Content uploaded by D. G. Prokopiou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by D. G. Prokopiou on Dec 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainable Tourism and Destination Management:
the Greek island of Poros
Prokopiou D.G. 1, Nikolaidou EL. 3, Mavridoglou G. 2
Manologlou S. 1, Tselentis B.S. 1
1Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, Greece
2Technological Educational Institute of Peloponnesus, Greece
3 Economist, Greece
Keywords: Sustainable tourism, destination management, tourist satisfaction
survey, tourism carrying capacity
Abstract
Traditionally Tourism Destination Management organized and promoted a
region in becoming successful tourism destination based on a wide range of
knowledge and experience, both in the international and local level.
The concept of Tourism Sustainable Development however has added several
novel factors in this process, including sustainability performance indicators.
In this study, the authors present the island of Poros in Greece where carrying
capacity estimation has been applied in order to support tourism promotion in an
effective and sustainable manner.
1. Introduction
Greece depends heavily on the tourist trade as tourism is the main economic
activity in Greece. The issue for a long term viable development in the Greek
islands, is to find a creative and hopeful perspective through the carrying
capacity assessment indicators as to implement a viable destination policy
based on the needs and the characteristics of a tourism destination.
Sustainable development and its quantification procedure with specialized
measurement instrument, consist a vital element for the environmental condition
of the Greek destinations; as the tourist product is a blend of ecological, social
and economic sub-systems [1,2]For that reason an adapted amount of sustainable
indicators is selected and a comprehensible methodological guide for their use is
created, aiming to reliable measurement of selected parameters that are
considered to be important for our region. We believe that using this approach,
the local societies and the stakeholders involved as well, are able to understand
the size of impact on the existing and mainly not renewable resources, in order to
proceed with strategic planning and terms of sustainability for their future
developmental course.
The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) proposes the following definition of
carrying capacity: “The maximum number of people that may visit a tourist
destination at the same time, without causing destruction to the physical,
economic, socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the
quality of visitors' satisfaction“ [3].
Carrying capacity assessment has become an indispensable tool for formulating
policy and strategies in the tourist industry worldwide [4]. Countries and regions
with considerable natural and cultural resources look towards tourism when
stimulating their sustainable development activities [5]. The contribution of
Tourism sector to development needs to be clearly explained to allow countries
to invest into tourism. Tourism is considered as a development factor [6] as is
probably the best example among human activities in which the linkages
between environmental quality and economic prospects are evident [7]. Tourism
is a part of a general strategy towards sustainability there is little agreement on,
or evidence of, how to achieve this. Sustainable development practices were
generally not implemented before the 90s[8].
Today, controlling tourist growth has become a central policy issue for the
tourist trade[9], and it is noteworthy that carrying capacity assessment has
become an important tool for facilitating planning and developing policy issues
for the industry. [10]
Measuring tourist satisfaction is not a new concept. In fact, Marketing and
Retailing researchers have been conceptualizing this idea for decades by
developing frameworks that describe the process leading to satisfaction [11].
Benchmarks need to be developed upon which destination performance can be
regularly measured. These may include visitor numbers, visitor nights,
expenditure, satisfaction levels, traffic counts, room occupancy, and awareness
of the region. Performance measures should focus on yield rather than sheer
numbers [12].
A destination manager (DMC) is a professional services professional possessing
extensive local knowledge, expertise and resources, specializing in the
promoting, studying and organize a tourism destination. Finally the main
target of a destination manager is to identify the competitive advantages of the
region and clarify the current status concerning tourism and make proper
destination marketing policy.
2. The Island of Poros
Poros is a small Greek island, in the southern part of the Saronic Gulf, about
58 km (31 nautical miles) south from Piraeus (the port of Greek capital Athens).
Porow is separated from the Peloponnese by a 200 m wide sea channel, with the
town of Galatas on the mainland across the strait. Its surface area is about 31
square kilometres (12 sq mi) and it has 3,780 inhabitants. Like other islands in
the Saronic, it is a popular weekend destination from Athens or East
Peloponnese. The duration of the boat trip from Piraeus to Poros is about 2 hours
and from Galata 30 minutes.
3. Tourism supply and demand for Poros island
3.1 Tourism supply
The tourist development of Poros based on the intrinsic characteristics and not
on a planned growth model. Since the early 60s, the island was developed as a
summer tourist destination and as a all years holiday resort for the wider
metropolitan region of Attica.
