently, they supported the
broadly based ownership of decisions around a domain that will result democratic
empowerment, operational advantages and robust tourism products (Jamal and Getz,
1995; Timothy, 1999, Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Hence, it seems that when the
apparatus “refines processes for joint decision-making” (Jamal and Getz, 1995, p.192) via
“a coherent and socio-politically inclusive [way]” (Roberts and Simpson, 1999, p. 315)
and brings together, in the name of development, key interest groups’ resources, such as
expertise, experience, information, and capital, then inevitably destinations could gain a
viable competitive advantage (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Usually that could be done
through “highly structured […] [and] legally binding agreements, [otherwise] […]
through unstructured verbal agreements” […] [among participants] (Selin and Chavez,
1995, p. 845).
Nevertheless, Jamal and Getz (1995) and Reed (1997) acknowledged some
essential pre-conditions for the facilitation of collaboration and partnership at community
level, where stakeholders ought to believe that “they are interdependent in planning [and
managing domains], that they will be mutually benefited from collaboration, that
decisions will be implemented, that the key groups will be involved and that the
Page 18
Chapter2: Literature Review appointed convener is legitimate with expertise resources and authority”(Sheehan and
Ritchie, 2005, p. 717-8; Roberts and Simpson, 1999). These preconditions could also
signify directly and indirectly the emergence of a central actor, for instance Destination
Management Organisation (DMO) that aimed to contribute to the collaboration of all the
key interest groups (ibid). Meanwhile, although collaborative planning meant to be
unproblematic and undimensional (Bramwell, 2006), in reality though it is often
characterised by conflict and messy decision-making that stiffens its implementation,
due to the existence of multiple and varied organisations with various vesting interests;
therefore it is critical to identify and legitimate the right mix of stakeholders or
paraphrased the optimum balance of interests among competing sectors especially in
emerging tourism destinations (Reed, 1997; Amoah and Baum, 1997). Nonetheless, the
identification and legitimization of committed stakeholders rests foremost on their skills
capacity, their willingness to contribute, their legitimacy and urgency of actions but also
on their economic and political power (Medeiros de Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Ladkin
and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). In the forthcoming sections, this paper will elaborate
more on the dynamic facet of multi-actor interactions, where usually significant power
differentials and uneven resource and information exchange occur among stakeholders
(Dredge, 2006).
Besides, those previously mentioned pre-conditions do not proclaim anything
else, apart from being a seedbed for the collaboration and partnership to flourish.
Nevertheless, Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini moved this issue a step further via their
case study research about Cusco in Peru, where they presented four different indicators-
requirements about the nature of collaboration (2002). Initially, they referred vitally to
the presence of a shared vision among stakeholders about tourism development that
builds inevitably the spirit of a common aim through consensus making towards a
tourism issue (ibid). Then, they examined the collaboration and coordination of multiple
actors either between the public and private sector, or the collaboration solely within the
public sector (ibid). They admitted though that this evaluation was a difficult task,
therefore they bore in mind Mandell and Agranoff’s continuum of collaborative efforts
that ranges from “loose linkages and coalitions to more lasting structural
Page 19
Chapter2: Literature Review arrangements”(1999, p.5). Also Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini considered “the input
from the tourism industry and from other interest groups in tourism planning” (2002,
p.85), where the joint formulation of aims and objectives is deemed vital (Healey, 1998).
Finally, they identified constraints and facilitators of collaboration, as expressed
by the private and the public sector (Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). In
particular, the public sector identified “(1) cultural barriers[…] (e.g. Cusco has a
conservative society that does not easily welcome change), (2) lack of shared vision[…]
of tourism development, (3) centralisation and limited decision-making power […] (e.g.
at the regional level, where people feel they do not have the power to effectively manage
their decisions […] [as the main goal is] to achieve the predetermined government
objectives), (4) lack of trained people in the public sector, which hinders the possibility of
undertaking joint decision-making processes, (5) limited budget of regional and local
public institutions, and (6) lack of clearly defined roles, due to the presence of multiple
public agencies in the tourism sector with overlapping duties and responsibilities”(ibid, p.
86-7). From another spectrum, the private sector identified “(1) absence of a long-term
strategy towards joint decision-making processes[…], (2) short-term objectives due to the
changes of public officials as a consequence of elections or changes of the heads at
national and regional levels[…], (3) poor information about tourism policies from the
government[…], (4) slow decision-making processes and implementation of
decisions[…], (5) multiplicity of public agencies with tourism-related functions, which
means that too many organisations are involved in the decision-making process, and (6)
lack of an organisation to lead and articulate collaborative planning efforts(ibid, p. 87).
In the meantime, it would be promiscuous to conceive those preconditions and
indicators as being de facto. For that reason, the writer chose to draw a more reliable
picture of the collaborative policy making processes through the holistic presentation of
conceptualized frameworks that will enhance consequentially the understanding of the
basic rationale and applicability of collaboration planning. For instance, Bramwell and
Sharman introduced in 1999 a framework that measures the extent of collaborative
process in local tourism policy and seeks to verify whether it is inclusionary, reduces
Page 20
Chapter2: Literature Review power imbalances between actors and involves consensus building and collective
learning(Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini, 2002). Thereby,
in the name of this current framework it seems that Bramwell and Sharman borrowed
intentionally the conceptual roots of interorganisational collaboration, the communicative
approaches, and citizen participation, where they presented three sets of issues about
collaborative planning, the scope of collaboration, the intensity of collaboration, and the
degree to which consensus emerges(1999). In terms of the scope, the key issue that arises
is “the extent to which the range of participating stakeholders is representative of all
relevant stakeholders” (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999, p. 395), which could prove either a
representative balance of stakeholders or a dominance of local elites (ibid). Meanwhile,
the intensity of collaboration depends on various factors, such as direct interaction and
disseminating information among stakeholders, open and trustworthy dialogue among
stakeholders, and reciprocal learning and respect of set arguments and interests (ibid).
Further, they came up with the third issue, due to the unquestionable “rise of interest-
group pluralism, [as well as] the greater recognition of stakeholder interdependence,
conflicts and value differences” (Jamal et al., 2002, p. 164). Therefore, researchers could
ask whether there is willingness to implement policies, or some sort of acceptance that
minorities will inevitably disagree with planning and development intentions, or
generally whether exists “consensus among stakeholders about issues, policies, purposes
of policies and how the consequences of policies are assessed and reviewed”(Bramwell
and Sharman, 1999, p.399). Overall, they applied this framework in the Hope Valley
study, where they ended up to the conclusion that in some cases collaboration was
partially inclusionary but also they recognised that “unequal power relations [still]
remained among stakeholders with the distribution of power weighted towards the
authorities rather than the residents”(ibid, p. 412).
Another three staged framework, as originated from Gray and McCann in 1983,
has been presented, in an enriched and advanced context by Jamal and Getz, “through
which tourism collaborative arrangements develop” (Bramwell and Lane, 2000, p. 10).
So, the “first stage consists of problem-setting (identifying key stakeholders and issues),
and is followed by the second stage of direction-setting (identifying and sharing future
Page 21
Chapter2: Literature Review
Problem setting ---Recognise interdependence -Consensus on legitimate -Common problem definition -Perceived benefits to stakeholders -Perceived salience to
Outcomes -Programs -Impacts -Benefits derived
Structuring -Formalizing relationships -Roles assigned -Tasks elaborated -Monitoring and control systems designed
Direction Setting-Establish goals -Set ground rules -Joint information search -Explore options -Organise sub-groups
Antecedents -Crisis -Broker -Mandate -Common vision -Existing networks -Leadership -Incentives
Figure 2.3: An evolutionary model of tourism partnerships (Selin and Chavez, 1995, p.848)
collaborative interpretations; appreciating a sense of common purpose)” (Jamal and Getz,
1995, p. 189). The third stage is implementation that puts policy into practice, monitors
its progress and seeks to meet the objectives of collaborative decisions (ibid).
Nevertheless, Gray noted that these stages are not necessarily separate and distinctive,
where in some cases overlap of actions and phases could occur (1996; Bramwell and
Lane, 2000). In the same year, Selin and Chavez represented “an evolutionary model
based on an empirical study of three tourism partnerships [and] a review of existing
tourism partnership case studies […], […] [where it] suggests that tourism partnerships
begin in a context of environmental forces and evolve, sequentially through problem-
setting, direction setting and structuring phases” (1995, p. 844), which recognise the
fragile and dynamic nature of collective actions. This later model differs from the
previous one, since it contains other two extra added phases, the antecedents at the
beginning, i.e. initial circumstances, and the outcome stage at the end, i.e. impacts on the
domain (Look at Figure: 2.3)(Selin and Chavez, 1995).
Page 22
Chapter2: Literature Review
Furthermore, part of this holistic evaluation of collaboration could be also
perceived the normative framework of Timothy (1998). This framework assumes and
recognises the need for different levels of cooperation, at least in the regional tourism
development, since tourism is viewed as an interrelated system (i.e. transportation,
accommodation, promotion, attractions, information and so on)(ibid). So, four different
types of simultaneous cooperation need to exist (Look at Figure 2.4), in order to
implement successful integrative tourism development. These are “cooperation between
government agencies, cooperation between levels of administration, cooperation between
same –level polities and private-and public sector cooperation” (Timothy, 1998, p.54).
These forms of cooperation could secure smooth, coherent, equitable and efficient
operations that minimise conflicts, costs and degree of redundancy in the implementation
of national and regional policies (Timothy, 1998). Interestingly, Hall opined in 1994 that
“coordination is necessary both within and between the different levels of government, in
order to avoid duplication in the various government tourism bodies and the private
sector and to develop effective tourism strategies” (ibid, p. 55). On top of that, Timothy
stated later on that “partnerships between the same-level polities are important,
particularly when natural and cultural resources lie across political boundaries, as they
can prevent the over-utilisation or under-utilisation of resources and eliminate some of
the apparent economic, social, and environmental imbalances(1999, p.184)
Page 23
Chapter2: Literature Review
Cooperative Tourism Planning
Private-and public-sector cooperation
Cooperation between same levels polities
Cooperation between levels of administration
Cooperation between government agencies
Figure 2.4: The four types of cooperation necessary for the development of successful integrative tourism
From this debate, apart from the types of collaboration, also the ‘nature’ of
collaboration should not be ignored. Hence, the writer brings forward the already
mentioned Mandell’s continuum of collaboration and partnerships, as a mechanism that
involves a whole range of relationships and is comprised by a sum of stages where
collaborative efforts evolve and progress over time (Ladkin and Martinez- Bertramini,
2002). Thus, Mandell described partnerships in his paper, as “the linkages or interactive
contacts between two or more organisations, intermittent co-ordinations or mutual
adjustment of the policies and procedures of two or more actors to accomplish some
objective, ad hoc or temporary task-force activity among actors to accomplish a purpose
or purposes, permanent and/or regular coordination between two or more actors through a
formal arrangement (e.g. a council) to engage in limited activity to achieve a purpose or
purposes, a coalition where interdependent and strategic actions are taken, but where
purposes are narrow in scope and all actions occur within the participants themselves or
involve the sequential or simultaneous activity of the participants, a collective network
structure where there is a broad mission and joint and strategically interdependent
action”(1999, p.6).
2.4.2 Community based planning
Page 24
Chapter2: Literature Review
Aside from collaboration planning, integrative planning has been also emerged,
that shares almost the same collective values with the former. In reality, integrative
planning supports the integration of tourism into the overall plan and total development
strategy of a country or region developed at higher levels (Timothy, 1998, p. 52). Indeed,
local governments attempt often to integrate themselves in the wider development
context, with the aim to establish greater market presence through developing and
strengthening regional relations and by taking part in programmes, as induced by the top
hierarchical government forces (Dredge, 2001). Certainly, despite the commonalities of
collaboration and integrative planning, it has been critically stated that “it is impossible to
consider all elements in the planning process […] at once; [therefore] the introduction of
alternative approaches, such as community based planning has been a response to its
recognised deficiencies”.
For instance, bear in mind that “rural tourism does not develop in a vacuum
[rather] it is embedded in a given social, political and historical context” (Verbole, 2000,
p. 479), where the “needs, demands, and values of [various] actors [could affect] the
ecological, economic, and sociocultural resources of destinations” (Jamal and Getz, 1999,
p.290). Such collective planning aids the representation of various public interests and
foremost the public good in particular, through community and the wider stakeholder
involvement, as being part of the ‘bottom- up’ developmental approach (Reed, 1997). At
the start though of this discussion about community based planning and with the
overwhelming goal of preciseness, the writer ought to clarify the vague ‘community’
term. From the tourism perspective, community can be defined in terms of “a
geographical area […] as citizens within a given locality, [otherwise it could be defined]
as a group of people with shared interests and origins, [such as a local] business sector”
(Aas et al, 2005, p. 30).
Consequently, community based planning is a mechanism addressed to “harness
citizen or [community’s] opinion about development issues […] [in emergent tourism
settings] […] and is subject to the expression of power relations in different policy
Page 25
Chapter2: Literature Review arenas” (Reed, 1997, p. 573). Respectively, this is the key distinctive point of community
based planning, in comparison with the rest of planning forms, because it accepts
community or locals as being part of the tourist product and recognises that if
development planning eschews from local aspirations and goodwill then the viability and
success of the tourism destination is inevitably in danger (Murphy, 1988). Prima facie
this planning form indicates a reversion of the norm that “local people and communities
[used to be] […] the objects of the development but not the subject of it (Mitchel and
Reid, 2001, p.114). With no doubt, this statement implies locals’ empowerment in terms
of tourism planning, as well as a decentralized, active, and equitable role of locals in the
decision making process, where “planned intervention cannot be necessarily ‘top-down’
or externally organised”(Verbole, 2000, p. 480). This position though does not exclude
from the planning process government authorities nor external bodies, rather it proclaims
thriving democratic cooperative and collaborative approaches in planning that could take
place, for instance in emergent tourism settings, which are “characterised by the presence
of numerous organisations and lack of a well defined inter-organisational process” (Jamal
and Getz, 1995, p. 196).
The writer may also say that all those authors seem likely to agree with what
Murphy noted in the middle of 80’s that “if tourism is to become successful and self
perpetuating industry many have advocated, it needs to be planned and managed as a
renewable resource industry based on local capacities and community decision making”
(1985, as cited by Hall, 2000, p. 33). Fundamentally, this quote raises simultaneously
issues about the community based planning and the sustainable tourism development,
which contradict with the conventional ethos of tourism and highlight the socially and
ecologically benignity of tourism activities that aimed to avoid stakeholder conflicts,
balance tourism development growth, secure the long term viability of resources and
tourist’s satisfaction (Holden, 2000). So, in order to achieve sustainable rural
development it is prompt to secure the full supportiveness of rural community; however
“who really decides, who participates and at the end who benefits and who loses in rural
tourism development” (Verbole, 2000, p.480) are crucial raised questions, as
‘communities’ are with no doubt heterogeneous entities. Under these circumstances, it
Page 26
Chapter2: Literature Review seems that tourism developers ought to adopt the notion of a ‘win- win’ situation, in
terms of distributing equally costs and benefits for the destination itself, its residents, its
stakeholders and the final recipients its tourists (Mitchel and Reid, 2001).
Here, the writer takes the initiative to match in some way the community based
planning with the leftist approach as originated from the third way’s bipolar view of
tourism planning approaches (Burns, 2004) (Look at the Table 2.2). Certainly, those two
approaches seem likely to fit, since the leftist approach relies on local people and
knowledge that used to drive tourism goals. The leftist approach assumes a community
with a high level of tourism control and management; a broad based and open-democratic
structure; an equitable decision making process; a high degree of individual participation
in decision making and a high amount of local ownership(Mitchel, 1998, as cited by
Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p.2). Last but not least Timothy (1999) has introduced in his
article (Look at Figure 2.5) a simplistic normative model of participatory tourism
planning, which embraces the involvement of community in decision making process,
the distribution of tourism benefits to the locals and most importantly the education of the
locality. Noteworthy, the latter one according to Timothy might work as a mean, which
could optimize the great potential of tourism towards the strengthened community at the
professional, vocational and entrepreneurial levels (1999).
.
Figure 2.5: A Normative Model of Participatory Tourism Planning (as obtained from
Timothy, 1998, p.372).
The leftist “ Development First” The rightist “ Tourism First"
Page 27
Chapter2: Literature Review Sustainable human development
Tourism-as-system
Tourism-as-culture
Modern World System
Periphery
Underdevelopment
Aiming for an independent, differentiated
destination with minimal dependency on the
core. Focus on sustainable human
development goals as defined by local
people and local knowledge. The key
question driving development is “what can
tourism give us without harming us?”
Holistic
Economic enlargement
Tourism-as-industry
Tourism-as-consumerism
Globalization
Core
Modernization
Aiming to maximize market spread through
familiarity of the product, undifferentiated,
homogenized product development on core
with a focus on tourism goals set by outside
planners and the international tourism
industry
Economistic
Table 2.2: Bipolar View of tourism planning approaches Burns 2004 (as obtained from
Jamal and Lagiewski, 2000, p.1).
In flow with the aforementioned and despite the assertion of Murphy (1988) about
the importance of involving primarily the community, as key stakeholders in the tourism
destination development process (Hall, 1999), tourism industry seemed, so far, to form
partnerships with just a few community based groups and not with the wider public
community, which reflects more or less tokenism rather than real power of community
members (Arnstein, 1969) (ibid). This situation portrays oversimplified and in first hand
the difficulty to implement community based planning in absolute terms. That arises
from the lack of political will and resistance of government authorities. Often, they used
to perceive antagonistically community’s empowerement and that position could be
interpreted from their side, as a loss of power and control over the planning and
development process (Hall, 2000).
