- Email: [email protected]
Socioeconomic impacts of tourism on two Greek isles
Annals of 7’ourim Research, Vol. 19, pp. 516-533, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
1992 Copyright
0160.7383/92 $5.00 + .OO 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
IMPACTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC TOURISM ON TWO GREEK ISLES Paris Tsartas
National
Center
of Social Research,
Greece
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to examine the consequences of tourism on two neighboring islands of Greece, proving that the social, economic, and cultural mores of these islands have been influenced according to the differing types of tourist development. The thorough examination of the similarities and differences between the two islands before the appearance of tourism, and their evolution after 20 years of tourism, leads to the conclusion that the major factor that has influenced these two small societies is the different type of tourism that was developed in each one. Keywords: development, socioeconomic impacts, Greece, massive tourist development, comparative studies. Resume: Les impacts socio-kconomiques sur deux Ples grecques. Le propos de cet article est d’examiner les conskquences du tourisme sur deux iles voisinantes en G&e et ainsi de prouver que la faGon dont le tourisme influence les moeurs sociaux, Cconomiques et culturels varie selon le style du tourisme qui est d&veloppC. Une ttude approfondie des ressemblances et des differences qui existaient entre les deux iles avant l’avknement du tourisme et leur tvolution ap& vingt ans de tourisme mkne B la conclusion que le facteur dtcisif ayant influencC ces deux socittCs est le style particulier du tourisme qui a CtG dCveloppC dans chaque ile. Mots-cl&s: dkeloppement, dCveloppement du tourisme ?I grande Cchelle, etudes comparatives.
INTRODUCTION This article is a study of the difference in the social impact of tourism on two neighboring Greek islands that followed different types of tourism development. These two islands, Serifos and Ios, belong to the highly touristic prefecture of the Cyclades (Figure l), It is essential to describe the basic socioeconomic characteristics of the region before and after the touristic boom (around 1970). Before the introduction of tourism, the socioeconomic structure of the region did not differ from most of the agricultural regions of Greece (Hoffman 1976:328-340; Lambiri-Dimaki 1972:381-391; Stott 1973: 122-133). Their similarities included a demographic collapse, due to Paris Tsartas is a Doctor of Sociology, specialized in the Sociology of Tourism. He is a researcher in the National Center of Social Research of Greece (EKKE, Sophocleaus Street, No. 1, Athens 10559, Greece) and professor of Sociology in the National School of Tourist Guides. 516
PARIS TSARTAS
517
migration to Athens and Piraeus (Table 1); a moderate economy based on agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, and mining; the important role of the nuclear family and insignificant social and occupational mobility; and a strong religious feeling and rich cultural tradition. The massive tourism development of the region (especially after 1965) radically altered this picture in 5 to 10 years. The greater percentage of the inhabitants turned to tourist occupations. Former emigrants and seamen returned to the islands and, acting as “agents of change,” created the necessary infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, agencies, etc.) for tourism development. In many cases they were followed by businesspersons and investors from other parts of the country. Women became the main supporters of the tourist economy (usually running the family business, restaurant, hotel, and the like) and young people obtained economic independence at a very early age. The development of tourism favored those who owned land and capital, but there was also an intense social and occupational mobility among the lower social strata expressed in two ways: new lowerstratum occupations emerged and, through the additional income de-
518
SOCIOECONOMIC
Table
1. Evolution
IMPACTS
of the Population
OF TOURISM
After the Second World War Post-War
Area in km2
Level Greece Greece
A$ex;pt
Athens)
Aegean Islands Cyclades Region of East Sterea and Islands
1961
1971
1981
7,632,801
8,388,553
8,768,641
9,740,417
131,562 428 9,113 2,572
6,254,215 1,378,586 528,766 125,959
6,535,844 1,852,709 477,476 99,959
6,228,400 2,540,241 417,813 86,337
6,713,086 3,027,331 428,533 98,458
21,033
Y&192,840
2,685,879
3,389,666
3,995,866
19511961 Greece
Growth
131,990
Comparison
Greece (except Athens) Athens Aegean Islands Cyclades Region of East Sterea and Islands
1951
Population
Population Inhabitants
by Decades (%) 19611971
19711981
+9.9
+4.5
+11.1
+4.5 +34.4 -9.7 - 20.6
-4.7 +37.1 - 12.5 - 13.6
+7.6 + 19.2 +2.6 +2.5
+22.5
+26.2
+17.9
1951
1961
Density per km*
1971
1981
57.8
63.6
66.4
73.8
47.5 3,221.0 58.0 49.0
49.6 4,329.0 52.4 38.9
47.3 5,985.0 45.8 33.6
51.0 7,073.O 47.0 34.4
104.3
127.7
161.2
190.0
rived from these jobs, the same stratum showed an upward social mobility in the years that followed. Thus, a totally new “petite bourgeoisie” was formed (merchants, hotel owners, craftsmen, and more), whose members usually hold two or three jobs. Within a period of 1520 years, the islands, which shortly before were poor, became relatively rich. Their economic structure came to be based on tourism. In 1981 (see Ministry of National Economy 1982:5, 37), almost 70% of the region’s GNP was derived from tourism. A similar conclusion can be reached from figures on income declared to the revenue department in 1980, which showed that 72% was derived from the service sector (Ministry of Planning 1982:153-173). All the islands, however, did not meet with the same type of tourist development. In the early 8Os, there were three different touristic groups of islands (Table 2, Figures 2 and 3). This classification was based on two different types of data: (a) statistical and research material, which showed the different level of involvement of the local socioeconomic structure in tourism development, and (b) material provided by a five month pilot study in 1981 that was conducted in all the islands of the region. The purpose of the pilot study was to obtain a better knowledge of the islanders’ views on the subject of tourism and to study the social and economic impacts in their local social structures. The research was undertaken in two different periods (summer and winter 1981)-to identify the differences in the life-style of the local people. The interviews (at this stage with a nonrandom sample of key
PARIS TSARTAS
519
informants and others among local people) were mainly focused on the characteristics and the role of the “catalysts” of tourist development; the types of tourists “drawn” to each island (Tsartas 1988: 199-200); the occupational and social groups for and against tourist development; and the social and economic impacts of tourist development. This pilot research, which was the first phase of the field research, helped in the classification of all the islands, especially according to their type (Cohen 1971:166-177; Smith 1977:8-13) and stage of development (Forster 1964:217-224; Greenwood 1972:82-90; Loukissas 1982:537-738; Moore 1970:22-32). As discussed elsewhere (Tsartas 1988: 167-l 75, 199-207) for the Cyclades region, the type of tourism and the stage of tourist development of each group of islands are closely related. This relation is, of course, the result of the dynamic function of certain factors characteristic of the local social structure or of the tourist sector in general. These factors are agents of change, local social groups, foreign Tour Operators, national tourism policies, and the “poor past and rich present” distinction. The interconnection of these factors results in a rapid and massive tourism development. In this process in the Cyclades region, it seems that it is a matter of time before the islands that are in the earliest phase go on to the second or third phase, as the example of Serifos demonstrates in this paper. Group A In these (mostly large) islands, the population responded positively to the challenge of tourism development. They created the necessary infrastructure (e.g., small hotels and taverns) and, thus, helped meet the massive tourism that followed later. In this process, some specific social and occupational groups acted as catalysts: local islanders returning from Athens and Piraeus who opened the first successful businesses, Athenians who invested in tourism, seamen who returned and worked in the tourist sector, and the seamen’s wives who had experience in managing households and family economic affairs. Because of their husband; absence, they were able to manage the touristic businesses. The role of these catalysts was crucial in forming some sort of infrastructure on the islands, which until then had been nonexistent. This enabled them to meet massive organized, charter-type tourism - and all this in a very short period of time (5- 10 years). Moreover, the tour-operators’ industry changed the face of the islands very quickly by turning these islands into “package tour” destinations, especially popular with Western Europeans. As a consequence, the occupational and social structures in these islands were changed drastically and their economic dependence on tourism is now absolute. 10s belongs to this group.