From March until the end of May, every weekend, arrived on the island for
people to spend their holidays. From June until September increases the number
of nights as the visit is combined with the summer holidays. The biggest tourist
traffic is recorded in July and August. From May until September daily small
cruise ships make daily cruises from Piraeus and are an alternative for tourists
with a short stay in Athens who want to visit a Greek island.
The absence of charter flights and the lack of large contracts with foreign tour
operators make a different tourism product.
Total bed capacity in Poros is 4000 beds, the most of them are in Rooms to Let
(3829 beds) and the sixteen hotels have the rest 1194 beds.
Table 1. Comparison of overnight stays at Poros (2015)
Area
Overnight
stay (Greek
Tourists)
Overnight
stay
(Foreigners
tourists)
Overnight
stay
Occupancy
(%)
POROS 34.184 20.167 54.351 69,6
HYDRA 18.337 27.135 45.472 85,4
SALAMIS
AND
AGISTRI
4.842 2.345 7.187 46,1
AEGINA 57.151 34.377 91.528 72,5
KYTHIRA 24.706 15.977 40.683 81,9
SPETSES 27.501 15.849 43.350 95,8
TRIZINA
AND
METHANA
10.555 870 11.425 100
SARONIKOS
ISLANDS 177.276 116.720 293.996 76,3
ATTIKA
REGION 2.312.159 5.512.637 7.824.796 87
The statistics of employment structure show 80.4% of the workforce is engaged
in the tertiary sector, particularly by providing services directly or indirectly
related to tourism. It must be mentioned that there is not any tourist agency
office on the island to organize and perform individual or group tourist
programs. Only ticket sales offices. Please note that transfers are made from the
accommodations companies.
3.2 Tourist demand
Following discussions with hoteliers, those who responded to the cooperation
and whoever encounters processes; reach lower than 50% of accommodation,
they were informed that there are few contracts with firms from France, Great
Britain Sweden and Holland. The Greek Statistical Authority has no foreign
tourists attribution per municipality, only by Region.
Poros presents the particularity to be connected by ferry to the opposite coast of
Galata. Due to continuous employee tourist movements and residents can not be
calculated accurately arrivals with transport. The only available data from the
Statistical Service that can identify tourism demand is the following
accommodation arrivals gnomes. Arrivals of domestic tourists is 13.122 and
5.466 foreigners in accommodation.
The tourist demand of the island goes by ferries or speedboats from Piraeus or
drive from Athena to Trizinias Galata and then the small ferry (ferry) or by boat.
Table 2: Passengers in Poros Port (2014-2015)
ARRIVALS
DEPARTURES
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER 110.258 114.224
APRIL MAY JUNE 86.461 92.934
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 36.861 33.410
OCTOBER NOVEMBER
DECEMBER 45.099 44.635
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER 111.289 102.691
APRIL MAY JUNE 73.320 67.287
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 45.105 43.910
The occupancy in Poros Hotels in 2013 is 33,9 % (2013) in the 69,6 of the hotel
capacity.
The data presented in Table indicate the overnight stays in the Saronic islands
and the percentage (%) of total available beds where data refer. The overnight
stays are 54.351 of whom 34.377 are nationals and foreigners is 20.167. Note
that we refer to 69% of beds (2013).
4. Methodology
4.1 Carrying capacity
Sustainable development and its quantification procedure with specialised
measurement instrument, consist a vital element for the environmental condition
of the Greek destinations; as the tourist product is a blend of ecological, social
and economic sub-systems13. For that reason an adapted amount of sustainable
indicators is selected and a comprehensible methodological guide for their use is
created, aiming to reliable measurement of selected parameters14 that are
considered to be important for our region. We believe that using this approach,
the local societies and the stakeholders involved as well, are able to understand
the size of impact on the existing and mainly not renewable resources, in order to
proceed with strategic planning and terms of sustainability for their future
developmental course.
The proposed model is based on sixteen variables which take values from 0 to
10015 Losano-Oyola M., Janvier-Blancas F16, Hadjibiros K., Aravantinou M.,
Lapsidou C,17 Blancas F.J, Gonzalez M, Lozano-Oyola M, Perez F . The
sixteen variables can be divided into different groups.
The main objective of the first group of variables is the rating of environmental
characteristics and infrastructure of the area. This group includes twelve out of
sixteen variables (Table 3) and the score for each one is obtained by using
questionnaires and qualitative indicators of each area.