Page 28
Chapter2: Literature Review
On top of that, significant pressures could be exerted from the private interests
towards authorities to avoid such kind of partnerships, since it is transparent, in their eyes
at least, that community involvement might cause meaningless and costly postponement
of the implementation of the planning process (ibid). Nevertheless, community based
planning is not impeded solely by the public authorities and the private interests, but also
by the community itself. Interestingly, Hall has presented seven constraints of public
participation in tourism planning as identified by Jenkins in 1993 “the public generally
has difficulty in comprehending complex and technical planning issues; the public is not
always aware of or understands the decision making process; the difficulty in attaining
and maintaining representativeness in the decision making process; the apathy of citizens;
the increased costs in terms of staff and money; the prolonging of the decision making
process; and adverse effects on the efficiency of decision making” (2000, p. 32).
In every case, “the over-centralized public administration structure, the wide-
spread patron–client relationship, the elitist approach to democracy and development, and
the unequal income distribution” (Tosun, 2006, p. 503) reflect usually the dominant
socioeconomic conditions of a given country, which seem to constrain the ad hoc equal
community participation in policy and planning of a given destination, region or a
country. This situation contradicts with the assumption that the planning and policy
process is pluralistic and that all people have the same access to economic and political
resources (Reed, 1997). Therein, lies the challenge of empowering and developing the
community’s skills with the aim to bring locals at the forefront and enhance their
capabilities to combat with all the granted adversities arisen from the status quo and then
to make well informed decisions. Such as, the Indonesian Ecotourism Network that used
to work as a mechanism which raises awareness and supplies training material about
community participation in ecotourism and a booklet on how to become a well skilled
eco-guider (Scheyvens, 2002).
This author follows the same path with Pearce (1995) and Timothy (1999), where
they opined that education of host communities is vital for the socially sustainable
tourism development and evolves and changes over the different phases of development
Page 29
Chapter2: Literature Review process. For instance, during the pre-development phase NGOs, local authorities or
private investors could involve communities in a market survey, which meant to verify
“whether or not a proposed tourism venture will actually be viable, in the form in which
it is planned” (Scheyvens, 2002, p. 214). Apart from market research, locals might be
also engaged with evaluating and studying other tourism sites, with the aim to collect
dispersed information about benefits and pitfalls of particular forms of tourism and
planning (Scheyvens, 2002). Interestingly, Mitchel and Reid in 2001, along with their
analysis of community integration and the dynamic triangle of public participation
(awareness, unity and power), characterised additively the above method as the
“conscientisation of people” (p.136).
Thus, when developers or local authorities build community capacity through
education and rise of self awareness, then community members could “undertake projects
with independence and skill” (Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p. 2), or they could simply
“participate or negotiate collaboration” (Aas, 2005, p. 43), as well as they could “monitor
tourism development and lobby or protest for change” (Scheyvens, 2002, p. 230), when
tourism reaches social and environmental degradation levels. Indeed, Sadan and
Churchman argued that “community planning is a purposeful activity designed […] by
any professional [i.e.] town planner, rural developer, community organiser,[or] educator,
[which aimed] to build a new community or help strengthen an existing one, either in
social and or physical terms” (1997, p.4). Apart from education as such, there are many
other techniques directed to involve and inform stakeholders in tourism planning “the
drop in centres, the nominal group technique sessions, citizen surveys, focus groups,
citizen task forces and consensus building meetings”(Yuksel and Bramwell,1999, p.351).
Aggregately, all the aforementioned imply that community based tourism planning is a
process underpinned mainly by the principle of equity and in turn empowers intrinsically
the community (Bahaire and Elliott-White, 1999).
Meanwhile, community participation in policy-making and planning involves
changing citizen power relationships with other stakeholders, such as state and reflects
existing structures of the society, within which tourism planning and development takes
Page 30
Chapter2: Literature Review place (Bahaire and Elliott-White, 1999). Much earlier, Arnstein in his attempt to answer
the ambiguous question of what is citizen participation, he described it as “the
redistribution of power that enables the ‘have-not’ citizens, presently excluded from the
political and economic processes to be deliberately included in the future; it is the
strategy by which the ‘have- nots’ join in determining how information is shared, goals
and policies are set, programmes are operated and benefits […] are parceled out” (1969,
p. 216). Nevertheless, not all the forms of citizen participation can contribute to the same
realisation of benefits as arisen from tourism, since community participation ranges from
manipulative participation to citizen power(Tosun, 2006). In addition, Arnstein (1969),
Pretty (1995) and Tosun (2006) have employed the ladder metaphor that encapsulates
different forms of participation at different levels (Look at Figure 2.6). “This metaphor
retains intuitive appeal and alerts us to degrees of participation and what is ‘offered’ by
planning authorities or demanded by citizens (Bahaire and Elliott-White, 1999, pp. 246-
7)”. So the following figure summarises different interrelated typologies of community
participation, and covers a wide spectrum of it, ranging from the passive to the more
interactive, note though that only the most current typology has been exclusively
designed for the tourism domain (Tosun, 2006).
Figure 2.6 Normative typologies of community participation (as obtained from Tosun,
2006, p. 494).
Page 31
Chapter2: Literature Review
In brief, Arnstein (1971) has presented in his model eight different levels of
citizen participation, which have been classified into three different categories the lowest
category refers to the non- participation or with other words the manipulative
participation, the middle one refers to the degrees of citizen tokenism, and finally the
highest one which refers to the degrees of citizen power (Tosun, 2006). In line with the
Arnstein’s model, Pretty (1995) has described seven levels of community participation
ranging from manipulative participation to self-mobilization (ibid). Later on, Tosun, in
response to the aforementioned, ended up into three new main types of community
participation the spontaneous, the coercive and the induced community participation
(ibid). This model has been conceptualized from the basis that participation in tourism
varies considerably, because of the presence of various interest groups with different
levels of power, objectives and expectations, which in turn influence the attitudes and
predisposition towards community participation. In fact, when Tosun applied this model
to the Ürgüp and Ankara locations, he concluded that “representatives of private sector
and respondents from central bodies are opposed to community participation in any form,
and that local agencies support community participation at general consultative level but
oppose community participation at a decisive level”(2006, p. 501). So, in many cases, the
processes of planning, which might involve communities are ongoing processes of
adaptation, where networks and coalitions are formed with the aim to shape other
commences (Ryan, 2002).
Lastly, even if “resident responsive [or with other words community based]
tourism (CBT) is the watchword for tomorrow” (Ritchie, 1999, p. 206), Blackstock does
not hesitate to criticize heavily the community based tourism as being “unrealistic and
naïve” (2005, p.45). The author denotes that “although CBT uses the discource of
community development, [in reality it] sidesteps community development’s social
traditions of social justice and local empowerement,[…] [since it] focuses on maximizing
the economic stability of the industry”(ibid). This comes from the observation that
usually tourism development has been legitimized as being locally controlled and
responsive to community’s interests, although in reality just a few communities are
capable to protect their visions and interests from global, national and regional monetary
Page 32
Chapter2: Literature Review interests (Blackstock, 2005). In conclusion, the writer comments that it is up to
audience’s willingness to explore thoroughly the vast concept of CBT, where there is a
plethora of articles and lots of space for further divergent interpretations and conclusions.
2.5 Actors, Power and, Policy Networks.
As it was mentioned earlier tourism planning is maturing as a discipline, where
new approaches emerge that “place emphasis on the coordination of private and public
sector organisations[…] and bring public participation right into the core of the decision
making process”(Buhalis and Costa, 2006,p.168). Additionally, Hall drew in his paper,
the ideal collaborative approach towards tourism planning that involves a wide set of
stakeholders excluding the corporatist perspective, which will meet the public interest
(1999). In reality, those powerful groups, who share common discourses about
developments and politics form coalitions with the aim to dominate the decision making
process (Bramwell, 2006). Accordingly, coordination of the tourism policy planning
process and its involved parties hardly succeeds, since it is loosely arranged and foremost
it is a political activity (Hall, 1999). Nevertheless, it is imperative a negotiated order to
prevail amongst multiple stakeholders in the undoubtedly complex planning systems- the
destinations (Jamal and Getz, 1995), despite the apparent conflicts derived from local
power structures that could possibly hamper the effectiveness of the planning effort, as a
whole(Reed, 1999). Hence, those who are engaged in the debate about collaboration and
tourism planning issues within a destination, should not be silent about the dimensions of
power (Jamal and Getz, 1995), rather they should take an actor- oriented perspective that
recognises rural tourism development and policy making as “a dynamic, ongoing process
that is shaped and reshaped by social actors” (Verbole, 2000, p. 485).
At this stage, should be re-stated that tourism development and planning is not
immune from the influence of interest groups-actors who seek to serve their own goals
(Hall and Jenkins, 1995). Hall opined in 1999 that “business groups tend to dominate the
policy process through the exclusion and detriment of other interests […] [without
substituting] the formal powers of governments” (p.281). To do so, they need to exert
Page 33
Chapter2: Literature Review their power over the weaker actors. Reed defines power “as the ability to impose one’s
will or advance one’s own interest” (1997, p. 567). Indeed, individuals or groups based
on their source of power (e.g. monetary resources) originated from formal or informal
structures tend to communicate with others through media about their goals and
objectives and thereby they persuade or coerce them to implement their own will or
courses of action (Marzano and Scott, 2005). Therein, Freire notes that “the greater the
political immaturity of these people […] the more easily they can be manipulated by the
dominant elites who do not wish to lose their power” (1970, as cited by Mitchel and Reid,
2001, p.118). However, sooner or later power imbalances could inhibit the success of any
decisions and that of collaborative efforts (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Nonetheless, Reed
states that “power […] could be managed and balanced [adequately by] […] identifying a
suitable [and representative] convener at an early stage in the collaborative planning
process” (1997, p. 569).
Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that philosophically wise collaborative
planning can be traced back in Habermas’ propositions of communicative action that
conveys consensus among actors, who share common understanding and make trade-offs
about alternative views(Dredge, 2006). Nevertheless, Flyvberg criticized communicative
action as an oversimplified perspective that ignores Foucault’s rationale about
omnipresence power in all human affairs (ibid; Cheong and Miller, 2000). For instance,
Foucault stated that “power exists between every point of a social body, between a man a
woman, between the members of a family, between a master and a pupil” (1980d,
Cheong and Miller, 2000, p. 375). In present time, Bramwell and Meyer state that power
emerges from social relationships, such as actors’ negotiations about tourism
development, and preserves from the distribution of resources, reputation and
competition (2007). However, Foucault “holds no idealized vision of democracy […],
[since issues such as] negotiation and compromise [are often bypassed] and actors could
be included or excluded [from the public debate] as part of the everyday politics, where
speech is never completely open or free of influence and people don’t always act for the
rational good”(Dredge, 2006, p.569). Therefore, there will always be questionable,
whether the involved stakeholders, in the collaborative planning and development, are
Page 34
Chapter2: Literature Review representative of all those, who will be inevitably affected by the emergent tourism
settings or projects (Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell, 1999).
Thereinafter, those who support the need for an increased collaboration in the
planning process share the basic premise of involving all people affected by tourism
development (Jamal and Getz, 1995). Such argument is highly interrelated with the
principles of stakeholder theory that could promote collaboration (Sauter and Leisen,
1999). Freeman suggested that an organisation, metaphorically the destination tourism
development, is characterised by relationships with a series of stakeholder groups and
individuals (Look at Figure 2.7), who can affect or could be affected by the achievement
of certain objectives or goals of the destination (ibid). “From a managerial perspective,
the stakeholder theory posits that the various groups can and should have a direct
influence on managerial decision-making “(ibid, p.313), with a prerequisite to pay
attention to the genuine interest of stakeholders that exceeds in many cases the tourism
scope. In order collaboration to be successful, there is a need to identify shared values
(Reed, 1997) among them that will support the adoption of a consensus model in the
early stages of collaborative development, where the perspective of the most polarized
stakeholders will be considered (Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell, 1999).
. Figure 2.7 Tourism Stakeholder Map, (Freeman, 1984 as obtained from Sauter and Leisen, 1999, p.315)
Page 35
Chapter2: Literature Review
On top of that, “Long suggested in 2001 that when social actors pursue projects
they [tend to] form directly or indirectly networks with others […] based on similar
interests, values, or strategies and on struggles over their differing perspectives”
(Bramwell, 2006, p. 960). Occasionally that occurs also in the public policy domain e.g.
the tourism related policy networks, where boundaries among involved parties blur and in
a political frame, discussion and negotiation take place about policy issues (Bramwell
and Meyer, 2007).Generally speaking, there was the belief that networks, the supposedly
extending format of collaborative planning, result through the connection of multiple
stakeholder relations, a much more powerful outcome against the confronting
relationships, than the random individual efforts (Dredge, 2006; Bramwell and Meyer,
2007, Andriof et al., 2002). So, simplistically “a network is a specific type of relations
linking a set of persons, objects or events” (Knoke and Kuklinski, 1983, as cited by
Tinsley and Lynch, 2001, p. 368). Crucially, these networked relationships could be
sustained primarily with the presence of social capital. Andriof et al. characterised the
social capital as being “the glue of connectivity” (2002, p. 27) among human relations,
where trust dominates among them, after focusing on areas of agreement, common
visioning and understanding (Jamal et al., 2002). Nevertheless, this does not mean that in
development areas, blockers of development will disappear magically. Therefore, in this
networked era, stakeholder mapping could be a useful management tool to plan strategies
and set political priorities in terms of stakeholders (Marwick 2000, p.522). Hence,
development planners could explore Figure (2.8) that could help them to facilitate
stakeholder targeting and then to reposition or empower certain key stakeholders.
Page 36
Chapter2: Literature Review
Figure 2.8: Stakeholder mapping: The power/interest matrix, (Marwick 2000, p.522).
Page 37
Chapter3: Methodology
Chapter 3
This dissertation is a case study of the territory Sitia, in Crete, which will examine
its tourism development and policy planning practices with an initial focus upon the non
satisfactory progress of the private initiated mega-resort project of Cavo Sidero.
3.1 Introduction
Gratton and Jones (2004, p. 4) define research “as a systematic process of
discovery and advancement of human knowledge”. So, this section will identify and
justify the research philosophy and strategy, the sample of people will also be identified,
the data collection methods will be described and finally the limitations and ethics of the
research will be presented. It would be helpful to make initially an overview of the
research question and objectives of this study.
The already defined research question: “whether exists any democratized and
coordinated approach of tourism planning and development in Sitia that could possibly
solve problems, such as conflicts and preserve Sitia’s social and environmental
sustainability.” So, the objectives of this research are:
i. Explore whether organisational and non-organisational bodies share the sense of
common purpose and vision.
ii. Explore how the Greek government participates in Sitia’s tourism development
and evaluate its collaborative stance.
Page 37
Chapter3: Methodology
iii. Understand how stakeholders perceive collaboration and community- based
planning and investigate actors’ representation and involvement within the
planning and development process
iv. Explore why the tourism development and planning process have not been
democratized in this emergent tourism settings and how it could be done.
v. Understand how consensus making is affected by power differentials.
3.2 Research design
As it was mentioned earlier, the writer, in this present study, will undertake a
case study research. That “involves the intensive study of a specific case” (Gratton and
Jones, 2004, p. 4), an organisation, a destination and so on. In more details, case study
research has been defined by Robson “as a strategy for doing research which involves
an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life
context using multiple sources of evidence” (1993, as cited from the Research
Observatory). In connection to this, the writer shall focus on Sitia and will examine
thoroughly the nature of planning and development activities, whilst seeking to answer
how and why questions (Rowley, 2002). “Case study research is useful, when a how or
why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the
investigator has little or no control (Yin, 1994, p. 9)”.
Furthermore, the almost a decade postponement of the project’s completion in
Cavo Sidero led to the exploration of issues that surround the existing national or local
policy planning approaches, which advocates apparently the adoption of an exploratory
research path. The following table (Look at Table 3.1) summarises the main
characteristics of exploratory research. Herein, the readers of this study should consider
that “the majority of exploratory research has its primary objective of the provision of
insights into and comprehension of the problem situation confronting the researcher
(Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p.76)”. Sitia’s tourism market could be still characterised as
embryonic, that contradicts heavily with the dominant trends across the rest almost
Page 38
Chapter3: Methodology
saturated island (Andriotis, 2001). Therefore, the results of this research might provide
some insights upon the contemporary phenomenon and could bring forward some new
valuable perspectives.
Exploratory nature of Research
Objective To provide insights and understanding of the
nature of phenomena.
Characteristics
Information needed may loosely defined
Research process is flexible, unstructured
and may evolve.
Samples are small
Data analysis can be qualitative or
quantitative
Methods
Expert surveys
Pilot surveys
Secondary data
Qualitative methods
Unstructured Observations
Quantitative exploratory multivariate
methods
Table 3.1 Exploratory research, (as obtained from Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p. 76).
The writer, in his attempt to gain sufficient and valid insights from the research,
will seek to explore the most powerful actors about values, beliefs, attitudes and different
perspectives within the destination system. In the case studies, the commonly employed
data collection methods are “questionnaires, interviews, observation, and documentary
analysis (Saunders et al. 2003, p. 93)”. Nevertheless, in this paper, observations and
Page 39
Chapter3: Methodology
questionnaires, due to time constraints have been excluded. In a manner of speaking, this
study is based upon primary and secondary data, where the writer follows the qualitative
research stream. In particular, it could be said that this tourism related paper is an
descriptive phenomenological and in some cases interpretive study which distances itself
from the “the bonds of realism and positivism (Bate, 1997) and recognises the inherent
complexity and multiculturality, the paradox and contradiction, the competing values and
contests of meaning that characterise the […]” (Gurney and Humphreys, 2006, p. 86)
multi-stakeholder environments with apparent power differentials. This means that
qualitative research is an approach that leads towards the so called verstehen notion,
where it describes and explains how people live and articulate the socially constructed
reality (Johnson et al., 2006).
