Tourism development and carrying capacity in the Rhodes Island, Greece

Tourism development and carrying capacity in the Rhodes Island, Greece K. Kyriakou, E. Sourianos, D. Vagiona * Department of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AgiaVarvara, Veria, 59100, Greece *Corresponding author: E-mail: dimvag@auth.gr, Tel +30 2310 991448 Abstract Tourism constitutes one of the largest and rapidly growing industries in the world and meanwhile it represents one increasingly important source of income. The first attempts to develop the tourism sector in Greece were performed almost one million years ago and special attention was attributed to the largest islands with historical value and an adequate built environment, such as the island of Rhodes. However, the lack of integrated planning, has led to unregularly development of mass seasonal tourism. The aim of this study is to provide a flexible approach in order to identify the limits of this tourist destination and establish the basis for future monitoring of any tourism management plan. A short analysis of current tourism development is performed, followed by a SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats) analysis in the tourism sector. Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC)is defined through the assessment of selected tourism carrying capacity indicators. Keywords:Rhodes Island; Sustainable Tourism Development; Tourism Carrying Capacity. 1. INTRODUCTION Tourism development in Greece is based on its islands as they combine good weather conditions,noticeable natural sources and plenty of outstanding seas. The Greek islands form the most expensive and significant insular complex in European Union, with the most fragile resources. Lack of integrated planning and in some cases even unplanned tourism activities have led many islands and coastal areas to unregulated development of mass tourism, creating various social and environmental concerns. Mass tourism forms a crucial problem on islands because, during a short period, intense pressures combined with restricted possibilities to manage tourism s impacts exist [1, 2], generating negative impacts on the natural and anthropogenic environment of destination places. To avoid this, tourism development and management should be based on the recognition of the limits characterizing the destination. Tourism Carrying Capacity (TCC) can be particularly relevant to this purpose. TCC should be considered as a measure of sustainability and as a part of the planning process. According toworld Tourism Organization (WTO), TCC indicates the maximum number of people that may visit a tourism destination at the same time, without deteriorating the physical, economic and sociocultural environment and inducing unacceptable changes in the quality of the visitors satisfaction[3]. Despite TCC could vary among the different parts of an area and is easier to be defined in limited well-defined areas, there are some cases (for example islands) that entire regions can be considered. The calculation of a unique numerical value for the carrying capacity such as the number of visitors is not representative and objective because carrying capacity s meaning is multidimensional. In addition, it is not realistic to expect a finite carrying capacity for a specific area. On the contrary, it Proceedings of the 3 rd International CEMEPE & SECOTOX Conference Skiathos, June 19-24, 2011, ISBN 978-960-6865-43-5 1257

is more realistic to expect many different carrying capacities depending on management goals. As TCC is not a fixed concept the three pillars of sustainable development can provide also the basis for the analysis and assessment of TCC. A set of carrying capacity indicators could be used for the definition and implementation of carrying capacity and stakeholders or responsible actors could define their sustainability range [4].According to the type of tourist destination, different emphasis is given in the above considerations. In coastal areas and islands tourist density, the use of beaches and tourist infrastructure, congestion of facilities, sea pollution but also demands and impacts on resources such as water and energy, solid and water waste management and others should be considered. The main aim of this paper is to describe the pressures that are exerted, the state of the system and the impacts from tourism development through the assessment of tourism capacity indicators in a Greek famous tourism destination, the island of Rhodes. 2. METHODOLOGY Rhodes is one of the most popular international Greek tourist destinations and it appears a vast increase of seasonal population. Rhodes and Crete account for 49% of all overnight stays of foreign tourists in Greece. However, the first signs of saturation have been noticed since 2000 and this is absolutely expected as tourism cannot grow forever in a place without causing irreversible damage on local system. Moreover, Rhodes economy depends mainly on tourism and the agriculture sector has been abandoned, endangering Rhodes welfare. The whole island is selected in order to comply with the new administrative division in Greek territory (Kallikratis). Moreover, tourism carrying capacity of the central and eastern part of the island of Rhodes (Greece) has already been measured in previous studies [5]. An analysisconcerning the current tourism development, investigating the statistical characteristics of tourism on the island, type and level of tourism development,flows, and accommodation capacities is performed. Additionally, saturation s indicators are calculated and compared to other popular tourist destinations. Through SWOT analysis in the tourism sector some opportunities for sustainable tourism development are revealed and useful information for future management plans evoke. Selected tourism carrying capacity indicators, already defined for European tourism destinations [6], covering the three components of carrying capacity (physical ecological, socio-demographic and political economic indicators) have been calculated in order to investigate the existing situation for the island. The final output is an estimated set of tourism carrying capacity indicators which could serve as a framework for planning, monitoring and management for sustainable tourism in the island of Rhodes. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Analysis of current tourist development Being a coastal area, issues concerning tourist density, the use of beaches and tourist infrastructure, congestion of facilities should be considered. Defert s index, which measures the tourist density expressed by simultaneous coexistence of two different types of populations (tourists and population of destination) [7], equals 53.49 that means according to Boyer s classification [8] that the area under study is eminently tourist. 1258