Group B The smaller and poorer islands of the region belong to this second group. The absence of both tour operators and the above-mentioned catalysts prolonged the lack of infrastructure, which was the main
2,427.7
88,458
5,530 7,881 1,451 7,328 14,037 635 2,087 38,949
1,502 1,652 1,722
Cyclades
Mykonos Paros 10s Santor. Naxos Antipar. Sifnos Group A
Kythnos Kea Amorgos
99.2 130.6 121.0
85.5 194.5 107.8 75.8 428.0 34.7 73.2 999.5
Area in km*
Population
Islands
860 2,787 40
36,150 19,064 3,539 20,691 18,320 327 2,407 100,498
151,118
Total
14.8 41.3 47.5
86.6 80.1 85.5 84.2 78.4 59.3 67.0 82.8
85.2 58.7 52.5
65.6
13.4 19.9 14.5 15.8 21.6 40.7 33.0 17.2
Foreign %
34.4
Greeks %
Arrivals in 1980”
Table 2. Indicators
5,899 14,634 208
206,299 94,295 17,835 73,721 73,666 3,340 10,489 479,645
636,044
Total
Development
93.0 35.5 49.0
8.2 18.5 16.1 15.7 20.6 58.1 37.8 14.6
23.6
Greeks %
7.0 64.5 51.0
91.8 81.5 83.9 84.3 79.4 41.9 62.2 85.4
76.4
Foreign %
Nights in 1980b
of Tourism
846 1,962 38
11,301 8,568 1,922 5,547 4,735 322 1,314 33,709
57,021
Beds 1980’
in Greece
0.6 1.7
6.5 2.4 2.4 2.8 1.3 0.5 1.2 2.6
1.7
Per Inhab.
1:
8.7 21.3 0.3
422.8 98.0 32.8 273.0 42.8 9.4 32.9 100.5
62.2
Per km2
Arrivals
Indicator
Per
3.9 8.6 0.2
37.3 12.0 12.3 10.1 5.2 5.2 5.0 12.3
7.2
Inhab
262.4
Per km2
2:
59.5 112.1 2.5
2,412.8 484.8 165.4 972.5 172.1 96.3 143.2 479.9
Nights
Indicator
563.2 1,187.7 22.0
2,043.6 1,087.2 1,324.6 757.0 337.3 507.1 620.6 805.5
644.6
Per 1000 Inhab.
3: Beds
Indicator
r? -
194.2 83.6 150.6 35.7 379.8 843.9
7,731 19,669 4,556 787 9,020 41,763
Tinos Syros Milos Kimolos Andros Group C
31,150 5,696 2,939 250d 5,166 45,210
24.4 19.6 67.2 44.0 56.3 30.9
40.2
55.5
58.3 66.7 55.0 40.2
of Tourism.
in 1980). flats in 1980). 1980).
75.6 80.4 32.8 56.0 43.7 69.1
59.8
44.5
450d
5,410
41.7 33.3 45.0 59.8
120d 3ood 100d 753
“Arrivals (at hotels, all categories, and furnished flats hNights (spend at hotels, all categories, and furnished ‘Beds (in hotels, all categories, and furnished flats in dEstimations. Source: Statistical Service of the Greek Organization
41.0 32.0 38.3 73.2 17.6 7.8 10.1 13.5 584.3
280 567 292 1,135 95 140 237 116 7,746
Sikinos Folegandr. Anali Serifos Iraklia Schinoysa Koufonis. Donoussa Group B 79,170 11,658 15,365 1 ,200d 2l,794d 129,187d
28,112
2,000d
400d 1 ,500d 3ood 3,081
56.3 73.8 24.6 41.7 41.3 51.4
51.8
40.0
62.5 46.7 40.0 60.9
43.8 26.2 75.4 58.3 58.7 48.6
48.2
60.0
37.5 53.3 60.0 30.1
9,460d 5,253d 2,448 80d 2,455 19,696
3,616
150d
5od loo* 2od 450
4.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.1
0.7
0.8
0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7
160.4 68.1 19.5 7.0 13.6 53.6
9.3
9.2
2.6 10.3
2.9 9.4
10.2 0.6 3.4 1.5 2.4 3.1
3.6
3.4
1.4 2.6 1.0 2.7
466.8 1,223.6 267.1 537.3 101.7 272.2 471.6
48.1 407.7 139.4 102.0 33.6 57.4 153.1
255.1
172.4 176.4 68.5 397.2
443.8
7.8 42.1
9.8 46.9
522
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
OF TOURISM
Figure 2. Arrivals and Nights Spent by Group of Islands G = Greeks; F = Foreigners Source: Statistical
Service
of the Greek Organization
of Tourism
reason for their delayed development. They now act as satellites of the region that consists of touristic islands. Tourists frequenting these islands are mainly young foreigners and Greeks. The development of the islands can be described as moderate, without the presence of organized tourism and its consequences. The economic structure is mixed (agriculture, fishing, and tourism). The fact that these areas developed after 1970 allows the islanders to have their own opinion on the social and economic consequences brought about on the nearby islands (a kind of negative demonstration effect). Their main subject of discussion is how to attract “good tourists,” that is, big-spendings, and socially acceptable tourists. Yet the majority of the population
Figure 3. Indicators of Tourism Development First Column Third Column Source:
Statistical
by Group of Islands
= Cyclades; Second Column = Group B; Fourth Column Service
= Group A; = Group C
of the Greek Organization
of Tourism
PARIS TSARTAS
523
(especially the young and those involved in tourism) is pressing for a larger scale tourism development, which is slowly changing the socioeconomic structure of the host islands. Serifos belongs to this group.