3.3 Qualitative research
According to Denzin and Lincoln qualitative research is defined as, “multi-
method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter”
(1994 as cited by Riley and Love, 2000, p.168). This means that “qualitative researchers
study phenomena in the environments in which they naturally occur and uses social
actors’ meanings to understand the phenomena” (Gephart, 2004, p. 455). Hence, the
understanding of a phenomenon involves not solely researchers’ interpretation rather it
should consider actors’ interpretation of their own situation that indicates more or less the
double hermeneutic notion of interpretivism (Giddens, 1984, as cited by
Nandhakumar&Jones, 1997). Overall, qualitative research seeks to “humanize problems
and gaining an emic or insider’s perspective” (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004, p. 4),
whilst hoping to communicate those results to the outsider world.
Nevertheless, this does not mean generalizing data from one context across the
entire social world (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004). So far, “qualitative research has
distanced itself from its positivistic past” (Jensen & Lauritsen, 2005, p.61) and
researchers tend to adopt “a non positivist model of reality” (Silverman, 2005, p.9),
where they do reject the one and objective truth with “universal laws” (Davies, 2003, p.
Page 40
Chapter3: Methodology
102). Respectively, consider the present study; it would be naïve to assume that the
outcome of this research could be applicable to the rest of the world, since Sitia does not
fit, by definition, in the developed nor in the developing world rather somewhere in
between, where unique socio-economic and cultural conditions prevail. On top of that
the writer will decode and translate (Van Maanen, 1983) the intersubjectivity and
idiosyncrasies of actors (Rapport, 2000) via the contribution of interviews, informal chats
and other secondary sources of data, as it seeks to achieve the understanding and the
“thick description of a community’s interworked systems of […] signs” (Geertz, 1973, as
cited by Smart, 1998, p.113) and structures of “concealed meanings” (Rapport, 2000,
p.219). That is of great importance, within the problematic situation in Sitia, since people
could communicate and explore their differences of their visions and beliefs about
tourism development and planning, thereinafter it could improve their reciprocal
relationships, collaboration and finally reduce the distracting conflicts (Elmendorf and
Luloff, 2001).
At the meantime, experts- scientists demand a methodological rigidity and a
theoretical embodiment across the research project that will secure its scientific façade
(Dixon-Woods& Fitzpatrick, 2001); otherwise the rigor and validity of qualitative
research paper will be considered as being dubious (Decrop, 1999). That position though
might exert pressures on the researcher to conform to the scientific taken for granted
criteriology of goodness, which inevitably could sacrifice researchers’ creativity and
artful orientation (Whittemore et al., 2001; Dixon-Woods& Fitzpatrick, 2001). Bear in
mind though that any researcher distant from the conventional ethos appears as being
more flexible and capable of shifting from one research method to another, and often by
adopting different overtones of research, always though for researcher’s own sake and the
flourishment of its project. In this paper, despite Fetterman’s assertion in 1989 that “no
study, qualitative or otherwise can be conducted without an underlying theory or model”
(O’ Donnel and Cummins, 1999, p. 84), the writer followed loosely instead the three
staged framework of scope, intensity and degree of consensus (Bramwell and Sharman,
1999) and many other models, since the domain of tourism policy making and
development is so vast and complex that an exclusive adoption of particular model will
Page 41
Chapter3: Methodology
restrain the plurality and the “insightful description”(Hammersley, 2001) of the
phenomenon. In order to prevent criticism, the writer would rather say that the validity of
a study depends primarily on the understanding and interpretation of the phenomenon
(Page, 1997) and not on its objectivity and its methodological rigidity, therefore the
reader-audience ought to adopt the “perspective of the oppressed than the oppressor”
(Hammersley, 2001, p. 91).
3.3.1 Qualitative research (justification of choice)
The decision to adopt a qualitative research methodology was based on several
considerations:
“Qualitative research is ideal for gaining deeper and different insight and
understanding of behaviours, attitudes and fillings[…]especially when the
purpose of the research is to gain insight rather than prove something to be
true or false” (Lehmann et al., 1998, p.130)
The aim of the research was to gain a holistic view of the area under study
(Malhotra and Birks, 2000).
The notions of collaboration and community involvement, within the public
policy and tourism development domain in Greece, are almost conceptually
strange in locals’ and authoritative actors’ conscious; therefore the research
might gain out of it some deeper points.
Additionally, their nature is very complex and has various theoretical and
practical connotations, such as stakeholder theory, power, tourism as such,
social sustainability and so on, therefore quantifiable data might not be able
capture this multidimensional topic adequately (Malhotra and Birks, 2000).
Overall, the qualitative research and particular the interpretive paradigm aims to
promote the understanding of the tourism world not from the narrow sense of a business
world where the key social actors are only tourists and tourism providers, instead by
Page 42
Chapter3: Methodology
considering all the affected stakeholders from operations of the tourism environment,
such as tourism employees, local authorities, communities and so on (Tribe, 2001).
Additionally, this alternative research method “involves the studied use and collection of
a variety of empirical materials-case study, personal experience, life history, interview,
observational, historical, interactional and visual texts-that describe routine and
problematic moments and meanings in individual’s life”(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, as
cited by Riley and Love, 2000, p.168). Therefore, the researcher through the use of
interconnected interpretive methods and whilst taking into account stakeholders’
subjectivity, ethics, values and politics could be seen as a “bricoleur who pieces together
sets of practices to make a solution of a puzzle” (Phillimore and Goodson, 2004, p.34).
3.4 In- depth and Semi-structured interviews (justification of choice)
Semi-structured or in-depth interviews were chosen as appropriate methods to
accomplish the aims of this study, since interviewing enhances the understanding “of
other people’s experience and the meaning they make of that experience” (Phillimore and
Goodson, 2004, p.221). To start with, in-depth interview could be defined as “an
unstructured, direct, personal interview in which extensive probing is used to get a single
responded to talk freely and to express detailed beliefs, attitudes and feelings on a
topic ”(Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p.80), where usually predetermined list of questions are
not used (Saunders et al., 2003). In terms of the semi- structured interviews, “the
interviewer commences with a set of interview themes, but is prepared to vary the order
in which the questions are asked and to ask new question in the context of the research
situation” (ibid p.489). In a first glance, in-depth interview does not differ a lot from the
principles of a depth or semi structured interview, since both of them adopt a flexible
approach of data collection (Gratton & Jones, 2004). In this paper, in- depth interviews
took place most of the time; however in some cases semi-structured interviews were
adopted, due to the absence of rapport among the interviewer and the interviewee. This
bipolar choice conforms to Saunders’s (2003) proposition (Look at Table 3.2), especially
when bearing in mind the exploratory nature of this study.
Page 43
Chapter3: Methodology
Exploratory Descriptive Explanatory Structured
Semi-structured
In-depth
= more frequent = less frequent
Table 3.2: Uses of different types of interview in each of the main research categories (as
obtained from Saunders et al., 2003, p. 248)
Overall, the reasons that led the writer to choose in-depth and semi-structured
interviews are the opportunities of:
Interviewing authoritative and professional people, known also as “key
informants that can provide rich and spontaneous replies to open ended
questions” (Elmendorf and Luloff, 2001, p. 142) that will inevitably illustrate
in a close up the social reality;
Detailed understanding of complicated issues((Malhotra & Birks, 2000);
“Uncovering great depth of insights”(ibid, p.182);
“Attributing responses directly to the respondent”(ibid);
Allowing researchers to be flexible with questions and at the same time
allowing participants to express themselves as they like;
Clarifying misunderstandings and obtain further explanations;
Probing spontaneously for further information through subsidiary questions
(Gratton & Jones, 2004);
“Sampling advantages as it gains greater control over respondent selection,
and hence, more depth, context, and flexibility in the process of inquiry”
(Cassell and Symon, 2004, as cited by Stokes and Bergin, 2006, p.29)
“Improving the quality of the data, whilst building a close rapport and a high
degree of trust” (Webb, 1995 as cited by Stokes and Bergin, 2006, p.29);
Page 44
Chapter3: Methodology
Observing indirectly respondents’ characteristics, during the contact zone
which will support holistically the data analysis.
Nevertheless, with the adoption of an in-depth and semi-structured interview
certain drawbacks occur:
Problems of reliability; there is the danger the interview to be driven from the
respondent instead of the interviewer (Bryman & Bell, 2003). Indeed, the
writer, during the first interview, experienced the difficulty of not ‘imposing’
the interview procedures to the non cooperative enough participant; as a result
the interview lasted no more than 18 minutes and more or less the interviewee
spent his time on technocratic and legally issues.
The quality of the collected data depends heavily upon the skills of the
interviewer, meaning both experience as well as knowledge background.
Often the lack of experience might cause some frustration to the researcher in
his attempt to prevent any mistakes or biases (Russell, 2005), as well as it
could diminish the objective or subjective reality of a phenomenon.
Nevertheless, the lack of experience is not necessarily a bad thing, since it
keeps the researcher in a mood of alertness that makes him very flexible and
adaptive.
Often, the unstructured data collection could make the results vulnerable to
the interviewer’s personal idiosyncrasy, where critical readership is
imperative (Seale, 1999).
Finally, “developing an interview guide, carrying out interviews and analysing
their transcripts are all highly time consuming activities for the
researcher”(Cassel and Symon, 2004, p.21)
3. 5 Format and context of interview questions
The format and the context of the enclosed questions of an interview will
determine heavily, whether the researcher will meet the ad hoc predetermined objectives
Page 45
Chapter3: Methodology
of the research. Comprehensively Saunders et al. (2003) described in their book Bourque
and Clark’s (1994) assertion on how researchers tend to formulate the questions of their
research. They acknowledged that researchers used to “adopt or adapt” (p. 213) questions,
which were used in the past, as well as they used to “form their own questions” (ibid) that
seek to trace precisely the solution of a problematic phenomenon. Sometimes it is more
efficient to adopt or adapt questions than developing your own (ibid). On top of that
existed questions might be very helpful to every researcher, since they could entail
different perspectives that the researcher might have not think of them before. Thus, the
writer borrowed some questions from the existed literature. For instance the writer
obtained valuable questions from Bramwell and Sharman’s analysis of their 3- staged
framework. Additionally, the writer has to admit that the published questions from the
OECD in the Tourism Committee about “Regional Policy and Tourism” in October 1999
were of great value too.
3.6 Data Collection
The first interview took place in 18th of July in 2007 in the Ministry of Tourism
with the Chairman of Greek Tourism Development. The researcher aimed primarily to
get a first hand idea of the all the relevant stakeholders, who could intervene or be
affected by tourism development activities such as the current Cavo Sidero mega-project.
So the respondent, when replying to a series of probing questions, contributed mostly to
stakeholder mapping or identification of key informants that have been used, later on, as
a basis for further sampling for this study. Indeed this particular interviewee answered
more or less the following questions as being part of an open discussion and not of an in-
depth or semi-structured interview: “Who is needed? Who has been traditionally involved
or ignored? Who will be affected? Who is interested and who is already informed?”
(Elmendorf and Luloff, 2001, p.145) During this interview, the researcher felt, very
frustrated, constrained, and not productive enough, since it was very difficult to
overcome the interviewee’s suspicion and skepticism about the writer’s partisan ideology
and ‘professional’ status. Unfortunately, the fact that the researcher raised issues about
Page 46
Chapter3: Methodology
Sitia, a territory with the strongest political opposition within the country, towards the
present Government, made the Chairman less cooperative.
At the meantime, a sample or a subset of a specific population needs to be chosen
for the implementation of this study (Gratton & Jones, 2004). Respectively, the
researcher adopted “non- probability sampling […] based on personal judgement
(Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p. 352)”. This judgmental sampling takes often the form of a
snowball procedure that is the least time consuming and the most convenient method.
Initially some stakeholders were chosen from the stakeholder mapping, which was drawn
during the first interview. Beyond this, some informants have been preferred “on the
basis of their organisational and community positions, reputations, knowledge of the
issues under study, or the fact that they are individuals described by others as knowing a
lot about this place or thing” (Elmendorf and Luloff, 2001, p.142). Another important
criterion was to verify people’s willingness to participate in this investigation.
Nevertheless, despite the writer’s intention to present a truly representative sample of
primary stakeholders none was interviewed from the Minoan PLC company.
In more details, a total of 9 interviews were conducted between 18/07/2007 and
31/07/2007 in the territory of Sitia after arranging appointments with each of the
identified key informants. Those interviews varied in length from 18 minutes to 106
minutes and averaged approximately 42 minutes. In the beginning of those interviews the
researcher stated the purpose of this study and then explained how the process would be
like, as a response to the arisen inefficiencies from the first interview-conversation. In
addition, participants were encouraged to analyse relevant issues to the topic; some of
them were overenthusiastic and supplied the researcher with a decent amount of
secondary data. From those interviews some of them were unstructured, others were
semi-structured and two of them could be characterised simply as conversations.
Chairman of Greek Tourism Development: Conversation=Interviewee 1
Prefect of Lasithi: Unstructured Interview= Interviewee 2
Mayor of Sitia: Semi-structured Interview= Interviewee 3
Page 47
Chapter3: Methodology
Ex mayor of Itanos and member of the prefecture board: Unstructured
Interview= Interviewee 4
Deputy of Lasithi: Semi-structured Interview= Interviewee 5
Abbot of the Monastery Toplou and the vice-president of the Panagia
Akrotiriani Foundation of Toplou Monastery: Unstructured Interview=
Interviewee 6
Representative of the ecological group of Sitia and member of the prefecture
board: Unstructured Interview= Interviewee 7
Chairman of Sitian Federation of Hoteliers: Semi-structured Interview=
Interviewee 8
Chairman of Sitia Development Organisation S.A. (OAS): partially
Conversation and written interview= Interviewee 9.
In the name of this study, the writer had also the chance during this investigation
to watch on TV the Sitian municipal council to be in session about the regional
development and the further expansion of the local Technological Educational
Institutions (T. E. I.=“Greek Polytechnic Universities”). The writer drew helpful
conclusions about the nature of decision making process, the existence or not of
democratized procedures and the existence or not of power differentials among
participants.
3.7 Secondary Data
Secondary data, as raw data and published material (Saunders et al., 2003), should
not be ignored from this session. “Such materials can provide the researcher with
valuable background information about the […] [domain]; they are therefore used as part
of the investigation” (Bryman & Bell, 2003, p. 413). Secondary data have been classified
as the “documentary data, survey based data and those compiled from multiple
resources”. (Saunders et al., 2003, p.189). In this paper, written documents (journals,
magazines, newspaper, articles from the legislative frame, contracts, reports, transcripts
of the session of the Technical Chamber of Greece-department of Eastern Crete et c.)
Page 48
Chapter3: Methodology
and non-written documents (video-recordings, pictures, maps, drawings, television
programmes) have been retrieved with the aim to meet the existed objectives of this study
(Saunders et al., 2003). “As compared with primary data, secondary data are collected
rapidly and easily at a relatively low cost, and in a short time” (Malhotra & Birks, 2000, p.
99). Apart from those advantages, secondary data are deemed as permanent and easily
accessible source of data to others, where researchers could evaluate and compare with
their own primary data (Saunders et al., 2003). Noteworthy, Sandelowski commented that
“one important means of enhancing the utility of qualitative research is to make the most
of data that have been already collected” (1997, p. 129). Despite their advantageous
characteristics researchers ought to treat them with caution, since they do not necessarily
match with the study’s needs and additionally they might make things even more
complicated (Saunders et al., 2003).
3.8 Data analysis
All the digitally taped interviews were transcribed directly after each session.
Denzin and Lincoln noted that the transcribed texts are social facts that are produced
shared and used in a socially organised way (2003, p.56). Accordingly researchers before
starting the data analysis need initially to read and re-read the transcripts and then to
underline some key phrases, “because they make some as yet inchoate sense”
(Sandelowski, 1995, as cited by Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p. 279). From there, the
greatest challenge rests on researchers to get most out of those texts in terms of the
subject of this study. Additionally, part of this data analysis is a further elaboration of
transcripts1 and secondary data, where common views and dominant themes will be
identified, compared and interpreted with the already reviewed theories from the previous
chapter. Most of the time, the researcher will adopt the narrative approach to interview
data that does not mean necessarily exclusion of plausible realities. In order to justify this
choice consider once again the main research question of this study. That is, whether
exists any democratized and coordinated approach of tourism planning and development
in Sitia that could possibly solve problems, such as conflicts, and preserve Sitia’s social 1 The Greek transcripts are available upon request.
Page 49
Chapter3: Methodology
and environmental sustainability”, where the writer attempts to explore the sociocultural
constructed reality. Part of this argument is deemed to be Richardson’s suggestion (1990)
“that participation in a culture includes participations in the narratives of that culture, a
general understanding of the stock of meanings and their relationships to each other”
(Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p. 345). Thus, the writer shall pay heavily attention on the 4
unstructured interviews, where each of them developed a subjective narrative review of
what has happened from the “pre to the post Minoan PLC era” in Sitia.
3.9 Limitations and ethics
After all, “having just good intentions or the correct political attitude [in situ] is
not the point” (Silverman, 2005, p.209). Neither the provision of extensive criteria will
give credence and legitimacy to the studies (Johnson et al., 2006; Whittemore et al.,
2001). Herein, be also aware of the “methodolating” danger, where researchers used to be
trapped in procedures that diminish inevitably the plausibility, creativity and the
reflexivity of the questioned study (Whittemore et al., 2001). Usually, […] “what
constitutes ‘good’ research becomes a polysemous and somewhat elusive concept”
(Johnson et al., 2006, p. 133). Therefore, the writer will bring forward ethical issues and
limitations that derive from the nature of the used research methods and the way they
have been applied. When embedding ethics and limitations within the data analysis and
interpretation, then the researcher could preserve to some extent the validity of the study
in the audience’s eyes.Ethical concerns are likely to occur at every stage of a research
project that involves human beings as objects (Saunders et al., 2003). Those “concerns
have revolved around the topics of, informed consent, […] right to privacy, […] and
protection from harm” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p.89). Based on those ethical
responsibilities the researcher will preserve respondents’ anonymity, even if they are
easily identifiable in such a small community, as Sitia. Before moving ahead with the
data analysis and conclusions, the limitations of this study will be outlined.
Page 50
Chapter3: Methodology
The reviewed theoretical frameworks represent mostly the westernized
world, rather than the Greek one. Thus, this research might be based upon
a biased basis.