Table 3. Environmental and infrastructure variables
Variable
name Description Measurement
Urban waste management 0-100
Legality of buildings 0-100
Protection of noise nuisance 0-100
Garbage management 0-100
Protection of pesticides using 0-100
Over pumping in sea waters 0-100
Sufficient quantity of water resources 0-100
Sufficient quality of drinking 0-100
Forest clearance 0-100
Forest clearance 0-100
Conservation of the landscape 0-100
Adequacy of green areas 0-100
The second group consists of four variables (Table 4). The score is derived using
quantitative data and quantitative indicators. It should be noted that for
quantitative indicators 13-15 high score corresponds to a large burden on the
environment and therefore the variable should have little score in the model. For
reversal and mapping the value of the indicator to a 100-grade scale, descriptive
analysis was used, extreme values was excluded and finally from environmental
literature minimum tolerable limits for environmental burden was defined.
Table 4: Environmental and infrastructure variables
Variable
name Description Measurement
Beds per kilometre of beach 0-100
Beds per square kilometre 0-100
Beds per inhabitants 0-100
Blue flags per kilometre of beach 0-100
Table 5. Variable weight
Variable
name Description Weight
Urban waste management 5
Legality of buildings 3
Protection of noise nuisance 3
Garbage management 5
Protection of pesticides using 1
Over pumping in sea waters 2
Sufficient quantity of water resources 3
Sufficient quality of drinking 4
Protection of fire incidents 2
Forest clearance 2
Conservation of the landscape 3
Adequacy of green areas 2
Beds per kilometre of beach 5
Beds per square kilometre 5
Beds per inhabitants 5
Blue flags per kilometre of beach 5
Total score: From these sixteen variables the final score is calculated. Each of
the sixteen variables has different weigh in the model.
,
Variables and correspond weights are presented at Table 6.
Table 6: Variables for Poros island
Variables
Variables
V1 0 V9 50
V2 100 V10 100
V3 100 V11 100
V4 0 V12 100
V5 100 V13 1094
V6 100 V14 173,34
V7 80 V15 0,88063
V8 100 V16 0
Table 8: Compound variables for Poros island
Mean StDev Mean StDev
I13 0 * Ground 0 *
I14 0 * Water 94 *
I15 11,937 * Nature 93,333 *
I16 0 * Score 43,631 *
Poros in relation to the country's price 57.07%, showing a general price index is
43.63% lower at 13.44% About soil condition index Poros is 0% units
throughout the country 43.37 %. On the state of water management Poros is
94.00% while the whole country is 72.05%. The natural environment
management index Poros is 48.66% while the whole country is 71.48% ..
4.2 Customer satisfaction survey
To study the profile of the tourists that visit Poros a survey was implemented
using questionnaire. The sample was 67 tourists who visited the island in the
period March - October 2016.
Table 9. Reasons affecting tourism destination choice
Features
Income
<10000 10000-25000 >25000
N % N % N %
Sun - Sea 6 40,0% 11 36,7% 7 41,2%
History - Culture 0 0,0% 3 10,0% 4 23,5%
Nightlife 0 0,0% 2 6,7% 3 17,6%
Relaxing 5 33,3% 12 40,0% 4 23,5%
Budget for vacation 3 20,0% 5 16,7% 7 41,2%
Near to Athens 4 26,7% 15 50,0% 3 17,6%
Near to Peloponnese 0 0,0% 4 13,3% 1 5,9%
Totals 18
52
29
According Table 9, tourists who choose Poros, have as main criteria the natural
beauty (sea - sun), seeking economic destinations near Athens, and want a
relaxing holiday.
Most of them have previously visited the island, especially those with high
income have visited the island 8 times on average. The daily cost of
accommodation is 57 euros, for high-income earners is 60, while for food and
other expenses spend EUR 49, with higher incomes spend 50 euros (Table 3).
Lower incomes prefer to stay in rented rooms, while middle and upper income
groups prefer hotels. The length of stay on lower incomes is 1-2 days while the
medium to six days. In contrast to higher incomes length of stay exceeds six
days (Table 10).
Lower incomes prefer to buy local products, while higher incomes prefer jewelry
(Table 11).