GroupC The reaction of the inhabitants in this third group of islands is, for two reasons, mixed. First, religious feeling and tradition among the population are strong. They strongly oppose tourism development because, in their opinion, tourists are a “destructive force,” damaging their society, traditional customs, and mores. (In Tinos and Syros, the populations are of either Orthodox or Catholic creed.) Second, the presence of other important economic activities, such as shipyards, mining, and seamen, is the reason the scale of tourism development here is moderate as regards both Greek and foreign tourists. Hence, the type of tourist development on this group of islands is mixed and, in many cases, can be best described as an enclave. In some islands, one finds some communities with massive organized tourism and others with a moderate type of development. The economic structure is also mixed (tourism and agriculture or tourism and mining). The social consequences of massive tourism development, prevalent in the islands of Group A (drugs, culture, commoditization, demonstration effect, etc.), is less evident among this group of islands. THE
STUDY
The principal aim of this study was to compare (Nikolinakos 1977: 44-54) the social and economic impacts of tourism development in two different regions (for similar examples, see Black and Gassia 1977:715; Buet and Perret 1986:49-83; Rosenberg and Reiter 1973:26-37). One region is in the first stage of tourism and the other is in the massive stage of development. The first objective of the study was to check the hypothesis that massive and rapid tourist development causes substantial social and economic changes in agricultural regions, as has been demonstrated by many case studies in the past (Farrey and Perret 1986: 105-l 15; Greenwood 1972:80-88; Hermans 1981:468-471; Pi-Sunyer 1973:1117; Tacquard 1986: 118-145). The second objective was to compare the research results with other studies in regions sharing similar socioeconomic characteristics. This, it was assumed, would enable one to draw more specific conclusions concerning the social consequences of tourism. In the planning of this research study, particular attention was paid to those research findings and topics that demonstrate the extent of the social and economic impacts of tourism as regards agriculture, and to the relation between the type of tourism and the social acceptance of this phenomenon (Tsartas 1989: 142-143). The classification of the islands of the region into three groups (according to their level of involvement in tourism development) was used as the framework to select the two islands to be compared. One of these islands was to belong to Group B (first stage of tourism development) and the second to Group A (third stage of development).
524
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF TOURISM
It took three and a half months (during the winter of 1982) to select the two islands for field research. Moreover, questionnaires were developed for a random sample to be drawn from the electoral registers of the port and the capital city of each island (18-70 years of age). In all, 70 questionnaires were completed in 10s and 63 in Serifos. The questionnaire had 8 1 mainly “closed type” questions, grouped into live thematic categories: tourism, social values, occupational characteristics, demographic characteristics, and local problems. The aim was to study the opinions and attitudes of the local people on these themes. The need to research other topics (such as political involvement and tourism, tourism economy, and reaction of the local social structure to tourism), which could not be included in a questionnaire, led to an additional approach: free sample interviews with local people. The random sample questionnaires provided the basic material of our research. Two requirements guided the selection of the two islands. First, the islands should basically have similar characteristics. The similarity was defined in terms of area; population per square kilometer; occupation in agriculture, cattle breeding, and fishing (percentage of the active population) when tourism was introduced (1971), with agriculture as the main economic force; infrastructure (roads, drainage, telecommunications, schools, doctors); and socioeconomic and cultural characteristics in the period preceding the massive tourist development (before the 60s). Second, the islands should differ substantially in respect to beds per 1,000 inhabitants; nights spent on the island per inhabitant; nights spent on the island per square kilometer; arrivals per square kilometer; and arrivals per inhabitant. On-site research showed that these two islands had a totally different socioeconomic reality in summer and winter. TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT
ON TWO
GREEK
ISLANDS
Ios The development of tourism in 10s began in 1965, and the type of infrastructure developed aimed, from the beginning, to attract massive foreign, middle-class tourists, especially looking for entertainment and relaxation. This type of tourism was at first induced by returning emigrants or Athenian investors, but the inhabitants also followed and strongly supported this development, believing that it would be their “ticket” to prosperity. After some 10 to 15 years, 10s (along with Mykonos, Paros, and Thera) is one of the most massively developed islands of the region. The local support of tourism was due mainly to the profit it brought, but the problematic social consequences were at first neglected. It is characteristic that in the survey only 15.7 % answered that tourism is good, while 82.9% answered that it has both good and bad aspects. including inappropriate impact on youth The negative aspects, (36.9%), moral problems because of nudism, the behavior of young have undesirfemale tourists (32.9 %), and the use of drugs (13.4%),
PARIS TSARTAS
525
ably influenced the local customs and mores. Also, the majority (80%) believe that the relationships among the inhabitants had worsened compared to 20 years earlier. As for the positive aspects, it was almost unanimous (97.6%) that tourism brings money to the island. How can one explain this ambivalent, two-sided view, which is also reported by research material in other parts of the globe? The reaction of the local population in 10s can be considered rather superficial: they protest, but they do not try to intervene drastically. They are more interested in improving the economic aspects of the sector’s development (land use, tax evasion) than in changing its type. This is quite evident in their response to “What kind of tourists do you prefer?” Almost 58% of respondents answered foreign tourists, and only 9 % said Greeks. Here is a case of passive acceptance of the social consequences that are considered negative. This attitude can be explained by the fact that almost everyone on the island has a considerable income derived from tourism, so that the money involved proves a stronger argument than the social consequences incurred. Serifos One of the reasons for the delayed start of tourism development in Serifos (1975) was the effort of a majority of the inhabitants to control the type of tourism in the earlier decade (1965-1975). This effort passed through two different chronological phases: 1965-1975 and 1975-mid-1980s. In the beginning (1965), tourism developed at a slow pace because the catalysts that could create the infrastructure and act as agents of change were less evident. The type of tourism opted for was moderate, mixed in nationality, and integrated in the local social and economic structure. Skepticism of tourism started in the beginning of the 70s and was based on the islanders’ reluctance toward what they described as the negative social consequence of mass tourism. The interesting point here is that their skepticism was derived mostly from what happened elsewhere, and they expressed a fear of the expansion of the same development model. As a reaction to the above situation, two interest groups emerged, with their opinions expressed through different political parties (Tsartas 1988:197-201). The first group, which was supported by the majority of the local people, wanted small scale or family-type tourism. Group B, with fewer supporters, favored large scale tourism development. Despite their differences, both groups wanted a say in the formulation of tourism policy, not necessarily through a formal procedure of intervention in tourist development, but by means of a more or less spontaneous reaction. This took various forms (Tsartas 1988: 198), including the reluctance of local people, to sell land to foreigners and Athenians; lack of desire to collaborate with foreign operators or Greek offices in linking the island with the more developed islands nearby; and strongly criticizing young Serifians who opened bars for tourists. This situation partly explains the opinions of the local people who were, in general, in favor of tourism in 1982. The situation was still under control and a majority of the inhabitants felt that tourism could
526
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF TOURISM