The translation of the interview’s questions was not precise due to the lack
of expertise, that fact itself might have misled respondents and
subsequently the results, too.
Time constraints and costs had eliminated the options for the researcher,
not only in terms of the sample size, but also in terms of the research
method as such. Initially the writer was interested to conduct an
ethnographic study.
The noviceness of the researcher might constrain the effective data
management, especially when considering the data overload (Cassell and
Symon, 2004).
The majority of participants, even if they were key stakeholders, did not
have any truly tourism expertise. Unfortunately that constrained their
understanding and comprehension of the topic.
Finally, the interpretation of data can be affected by researchers’ social
and cultural values. Therefore the writer, during the data analysis, sought
to stick on the theoretical guides. Nonetheless, it would be an oxymoron
claim that the researcher’s lenses will be disappeared from the following
lines.
Page 51
Chapter4: Results-case study
Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
At this stage, in the name of the pre-constructed integrated resort, the Cavo
Sidero, a case study will be presented that meant to illustrate and describe the state of
affairs within Sitia. Noteworthy, one of the interviewees mentioned that this case is
highly attractive, due to its great ‘political nuance’. So, the writer seeks to uncover within
the following lines the presence or the absence of a democratized and coordinated
approach of tourism planning and development. For a fuller and more ‘accurate’ picture
of reality the writer chooses apart from primary data analysis, to use in conjunction some
relevant secondary data and already established Greek bibliography, always though in
line with Chapter 2. All those could contribute to a thorough understanding of the
situation in situ. The author, while acknowledging the danger to be criticised about lack
of structure, responds that there is plenty of room in qualitative research for
improvisation (Humphreys et al., 2003). Lastly, the novice researcher does not deny that
data will be interpreted through its own lenses; it is an illusion to proclaim that
subjectivity will diminish or disappear.
4.2 Tourism related overview of Crete and Sitia
To start with, tourism has been deemed as being the largest foreign exchange
earner in Crete (Andriotis, 2002); consequently it is the major stimulant of the Cretan
economy (Buhalis, 1999). Bear in mind that “tourist arrivals have been increased of
approximately 350% between 1980 and 1990 and more than 200% between 1990 and
2004” (Andriotis, 2006, p.632). Therefore it is reasonable, tourism to be promoted by
Governments as a source of regional development that combats the incremental economic
deterioration (Andriotis, 2006); however Briassouli (2003), whilst considering the
example of Crete, highlighted the problematic situation of severe regional imbalances
amongst coastal areas and the hinterland of most peripheral destinations.
Page 52
Chapter4: Results-case study
In our case, the district of Sitia is located at the eastern edge of Crete in Lasithi
prefecture, where the majority of the interviewees characterised it as “the North- Eastern
end not only of Greece, but of the whole Europe”. This geographical peculiarity had kept
Sitia in isolation not only in international scale but also within Crete. That could be
translated as low development activity within Sitia and minimal tourism, which in turn
affect negatively the indigenous demographics. At present time, even the primary sector
of economy, meaning agriculture, despite the low unemployment levels, does not seem
satisfactory. Interviewee 6 and 8 expressed their anxiety about future; they commented
“nothing secures our future, the future of our children, our locality needs to enfold our
children in its arms, what is going to happen by the end of 2013, after the withdrawal of
the European Structural Funds, which were aiding agriculture? Unfortunately our locality
will inevitably depopulate, nothing keeps and motivates the youths to stay within the
Sitian borders…. with no hesitation, they will go to Athens, whilst hoping for better days.
Therefore even the last Sitian civilian needs to know that without tourism, the place here
will die!” As a proof of that, it has been announced during the conference about “Big
Tourism Investments in Eastern Crete, Development and Sustainability” that Sitia’s
population density is one of the poorest in Europe (OAS, 2006). For instance, “the
average population density in Greece is equal with 83 people/km2, in Crete 72
people/km2, in Lasithi 42 people/km2 and in Sitia only 29 people/km2” (ibid). Another
interesting figure is that the present bed capacity of Sitia’s district does not exceed
4000(ibid).
Those indicators have not been resulted solely by this geographical isolation,
rather the interviewee 7 raised another meaningful dimension; apparently Lasithi is, in
political terms, the weakest prefecture in Crete. This political weakness could be
explained mainly by the fact that Lasithi does not have a dominant centre, as Heraklion,
Rethymnon, and Chania do, instead there are three equally demanding centres, Agios
Nikolaos, Ierapetra and Sitia. Therefore, “the perpetuated triple-pole litigation and the
lack of communication and coordination within the prefecture led on the one hand into
the exasperating delay of desirable development actions, like expansion of academic
faculties and then into the irrational development of Lasithi, where already four
Page 53
Chapter4: Results-case study ‘prefectural’ hospitals exist and extravagant claims of having two international airports
are made”. All these actions give you certainly the impression of a divided common
opinion among local authorities and a lack of cohesive and integrative planning.
Consequently, from the basis that “local authorities [exert] critical influence over the
local tourism industry” (Andriotis, 2002, p.53), the tourism development of Sitia’s
district has been undermined for years and years. Respectively, one member of the
Technical Chamber of Eastern Crete adds that “it has been ‘applied’ diachronically a
constant policy of devaluing Sitia, that challenged subsequently transport and general
infrastructure development, as well as tourism bed capacity expansion and this trend
contradicts certainly with the rest high and perverse rates of development in the entire
island. Simply, this problematic case reflects the political problem of development where
nothing happens by sheer accident. There is a lack of statutory bodies responsible for
development policies and activities, as the political apparatus aims systematically to
facilitate privatization, in many fields such as public services, always though under the
robust public claim for change and regeneration”.
Nevertheless, people, despite their socio-economical despair, should pay carefully
attention to tourism phenomenon. Unfortunately, many cases, from the past, have proven
that tourism is not the “magic wand” (Andriotis, 2006, p.630) that will automatically
solve all the problems, and lead to the affluence of the societies, without any costs.
Indeed, Crete as an island has been devastated all those years by unplanned tourism
activities, with no agendas about environmental and cultural preservation, land planning
and awareness raise of indigenous population (Andriotis, 2001). In a manner of speaking
Crete has adopted all those years mass tourism, known as the 3S (Sun, Sea and Sand)
model that has been expanded, even worse, including another ‘S’, sex (Buhalis, 1999).
So far, the prefecture of Heraklion, and precisely its northern coastal line (Malia,
Hersonisos, Stalida and so on), exhibits the highest level of tourism congestion within
Crete (“it produces 79% of the island’s tourism-related GDP” (Briassouli, 2003, p. 108)),
and experiences heavily all the adverse impacts in sociocultural and environmental terms
(Terkenli, 2005). Terkenli, quoted in her paper Rackham and Moody’s assertion about
the miserable condition in Crete, which confirms once again the absence of land planning
Page 54
Chapter4: Results-case study where “[…] hundreds of hotels, in a foreign style of architecture, neither beautiful nor
functional, which makes no concession to its surroundings[…],[even more recent ones]
still appear at random, often in the most inappropriate situations . . . Some have walled
sea-fronts, which destroy the very beach on which their livelihood depends”(Rackham &
Moody, 1996, as cited by ibid, p.233). With the advent of time and as a response to those
failures, governments learned their lesson and sought to take some corrective actions; so
they intervened with the launch of the five year Economic Development Plan (1988-
1992) (Andriotis, 2001) and the Development Law 2601/ 1998, which both band
additional development of small hotel units and promote instead development of
integrated resorts, only though in underdeveloped zones (Andriotis, 2005). The writer
will return to this point later on, since the launch, of the Development Law 2601/ 1998
together with the Development Law 3299/2004, raises some suspicion about the political
correctness of this action and its real motives.
Reasonably then, this conventional form of tourism has been criticised about
downgrading natural and built environment. Additionally, Tsartas presents in his paper
another set of problems that affect the competitiveness of the Cretan tourism product, in a
period of fierce and global competition (2003). Crete, during the summer months,
experiences intense seasonality of demand (ibid; Donatos and Zairis, 1991). “In 2000
approximately 85 % of tourist arrivals by charter flights on the island were recorded
between May to September with 75% occupancy rate that falls during the winter below
20 %”( Andriotis, 2003, p.27). The outcome of this uneven distribution of demand is
undoubtedly low tourism quality based on the under-utilization or excessive- utilisation
of tourism facilities, seasonal employment and congested infrastructure, which exceeds
occasionally the acceptable limits of carrying capacity (Andriotis, 2003; Briassoulis,
2003; Tsartas, 2003). Donatos and Zairis found out in their study that “there is higher
concentration in luxury than economy accommodation in the beginning and the end of
Crete’s tourism season” (1991, p.519) as opposed to the middle season. Therein, they
suggested that marketing and development efforts in Crete should narrow down to the
high income tourists’ market and should focus on the expansion of tourism season (ibid).
Page 55
Chapter4: Results-case study
Another problem that poses serious skepticism is the reduced tourism
profitability in regional economy (Soteriadis and Arvanitis, 2006); tourists should not be
the anathema to local entrepreneurs, rather they should re-consider their relationship with
tour operators. In reality, tour operators as intermediaries hold enormous power, since
they own most charter airlines to Mediterranean destinations, form and distribute tourism
holiday packages, determine tourism products and finally in the name of competition set
the prices at low levels (Buhalis, 2001). Interviewee 8 feels that Crete at present time is
trapped to large extent by the overdependence in European tour operators. He moved a
step further and said that the devalued Greek tourism product is attributed mostly to the
minimal control by the state and then to Tour Operators. “Consider that the prices of the
majority of 4 and 5 star hotels, which provide ‘all inclusive’ schemes, lie at the low levels
of 2 star hotels. This is not fair; someone has to control them, its not normal a client to
pay €4.5 per day including 3 meals; that is in sane. As a result the lower categories hotels
(2 **or 3***) are empty and sooner or later they will shut down, there is no other choice.
From this point of view, it is imperative the state and the Greek national tourism
organisation (G. N. T. O.) to intervene and control both hoteliers and tour operators. To
do so, public and private sector altogether ought to develop from the scratch some proper
planning methods and modernized infrastructure; these parameters could fulfill
international expectations and needs”.
Overall, seasonality, lack of sufficient infrastructure, absence of land planning,
over-dependence on tour operators are problems that “Cretan tourism faces and portray
all the typical structural and organisational problems rooted mainly in planning,
marketing and management of tourism development” (Bastakis et al., 2004, as cited by
Soteriadis and Arvanitis, 2006, p. 4-5). Consequently, in order to eschew safely from the
decline and with the overwhelming goal of preserving the economic viability of a
destination, government and local authorities of Sitia seek “to decrease the industry’s
dependence on sunlust tourism […] and increase the [domestic, tourism] product appeal,
and the tourism spending” by encouraging the establishment of integrated resort
(Andriotis, 2006, p.108) in the rugged Peninsula of Cavo Sidero. Despite the great
potential of integrated resorts, the adoption of sustainable patterns of development is
Page 56
Chapter4: Results-case study crucial. Respectively, all the involved stakeholders in tourism development planning
should embrace the rationale of social and environmental sustainability.
This rationale should be outlined clearly on people’s vision about tourism. When
the researcher was reviewing the interview transcripts noted that only the Interviewee 8
did not referred at all on sustainability as a concept; he focused instead to issues related to
his domain. As opposed to that, the others followed a common line, they emphasised on
the need to develop infrastructure, but then their major concern was tourism development
in sustainable manners. The Interviewee3 comments that “one of our missions is to
protect the environment and our archeological sites. This is a one way path; there is no
room for any inconsistencies, all those years our district has remained unspoilt and that’s
how we should keep it”. Another mayor says that there will always be induced costs from
human activities; thus the challenge rests on people’s capacity to handle them and may be
to minimise them. Is this really possible? The Interviewee 6 admits the absence of
specialized management organisations that could supervise and protect sensitive areas
like the aesthetical forest of Vai. The key to this deficit might be raising society’s
sustainable awareness. Therefore, the Interviewee 9 proposes “a balanced and
sustainable tourist growth of Sitia’s district based on the alternative forms of tourism of
agricultural, nature based, cultural, culinary based, health, and sport, having always in
mind the carrying capacity of the area.” Those alternative forms of tourism will not only
attract different tourist segments, but also could enhance a greener conscious to people,
which will aid to the maintenance of traditional physiognomy of destinations without
degrading their flora and fauna (Interviewee 5). Subsequently, according to the
Interviewee 5, the economical, cultural, and social status of Sitia’s district will be
transformed and will obey to global demands.
At the meantime, this widespread acceptance of sustainability by participants
surprised the author, who has a first hand experience of the Greek reality. Is sustainability
rationale really embedded to people’s conscious or is it just a fashionable thing to say?
Here, the author will describe an oxymoron that took place during the interview with the
abbot of the Monastery Toplou. During the meeting, the abbot received a phone call from
Page 57
Chapter4: Results-case study the local archeological authority. The purpose of this phone call was to reject abbot’s
request of abstracting stones from an area recently characterised archeological (few
ancient graves were discovered) with the aim to restore part of the Monastery. The truth
is that the authority let him to load only 2 trucks with already detached stones from his
previous restoration activities. Nonetheless, the abbot was not satisfied; he said “we need
at least 20 trucks”. So, aside from the aesthetical fit of the monastery to the local
physiognomy, how can you claim of being sustainable, when your activities might lead to
land erosion and endanger archeological treasures?
Beyond people’s visions, the President of the Development Organisation of Sitia,
during the conference of “Big Tourism Investments in Eastern Crete, Development and
Sustainability” presented a set of preconditions that could secure the sustainable stance of
tourism planning and development. Initially, infrastructural works need to take place,
where the Interviewee 5 focuses on the” three bridges of development”, the
internationalization of airport, expansion of the local port and reconstruction of the
northern road axis. Then, to respect the spatial planning design of Sitia […] that has been
published earlier in the Official Government Gazette (G. G. 4420/2006) which specifies
the land use (Mayor of Sitia, 2007), and vitally to develop the S. H. O. O. A. P. (spatial
study) of the municipality of Itanos, which will accommodate the integrated resort of
Cavo Sidero. Along those spatial planning schemes, the establishment of independent
management authority for the protection of the Aesthetic Forest of Vai is critical, not
only because of its beauty, but also due to its liability to the ‘Natura 2000’ network. This
urgency is clearly depicted on Interviewee’s 6 sayings “remember what has happened in
Greece this summer, fires all over. Tell me what is going to happen tomorrow, if a fire
raiser comes and burns Vai, a real catastrophe! It was God’s will to remain as it is; this
aesthetical forest is not supervised, controlled and protected by any official management
authoritative body”. Additionally, private investors together with local authorities should
put into practice a thorough study of environmental impacts and set relevant
environmental terms, open though for amendments, after conducting a free dialogue and
continual monitoring. Together with those environmental terms, authorities ought to take
Page 58
Chapter4: Results-case study drastic measures to safeguard the local comparative advantages the cultural heritage, the
landscape, and the aesthetic of the district.
Moreover, the society has not been ignored from this debate; the president
emphasised on the education and specialization of the workforce and suggested the
targeted local production which will satisfy tourism units’ needs. Further he encouraged
the rejuvenation of the countryside by developing parallel activities with the proposed
integrated resort. This was not a random choice, since he acknowledges that “the single
tourist development strategy magnifies dependencies and jeopardizes the long term
prosperity of local economy” (Ritchie, 1993, as cited by Buhalis, 1999, p. 342). A good
example about Makrugialos has been displayed by a member of the Technical Chamber
of Eastern Crete (Mayor of Makrugialos). “Makrugialos as an area has roughly the same
population size with the municipality of Itanos and its morphological and geographical
profile looks alike. 35 years ago, 5 tourists came in Makrugialos; the locals served them
immediately, but there was nothing, so they ‘accommodated’ them with a few drachmas
in stables, yes in stables![....]Obviously, all these didn’t have any potential. The next step
was to build some “rooms to let” […] the state was absent, no instructions, no
contribution, no planning, these days all of them run out of business. Later on, 3
expatriates came from Africa and they did a good investment, one big hotel (Sun Wing
Hotel). It is the only one that is economically viable today, I even could say that the
whole Makrugialos is dependent on this hotel. Imagine, when the hotel starts running in
May everything else starts running as well, in October when it shut downs the same
happens to the rest, apparently there is a dependency.”
Respectively, to avoid such negative phenomena from the past, the Interviewee 7
insists “everything is a matter of collaboration and political pressures. So far, people have
developed a clientelistic relationship with politicians, asking for favours to find a job and
many other things. Everything starts from this corporatism. People need to escape from
this fatalistic situation, people need to bring about a revolution in the political status…
look where we ended up, talking about revolution; having in mind the large investments
people should exert political pressures” demanding a cohesive democratic planning
Page 59
Chapter4: Results-case study approach, and a robust legal frame which will procure for the public protection.
Likewise, the Interviewee 5 states that “large scaled tourism investments have to be
integrated with the local community and its culture, where economical benefits should be
equally distributed to people; undoubtedly the completion and success of investment
depends on them, people are the objects and not the subjects of tourism development
(Mitchel and Reid, 2001). Last but not least, the Interviewee 9 believes that “there is no
guarantee to achieve [the aforementioned] goals in absolute terms. Is it required a
continuous effort of empowering local authorities, local bodies-institutions and
citizenry”.
4.3 Cavo Sidero integrated resort
At this stage, the author will present you a trip to the past, whilst hoping to reveal
the proceedings and the true interrelationships of actors (individuals, groups,
organisations) throughout the adopted planning approach under the common interest or
problem, meaning the Cavo Sidero investment (Selin and Chavez, 1995). In brief, some
general information about the actual project will be given, next major actors will be
identified and part of the negotiations about the study of environmental impacts will be
discussed. So, the prevailed problems of conventional tourism made governments to react
and promote high quality tourism, which entails selective tourism forms directed to well-
off tourists, such forms have been supported by integrated resorts. Integrated resorts have
been viewed “as a reaction against the proliferation of unplanned coastal strips and an
attempt to provide a carefully planned controlled and well defined tourism product”
(Wall, 1996, p. 715). Stanton and Aislabie summarised in their paper the true facet of
integrated resorts. They “are located outside urban areas, often in remote locations,
dependent upon natural and/or manmade attractions, provide leisure and recreational
activities to guests, offer high-quality services at high room rates, and have a low density
of development compared with urban land use” (Stanton and Aislabie, 1992, p.436).