The average ratio of tourist per habitat for 2010 was about 1.5, which means 3 tourists correspond to 2 inhabitants. This ratio is extremely high during peak season especially on August when 3 tourists are equal to 1 habitat (Figure 1). Figure 1.Ratio Tourists per capita 2010 The average duration of stay in Rhode s island has been decreased from 10.7 to 9.7 from 1986 to 2004, indicating signs of saturation. As far as the fluctuation of number of passengers arrivals is concerned, a noticeable increase appears in 2001, followed by a sharp decrease in 2002, but from 2003 until now, a constant flow of tourists has been noted (Figure 2). Figure 2.Passengers arrivals 1998-2010 Being one of the most popular international Greek tourism destinations, a great number of hotels with a wide variety of categories and rent rooms exist. The majority of luxury hotels is located in the town of Rhodes and in Faliraki area. The number of hotels reaches 474, which corresponds to32488 rooms and 61694 beds. Concerning the beaches quality, according to residents opinion, many are those who believe thatthey satisfy high standards (61%).Inhabitants that participated in a questionnaire survey concerning sustainable development of the island, which was performed by the authors during 1259

December 2010 and January 2011, declared that Faliraki (38%), Elli (16%) and Ialysos (6%) provide signs of degradation. 3.2. Tourism pressure indicators In order to investigate the grade of saturation of the island, some indicatorshave been selected [2]. The firstone is the ratio Tourists per total population assuming that the total population is the sum of island s population and the total passengers arrivals. The calculated value of this ratio for Rhodes is 13.57. A comparison of this ratio among the most popular Greek islands is revealed in Table 1, showing that the island of Rhodes owes the second rank. Table 1. Tourists per population Island Tourists / Population Rhodes 13.57 Kos 20.16 Corfu 3.78 Crete 2.16 The indicators tourists per km 2 and tourists per length of coastline have been calculated from 1998 to 2010, and their statistics are presented in the following table (Table 2). Table 2.Summary statistics for selected indicators Tourists per km 2 Tourists per length of coastline Minimum 729.49 4039.61 Maximum 1434.76 7945.08 Median 1134.04 6279.83 Average 1104.78 6117.78 It should be noted that the minimum and maximum values correspond to 1998 and 2001 respectively for both indicators. 3.3. SWOT Analysis The current situation that prevails in the island of Rhodes is summarized in the table below (Table 3). Table3.SWOT analysis Strengths Weaknesses International tourist destination Spatial overconcentration of tourist Interesting touristic sources alternative activities types of tourism Seasonal tourism Important cultural sources Restricted exploitation of cultural Wide variety of hotels sources and innovative actions to promote them Many saturated areas Expensive activities (accommodation, food etc) Opportunities Threats Perspectives of development high quality Competitive tourist destinations in tourist infrastructures Europe and the Mediterranean Attractive to invest on alternative forms Inadequate promotion of tourism (conference, cultural, sports) Tendency to new saturated areas Establishing a university for touristic 1260