provide them with substantial wealth, without being destructive. Yet, on a second visit to the island in 1986 (Tsartas 1988:197-201), the situation had changed dramatically. The second group now had more supporters because the region had seen a considerable increase of income after 1975, and the younger generation, which is more closely involved with tourism occupations, was pressing for a more massive form of tourism development. This change suggests that the internationalization of tourism development and a region’s image are more crucial factors than the interests of some local social groups who struggle for an integrated type of tourist development. This is more evident in countries like Greece, regarded as a country favoring mass tourism development, especially in one of the more touristic regions like the Cyclades Islands. Results of Field Research A. Social influences. The survey results reveal that the social structure
of 10s changed dramatically in less than 10 years (1965-1975). In such a short period of time, it evolved from an agricultural and fishing island to a highly tourism-oriented destination, favoring mass charter foreign tourism. The inhabitants have abandoned their traditional occupations and opened bars, restaurants, discos, and hotels for their foreign guests. On the other hand, on Serifos, where the development of tourism started later (1975), and tourists are far fewer, the inhabitants are more wary of tourism and favor a moderate development for the future. Many have turned to tourist jobs, but agriculture and cattle breeding is still present. A brief analysis of the inhabitants’ attitudes towards tourism, explains their different reactions to its development. On Ios, the skepticism towards the type of development is obvious. The lure of profit is not enough reason to favor tourism (only 15.7 % supported it). Their skepticism, as noted, is a response to laxity in morals, low quality of tourism, nudism, and the like. The inhabitants of Serifos know the type of problems that have appeared on the nearby islands, as well as the fact that some problems existing on 10s have not yet been experienced by them (e.g., drugs). Still, a considerable percentage of the inhabitants believe that development of tourism on the island will discourage the young from emigrating. The fear of the inhabitants of 10s that they are “losing their children” is evident in their answers to the questionnaire. On 10s only 13 % preferred a more liberal system (a statement that was explained as the result of the youngsters’ attitude towards their elders), while on Serifos the percentage was 35.5 % . The appearance of stereotypes for tourists is common on both islands: the French are arrogant, the Germans are big spenders, etc. In general, foreign tourists are perceived to be more easygoing than their Greek counterparts. On Ios, it is believed that they “spend more” and “complain less.” These stereotypes demonstrate feelings of xenophobia and the kind of relation that exists between hosts and guests. Establish-
PARIS TSARTAS
527
ing relationships with the tourists does not interest the inhabitants. Those who claim indifference concerning the tourists’ nationality explain that they only care that tourists keep coming, whatever their nationality. They see tourists as a commodity rather than as real persons. The inhabitants of 10s complain that in the summertime they work “24 hours a day” and that their village is transformed into a “noisy bazaar.” Women in 10s are more independent economically, but not socially. They complain that during the tourism season, the young men of the island are transformed into “summer lovers.” The rapid economic development has created rivalries among the inhabitants over buildings, land use, and heritage. This is why on Ios, 80% of the inhabitants felt that the relationship among them is worse now than 20 years earlier (on Serifos, only 49 % gave the same answer). On both islands, young people consider the local traditional feasts outdated and suitable only for the older generation. They contrast this to the way tourists enjoy themselves in “modern activities.” People no longer attend traditional feasts, either because these take place in the summer and they do not “want” to leave their jobs, or because there has been a change in their life-style. The change on 10s is crucial-because the local feasts were always an opportunity to bring the inhabitants of all social and economic strata together, and helped the islanders express themselves with the symbols of their common cultural identity (songs, dances, etc.). The older inhabitants complain that the young men only kill time in bars and spend their money on young female tourists. On Ios, the inhabitants prefer to spend their free time in the tavern with friends, while on Serifos the great majority still prefers local feasts. These changes (and the differences between the two islands) are quite visible, especially in the structure and type of shops that offer food and entertainment for the tourists and the islanders. On Ios, in the summer of 1981, there were 35-40 bars and discos and 20-25 taverns. On Serifos, only two taverns were open, and around 10 P.M. they closed. The same was true of the existing coffee shops, where the islanders usually spent their time. In contrast, on Ios, there were three taverns open late and packed full every night. One of these was planning to bring an orchestra (with bouzouki). There were also four typically Greek coffee shops, two cafeterias for young people, and shops with electronic or video games. In addition, there were two more bars, very popular with the young people. On Ios, the young men imitate (demonstration effect) the standard of living of the tourists. They proudly declare that they go to Europe for winter vacations and consider the young Athenians “old-fashioned,” since they do not know how to dress and cannot afford winter vacations in Europe. The role of the family as a social and economic unit has also changed. The role of the father (formerly, eater familias) is now in doubt, since the elder sons-usually successful tourist businessmen now have a say in investment plans involving the family. In many cases, this change has led to conflicts and rivalries regarding family B. Cultural injuences.
528
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF TOURISM
property. Such differences are due to the different level of tourist development, as well as to the difference of social and economic impacts on local society. C. Economic and professional infuences. On Ios, the income increase was impressive after the tourist boom. The generated wealth spread, but quite unevenly, to all the social strata of this society. On Serifos this is not the case, since only a small percentage of the population is involved in tourism business. Both the value of land and the cost of living on 10s have risen (but to a lesser extent on Serifos). The inhabitants of both islands complain that tourism has brought money without “development ,” and blame the State for not establishing a better economic infrastructure (especially hospitals, schools, and transportation) for their islands. Occupational activity has increased on 10s and it is very common for a person to have two or three different touristic occupations. The typical tourist business is usually family run. It is very common for a family to have a combination of tourist businesses, especially on 10s. The greater percentage of these tourist businesses belong to local inhabitants, and a smaller portion belong to other Greeks. But most of the more profitable businesses (bars, discos, big hotels, etc.) belong to nonlocal inhabitants, or to those who were emigrants or seamen and returned to invest in tourism. This economic development due to tourism has stopped emigration. Moreover, islanders who have gone to live in Athens and Piraeus now have the tendency to return to their home islands. On Ios, 72% of returning emigrants are now working in tourism (39.3 % for Serifos). While on Ios, all other sectors of the economy have been abandoned (such as agriculture and fishing); on Serifos, the structure of the economy is still mixed (e.g., tourism, agriculture, and cattle breeding). Moreover, a black-market tourist economy is flourishing on 10s. It is based on nondeclared rented rooms and nondeclared income. D. Political inj’uences. The present study (phases 1 and 2) took place on the two islands during periods of Municipal Elections. Tourism had become the main issue in these elections, though in a different way for each island. On Serifos, during the elections, as in all other ones which took place after 1975, the main issue between the parties was the type of tourism development the island should follow. Both parties used examples of the profit and loss from tourism development on the nearby islands. On Ios, the issue was how the new mayor would be able to collect the 5% tax that all shop owners were obliged to pay to the municipal authorities. This tax could bring adequate funds to help build roads and improve the cleaning of the village and the nearby beaches. Yet, in the past, many shop owners had refused to pay the tax or paid some. Many inhabitants argued that this was the reason the municipal authorities could not undertake the necessary infrastructural improvements in the village.