Page 60
Chapter4: Results-case study In fact, Panagia Akrotiriani Foundation leased for 40 years (with a one-sided
option to renew it for another 40 years) to Minoan Group PLC, former Loyalward PLC,
26000 hectares of land, located in the peninsula of Cavo Sidero in the North-Eastern part
of Sitia’s district, within the borders of the Municipality of Itanos(Look at Figure 4.1).
Up to present, this land has been underutilized, worthwhile only grazing has taken place.
From the author’s point of view this area could turn as the ‘hot spot’ of Cretan tourism,
since it combines unspoilt landscape, with the presence of the Aesthetical Forest of Vai
(the only palm- tree forest in Europe), the Monastery of Toplou, the sandy beach in
Ermoupolis and the Minoan ruins in Itanos. This estimate corresponds to the
“[…]ongoing quest for novel landscapes and tourism destinations by tourists, who seek
regeneration […] like modern pilgrims[…] in the realms of pleasure, dreaming, tradition,
arts, sports, and so on”( Terkenli, 2005,p.222).
Therein, Minoan Group Plc is planning to construct one of the largest integrated
resorts in the Mediterranean and uses the Aphrodite Hills in Cyprus as a benchmark. This
project is the “largest single inward investment in Greece” (Simpkins, 2005). Simpkins
highlighted the following paradox in the Telegraph newspaper, “a small market valued
company(£20)[…], which currently trades on the lightly regulated Ofex market, [from
the 2nd of April of 2007 operates in the AIM stock exchange London’s
market(Garefalakis, 2007)][…] and contrasts with the scale of its project”(£802)(ibid).
The project’s total capacity equals to 7000 beds with a building density of less than 4.3%
and contains five residential complexes (hotels), 750 villas, 250 townhouses, two 18-hole
and one 9-hole golf courses, conference centers, 730 pools, retail shops, leisure facilities,
an open-air theatre and a cultural center (Look at the Figure 4.2). From 1994 and
onwards, the company refines continually its planning studies; only in 1998 Minoan Plc
achieved to sign the ‘works- contract’ with the Panagia Akrotiriani Foundation, in 2002
got the zoning and the archeological approvals (Andriotis, 2005) and recently, in March
of 2007, the environmental study of impacts was accepted by the Ministry of
Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works (YPEHODE). Based on these facts
and on people’s sayings, the author chooses to place the proceedings of Sitia’s tourism
planning and development in the first two stages of tourism policy process, where
Page 61
Chapter4: Results-case study demands still exist from both inside and outside the political system and there are semi-
accomplished policy decisions, by political authorities, which are authoritative rather than
executive(Hall, 1994).
Figure 4.1: Map of Sitia’s District and Location of Cavo Sidero Investment.
Figure 4.2: A close up to the Peninsula of Cavo Sidero.
Page 62
Chapter4: Results-case study 4.3 Leading Actors of this investment
4.3.1 The Greek Church
Everything started in the 1988, where Tritsis navigated a bill, known as “Tritsis’
Law”, through Parliament which gave the right to the state to transfer part of the
ecclesiastical fortune (30%) to its own right and fortified the nationalization of the
Organisation Management of Ecclesiastical Fortune(O. D. E. P.). Hitherto, this Law has
never been enforced by any past and present Governments, who clearly wanted to avoid
conflicts with the Greek Church. So, the local church in 1991 and in the fear of this
inactive bill, founded Panagia Akrotiriani Foundation, which bypasses certainly the
ecclesiastical structural frame (Interviewee 7). Officially, this Foundation has been
established to develop, beneficial to the public, works in an attempt to leverage the
criticism about low social actions (Anipsitakis, 2006). To continue with, the Interviewee
4 beyond the bill, connoted micro politics among the two Metropolitan Bishops of Lasithi
prefecture; on the one hand there is the Ierapitnis and Sitias and on the other hand is
Petras, who coincidently is the president of the O. D. E. P Metaphorically, in a kind of a
‘coup’, the Metropolitan Bishop Ierapitnis and Sitias together with the most powerful
ring of the present developmental initiative, the abbot of the Monastery of Toplou,
formed the aforementioned foundation. Its board of directors consists of 7 members;
president is the Metropolitan Bishop Ierapitnis and Sitias, vice-president is the abbot,
clerk is a priest and the rest four are laymen; none of them are elective members, instead
they are appointed exclusively by the president (Interviewee4, 2007).
“From the first moment, our municipality, with one voice, was requesting from
the Foundation, that every present mayor of Itanos (prior the integrative ‘Kapodistrias
programme’ in 2000, Itanos was a village) and Sitia municipalities should be part of this
board […] Indeed, at that time, they appointed ‘their own’ head of Itanos village and
Kouroupakis the mayor of Sitia. Some years later, after the elections, Kouroupakis lost
his mayoralty, surprisingly though he still remained member of this board […] So, what I
want to say here is that a single person that no one controls it, can do whatever within this
Page 63
Chapter4: Results-case study board, but what is he going to do, some years later, when Cavo Sidero will become a
tourism colossus within Crete? Personally, as a civilian and as a mayor I couldn’t stand
anymore this situation […] It’s against my values! It’s unacceptable a single person to
manipulate and exploit maybe today, maybe tomorrow, politically, socially and
economically a foundation that supposedly meant to be a spiritual and mentoring
foundation, where all of us, as stakeholders have the right to be part of it. Hence, maybe
for ideological reasons, if you want, I demanded and I will always do that the community
and mainly its legal representatives should be present at this board […] My skepticism
has nothing to do with personal gains, realistically am not against the investment, just I
thought it would be right to set some vital preconditions for a more sustained society. I
never, never, abused them; […] if he wants to lead, it’s his own right, but explain me,
why for 8 years in the row as a mayor of Itanos I have been quarantined from all those
boards (Interviewee, 4) ?”
Following, in 1992, the foundation announced a competition about the 26000
hectares of land, to attract prospective indigenous, national or international investors;
interestingly the foundation did not specify a priori the possible context of the
forthcoming investments. Then, three different companies joined this competition with a
direct interest towards tourism facilities, the Loyalward (British), the Universal Bay
(Austrian) and a Greek one. The Interviewee 6 declares that the foundation ended up
carefully to the Loyalward’s plan based on transparent proceedings and with the
contribution of specialized financial and legal consultants. “All those actions were
embedded immediately with the fundamental mission of preserving the well being of our
locality, so I can reassure you that the present investment, until its last phase of
implementation will be treated on this basis.[…] After we chose Loyalward as a
contractor, we‘ve sent to the Ministry of Economy and Finance the most attractive
proposals of Loyalward and Universal Bay, in order to justify comparatively our
choice.[…] We have been accused several times of following non-legitimate procedures;
some people still doubt about the legitimacy of the used criteria that assigned the
investment to the particular company, others raise objections about the nature of the
memorandum with Loyalward and many other issues.[….] You know very well, from the
Page 64
Chapter4: Results-case study Cretan and the national press that we’ve been under severe strain for long time, people
brought charges against us for years, but at the end of the day, everything has been
cleared[…]. The main problem is that some people still insist on their positions, I could
characterise their ideas as obsessions, unfortunately with their position undermine the
democratic dialogue as well as the regional development, and lead continually to
affective delays. What is the point of making an appeal against the investment in the
Council of State? How can just 10 people ignore systematically the 98% of the majority?(
Interviewee 6,2007)”
From this perspective, the Interviewee 3, one of the main supporters of the Cavo
Sidero, claims that “this modus operandi is undoubtedly undemocratic and negative, but
operates in accordance with the legal frame. Someone could say this right coexists, I
would respond yes, this is truth. Although, it would be better to handle this in the right
direction of defending the society, and not to punish the society itself, because chooses
development. A good example is Naxos; it is an island of 7000 people that needs to
construct a new port. Few people made appeals to the Council of state in order to stop
this project. What happened? 6000 people demonstrated and fought in favour for this
project. Unfortunately, rules are rules and the council of state had to follow the time
consuming procedures, so locals are still waiting. To conclude, people do not respect the
democratic functionality of decision making process, which entails deliberations and
objections, thereby am proposing the emergence of a flexible independent body that will
be responsive about issues around the development domain”.
4.3.2. State
The Chairman of Minoan Group Plc, Christopher Egleton enthusiastically states
in the Telegraph newspaper that his company got the backing of the Greek Prime
Minister, Costas Karamanlis; in details he said “we are pretty confident that the new
government in Greece is keen to encourage inward investment and will give us a fair
hearing when it comes to deciding on environmental permitting and planning permission
for the scheme” (Simpkins, 2005). The governmental intervention has not been confined
Page 65
Chapter4: Results-case study on the approval of the environmental impacts study (M. P. E.). On the contrary, the
launches of the Development Laws 2601/ 1998 and the 3299/2004 played a determinative
role for the preparation and completion of this developing plan. One member of the
Technical Chamber wonders “ is it consistent, on the one hand the state to proclaim that
Crete will be excluded from the application of the development Law, meaning the
construction of new hotel units and at the same time, governmental committees to
approve single large scaled investments in Crete that will be funded by the development
law?”. Apart from this sign of non consistent planning, Interviewee 7 brings forward
another fuzzy incident. “Ten years ago YPEHODE ordered a ‘special managing plan’ for
sensitive biotopes and wetlands. Few years later, based on the aforementioned a
specialized environmental study and a presidential decree plan developed that ought to
conform to the national and European legislation. At the meantime, part of the projected
land belongs to the Natura 2000(G.R. 4320006) network and to the Special protected
zone (S. P. A.) of north-eastern Crete. Surprisingly, the specialized environmental study
kept in the drawer, and the presidential decree plan remained plan, hence the mission
was, YPEHODE, to accelerate the approval of the M. P. E.”.
All of the above imply more or less political intervention, where state used to rely
and subsidize private actors in the name of development, whilst hoping to boost the
national economy and reduce deficits, with other words to “hide holes” (Anipsitakis,
2006). One member of the technical chamber suggests that “all those years planning is
deficient, it is purposively deficient. This is an ingrained political choice of governments;
in our country never has been completed a basic policy planning of what we want, where
do we want it, why do we want it, in what scale, on what quality and so on; because if a
comprehensive planning would coexist then nobody could do whatever and wherever.
Neither investor would be dependent on politicians, to approve or to reject projects, to
finance or not to and so on. With a robust national public administration system, there
would be no need to be addressed neither in every governmental committee nor to
ministers in every occasion; instead there would have been bodies with adequate
constitutional structures that could control, plan, evaluate and set their terms prima
facie”(2006). All these could be interpreted as corporatism where, under the umbrella of
Page 66
Chapter4: Results-case study development, private interest groups, party elites and elected politicians use national and
EU funds to satisfy their own interests (Getimis and Grigoriadou, 2004). Overall, these
signs and wonders prove once again the highly interventionist state (Getimis and
Grigoriadou, 2004) and the apparent low social capital (Andriotis, 2001) that raise
suspicion, reduce trustworthiness and challenge collaboration with local authorities and
community.
In a general spectrum, governments set the legal frame, hold an executive role
that is centralized decision making, and allocate European and national funds to local
authorities. Thereby, disempowered vertical intergovernmental relations are sustained
between state and local authorities, where increased bureaucracy prevails (Getimis and
Grigoriadou, 2004). Nonetheless, Interviewee 5 claims that “any legislative initiative,
derive from the state; but the state listens first and then responds to local bodies’ needs
and demands. This process applies also in the tourism domain; ministry of tourism is at
the forefront and gets in touch through the national committee of tourism with tourism
representatives of every prefecture, but the problem rests on the frequency of those
meetings, they seldom take place maybe once or twice per year”. Beyond the symbolic
cooperation, tourism development plans “are controlled by the central government, […]
which is located in the capital city in Athens and likely does not incorporate sufficiently
the needs and desires of local communities” (Andriotis, 2001, p. 305). Further, five
participants agreed that the lack of zoning system and land registry system constrain even
more decentralization; so local authorities remain state dependent. Regardless,
“municipalities used to be normally, responsible for local planning and development
initiatives, next prefectures follow and then peripheries. Peripheries do not represent the
central state, instead they are decentralized services. So, a proposed development scheme
will be implemented as soon as collaboration among those three scales will flourish
(Interviewee 5, 2007).”
In terms of collaboration the Interviewee 2, signifies that there are bureaucratic
procedures that link decisions from different hierarchical levels. For instance MPEs are
approved by YPEHODE, after the reached agreements-permissions of prefectural boards.
Page 67
Chapter4: Results-case study However, in order to comply with those decisions there should be sufficient human
resources that could monitor them, but there aren’t many. So illegitimacies might arise,
within the complex tourism network. Nevertheless, he accepts that current collaboration
among interested parties lies within the borders of legitimacy. “But this is no the point;
unfortunately governments have not turned to the right direction, they ignored the
procedures of negotiation among local authorities and investors, so rarely has been
reached a common ground between them; that’s why conflicts occur in areas with
emerging tourism projects […] As a result, conflicts lead to delays with inevitable
consequences. Hence, it would be valuable to involve actively local authorities in the
whole planning process and not only during the discussion about environmental impacts”.
From a different perspective, the Interviewee 6 expressed his negativism towards
bureaucracy and the non efficient intergovernmental collaboration; “it is a problematic
system that discourages serious developmental attempts.” Therefore he proposed the
reorganization of the intergovernmental structures and the legal frame, “with emphasis on
coordination among government agencies and between the public and private sectors”
(Roberts and Simpson, 1999, p. 316), on top of that suggested the introduction of a
flexible and independent body that will embrace related stakeholders that will secure
sustained development and will overcome bureaucracy and the barriers arisen from the
presence of myriad bodies.
In the same spirit, Minoan Plc proposes the formation of its own body for the
strategic and sustainable management of development. The legal representative of
Minoan PLC states during the meeting of the technical Chamber that “this is the
responsibility of other bodies, the state’s. We don’t want to replace the state, the
opposite. But we believe that this kind of bodies do not operate here in Greece in an
efficient time-frame. So this body will be located within the integrated resort and will
manage and monitor all the phases of the development process, from the planning, the
construction up to point that will come into operation based on the project’s discussed
terms. Its findings would be available at any time to any bodies. This body will be a
system that will respect the international requirements of ISO and in the direction of a
sustainable project”(2006). It could be said that the literature responds in some way to
Page 68
Chapter4: Results-case study this request. “Public sector’s contribution is imperative; the complex nature of the
tourism product makes it unlikely that private markets will satisfy a country’s tourism
policy objectives to produce a balance of facilities that meet the needs of the visitor,
benefit the host community and are compatible with the wishes of that community”
(Wanhill, 1995, as cited by Orfanogiannaki and Pastras, 2006, p.4).
4.3.3. Community
In a first glance, when the researcher was conducting the interviews got
immediately the feeling that all decisions are driven by the industry actors in concert with
the state (Mitchell and Reid, 2001). Additionally, as it was mentioned above, the
investors had to get the permission about the development plans from external regulatory
actors, therefore remains questionable whether community’s needs and desires have been
incorporated so far in this longitudinal “debate”. Before approaching this issue, in more
details, it would be interesting to quote Hernandez et al. assertion about how
communities, from isolated peripheries, do perceive the emergence of integrated resorts.
Community members “generally favour the proposed resort but with mixed feelings. […]
they seem to be aware of some of the costs and benefits of tourism. They may, however,
be overly optimistic about the potential positive effects of an enclave resort on local
employment. […] are rightly concerned about the future distribution of economic benefits
[…]. However, they are generally unconcerned about the many detrimental effects that
such a mega-resort may have on the ecological environment (Hernandez et al., 1996,
p.774). This happens in Sitia, too. The representative of the ecological group said that
investors and primary stakeholders brainwash indirectly community, when promising a
heaven on earth. “All of us we hide an inner child that believes in fairytales; the sooner or
later people will change their mind as they will start experiencing the first impacts of this
project, but then it will be too late (Anipsitakis, 2006).”
Noteworthy, when the researcher was exploring community’s involvement in
tourism development through planning and decision making, notifies that there was a
Page 69
Chapter4: Results-case study clear misunderstanding from at least 4 participants. For some reason, they equated
community with local elected bodies. How can you claim of having an active community,
when it does not have the freedom to vote during the municipalities’ boards? In the same
way, most of the participants believed that under certain circumstances, meaning lack of
consensus making spirit, the range of involved stakeholders is fairly representative.
Although the Interviewee 8 believes that “the number is representative only for the most
powerful actors, the “smaller players” are absolutely absent”. This is an issue, since the
Greek tourism industry is prevailed mainly by small enterprises (Briassoulis, 2003).
Alongside, the Interviewee 3 and Interviewee 5 claimed that there is still room for an
open dialogue with the community. Local authorities encourage this collaborative frame
through conferences, media, and boards. The former also notes that this long lasting
debate about the Cavo Sidero project was not random; alternatively it worked as a
seedbed that could involve as many civilians as possible, for instance the ecologists.
Nevertheless, despite the intentions it seems that all those, who appeared keen to
the community’s participation, were describing more or less symbolic-token participation
and not society’s true power. The Interviewee 6 comments “it is good for the community
to participate within the decision making process but in many cases especially in small
societies as opposed to the big ones, it is difficult to base your decisions on them, since
with no doubt they lack education, their intellectual level is low. How can an investor
trust and occupy locals with strange fields. It is too risky. The investors will not accept it.