policy 3.4. Tourism Carrying Capacity Indicators (TCCI) A first attempt is performed in order to evaluate the carrying capacity of the system and a series of indicators, according to data availability. The indicators selected are applicable to the physicalecological and socio-demographic components of TCC. Seven thematic areas have been considered for the physical-ecological component: ecosystem, protection, tourist infrastructure, water consumption, water quality and solid waste production. Tourist flow has been considered for the socio-economic component. It should be noted that some sectors of physical ecological component such as energy and water waste sector as well as political economic component of TCC are excluded from the analysis due to lack of data. The results are presented in the next table (Table 4) Table4.Selected TCCI ISSUES CODE TCCI VALUES Physical ecological Natural environment and PE1 Wetland/Total area 0.009 biodiversity / Ecosystems / Ecological destruction Natural environment and biodiversity / Ecosystems / Ecological destruction PE2 Forest/Total area 0.264 Natural environment and biodiversity / Protection PE3 Number of tourists/ protected key ecosystems surface 1261 5614.65 Natural environment and PE4 Tourist beds/ permanent population 0.535 biodiversity / tourist infrastructure Water / Water consumption PE5 Daily average water consumption in peak 1.49 period/ daily average water consumption Water / Water quality PE6 Number of beaches with blue flags (2010)/ 33/50 Waste / Solid waste production PE7 total number of beaches Daily average solid waste production in peak period/ daily annual average solid waste production Socio demographic Touristflow SD1 Tourists_Max value (peak period)/inhabitants 3.12 SD2 Tourists_Min value/inhabitants 0.21 SD3 Tourists_Average value/inhabitants 1.29 SD4 Number of beds places per 100 inhabitants 616.94 SD5 Number of over-nights per 100 inhabitants 82982.44 SD6 Number of arrivals per 100 inhabitants 17883.22 SD7 Tourists_Max value (peak period)/ territory 256.89 surface SD8 Tourists_Min value/ territory surface 17.49 SD9 Tourists_Average value/ territory surface 106.37 SD10 Tourists/month January 29121 February 24510 March 33950 April 47558 May 209930 1.52

June 271617 July 352470 August 359901 September 282607 October 125219 November 26288 December 25151 4. CONCLUSION-PROPOSALS Rhodes Island is characterized by its natural beauty and has constituted one of the most popular Greek destinations. The great number of visitors could not ensure the community s welfare even if area s incomesare tangibly augmented.apart from the high population density that appears during the peak period, great pressures are also imposed onnatural and anthropogenic environment of the island. The waste production is duplicated during these months and the inadequate infrastructures cannot service the whole island. In the water sector, an increasing demand for water during summertime will cause serious consequences on the environment. The protected areas accept intense pressure as a considerable number of visits takes place on the same time, evoking gradual degradation of the area. Undoubtedly, tourism development in the island of Rhodes has reached the point of saturation and principles of sustainable development should urgently be adopted. In order to mitigate the unregulated development and achieve the aim of sustainability, all the pressures related to tourism development should be confronted. Defining, evaluating and implementing the tourism carrying capacity should notably contributeto this direction. However, sustainable tourism development and integrated tourism management will be achieved if stakeholders and responsible actors define the sustainability range of tourism carrying capacity indicators. The values of tourism carrying capacity indicators that represent a specific area and refer to a specific time period will indicate the sectors that have to be amended and contribute to strategic planning for sustainable tourism development. References 1.Bramwell, 2004. Coastal mass tourism, Diversification and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe. Cromwell Press, Great Britain. 2.Coccosis H. &Tsartas P., 2001. Sustainable tourism development and environment.kritiki, Athens. 3.UNWTO, 1981. Saturation of Tourist Destinations: Report of the Secretary General, World Tourism Organisation, Madrid. 4.UNEP, PAP/RAC, 2009. Sustainable Coastal Tourism: An integrated planning and management approach. UNEP Sustainable Consumption and Production Branch, Paris. 5.UNEP, PAP/RAC, 1997. Guidelines for carrying capacity assessment for tourism in Mediterranean coastal areas. PAP/RAC, Split. 6.University of Aegean, 2002. Defining, measuring and evaluating capacity in European tourism destinations. European Committee. 7.Andriotis K., 2005. Tourist development and planning.stamoulis, Athens. 8. Boyer M., 1972. Le tourisme. Editions du Sevil, Paris. 1262