PARIS TSARTAS
529
Therefore, while one island is concerned with issues surrounding tourism development, the other is disturbed with tourism influences and consequences. But, the crucial problem for the inhabitants of both islands seems to be the control of their tourism industry. Beyond the social, cultural, economic, and professional, and political influences, it is worth examining briefly how tourism development evolved on these two islands during the 10 years since the original field research. Two short visits (June 1991 to Serifos and August 1991 to Ios), and talks with some key informants, revealed the main differences that have arisen during this period. On Ios, the growth of tourism between 1982 and 1991 has had three basic characteristics. One, in the earlier decade, the island had consolidated its position as one of the main destinations for foreign tourists visiting the Cyclades region. Thus, the total number of tourists to the island has increased dramatically (20,000 per day during the July-August high season in 1990). In particular, two patterns of tourist flows emerged during this period. The first consists of foreign tourists coming to 10s exclusively by charter flights (through Santorini or Athens), and the second of tourists who visit 10s on larger tours of the nearby islands. This latter group is mostly attracted by the image that the island is a place for entertainment, relaxation, and “rich” nightlife. The second characteristic relates to the problems associated with large volume of tourists visiting the island. While it has not changed the islanders’ pro-tourism attitude, it has led, especially in the last five years, to a growing skepticism and criticism of the development model that the island has followed. Two issues are now paramount: the safeguarding of the island’s environment and attracting “rich tourists,” as opposed to the middle class and “cheap” ones who presently represent the bulk of arrivals. Third, the increase in tourism business and the resulting prosperity have continued throughout this decade. Consequently, foreign investors are now all powerful in 10s. The proportion of successful businesses that do not belong to local inhabitants has doubled these last years. Therefore, the locals feel frustrated and believe that they have not benefited enough from the opportunities offered by tourism. They believe that the outsiders (especially Athenians) have succeeded because they were better skilled and educated and had more experience in tourism-related business. Moreover, they feel bitter and betrayed because the State did not provide them with the means (such as education and loans) to compete with the “foreigners.” The changes encountered on the second visit to Serifos in 1986, as described earlier, and especially the increase in power of the local groups who were in favor of tourism, have influenced the general trend. A number of characteristics, as observed in 1991, are typical of the tourism development of the island. One, the new generation of the islanders who became involved in touristic businesses have been more willing to accept and develop large scale tourism. This is evident by their involvement in the very touristic businesses that in 1982 were thought to be the “step” towards “destructive” massive tourism. They seem to have taken a firm attitude in favor of the development of
530
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
OF TOURISM
exactly this type of tourism. Two, as a result, the total number of rooms available in hotels and boardinghouses for tourists is now three to four times as great as in 1980. In addition, there are now a large number of taverns, bars, discos, etc. This gives the picture of a more mass tourism infrastructure. Three, an important development is the fast growing market of real estate. The islanders have started selling land and old houses, thus attracting investors and architects from Athens wanting to make a good profit. In the last six to seven years, the price of land has tripled, and so has the price of villas and apartments sold to Greeks and foreigners. This type of development has expanded rapidly from the two main villages of Hora (the capital) and Livadi (the port), to almost all the sites near a sandy beach.
CONCLUSIONS The different levels of tourism development have caused different social changes in the socioeconomic structure of the two islands. In a short period of time, 10s has become a service-sector economy, totally oriented towards foreign tourism business. The once traditional and closed society is now struggling between the need of the population to maintain its social values (the same values that kept it together in the difficult years of war and poverty in 1940-1944) and the demands of a fast-growing tourism business, which changes the rhythms of everyday life and the social and economic fiber of society. The social problems that have arisen (especially those in connection with the younger generation) have made the islanders very skeptical about the future. Controlling the development of tourism is a common topic of discussion among the inhabitants of 10s. Many express the opinion that the problem would not have occurred if the inhabitants had prevented the very fast “boom” development of the industry. The question, however, is whether that really would have been possible since, in most cases, the industry works by its own rules. There are classification of touristic regions according to tourist demand; and internationalization of the tourism market, which does not leave many alternatives for integrated or controlled tourism development in countries that have these possibilities. The situation is different on Serifos because tourism development there is small scale. Most interesting is the fact that the problems facing 10s are referred to as the type of situation to be avoided for their own island. Although the majority of the population believes in a moderate the social groups that have beand controlled type of development, come economically and politically stronger year by year (mainly shopowners, the younger generation, and the emigrants who have returned and invested in tourism) prefer large scale tourism development. The different social consequences that have occurred in these two island societies, affected by different levels of tourism development, lead to several conclusions. (a) The type of tourism (mass or uncontrolled vs. moderate and controlled) is vital as regards the form and the extent of the social changes that will ensue in the host society. This is more evident in small island societies, mainly because, due to their
PARIS TSARTAS
531