It is fundamental to get acceptance by the community after informing and explaining to
them relevant issues about the project, but this scenario differs a lot from the option to
base your plans and decisions on random non specialized people.” The author raises here
some objections, first of all the investors did not conduct a priori any real research within
the community about the project. Only once they implemented an informal survey, part
of their supposed sustainable strategy, with the aim to clarify locals’ educational level,
due to recruitment purposes and then to specify the availability of groceries within the
district. Further, even if we accept the low educational level of the society, investors and
local authorities have not taken any drastic measures to combat this problem and
empower the society. Only a few training schemes already exist; they have been
Page 70
Chapter4: Results-case study diachronically launched in the national level by the public statutory body O.A.E.D. This
body aims principally to reduce the unemployment rates. They do not provide any
consultancy about the tourism domain. In reality, the system, as the Interviewee 4 said in
a cynical way prepares ‘the waiters of Europe’. Thus, people appear unskilled in such
demanding subjects; thereby they remain excluded from the whole process.
Apart from people’s capability to participate and collaborate, there is a lack of
willingness from their side. “Nobody is interested, there is a dominant inertia…whoever
does something works at a full blast with all those problems and the rest simply don’t
care. They might want development, but then they do not respond and contribute to the
public call (Interviewee 5, 2007)”. One journalist perceives this stance as “a reflection of
people’s carpe diem […]; this lifestyle preserves an individualistic, non active society of
civilians” (Kalfelis, 2007). This statement is not a spontaneous estimate; rather it might
correspond to the reality. For instance, the Abbot described, during the committee of the
technical chamber, the following situation. When Minoan Plc invited people to fill up
applications forms about prospect job positions, it roused strong public feeling with
dozens applicants. In contradiction, when they invited them to conduct dialogue in the
conference of OAS, the attendance was minimal. “This shows something; unfortunately
our society is not mature enough” (The Abbot of the Monastery Toplou). From another
point of view, it could be said that that the present non- transparent status quo, within
Sitia, de-motivates people to take consciously collective actions. Overall, “Greek cities
lack the norms of reciprocity, mutual trust, collective and civil engagement, which
constitute essential elements of civicness and the base for successful public-private
partnerships” (Schmitter, 2002, as cited by Getimis and Grigoriadou, 2004, p.13).
4.3.4. Ecologists
The Interviewee 7, in terms of planning and collaboration, pointed out that “state
does not have a coherent vision, not even the mechanisms to put into practice their
policies, […] peripheries and their development depend in absolute terms on private
Page 71
Chapter4: Results-case study actors’ initiatives […] the state and in particular politicians do not operate with the
criterion of public good, alternatively they act as being managers of private interests[…]
our district with this present project experiences strong pressures[…] the question
remains, what development model should we adopt? We’ve never discussed about it and
the relevant bodies-authorities have never been cooperated on this basis. In contradiction,
powerful political actors try to inculpate ecologists, about the non completion of the
investment […] rather than taking advantage of them. […]” “In reality we lack
negotiation culture, and I feel like Don Quixote when making a series of proposals (8 in
total, Appendix D) and then to receive monotonous answers that everything has been
perfectly forecasted - [taken into account](Anipsitakis, 2006).” Nevertheless, ecologists
have been accused for not sitting in the same roundtable with primary stakeholders, for a
non collaborative stance and for a non democratic dialogue. When Interviewee 7 was
asked about it from the author, he expressed his opposition. “I want to inform you, that
the ecologists of Sitia got the initiative, together with the contribution of OAS to arrange
the daily conference about the project, with a strong inter-scientific presence (Appendix
A). Maybe, this conference was the single moment of having a substantial dialogue with
a diverse set of people. Do you know that so far, there have not been any prefecture or
municipality boards occupied exclusively with tourism related agendas?”
In March 2007, civilians and ecological groups made appeal to the Council of
state about the Cavo Sidero investment. According to the representative of the ecological
group in Sitia, the mission was not to use the appeal coercively; it was their last choice.
“From the first moment we expressed our negativism about the transformation of this
huge land into a monopolistic tourism business that constitutes theft of public wealth and
reminds me a lot David Harvey’s saying about the ‘accumulation by dispossession’
(2003) that means profit arrogation through disposing resources from the
society”(Independent Engineers of Eastern Crete in TEE/ TAK, 2007). “For years, we
proposed our terms; we warned them about the true essence of sustainable development,
which isn’t just economical figures, so as you might expect we reached a deadlock”
(Interviewee 7). Recently, in August 2007, Garefalakis opined in his article that
negotiations were led into a deadlock because of the unanswered issues about “the almost
Page 72
Chapter4: Results-case study simultaneous establishments of the Foundation and the Loyalward, their economic
interrelationship [(apart from the leasing fees, agreed on commission of 10% over the Net
profits of the project)]; the shadowy procedure on how the latter has been chosen
amongst other prospective investors; and the denial of the foundation to allot land
[(Tritsis Law)] off the aesthetical forest to the municipality of Itanos, which in turn will
provide it to the independent management body with a dowry, in order to remain
independent and economically viable”.
During those 15 years of ‘negotiation’, the community members and ecologists
have not been sufficiently informed, this situation raised suspicion and led inevitably to
extreme non compromised actions. For instance, the mayor of Itanos requested from the
investors and the foundation to have access on the works contract and until the date of the
daily conference did not get any reply. When the abbot was asked about it in the
conference responded: “The works contract is a public paper, it is not an indulgence to be
hidden or anything else. It is a public paper, all the ministries and all the relevant
statutory bodies have been supplied with the works contract, whoever wants could come
to the monastery and read it. But it is not a leaflet to put it up in the newsstand” (The
abbot of the monastery, 2006, as cited by Ecocrete.gr, 2006). Together with this latent
incident could be also added what Tim Hill (the technical director of the project) said
“whilst we are happy to release certain information on the project, some aspects are
commercially sensitive and/or confidential” (Andriotis, 2005, unpublished). Thereby, the
author recognises certain level of reluctance to inform widely the public. However, when
considering the power/interest matrix (Marwick, 2000) (Look at Figure 2.8) then
ecologists could be placed on the B/C squares of the matrix; it seems though that this
reluctance is not a proper ‘strategy’ from investors to approach them and increase their
commitment, since at present time ‘the informative exclusion’ as a manifestation of
power has detrimental consequences to their interests. So, the informative lack, the lack
of negotiation, shared decision making and consensus building about tourism goals and
actions, indicate that public and private planners have not carried out any collaboration
planning that involves direct dialogue among stakeholders in Sitia(Bramwell and
Sharman, 1999). Therefore, investors (primary stakeholder: D square) should reconsider
Page 73
Chapter4: Results-case study their strategies in order to satisfy or manipulate competing interests and those “who have
been excluded from the process” (Marzano and Scott, 2004, p. 209). Overall, the readers,
whilst reviewing this case study might draw their own conclusions about the existence of
community based and coordinated approach of tourism planning and development in
Sitia. The author from his side will draw conclusions from a theoretical scope, will make
suggestions, and finally will make proposals for further research.
Page 74
Chapter5: Conclusions
Chapter 5
The present paper has explored the policy planning and development in emerging
tourism settings in the Sitia district. Comprehensively, this study, in the name of
sustainable development, focused on the extent of collaborative and community-based
planning. For that reason exploratory research has been used; the context and the
structure of the previous chapter aimed to uncover the socially constructed reality of
Sitia’s stakeholders, within the dynamic environment, and respond to ‘why’ and ‘how’
questions. Therein significant was the contribution of eight different interviewees, closely
related with the field, as well as the obtained secondary data that provided valuable
indeed background information (Bryman & Bell, 2003).
Holistically it could be said that Sitia was lacking of a carefully coordinated and
integrated plan that could secure positive economic results and minimal sociocultural and
environmental impacts. Officially primary stakeholders meant to adopt contemporary
planning approaches but their present activities reflect to a larger or lesser extent
boosterism planning approach. Evidently, contemporary planning is not an easy task to
set within the district of Sitia. First of all, the governmental structures imbue centralized
decision making. Plans for tourism development are set by YPEHODE, Ministry of
Tourism, GNTO, and the Ministry of National Economy and Finance. Under this frame,
although local authorities might be partially involved in planning, still they remain
disempowered not only because of their financial dependence, but also because they
operate in a highly politicized environment. As it was outlined by interviewees, there was
a deficit of non existed independent management bodies that could promote, in long run,
bottom up coordinated decision making and collaborative planning. Therefore, there was
a room for non transparent interrelationships that grew corporatism and constraint the
prospect of a trustworthy negotiation and dialogue. This situation indicates the presence
of significant power differentials, where some stakeholders’ groups have been
Page
75
Chapter5: Conclusions purposively excluded, from the planning process and the negotiation of the most
favourable terms of development (Verbole, 2000).
Superficially there was a positive predisposition towards community’s
participation; although there have been no permanent measures to secure equal
distribution of tourism economic benefits within the locality, not even a subtle
perspective to involve community members in decision making process(Timothy, 1999).
Overall, it was found that varied public stakeholders together with a few major private
representatives, who hold significant financial, institutional and political power (Araujo
and Bramwell, 1999), had participated in the planning process, but there was limited
participation of community and environmental groups. Tokenism contrasts heavily with
the emerging paradigm of bringing community right into the core of decision making
(Costas and Buhalis, 2006). However, another finding of this research that keeps pace
with the theory, has shown that community planning is not impeded solely by the public
and private sector but also by the community itself, since it exhibits apathy, inability to
understand and contribute to complex issues, as well as maintains reservation about the
corrupted state of affairs and the certainty of decision making process (Hall, 2000).
At the moment, little if any evidence of the implementation or the success of the
Cavo Sidero project is detectable, since the negotiation of the project’s development
terms has been stuck over 15 years. So the tourism policy planning of ‘high quality
tourism’ remains in the first two stages of the tourism policy process(Hall, 1994).The
dubious ownership status of the land, the emergent claim for a forestal zone within the
peninsula, the lack of spatial planning, the juridicial prosecution for fraud against the
Abbot of the monastery, bureaucracy, the lack of infrastructures, the deliberately delayed
submission of M. P. E ., the conflicting interrelationships with the mayor of Itanos, and
the appeal of ecologists to the council of state portray an inefficient cross sectional
system that lacks a coordinated coherent planning strategy. Where, in terms of tourism
goals and actions, negotiation, shared decision making, consensus building and
informative richness are missing; all these illustrate that public and private planners/
Page
76
Chapter5: Conclusions development interests have not carried out any collaboration planning, which involves
direct dialogue among stakeholders in Sitia (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). However, it
should be noted that certain common ground priorities occur among interviewees,
meaning the sustainable development and the need for infrastructural improvement. This
commonality is of great importance, since common visions and goals of stakeholders
could work as a seedbed for a close collaboration and consensus making in the future
(Ladkin and Martinez-Bertramini, 2002).
The Greek government based on its legitimacy played an active role to the
completion of the integrated resort of Cavo Sidero, through the introduction of
facilitating development Laws. However, stakeholders brought forward the oxymoron
nature of this intervention that aimed likely to support the “catalyst for tourism
development” in Sitia that is Minoan PLC (Fayos and Sola, 1996, p. 409). Despite this
deliberate tolerance and allegory of government towards private sector, it is state’s
obligation to prevent usurpation of state’s control from international interests (Scheyvens,
2002). Alongside this investment, the presence of myriad bodies within the apparatus
discourages effective coordination and planning of development strategies, where often
corrupted actions take place and is a subject of political exploitation in the form of
clientilism. All these, reflect the economic, political, sociocultural and constitutional
peculiarity of Greece (Jamal, 2007). Hence, institutional structures ought to be
reorganized and should bring at the forefront time effectiveness, trustworthiness, and
commitment within the cross-sectional activities and should expand the width of
responsibilities and actions of local authorities. The key objective of local governance
within a sharply developed environment should be preservation of equity and harmony
and foremost that of social sustainability (Selin, 1999). Ecologists, in the name of this
social sustainability, through lobbying efforts with other social groups and individuals
raised initially their voice and long time later made an appeal to the Council of State
against on what they perceive as uncertain for the next generations. So, from their side
they perceive it as duty but the oppressors, even the local church, consider them
Page
77
Chapter5: Conclusions simplistically as individualistic, illusive, and non-democratized entities that harm the
public good.
Taken together all of the above, a limited scope of collaboration has been implied,
as the range of participants is not representative of all the affected bodies by tourism
development, instead it would be better to talk of a private and public sector cooperation
(Timothy, 1998). Thereby, the intensity of collaboration is also limited; during the 15
years of negotiation limited working groups, conferences and surveys took place that
indicate low direct interaction among stakeholders and minimal information
dissemination (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Next, whilst reviewing the appeal in the
council of State, the reciprocal juridicial prosecutions, the reluctance of primary
stakeholders to accept the proposed terms of development by secondary stakeholders, the
absence of a trustworthy dialogue among them and the cynical annotation of people’s
attitudes induce low degree of consensus making and increased conflicts.
However, as it was quoted in the literature, if tourism is to become successful and
self perpetuation industry, many have advocated, it needs to be planned and managed as a
renewable resource industry based on local capacities and community decision making
(Murphy, 1985, as cited by Hall, 2000, p.33). Fundamentally, participants and tourism
developers ought to compromise in the name of the public good and should appear keener
towards a fully democratized procedure that will respect locality’s needs, goals and
culture and will preserve its economic prosperity. To do so, the author suggests several
courses of action. Initially, recognises the determinative role of local authorities around
the development domain, due to its political nuance. Local authorities, due to their spatial
proximity with the community should adopt a mentoring role, in environments that
experience sharp development, which will orchestrate a democratized consistent
collaborative approach. Therefore, recruiting tourism related human resources, with
clarified roles within the public sector is a necessity. Further, from a long term
perspective local authorities should invest in concert with the private sector on building
community capacity through education and raise of self awareness, in order locals to be
Page
78
Chapter5: Conclusions capable of coping with complex and demanding issues and then “undertaking projects
with independence and skills” (Jamal and Lagiewski, 2006, p. 2). Finally, the
establishment of an independent management authority with a legitimate structure is
proposed that will constantly monitor tourism activities and will exert pressures to private
actors to conform to the sustainable development rules, since “no single organisation or
individual can exert direct control over the destination’s development process (Jamal and
Getz, 1995, p.193) and there is the risk of degrading inconsistencies from the private
sector, due to the granted profit making parameter. In every case, the future will show,
whether the Cavo Sidero project will prove to be a flagship model of sustainable tourism,
as the company assert or a new wave of high class mass tourism (Andriotis, 2005).
Comprehensively, with the completion of this study, the author came up with
future research proposals. As an extension of this present study and due to apparent time
constraints, it would be interesting to explore further, how the community perceives
community based planning and their actual predisposition towards this approach. Another
issue that attracted the author’s attention, during the data collection process, was
discource analysis on the Ecocrete forum and in a series of e-blogs where hundreds of
articles have been published by individuals about this investment, which could be
perceived as an indirect reflection of community’s voice. Last but not least, beyond the
physical borders of Sitia, it would be valuable to investigate thoroughly the affective
relationship of partisanship with tourism planning and policy making process.
Page
79
Bibliography
Articles
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., and Fletcher, J., (2005). “Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 28-48.
Akama, J. S. (2002). “The role of Government in the development of tourism in
Kenya.” International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4(1), pp.1-14.
Amoah, V. A. and Baum, T. (1997). “Tourism education: policy versus practice.”
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 9(1), pp. 5-12.
Andriotis, K. (2001). “Tourism Planning and Development in Crete: Recent Tourism
Policies and their Efficacy.” International Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 9 (4),
pp. 298–316.
Andriotis, K. (2002). “Residents’ Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction with Public Sector
Governance: The Cretan Case.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4, pp. 53–68.
Andriotis, K. (2002). “Local Authorities in Crete and the Development of Tourism.”
The journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 13(2), pp. 53-62.
Andriotis, K. (2003) “Coastal Resorts Morphology: The Cretan Experience.” Tourism
Recreation Research, Vol.( 28), pp. 67–76.
Andriotis, K. (2005). “Course and Effect, integrated resort development in Cavo
Sidero, Crete” (unpublished).
Andriotis, K. (2006). “ Researching the development gap between the hinterland and
the coast-evidence from the island of Crete”. Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 629-
639.
80
Arnstein, S.R., (1969).”A ladder of citizen participation.” Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 35(4), pp. 216-224.
Bahaire, T. and Elliott-White, M.(1999). “Community Participation in Tourism
Planning and Development in the Historic City of York, England.” Current Issues in
Tourism, Vol. 2(2&3), pp. 243-276.
Baidal, I., and Josep, A., (2004). "Tourism planning in Spain: evolution and
perspectives." Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 313–333.
Bianchi, R.V., (2003). “Place and power in tourism development: tracing the complex
articulations of community and locality.” PASOS: Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio
Cultural, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 13-32.
Blackstock, K., (2005). “A critical look at community based tourism.” Community
Development Journal, Vol. 40 (1), pp. 39-49.
Bramwell, B., and Sharman, A., (1999). “Collaboration in local tourism
policymaking.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 392-415.
Bramwell, B., and Lane, B., (2000). "Collaboration and partnerships in tourism
planning". Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and
Sustainability, Channel View Publications, pp. 1-19.
Bramwell, B., (2006). “Actors, power, and discourses of growth limits.” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 33, pp. 957–978.
Bramwell, B., and Meyer, D., (2007). “Power and tourism policy relations in
Transition.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 766-788.
Briassouli, H.(2003). “ Crete: Endowed by Nature Privileged by Geography,
Threatened by Tourism?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 11, pp. 97–115.
81
Buhalis, D. (1999). “Limits of tourism development in peripheral destinations:
problems and challenges”. Tourism Management, Vol. 20(2), pp. 183-185.
Buhalis, D. (2001). “Tourism in Greece: Strategic Analysis and Challenges.” Current
issues in Tourism, Vol. 4(5), pp. 440-480.
Buhalis, D. (2000). “Marketing the competitive destination of the future.” Tourism
Management, Vol. 21 (1), pp. 97-116.
Burns, P. M., (1999). “Paradoxes in planning tourism elitism or brutalism?” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 329-348.