Table 10. Revisits and Expenses by Income
Revisits and Expenses Statistics
Income
<10000 10000-
25000 >25000 Total
How many times to Poros
Mean 4 4 8 5
Median 1 2 7 2
SD 5 8 8 8
Price per day for
accommodation
Mean 52 57 61 57
Median 43 50 60 50
SD 31 18 30 25
Expenses per day
(without accommodation)
Mean 44 51 50 49
Median 44 50 50 50
SD 17 27 31 25
Table 11. Tourist’s behavior
Consumer behavior
Income
<10000
10000-
25000 >25000 Total
N % N % N % N %
Accommodation
Accommodation
type
Rooms to
let 7 50% 4 14% 1 7% 12 21%
Hotel 6 43% 25 86% 11 73% 42 72%
Apartment 1 7% 0 0% 3 20% 4 7%
Nights
1-3 days 9 60% 6 20% 2 13% 17 28%
3-6 days 5 33% 21 70% 5 33% 31 52%
more than
7 days 1 7% 3 10% 8 53% 12 20%
Shopping
Nothing 2 13% 9 30% 3 18% 14 23%
Clothes 0 0% 1 3% 1 6% 2 3%
Jewelry 0 0% 5 17% 8 47% 13 21%
Souvenir 4 27% 7 23% 2 12% 13 21%
Food 8 53% 16 53% 5 29% 29 47%
Other 5 33% 3 10% 3 18% 11 18%
5. SWOT analysis for the tourism in Poros
After collecting data from field surveys the following conclusions have been
drawn up:
Strenths
• Strong geographical location The destination is located near Athens. One
can reach the island by boat is 3 hours from Piraeus and 2 hours by
speedboat. Driving the car, you need 2.5 hours to reach the port of Galatas;
a distance of 170 km and then you spend five more minutes, by ferry or by
boat, to reach the port of Poros.
• Famous tourist destination in Saronic gulf The island is a well known
destination for the Athenians and ideal for day trips. Even though the
tourism development of the island started in early 60ies it still remains a
famous choice.
• The tourist infrastructure is sufficient. The tourist demand is sufficiently
covered by the existing bed capacity, in spite of the luck of organized
groups. The season starts in May and ends in September and it is basically
focused on weekends for the rest of the year. The catering and
accommodation services are above average. However, a lot of the hotels
and “rooms to let” need renovation. The built environment in the city is
beautiful as the traditional architectural character has been preserved. The
beaches are in green surroundings as Poros is full of pine trees.
Weaknesses
• Natural resources are limited as the island is small
• The lack of supporting infrastructure. The absence of a near airport makes
the charter flights impossible. The only close airport is Athens El Venizelos
which is expensive for seasonal charter flights and excludes the existence
of organised tourist packages.
• Commitment contracts with international tour operates are limited. •
• The absence of conference centers. Only one hotel has one.
• Generally, the professional skills of the tourism staff is unremarkable and
most of the hotel employees are not graduates from tourism schools.
Moreover, there are not established seminars for these employees.
• The difficulty in collaboration between hoteliers and international tourism
markets. The tourism promotion is limited because of low economic
resources; as the destination has not large and organised tourist agencies.
As a result, it is difficult to manage and promote organized international
tourism for Poros.
The tourism stakeholders are not collaborated with each other and do not
have any economic resources for tourism destination promotion, as their
annual turnover is limited.
• The reduced tourist demand in winter
Chances
• The internet e-booking
• Increasing importance of new technologies for online advertising
• The proximity of Epidaurus and Peloponnese
• Proximity to Hydra island
• The high cultural profile of the destination
• The maritime history
• Local products of Poros and Peloponnese
• Ability of thematic tourism development
• Promoting food and gastronomy culture
• Increase in domestic tourism in weekend
Threats
• Strong competition from hotels in Attica that have better access to the
airport.
• Competition from other islands of the Saronic Gulf, Aegina, Hydra and
Spetses
• The decrease of visibility due to low financial resources
• Decreased tourist consciousness in a large number of tourism operators in
terms of collaboration. As a result the response of the hoteliers in the
questionnaire collection of the customer satisfaction survey was inadequate
6. Discussion
Environmental indicators for Poros are presented at Table 12 according to the
results for the urban waste management Poros is covered 100% from the Poros
Galatas urban waste treatment plant
There is protection to environment against illegal buildings (x2), and protection
against the noise (x3). Garbage management (x4) is cohered from Athens
Sanitary Burial as recycling is also take place.
Protection against pesticides using (x5) is implemented. There are no incidents
from over pumping in sea waters (x6). The quantity of water resources is
adequate (x7) as also the quality of drinking water (x8). There are no fire
incidents. Incidents of forest clearance (x10) happened in tourist areas. The
landscape is conserved (x11) as green areas are enough.