isolation and economic needs, these changes in the social structure affect the population as a whole. Thus, tourism becomes the unique factor of economic change in such host societies. (b) The length of the period during which the development of tourism occurs, as well as its speed, plays a very important role in the consequences that ensue. 10s has turned to mass chartered tourism in five years, while for Serifos time has been crucial in another way. It has given the islanders the opportunity to see the impacts on the nearby island that developed (touristically) before them. (c) The relationship between the number of tourists and the social and environmental capacity of islands of this size is totally unbalanced. In the high season, 10s has an average of 15,000 visitors per day, while the population of the island is a mere 1,451 inhabitants. When tourism started, nobody foresaw the social and environmental consequences of the presence of such great numbers of tourists in a conservative, traditional, closed agricultural society. (d) Finally, it is possible to identify the key factors in the development of these islands through mass (10s) or integrated (Serifos) tourism. These factors are the following: . Agents of change. They, in both cases, were returning migrants, seamen, and Greek investors from Athens. l Local social groups. They have specific opinions about the type of development desired and express them through “lobby” procedures to their local authorities (municipality, prefecture, etc.). l Foreign tour operators. In the case of Ios, they played a very important role in its development, mainly because they linked the island with Western Europe by charters through Santorini. l National tourism policy. Throughout the postwar period, the policy of the Greek Tourism Department aimed at developing mass tourism without considering the cost. Only during the 1980-1990 period did people become concerned about the social and environmental consequences. l The ‘poor past and the rich present”factor. This is the type of argument that is used by the local social groups pressing for further development of mass tourism, especially in Serifos. People who believe in a moderate type of tourist development cannot ignore the fact that all the nearby islands are turning to mass tourism destinations and profiting from it. Ten years after the original research, the situation on the two islands shows that a gradual or fast evolution toward more mass tourism development seems to be inevitable. On Ios, the increase in numbers of tourists appears to be having an interesting result. A discussion has begun on how to change the image of what the island has to offer from a touristic point of view, and how to safeguard the most precious touristic resource: its environment. Nothing much has resulted from these discussions as yet, but the fact that this issue has come up at all is significant. Most of the key factors that led 10s to mass tourism development have now started making their appearance on Serifos. Thus, this is leading the island along the same path-although not at the same rapid speed as was the case on 10s. While differences between the two islands exist, the general trend seems to be the same: mass tourism development. It would be helpful
532
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
OF TOURISM
if further research on this issue in the near future could focus on the internationalization of tourism and its desirable types for a touristic country or region. 0 q
REFERENCES Black, A., and P. S. Gassia 1977 Tourism as an Antidote to Underdevelopment: The Implications. Paper presented at the Seminar on Tourism and Development, Malta. Buet V., and J. Perret 1986 Les relations agriculture-tourisme a Chdtel et Morzine. Les relations agriculture-tourisme. Grenoble: CEMAGREF. Cohen E. 1971 Arab Boys and Tourist Girls in a Mixed Jewish/Arab Community. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 12: 217-233. Farrey L., and J. Perret 1986 Les relations agriculture-tourisme a Chapelle des Bois. Les relations agriculture-tourisme. Grenoble: CEMAGREF. Forster, J. 1964 The Sociological Consequences of Tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociolow 5:217-227. Greenwood, D. Jr’ 1972 Tourism as an Agent of Change: A Spanish Basque Case. Ethnology 11:8091. Hermans, D. 1981 The Encounter of Agriculture and Tourism: A Catalan Case. Annals of Tourism Research 8:462-479. Hoffman, S. M. 1976 Ethnography of the Island of Thira: Regional Variation in Modern Greece and Cyprus. Annals of New York Academy of Science. Lambiri-Dimaki, I. 1972 Mvkonos-Dilos-Rinia: Develooment Plan (in Greek). Athens: Ministrv of Governmental Policy. Loukissas, P. J. 1982 Tourism’s Regional Development Impacts, A Comparative Analysis of the Greek Islands. Annals of Tourism Research 9:523-543. Ministry of National Economy 1982 Report on the 5 Year Program for the Economic and Social Development: Cyclades Region (in Greek). Athens: Ministry of National Economy. Ministry of Planning 1982 Development Program 1983, Present Situation-Cyclades Region (2 volumes; in Greek). Athens: Ministry of Planning. Moore, K. 1970 Modernization in a Canary Island Village: An Indicator of Social Change in Spain. Journal of the Stewart Anthropological Society 2:19-34. Nikolinakos, M. 1977 An Essay on Comparison as a Method in Social Sciences. The Greek Review of Social Research 29:44-54. Pi-Sunyer, 0. 1973 Tourism and its Discontents: The Impact of a New Industry on a Catalan Community. Studies in European Society 11: 11-20. Rosenberg, H., and R. Reiter 1973 Rural Workers in French Alpine Tourism: Whose Development? Studies in European Society 1:2 i-38. Smith, V., ed. 1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsvlvania Press. Stott, M. ’ 1973 Economic Transition and the Family in Mykonos. The Greek Review of Social Research 17:122-133.
PARIS
TSARTAS
533
Tacquard, F. 1986 Les relations agriculture-tourisme: Les fermes auberges du hat-Rhin. Les relations agriculture-tourisme. Grenoble: CEMAGREF. Tsartas, P. 1988 Seeking Ways to Control the Social Changes brought about by Tourism: A Case Study of the Island of Serifos-Greece. A paper presented at the International Geographical Union Commission of Geography, Tourism and Leisure Meeting. 1989 Economic and Social Consequences of the Tourist Development in the Cyclades Region (and especially on the Islands 10s and Serifos) in the period 1950-1980. Ph.D. dissertation. Athens: National Center of Social Research. Submitted 20 January 1991 Revised copy submitted 30 May 1991 Second revised copy submitted 20 September Accepted 1 October 1991 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Emanuel de Kadt
1991
1992 Copyright
0160.7383/92 $5.00 + .OO 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
IMPACTS OF SOCIOECONOMIC TOURISM ON TWO GREEK ISLES Paris Tsartas
National
Center
of Social Research,
Greece
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to examine the consequences of tourism on two neighboring islands of Greece, proving that the social, economic, and cultural mores of these islands have been influenced according to the differing types of tourist development. The thorough examination of the similarities and differences between the two islands before the appearance of tourism, and their evolution after 20 years of tourism, leads to the conclusion that the major factor that has influenced these two small societies is the different type of tourism that was developed in each one. Keywords: development, socioeconomic impacts, Greece, massive tourist development, comparative studies. Resume: Les impacts socio-kconomiques sur deux Ples grecques. Le propos de cet article est d’examiner les conskquences du tourisme sur deux iles voisinantes en G&e et ainsi de prouver que la faGon dont le tourisme influence les moeurs sociaux, Cconomiques et culturels varie selon le style du tourisme qui est d&veloppC. Une ttude approfondie des ressemblances et des differences qui existaient entre les deux iles avant l’avknement du tourisme et leur tvolution ap& vingt ans de tourisme mkne B la conclusion que le facteur dtcisif ayant influencC ces deux socittCs est le style particulier du tourisme qui a CtG dCveloppC dans chaque ile. Mots-cl&s: dkeloppement, dCveloppement du tourisme ?I grande Cchelle, etudes comparatives.