Burns, P.M., (2004). “Tourism planning-a third way?” Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol.31(1), pp. 24-43.
Cheong, S. M., and Miller, M. L. (2000). “Power and tourism: a foucauldian
observation.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27 (2), pp. 371-390.
Davies, B. (2003). “The role of quantitative and qualitative research in industrial
studies of tourism.” International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 5, pp.97-111.
De Araujo, L.M., and Bramwell, B., (1999). “Stakeholder assessment and
collaborative tourism planning: the case of Brazil’s Costa Dourada project.” Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7 (3,4), pp. 356.
Decrop, A.(1999). “Triangulation in qualitative tourism research.” Tourism
Management, Vol. 20 (1), pp. 157-161.
Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., Shaw,
R. L., Smith, J. A., and Young, B. (2006). “How can systematic reviews incorporate
qualitative research?” Qualitative Research, Vol. 6(1), pp. 27-44.
Donatos, G., and Zairis, P. (1991). “Research Notes and Reports: Seasonality of
Foreign Tourism in the Greek Island of Crete.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 18
82
(3), pp. 515-519.
Dredge, D.(2001). “Local Government Tourism Planning and Policy-making in New
South Wales: Institutional Development and Historical Legacies”. Current Issues in
Tourism}, Vol. 4(2&4), pp.355-380.
Dredge, D., and Jenkins, J. (2003). “Destination place identity and regional tourism
policy.” Tourism Geographies, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 383-407.
Dredge, D., (2006). “Policy networks and the local organization of tourism.” Tourism
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 269–280.
Dredge, D., (2006). “Networks, conflict and collaborative communities.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 14 (6), pp. 562-581.
Elmendorf, W.F. and Luloff, A. E. (2001). “Using qualitative data collection methods
when planning for community forests”. Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 27(3), pp.139-
151.
Fayos-Sola, E. (1996). “Tourism policy: a midsummer night's dream?” Tourism
Management, Vol. 17(6), pp. 405—412.
Gephart, R.(2004). “Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal.”
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47(4), pp. 454-462.
Getimis, P. and Grigoriadou, D. (2004) “The Europeanization of urban governance in
Greece: a dynamic and contradictory process.” International Planning Studies, Vol.
9(1), pp. 5-25. Gurney, P. M. and Humphreys, M. (2006).“Consuming Responsibility: The Search
for Value at Laskarina Holidays.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 64, pp. 83–100.
Hall, C. M., (1999). “Rethinking collaboration and partnerships: a public policy
perspective.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7 (3,4), pp. 274–289.
83
Hammersley, M. (2001). “ Which side was Becker on? Questioning political and
epistemological radicalism.” Qualitative Research, Vol. 1(1), pp. 91-110.
Hauser, E., (2005). “Are you experienced?” (June) Promo, pp. 104.
Healey, P. (1998). “Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society.” Town Planning
Review, vol.(1), pp. 1–21.
Hernandez, S. A.; Cohen, J. and Garcia, H. L. (1996). “Residents’ attitudes towards
an instant resort enclave.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23(4), pp. 755-779.
Humphreys, M., Brown, A., and Hatch, M.J. (2003). “Is Ethnography Jazz?”
Organization articles, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 5.
Jamal, T.B., and Getz, D., (1995). “ Collaboration theory and community tourism
Planning.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 22, pp. 186–204.
Jamal, T.B., and Getz, D., (1999). “Community Roundtables for tourism- related
conflicts: the dialectics of consensus and process of structures.” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Vol. 7(3&4), pp. 290-313.
Jamal, T., and Hollinshead, K. (2000). “Tourism and the Forbidden Zone: The
Underserved Power of Qualitative Research.” Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 63-
82.
Jamal, B.J, Stein, S.M. and Harper, T.L. (2002). “Beyond Labels. Pragmatic Planning
in Multi-stakeholder Tourism- Environment Conflicts.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research, Vol. 22, pp.164-177.
Jamal, M.M. and Lagiewski, R., (2006). “A bipolar view of island tourism planning.
A case of Maldives Island.” EuroCHRIE The Hospitality & Tourism Educators, pp. 1-
9, as obtained from
https://ritdml.rit.edu/dspace/bitstream/1850/3006/1/RLagiewskiConfProc10-2006.pdf.
84
Jensen, C. and Lauritsen, P. (2005)."Qualitative research as partial connection: By
passing the power-knowledge nexus." Qualitative research, vol. 5(1), pp.59-75
Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G.(2006). “Evaluating qualitative
management research: Towards a contingent criteriology”. International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 8(3), pp. 131-156.
Ladkin, A., and Bertramini, A.M., (2002). “Collaborative tourism planning: a case
study of Cusco, Peru.” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 5 (2), pp. 71-93.
Lawrence, T.B., Wickins, D., and Phillips, N. (1997). “Managing legitimacy in
ecotourism.” Tourism Management, Vol. 18 (5), pp. 307–316.
Marino, A., (2001). “The tourist sector: public versus private — the Italian and
Spanish experience.” Tourism Management, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 43-48.
Markwick, M.C. (2000). “Golf tourism development, stakeholders, differing
discourses and alternative agendas: the case of Malta.” Tourism Management, Vol. 21
(5), pp.515-524.
Marzano, G., and Scott, N., (2005). “Stakeholder power in destination branding: a
methodological discussion.” Vol. 1 (1), pp. 203-214.
Marzano, G. (2006). “Relevance of power in the collaborative process of destination
branding in: 11th annual conference on graduate education and graduate student.”
Research in Hospitality and Tourism. As retrieved from
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv.php?pid=UQ:8778&dsID=Seattle_final.pdf, in
June, 2006.
Mifsud, Maria (2006) Historical Analysis of Tourism Policy and Planning in Malta.
MSc dissertation, University of Nottingham.
85
Mitchell, R.E., and Reid, D.G., (2001)“Community integration: island tourism in
Peru.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28 (1), pp. 113-139.
Murphy, P.E. (1988). “Community driven tourism planning.” Tourism Management,
Vol.9 (2), pp. 96-104.
Nandhakumar, J. and Jones, M.(1997). “Too close for comfort? Distance and
engagement in interpretive information systems research.” Information Systems
Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 109-131
O’ Donnell, A. and Cummins, D. (1999).“The use of qualitative methods to research
networking in SME’s.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol.
2(2), pp. 82-91.
Page, R.N. (1997). “Teaching about validity.” Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol.
10(2), pp. 145-155.
Pforr, C., (2006). “Tourism policy in the making: an Australian network study.”
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33, pp. 87–108.
Pine, B. J. and Gilmore, J. H., (1998). “Welcome to the experience economy.”
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 (4), pp. 97-105.
Poon, A., (1994). “The new tourism revolution.” Tourism Management, Vol. 15 (2),
pp.91-92.
Ramirez, R., (1999). “Stakeholder analysis and conflict management.” Cultivating
Peace: Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource Management, pp. 101-126.
Rapport, F. M. (2000). "Combining methodological approaches in research:
Ethnography and interpretive phenomenology." Journal of Advanced Nursing,
vol.31(1), pp. 219-225.
86
Reed, M.G., (1997). “ Power relations and community-based tourism planning.
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 (3), pp. 566–591.
Reed, M.G., (1999). “Collaborative tourism planning as adaptive experiments in
emergent tourism settings.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7 (3,4), pp. 331-
355.
Riley, R. W. and Love, L. L. (2000). “The state of Qualitative tourism research.”
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27(1), pp. 164-187.
Ritchie, J. R. B., (1999). “Interest based formulation of tourism policy for
environmentally sensitive destinations.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7
(3&4), pp. 206-239.
Rowley, J. (2002). “Using case studies in research.” Management research news, Vol.
25(1), pp. 16-27.
Roberts, L. and Simpson, F. (1999). “Developing Partnership Approaches to Tourism
in Central and Eastern Europe.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 7(3&4), pp.
314-330.
Robson, J. and Robson, I.(1996). “From shareholders to stakeholders: critical issues
for tourism marketers.” Tourism Management, Vol. 17(7), pp. 533-540.
Russell, L., 2005. “It’s a question of trust: balancing the relationship between students
and teachers in ethnographic fieldwork”. Qualitative Research, Vol. 5(2), p. 181-199.
Ryan, C., (2002). “Equity, management, power sharing and sustainability: issues of
the new tourism." Tourism Management, Vol. 23 (1), pp. 17-26.
Sadan, E. and Churchman, A. (1997). “Process-focused and product focused
community planning. Two variations of empowering professional practice.”
Community Development Journal, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 3–16.
87
Sandelowski, M.(1997). “To be of use”: Enhancing the utility of qualitative research.”
Nursing Outlook, Vol. 45(3), pp. 125-132.
Seale, C. (1999). “Quality in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 5(4), pp.
465-478.
Selin, S., and Chavez, D., (1995). “Developing a collaborative model for
environmental planning and management.” Environmental Management, Vol. 19 (2),
pp. 189-195.
Selin, S., and Chavez, D., (1995). “Developing a evolutionary tourism partnership
model”. Annals of tourism, Vol. 22(4), pp. 844-856.
Selin, S. (1999) Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 7 (3&4), 260–73.
Sheehan, L. R., and Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). “Destination stakeholders exploring
identity and salience.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 (3), pp. 711-734.
Smart, G. (1998). “Mapping conceptual worlds: Using interpretive ethnography to
explore knowledge making in a professional community.” The Journal of Business
Communication, Vol. 35(1), pp. 111-127.
Soteriades, M. D., and Arvanitis, S. E. (2006). “Expenditure Patterns by Travel Party
Size: British and German Tourists on Crete, Greece.” Anatolia: An International
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 17 (2), pp. 1-19.
Stanton, J. and Aislabie, C.(1992). “Up-market integrated resorts in Australia”.
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, pp. 435-449.
Stokes, D. and Bergin, R. (2006). “Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of
focus groups and depth interviews.” Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 26-37.
88
Taylor, G., (1995). “The community approach: does it really work?” Tourism
Management, Vol. 16(7), pp.487-489.
Terkenli, T. S. (2005). “Human Activity in Landscape Seasonality: The Case of
Tourism in Crete.” Journal of Landscape Research, Vol. 30, (2), pp. 221 – 239.
Timothy, D.J., (1998). “Cooperative tourism planning in a developing destination.”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 6, pp. 52–68.
Timothy, D.J., (1999). “Participatory planning: a view of tourism in Indonesia.”
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 371-391.
Tinsley, R., and Lynch, P., (2001). “Small tourism business networks and destination
Development.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 (4), pp.367-
378.
Tosun, C., (2006). “Expected nature of community participation in tourism
Development.” Tourism Management, Vol. 27 (3), pp. 493-504.
Tosun, C. and Jenkins, C. L., (1998). “The evolution of tourism planning in third
world countries: a critique.” Progress in tourism and hospitality research, Vol. 4, pp.
101-114.
Tribe, J.(2001). “ Research Paradigms and the Tourism Curriculum.” Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 39, pp. 442-448.
Truly-Sauter E., and Leisen B., (1999). “Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning
model.” Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 312-328 . Tsartas, P.(2003). “Tourism Development in Greek Insular and Coastal Areas:
Sociocultural Changes and Crucial Policy Issues” Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol. 11(2-3), pp. 116-132.
89
Tyler, D. and Dinan, C.(2001). “The role of interested groups in England’s emerging
tourism policy network.” Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4 (2-4), pp.210-252.
Verbole, A., (2000). “Actors, discourses and interfaces of rural tourism development
at the local community level in Slovenia: social and political dimensions of the rural
tourism development process.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 8 (6), pp. 479-
489.
Wall, G. (1995). “Integrating Integrated Resort.” Research notes and Reports, pp.
713-717.
Walle, A.H. (1997). “Quantitative Versus Qualitative Tourism Research.” Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 24 (3), pp. 524-536.
Whittemore, R., Chase S.C., and Mandle C. L. (2001).“Validity in Qualitative
Research.” Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 11(4), pp. 522-537.
Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., and Yuksel, A. (1999). “Stakeholder interviews and tourism
planning at Pamukkale, Turkey.” Tourism Management, Vol. 20, pp. 351-360.
Yuksel, F. and Yuksel, A.(2000). “ Tourism Plan formulations and implementation:
the role of inter-organisational relations.” First International Joint Symposium on
Business Administration, Challenges for Business Administration in the New
Millennium, as obtained from
http://www.opf.slu.cz/vvr/akce/turecko/pdf/YukFRel.pdf on 13th of July, 2007.
Books
Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B. and Sutherland- Rahman, S. (2002). “Unfolding
Stakeholder Thinking. Theory Responsibility and Engagement with a Foreword by
R.E. Freeman.” Greenleaf Publishing limited.
90
Buhalis, D. and Costa, C. (2006). “Tourism Management Dynamics; Trends,
management and tools.” Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000). “Collaboration and partnerships in tourism
planning.” Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships, pp.1-19.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003). “Business Research methods.” Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cassel, C. and Symon, G. (2004). “Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in
Organisational Research”, Sage.
Denzin, N. K and Lincoln, Y. S.(2003). “Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Materials.” 2nd Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (2004). “Research methods for sport studies.” Oxon:
Routledge.
Gunn, A.C. and Var, T.(2002). “Tourism Planning; basics, concepts, cases.” 4th
edition, Routledge, Taylor and Francis books.
Hall, C. M., (2000). “Tourism Planning, Policies, Processes and Relationships.”
Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M. and Jenkins, J. M., (1995). “Tourism and Public Policy.” Routledge.
Holden, A. (2000). “Environment and Tourism”. Routledge.
Jeffries, D. (2001). “Governments and Tourism”. Butterworth, Heinemann.
Lehmann, D.R. and Gupta, S. and Steckel, J.H.(1998). “Marketing Research”.
Addison-Wesley.
91
Malhotra, N. K. and Birks, D. F. (2000). “Marketing Research, an applied approach”.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998). “Tourism and Sustainability: Development and
New Tourism in the Third World.” Routledge.
Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L.(2004). “Qualitative Research in Tourism, ontologies,
epistemologies, methodologies. Routledge.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., (2003). “Research Methods for business
students”. (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Scheyvens, R., (2002). “Tourism for development: empowering communities.”
Pearson Education Limited.
Silverman, D.(2005). “Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook.” London:
Sage.
Yin, R., K. (1994). “Case study research: design and methods”.(2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Ca: Sage
Electronic Sources Anipsitakis, A.(2006). “Cavo Sidero, for an acceptable agreement even from our
Children; Eight points and eight proposals”. As obtained from
http://www.ecocrete.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=views&id=2165&Itemi
d=32. on 20th of June, 2007(in Greek).
Garefalakis, Th. N. (2007). “Minoan Group Works and Days ( Minoan Group ‘Εργα
και Ηµέραι)” as obtained from
http://syriza-agn.pblogs.gr/2007/08/minoan-group.html, on 19th of July, 2007.
92
Ecocrete, 2006 “Synopsis of the daily conference in Sitia about vast tourism
investments in Eastern Crete”. As obtained from
http://www.ecocrete.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2252&Itemid
=32, on 4th of July.
Jamal, M. M. (2007). “ Exploring Tourism Development on Uninhabited Islands”,
Dissertation, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Department of
Hospitality and Service Management, as obtained from
https://ritdml.rit.edu/dspace/bitstream/1850/3931/1/MJamalThesis04-20-2007.pdf, on
3rd of July, 2007.
Kalfelis, G. (2007). “Gnwmes - Sxolia”(Opinions and Comments). Ta Nea,
Newspaper (Greek). As retrieved from
http://ekloges.dolnet.gr/2007/news/article.asp?lngInstID=50&lngEntityID=35814&ln
gDtrID=100, on 31st of August, 2007.
OECD, (1999). “Roundtable “Regional Policy and Tourism” as obtained from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/32/1902552.pdf in June, 2007.
Orfanogiannaki, E. and Pastras, P. (2006). “The governmental intervention in the
evolution of tourism at the municipality of Agios Nikolaos.” As retrieved from
http://tourism-
conference.eap.gr/pdf%20files/Orfanogiannaki,%20E.%20&%20Pastras,%20P.pdf,
on 17th of July, 2007.
Research Observatory, University of the West of England as retrieved from
http://ro.uwe.ac.uk/RenderPages/RenderLearningObject.aspx?Context=7&Room=1&
Constellation=1&LearningObject=28, on 11th of July, 2007.
Simpkins, E.(2005). “Ofex minnow will step up to Aim with £800m holiday complex
plan.” The Telegraph newspaper. As retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/06/19/cnofex19.xm
l&sSheet=/money/2005/06/19/ixcity.html, on 26th of June, 2007.
93
OAS S.A., (26th of January 2006). Daily Conference of “Big Tourism Investments in
Eastern Crete, Development and Sustainability” and the proposals of Nikolaos
Petrakis.
Ecocrete, 2006 “Synopsis of the daily conference in Sitia about vast tourism investments in Eastern Crete”. As obtained from http://www.ecocrete.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2252&Itemid=32, on 4th of July.
94
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A
Who did attend in the daily Conference in Sitia?
Tsikalakis, Mayor of Sitia;
Stratakis, Prefect of Lasithi;
Theofilos, Abbot of the Abbey Toplou;
Geoffrey, B. Technical director of Minoan Group Plc;
Karximakis, M. Deputy of Lasithi;
Tsouhla, D. Representative of the Corporation ‘Ioannou’-development in eastern
Crete;
Loukas, Representative of hotelier Enterprises of Eastern Crete S.A.;
Haidas, E. Chairman of ‘Iktinos’ S.A.;
Arnaoutakis, S. member of the European Parliament;
Traulinos, T. Member of the administrative board of Technical Chamber of Eastern
Crete ΤΕΕ/ΤΑΚ;
Petrakis, N. Director of Sitia Development Organisation (O.A.S.) S.A.