According to Table, Infrastructure Indicators I13 I15, for the Island of Poros
have median score which indicates burden of the environment. The quality
certification of the beaches under the name of blue flag (I16) in Poros is not a
developed procedure.
7. Proposals
The proposals for Poros as a destination are drawing from the SWOT analysis
above.
Carrying capacity indicators estimate the pressure of the environment of Poros
concluding to the proper environmental policy for the island.
The suggested sustainable tourism model for the island is a combination of
classical and alternative tourist model related to the local community needs and
its unique environment built and culture. The parameters of development are:
Ecotourism :
Footpaths
Diving
Sea tourism
Archaeological paths
Museums
Traditional villages
Cultural tourism related with Orthodox Religion traditional events
It is a common understanding that the main difficulty of such a plan is the lack of
a common perception from the involved shareholders. In many cases the
authorities’ policies and the individuals’ choices are blocking the appropriate
decisions making in the sense of the common benefit.
Tourist development requires a multi discipline approach, since it is a function of
various issues, such as natural resources and ecosystems management, that
effects human activities on fauna, flora and the coastal zone as well as economic
and social aspects.
Acknowledgement
This study was carried out and partially supported by the Research Centre of the
University of Piraeus
[1] Briassouls H., Policy and Practice, Sustainable Development and its
indicators: Though a (planner’s) Glass Darkly, Journal of Environmental
planning and Management vol. 44(3), 409-427, (2001)
[2] Zannou V, ‘Guide of Socio-Economic Studies for the Integrated
Management of the Water Environment’ (1999)
[3] UNEP/MAP/PAP, 1997
[4]Prokopiou D.G., .Tselentis B.S,.Bousbouras D and Toanoglou M.«Carrying
capacity assessment in tourism: The case of Dodecanese archipelago» The
Ravage of the planet, First International Conference on the Management of
Natural Resources, Sustainable Development and Ecological Hazards, 12 – 14
December 2006 Bariloche, Argentina Wessex Institute of Technology UK-
University of Siena, Italy
[5]Jarmozy U., Sustianable tourism development: ingenuity in marketing
strategy, Sustainable Tourism III International Conference, Malta 2008, Wessex
institute of Techonlogy UK- The Compulence University, Spain
page 65
[6]Ntibanyurwa A., Tourism as a factor of development, Sustainable Tourism II
International Conference, Bologna 2006,Wessex institute of Techonlogy UK -
The Compulence University,Spain page 73
[7]Priestley G.K.,.Edwards J.A and Coccossis H., Sustainable Tourism-
Europoean Experiences, Cab International 1996 page ix
[8] Ganster P. and Gamez A., Sustainability and the traditional tourism model in
Baja California Sur Mexico, Sustainable Tourism V, Editors Pineda F.D and
Brebbia C.A, WIT Press Southampton 2012
[9]Coccosis H and Mexa A, ‘The challenge of Tourism Carrying Capacity
Assesment’, Ashgate 2004
[10] Fernando J Garrigós Simón,Y.Narangajavana, and D. Palacios-
Marqués.’Carrying capacity in the tourism industry: a case study of
Hengistbury Head’
[11]Wiberg Dustin S, Development of a Survey Measuring Visitor Satisfaction
and Service Quality of Cultural and Natural Sites in Belize
[12]http://www.tourismexcellence.com.au/growing-destinations/destination-
marketing-strategy/the-key-process.html
[13]Zannou V, ‘Guide of Socio-Economic Studies for the Integrated
Management of the Water Environment’ (1999)
[14] Bimonte S. Sustainable tourism and management tools, Sustainable
Tourism II, Editors Brebbia C.A- Pineda F.D., WIT Press, Southampton 2006
[15]Losano-Oyola M., Janvier-Blancas F., Gonzalez, R.Caballero M.,
Sustainable Tourism Indicators as Planning Tools in Cultural Destinations,
ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 659-675
[16] Hadjibiros K., Aravantinou M., Lapsidou C., Organization and Evaluation
of a Sustainable Island network, International Journal of Sustainable
Development and Planning, Volume 6, number 1, 2011 (13-20)
[17] Blancas F.J.,.Gonzalez M,.Lozano-Oyola M, Perez F., The Assessment of
Sustainable Tourism: Application to Spanish Coastal Destinations, International,
Journal Ecological Indicators 10, 2010