INTRODUCTION This article is a study of the difference in the social impact of tourism on two neighboring Greek islands that followed different types of tourism development. These two islands, Serifos and Ios, belong to the highly touristic prefecture of the Cyclades (Figure l), It is essential to describe the basic socioeconomic characteristics of the region before and after the touristic boom (around 1970). Before the introduction of tourism, the socioeconomic structure of the region did not differ from most of the agricultural regions of Greece (Hoffman 1976:328-340; Lambiri-Dimaki 1972:381-391; Stott 1973: 122-133). Their similarities included a demographic collapse, due to Paris Tsartas is a Doctor of Sociology, specialized in the Sociology of Tourism. He is a researcher in the National Center of Social Research of Greece (EKKE, Sophocleaus Street, No. 1, Athens 10559, Greece) and professor of Sociology in the National School of Tourist Guides. 516
PARIS TSARTAS
517
migration to Athens and Piraeus (Table 1); a moderate economy based on agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, and mining; the important role of the nuclear family and insignificant social and occupational mobility; and a strong religious feeling and rich cultural tradition. The massive tourism development of the region (especially after 1965) radically altered this picture in 5 to 10 years. The greater percentage of the inhabitants turned to tourist occupations. Former emigrants and seamen returned to the islands and, acting as “agents of change,” created the necessary infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, agencies, etc.) for tourism development. In many cases they were followed by businesspersons and investors from other parts of the country. Women became the main supporters of the tourist economy (usually running the family business, restaurant, hotel, and the like) and young people obtained economic independence at a very early age. The development of tourism favored those who owned land and capital, but there was also an intense social and occupational mobility among the lower social strata expressed in two ways: new lowerstratum occupations emerged and, through the additional income de-
518
SOCIOECONOMIC
Table
1. Evolution
IMPACTS
of the Population
OF TOURISM
After the Second World War Post-War
Area in km2
Level Greece Greece
A$ex;pt
Athens)
Aegean Islands Cyclades Region of East Sterea and Islands
1961
1971
1981
7,632,801
8,388,553
8,768,641
9,740,417
131,562 428 9,113 2,572
6,254,215 1,378,586 528,766 125,959
6,535,844 1,852,709 477,476 99,959
6,228,400 2,540,241 417,813 86,337
6,713,086 3,027,331 428,533 98,458
21,033
Y&192,840
2,685,879
3,389,666
3,995,866
19511961 Greece
Growth
131,990
Comparison
Greece (except Athens) Athens Aegean Islands Cyclades Region of East Sterea and Islands
1951
Population
Population Inhabitants
by Decades (%) 19611971
19711981
+9.9
+4.5
+11.1
+4.5 +34.4 -9.7 - 20.6
-4.7 +37.1 - 12.5 - 13.6
+7.6 + 19.2 +2.6 +2.5
+22.5
+26.2
+17.9
1951
1961
Density per km*
1971
1981
57.8
63.6
66.4
73.8
47.5 3,221.0 58.0 49.0
49.6 4,329.0 52.4 38.9
47.3 5,985.0 45.8 33.6
51.0 7,073.O 47.0 34.4
104.3
127.7
161.2
190.0
rived from these jobs, the same stratum showed an upward social mobility in the years that followed. Thus, a totally new “petite bourgeoisie” was formed (merchants, hotel owners, craftsmen, and more), whose members usually hold two or three jobs. Within a period of 1520 years, the islands, which shortly before were poor, became relatively rich. Their economic structure came to be based on tourism. In 1981 (see Ministry of National Economy 1982:5, 37), almost 70% of the region’s GNP was derived from tourism. A similar conclusion can be reached from figures on income declared to the revenue department in 1980, which showed that 72% was derived from the service sector (Ministry of Planning 1982:153-173). All the islands, however, did not meet with the same type of tourist development. In the early 8Os, there were three different touristic groups of islands (Table 2, Figures 2 and 3). This classification was based on two different types of data: (a) statistical and research material, which showed the different level of involvement of the local socioeconomic structure in tourism development, and (b) material provided by a five month pilot study in 1981 that was conducted in all the islands of the region. The purpose of the pilot study was to obtain a better knowledge of the islanders’ views on the subject of tourism and to study the social and economic impacts in their local social structures. The research was undertaken in two different periods (summer and winter 1981)-to identify the differences in the life-style of the local people. The interviews (at this stage with a nonrandom sample of key
PARIS TSARTAS
519
informants and others among local people) were mainly focused on the characteristics and the role of the “catalysts” of tourist development; the types of tourists “drawn” to each island (Tsartas 1988: 199-200); the occupational and social groups for and against tourist development; and the social and economic impacts of tourist development. This pilot research, which was the first phase of the field research, helped in the classification of all the islands, especially according to their type (Cohen 1971:166-177; Smith 1977:8-13) and stage of development (Forster 1964:217-224; Greenwood 1972:82-90; Loukissas 1982:537-738; Moore 1970:22-32). As discussed elsewhere (Tsartas 1988: 167-l 75, 199-207) for the Cyclades region, the type of tourism and the stage of tourist development of each group of islands are closely related. This relation is, of course, the result of the dynamic function of certain factors characteristic of the local social structure or of the tourist sector in general. These factors are agents of change, local social groups, foreign Tour Operators, national tourism policies, and the “poor past and rich present” distinction. The interconnection of these factors results in a rapid and massive tourism development. In this process in the Cyclades region, it seems that it is a matter of time before the islands that are in the earliest phase go on to the second or third phase, as the example of Serifos demonstrates in this paper. Group A In these (mostly large) islands, the population responded positively to the challenge of tourism development. They created the necessary infrastructure (e.g., small hotels and taverns) and, thus, helped meet the massive tourism that followed later. In this process, some specific social and occupational groups acted as catalysts: local islanders returning from Athens and Piraeus who opened the first successful businesses, Athenians who invested in tourism, seamen who returned and worked in the tourist sector, and the seamen’s wives who had experience in managing households and family economic affairs. Because of their husband; absence, they were able to manage the touristic businesses. The role of these catalysts was crucial in forming some sort of infrastructure on the islands, which until then had been nonexistent. This enabled them to meet massive organized, charter-type tourism - and all this in a very short period of time (5- 10 years). Moreover, the tour-operators’ industry changed the face of the islands very quickly by turning these islands into “package tour” destinations, especially popular with Western Europeans. As a consequence, the occupational and social structures in these islands were changed drastically and their economic dependence on tourism is now absolute. 10s belongs to this group.