Dr. Andriotis, K. Member of the Open University’s teaching staff;
93
Appendices
Dr.Nikolopoulos, F. sociologist;
Paolo Croce, Representative of the European forum Sustainable Golf;
Kapetanaki-Briasouli, E. Professor of University Aegean, Department of Geography;
Hlikas, N. Forester-enviromentalist;
Dannelis, S. Architect, Mayor of Hersonisos;
Anipsitakis, A. Civil Engineer, member of Ecological group of Sitia;
Tsouknakis, N. Civil Engineer-chairman of the prefectural committee of ΤΕΕ/ΤΑΚ,
in Lasithi;
Kampitakis, K. Agronomist, Chairman of the Geotechnical chamber of Crete;
Papadakis, Member of the Pan-Cretan network Eco-Crete;
Briasoulis, Professor in agronomic in the University of Athens;
Tsantakis, Municipal Adviser of Itanos;
Manolidakis, M. Representative of Association of Hoteliers in Lasithi;
Paterakis, Chairman of the Prefectural Council of Lasithi;
Vamvakopoulos, representative of the Corporation Ioannou-development in eastern
Crete.
Kiriakopoulos, Representative of the Civilian move “towards the prosperity of the
Sitia district;
Georgiadis, Legal Representative Of Minoan PLC;
Perakis, Mayor of Itanos;
94
Appendices
Matsinos, J. Professor of the Aegean University, Department of Environment,
founding member of “European Platform for Biodiversity” .
As obtained from the
http://www.ecocrete.gr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2252&Itemi
d=32, on 16th of August, 2007.
Appendix B
English Version
Personal Interviews-Questions
Tourism policy and collaboration planning in Sitia
“First of all, I would like to thank you for your time and effort in participating in this
survey. Your contribution to the fulfillment of my dissertation is invaluable indeed. All
the provided information on your behalf, after the completion of the interview, will be
treated strictly as confidential.”
1. Vision and Objectives.
A. Which vision do you hold for the tourism development of Greece and of Sitia in
particular?
B. What do you expect to achieve through tourism and especially through the
emerging tourism projects and how can you secure those results?
95
Appendices
2. Government Role, in terms of regional tourism development and its
predisposition.
A. What is the role of the central tourism administration in the development of
tourism at regional levels? How can it improve the overall competitiveness of
tourism industry or a destination?
B. Has the government ever encouraged any cooperative efforts between the state
and regions and how? Please evaluate the existing practices.
C. Apart from funding issues, what other factors act as constraint or facilitators of
collaboration and partnership in national and local tourism planning? How do you
think each of these constraints might best be overcome?
3. Cooperation and partnerships in local tourism planning.
A. At present time, who initiates the rural development process and who gets to
participate in this process?
B. Do you perceive that the range of participants in tourism planning and
development is representative of all the affected bodies by tourism
development?
C. Usually, how are the terms of development negotiated?
D. At what stages of the planning process are the relevant stakeholders involved
in tourism development?
E. Who decides about the development process?
96
Appendices
F. Are the local authorities, the private sector and the non profit organisations
actively and collectively involved in the tourism development effort as well as
in the decision making process?
G. What do you perceive from the terms of community- based and cooperative
tourism planning? Do you feel that these approaches are important?
4. Democratization of tourism development and planning process.
A. Is it common for the authorities and developers to conduct a priori any kinds
of resident research, in emergent tourism settings?
B. How would you characterise the prospect of active community’s involvement
in tourism decision making process, along with legal elected bodies?
C. Do the local authorities encourage community participation? Has the
community received adequate information and consultative guidelines about
tourism issues?
H. Would you support the appointment of a legitimate convenor to initiate and
facilitate community based partnership?
5. Power differentials and consensus.
A. Is there any trustworthy and open dialogue among participants about emerging
policies and their consequences, where participants respect and learn from each
other’s views and interests?
B. To what extent are proposals, related to tourism issues, made from less
powerful parties, taken into account by higher level of authorities?
97
Appendices Greek version
Προσωπικές συνεντεύξεις,
Τουριστική πολιτική και συνεργικός σχεδιασµός
«Καταρχήν, θα επιθυµούσα να σας ευχαριστήσω για το χρόνο και την προσπάθεια
σας. Η συµβολή σας στην εκπλήρωση της διατριβής µου είναι ανεκτίµητη. Όλες οι
παρεχόµενες πληροφορίες µετά από την ολοκλήρωση της συνέντευξης εξ’ ονόµατος
σας, θα αντιµετωπιστούν αυστηρά όπως εµπιστευτικές».
1. Όραµα και στόχοι
Α. Ποιο το όραµα σας σε σχέση µε την τουριστική ανάπτυξη της Ελλάδος και της
Σητείας ειδικότερα;
Β. Τι προσδοκάτε να επιτύχετε µέσω του τουρισµού και συγκεκριµένα µέσω των
αναδυόµενων τουριστικών προγραµµάτων (projects) και πως µπορείτε να διασφαλίσετε
αυτά τα αποτελέσµατα;
2. Ο ρόλος της πολιτείας και ποια η προδιάθεση της σε σχέση µε την
περιφερειακή τουριστική ανάπτυξη.
Α. Ποιος είναι ο ρόλος της κεντρικής διοίκησης τουρισµού στην ανάπτυξη του
τουρισµού σε περιφερειακό επίπεδό και πώς µπορεί να βελτιώσει τη γενική
ανταγωνιστικότητα της βιοµηχανίας τουρισµού ή ενός προορισµού;
Β. Σε τι βαθµό, έχουν οι εκάστοτε κυβερνήσεις ενθαρρύνει τις οιοσδήποτε συνεργικές
προσπάθειες µεταξύ κράτους, διαφόρων διοικητικών βαθµίδων και των περιφερειών και
πώς; Αν όχι, γιατί; Σας παρακαλώ αποτιµήστε τις υπάρχουσες πρακτικές.
98
Appendices
Γ. Εκτός από τους χρηµατοδοτικούς πόρους, ποιοι άλλοι παράγοντες εµποδίζουν ή
διευκολύνουν τη συνέργεια και την συνεργασία στον εθνικό και τοπικό σχεδιασµό του
τουρισµού; Πώς πιστεύετε ότι θα ξεπεραστούν τα εµπόδια αυτά;
3. Συνεργασία (συνέργεια) και συνεταιρισµός σε σχέση µε τον τοπικό σχεδιασµό
του τουρισµού.
I. Σήµερα ποιος υποκινεί τις διαδικασίες ανάπτυξης σε περιφερειακό επίπεδο (ποιος
παίρνει πρωτοβουλίες) και ποιος συµµετέχει σε αυτές?
J. Θεωρείτε ότι ο αριθµός των συµµετεχόντων στον προγγραµµατισµό του
τουρισµού είναι αντιπροσωπευτικός όλων αυτών που επηρεάζονται
κατ’εξοχήν από την ανάπτυξη του τουρισµού;
Γ. Συνήθως, σε ποιο στάδιο της προγραµµατιστικής διαδικασίας της τουριστικής
ανάπτυξης εµπλέκονται οι αρµόδιοι συµµέτοχοι;
∆. Εµπλέκονται οι τοπικοί φορείς - εξουσίες / ο ιδιωτικός τοµέας και οι µη
κερδοσκοπικοί οργανισµοί, ενεργά και συλλογικά στην προσπάθεια
τουριστικής ανάπτυξης όπως και στην διαδικασία λήψης των αποφάσεων;
Ε. Πώς αντιλαµβάνεστε τους όρους, «συνεργικός» και «κοινοτικός βασιζόµενος
τουριστικός σχεδιασµός»; Αισθάνεστε ότι αυτές οι µέθοδοι είναι σηµαντικοί;
(κύριε Ανυψιτάκη µε τον όρο κοινοτικό εννοώ την κοινότητα, τους πολίτες)
99
Appendices 4. Εκδηµοκρατισµός της διαδικασίας τουριστικής ανάπτυξης και σχεδιασµού.
A. Είναι σύνηθες για τις αρχές και τους επενδυτές να διεξάγουν εκ των προτέρων
κάθε µορφή έρευνας στους κατοίκους σε σχέση µε τα τουριστικά αναδυόµενα
περιβάλλοντα;
B. Πως θα χαρακτηρίζατε την προοπτική της ενεργής συµµετοχής της τοπικής
κοινωνίας στην διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων σχετικών µε τον τουρισµό,
µαζί µε τους νόµιµους εκλεγµένους φορείς;
Γ. Ενθαρρύνουν οι τοπικοί φορείς (εξουσίες) την συµµετοχή της τοπικής
κοινωνίας; Είθισται να λαµβάνουν οι πολίτες επαρκή πληροφόρηση και
συµβουλευτικές οδηγίες σχετικά µε τα τουριστικά ζητήµατα;
∆. Θα στηρίζατε τη συγκρότηση ενός νόµιµου ανεξάρτητου φορέα, π.χ. τύπου
οργανισµός διαχείρισης προορισµού, ο οποίος θα υποκινεί, θα υλοποιεί, και
θα συντονίζει τον κοινοτικό βασιζόµενο σχεδιασµό;
5. Ανισότητα δυνάµεων και οµοφωνία
Α. Υπάρχει ανοιχτός και αξιόπιστος διάλογος µεταξύ των συµµετεχόντων σχετικά µε
τις αναδυόµενες(νέες) πολιτικές και τις επιπτώσεις τους, όπου οι συµµετέχοντες
σέβονται και µαθαίνουν από τις εκατέρωθεν απόψεις και τα διάφορα συµφέροντα;
Β. Σε τι βαθµό λαµβάνονται υπόψιν προτάσεις στα τουριστικά θέµατα των λιγότερο
ισχυρών οµάδων, από τις υψηλότερες βαθµίδες τις διοικητικής ιεραρχίας ;
100
Appendices Appendix C
Written interview
Chairman of O. A. S. S.A.
1. A.
In terms of Greece:
“Greece as a destination needs to become attractive to tourists with higher income.
And needs to develop forms of tourism based on the comparative advantages of culture,
local products, traditional culinary, but always with respect towards the environment and
our cultural heritage”.
In terms of Sitia:
“The balanced and sustainable tourist growth of province Sitia based on the alternative
forms of tourism of agricultural, nature based, cultural, culinary based, health, and sport
having always though in mind the carrying capacity of this area.”
1. B
• “Creating new places for work;
• Exploiting local products and resources;
• Rejuvenating the countryside ;
• Introducing new technologies and know-how expertise;
• Communicating with other cultures;
• Establishing and Promoting Sitia as a tourism destination.
In my opinion there is no guarantee to achieve those goals in absolute terms. Is it required
a continuous effort of empowering local authorities, local bodies-institutions and
citizenry”.
101
Appendices
2. A “The role of central administration is decisive, since it takes all the basic decisions,
in all issues. It can improve the competitiveness with resources, motives, policies and
controlling schemes that could ensure and enhance the quality of provided services and
environment; and enrich always the tourist product based on the comparative advantages
of a place”.
B “Only to some extent…! The reason is that they want to control everything from the
centre. Exclusively, the existing practice is centralisation. What is needed even in the
tourism sector is DECENTRALIZATION of actions”.
C “Other factors that prevent it are the lack of zoning plan (nationally and regionally),
the lack of cadastre, the lack of suitable institutional frame, the lack of a coherent and
transparent political will and the lack of mentality, tradition and "culture of"
collaboration.
Factors that facilitate and impose collaboration are the intense international competition,
the giantism of Tour Operators, the European Policies and the European Programs.”
3. A
“Institutionally wise, the organisations of each periphery and [maybe on the spot] the
technical chambers, the unions of hoteliers and so on. However, peripheral authoritative
bodies, chambers and tourism bodies do not exist, even if some of them might exist (eg
local authorities, prefecture or municipality) they do not operate satisfactory. And in this
sector (the local tourism planning) the central state plays still the decisive role. Most of
them (chambers, local authorities and so on) participate in the rural development process
just to participate; it seems that they do not have a strong voice.”
B. “No. The biggest "deficit" concerns the residents (and not only), who are indirectly
influenced by tourism development activities”.
102
Appendices
C. “Usually, in an advanced stage of the process or when they are reviewing the details
of those terms.”
D.
“Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Commonly they are involved, after the basic
decisions have been taken place or after the already started implementation of the tourism
development plan, where central authorities at that time do not bear all the costs and
responsibilities”.
E.
“The tourist planning that is based on the synergy and on the community that is to say on
the society of region.”
4 A. “No it is not usual at all.”
B “Essential and very beneficial.”
C. “Some of them yes, some others no.”
D. “Yes. But the implementation of community based planning based solely on a
convener seems difficult, instead it should rather adopt a consultative role.”
5
A. No
B Just a Little
Appendix D
The proposed terms from the representative of the Ecological group in Sitia:
• The foundation should set the investment of Cavo Sidero as a top priority and
should reconsider its yield from the investment;
103
Appendices
• Cancel the construction of golf courses or at least to reduce their number;
• The scale of the investment should not exceed the carrying capacity of the area
socially and spatially wise;
• The investment should be compatible with the requirements of the Natura 2000
network;
• Take measures to avoid the creation of a luxury ghetto;
• Reduce the duration (40+40 years) of the contract works with Minoan Group
PLC;
• Adapt the foundation’s memorandum; • To use, the most effective environmental friendly techniques, in terms of the
architectural design, the adequate design of energy sources consumption, the
resources consumption, the water in particular and the special wastage treatment.
Appendix E
The Inter-scientific Group that conducted the M.P.E.
The present MPE has been conducted by an inter-scientific international team, where the
following study offices, consultant companies and Special scientists have been involved.
-Researcher: NERCO Company - N. CHLICAS and COLLABORATORS Ltd.,
Holder of degree of category 27 "Environmental Studies" Class C, six (6) units’
potential, with registration number 581 and seated in Athens, 3, I. Damaskinou str.,
Tel. +30 210 6422919, Fax. +30 210 6452955
NERCO Company - Participants in the Team of Study:
Nora Skokou, Forester - Enviromentalist
104
Appendices
Konstantinos Giannouchos, Forester - Enviromentalist
Panagiotis Papadopoulos, Enviromentalist, Msc in the Environmental Technology
Maria Vassilakou, Agronomist, Msc in the Applications of Geo-informatics in the
natural resources and in the environment?
Charilaos Dolgiras, Engineer of Mines - Metallurgist Engineer, Candidate Dr.
E.M.P.
-Coordination - Assiduity of Study: Consulting Company ECHMES Ltd.
Supervisor: Katerina Adam MSc, PhD, Researcher, Holder of Study Degree of
category 27 "Environmental Studies", Class B
ECHMES Company Ltd. – Participants in the Team of Study:
Apostle Kourtis, Engineer of Environment, Candidate Dr. E.M.P
Irini Christodoulou, Engineer of Mines - Metallurgist, MBA
Yiannis Orfanoudakis, Engineer of Mines - Metallurgist, MSc in GIS
Nikos Voudouris, Engineer of Mines - Metallurgist, Candidate Dr E.M.P
-ASPA Company S.A, Athens, Urban Planning and Coordination of Work Planning
ASPA Company S.A. - Participants in the Team of Study:
Spyros Tsagaratos, Dr Urban Planning – Architect
105
Appendices
Faidon Georgjadis, Land Planner – Urban Planner
- BARR GAZETTAS Company, London, Architecture
-Company DENCO CONSULTANTS MECHANICS Ltd., Athens, Transport and
Circulatory studies, Road construction.
Supervisor: Helias Vassiliadis, MSc of Architecture and Urban Planning
-TEKEM Company Ltd., Networks of Infrastructure, Electromechanical study,
Studies of Soil Treatment Units, Study of Desalination Station
TEKEM Company Ltd. – Participants in the Team of Study:
Nikolaos Kavoulakos, Electrical – Mechanical Engineer E.M.P
Michalis Daioglou, Civil Engineer – Hydraulic Engineer
S. Adamopoulos, Electrical – Mechanical engineer
-Company GAMMA4 Ltd. – Consultants Geologists Engineers, Athens,
Hydraugeological study
Company GAMMA4 Ltd. – Participants in the Team of Study:
M. Giannatos, Dr Geologist
P. Avgeropoulos, Geologist, MSc
D. Mandilaras, Geologist
D. Vassios, Geologist
E. Papadopoulou, Geologist
-Company EUROPEAN GOLF DESIGN, Chobham Surrey, London, Architecture
of Golf Courses
106
Appendices -Company PGA Golf Management, Perthshire, Scotland, Architecture of Golf
Courses
-Company WHITELAW TURKINGTON, London, Study of Architecture of
Landscape
P. Kaimaki and Collaborators, Athens, Hydrologic Study
P. Kaimaki, Polar Engineer Dr, Hydrologist – Environmentalist, phD
E. Gkouvatsou, Civil Engineer, Hydrologist – Environmentalist, MSc
K. Siaparinas, Geologist, MSc
M. Antoniadi, Topographer Mechanic E.M.P.
-Company of Studies ET&T, Athens, Study of Acoustic and Atmospheric
Environment
K. Vogjatzis, Acoustic and environmentalist Dr.
F. Chonianaki, environmentalist
P. Kassomenos, Professor of the University of Ioannina
-Company DTZ Pieda, Reading, UK, Socio-economic Study
-Company Ove ARUP, West Midlands, UK, Assessment of Viability of Work
-Lawyer Company Dryllerakis and Collaborators, Athens, Law Consultants
-Lawyer Company Dryllerakis and Collaborators - Participants in the Team of
Study
Dryllerakis
M. Stoumpidi
S. Grigoriadou
-Lawyer Company Mishcon de Reya, Summit House, London, Legal
Consultants
Lawyer Company Mishcon de Reya - Participant in the Team of Study:
O. Goodwin, Law Consultant
T. Akriotis, Professor of the Aegean University, Department of Environment
A. Sakoulis, Special ornithologist
107
Appendices
Z. Kypriotakis, Agronomist, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Agronomics
Technology (STEG) in Heraclion, Crete
A.J. MacGillivray, British School of Archaeology, co-director of excavations
in Palaiokastro
P. Stoumpidi, Loyalward Consultant
T. Straker, QC, Consultant on issues of European Rights
N. Taylor, Strategy Consultant of the “Cavo Sidero” Project
108