Group B The smaller and poorer islands of the region belong to this second group. The absence of both tour operators and the above-mentioned catalysts prolonged the lack of infrastructure, which was the main
2,427.7
88,458
5,530 7,881 1,451 7,328 14,037 635 2,087 38,949
1,502 1,652 1,722
Cyclades
Mykonos Paros 10s Santor. Naxos Antipar. Sifnos Group A
Kythnos Kea Amorgos
99.2 130.6 121.0
85.5 194.5 107.8 75.8 428.0 34.7 73.2 999.5
Area in km*
Population
Islands
860 2,787 40
36,150 19,064 3,539 20,691 18,320 327 2,407 100,498
151,118
Total
14.8 41.3 47.5
86.6 80.1 85.5 84.2 78.4 59.3 67.0 82.8
85.2 58.7 52.5
65.6
13.4 19.9 14.5 15.8 21.6 40.7 33.0 17.2
Foreign %
34.4
Greeks %
Arrivals in 1980”
Table 2. Indicators
5,899 14,634 208
206,299 94,295 17,835 73,721 73,666 3,340 10,489 479,645
636,044
Total
Development
93.0 35.5 49.0
8.2 18.5 16.1 15.7 20.6 58.1 37.8 14.6
23.6
Greeks %
7.0 64.5 51.0
91.8 81.5 83.9 84.3 79.4 41.9 62.2 85.4
76.4
Foreign %
Nights in 1980b
of Tourism
846 1,962 38
11,301 8,568 1,922 5,547 4,735 322 1,314 33,709
57,021
Beds 1980’
in Greece
0.6 1.7
6.5 2.4 2.4 2.8 1.3 0.5 1.2 2.6
1.7
Per Inhab.
1:
8.7 21.3 0.3
422.8 98.0 32.8 273.0 42.8 9.4 32.9 100.5
62.2
Per km2
Arrivals
Indicator
Per
3.9 8.6 0.2
37.3 12.0 12.3 10.1 5.2 5.2 5.0 12.3
7.2
Inhab
262.4
Per km2
2:
59.5 112.1 2.5
2,412.8 484.8 165.4 972.5 172.1 96.3 143.2 479.9
Nights
Indicator
563.2 1,187.7 22.0
2,043.6 1,087.2 1,324.6 757.0 337.3 507.1 620.6 805.5
644.6
Per 1000 Inhab.
3: Beds
Indicator
r? -
194.2 83.6 150.6 35.7 379.8 843.9
7,731 19,669 4,556 787 9,020 41,763
Tinos Syros Milos Kimolos Andros Group C
31,150 5,696 2,939 250d 5,166 45,210
24.4 19.6 67.2 44.0 56.3 30.9
40.2
55.5
58.3 66.7 55.0 40.2
of Tourism.
in 1980). flats in 1980). 1980).
75.6 80.4 32.8 56.0 43.7 69.1
59.8
44.5
450d
5,410
41.7 33.3 45.0 59.8
120d 3ood 100d 753
“Arrivals (at hotels, all categories, and furnished flats hNights (spend at hotels, all categories, and furnished ‘Beds (in hotels, all categories, and furnished flats in dEstimations. Source: Statistical Service of the Greek Organization
41.0 32.0 38.3 73.2 17.6 7.8 10.1 13.5 584.3
280 567 292 1,135 95 140 237 116 7,746
Sikinos Folegandr. Anali Serifos Iraklia Schinoysa Koufonis. Donoussa Group B 79,170 11,658 15,365 1 ,200d 2l,794d 129,187d
28,112
2,000d
400d 1 ,500d 3ood 3,081
56.3 73.8 24.6 41.7 41.3 51.4
51.8
40.0
62.5 46.7 40.0 60.9
43.8 26.2 75.4 58.3 58.7 48.6
48.2
60.0
37.5 53.3 60.0 30.1
9,460d 5,253d 2,448 80d 2,455 19,696
3,616
150d
5od loo* 2od 450
4.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.1
0.7
0.8
0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7
160.4 68.1 19.5 7.0 13.6 53.6
9.3
9.2
2.6 10.3
2.9 9.4
10.2 0.6 3.4 1.5 2.4 3.1
3.6
3.4
1.4 2.6 1.0 2.7
466.8 1,223.6 267.1 537.3 101.7 272.2 471.6
48.1 407.7 139.4 102.0 33.6 57.4 153.1
255.1
172.4 176.4 68.5 397.2
443.8
7.8 42.1
9.8 46.9
522
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
OF TOURISM
Figure 2. Arrivals and Nights Spent by Group of Islands G = Greeks; F = Foreigners Source: Statistical
Service
of the Greek Organization
of Tourism
reason for their delayed development. They now act as satellites of the region that consists of touristic islands. Tourists frequenting these islands are mainly young foreigners and Greeks. The development of the islands can be described as moderate, without the presence of organized tourism and its consequences. The economic structure is mixed (agriculture, fishing, and tourism). The fact that these areas developed after 1970 allows the islanders to have their own opinion on the social and economic consequences brought about on the nearby islands (a kind of negative demonstration effect). Their main subject of discussion is how to attract “good tourists,” that is, big-spendings, and socially acceptable tourists. Yet the majority of the population
Figure 3. Indicators of Tourism Development First Column Third Column Source:
Statistical
by Group of Islands
= Cyclades; Second Column = Group B; Fourth Column Service
= Group A; = Group C
of the Greek Organization
of Tourism
PARIS TSARTAS
523
(especially the young and those involved in tourism) is pressing for a larger scale tourism development, which is slowly changing the socioeconomic structure of the host islands. Serifos belongs to this group.
GroupC The reaction of the inhabitants in this third group of islands is, for two reasons, mixed. First, religious feeling and tradition among the population are strong. They strongly oppose tourism development because, in their opinion, tourists are a “destructive force,” damaging their society, traditional customs, and mores. (In Tinos and Syros, the populations are of either Orthodox or Catholic creed.) Second, the presence of other important economic activities, such as shipyards, mining, and seamen, is the reason the scale of tourism development here is moderate as regards both Greek and foreign tourists. Hence, the type of tourist development on this group of islands is mixed and, in many cases, can be best described as an enclave. In some islands, one finds some communities with massive organized tourism and others with a moderate type of development. The economic structure is also mixed (tourism and agriculture or tourism and mining). The social consequences of massive tourism development, prevalent in the islands of Group A (drugs, culture, commoditization, demonstration effect, etc.), is less evident among this group of islands. THE
STUDY
The principal aim of this study was to compare (Nikolinakos 1977: 44-54) the social and economic impacts of tourism development in two different regions (for similar examples, see Black and Gassia 1977:715; Buet and Perret 1986:49-83; Rosenberg and Reiter 1973:26-37). One region is in the first stage of tourism and the other is in the massive stage of development. The first objective of the study was to check the hypothesis that massive and rapid tourist development causes substantial social and economic changes in agricultural regions, as has been demonstrated by many case studies in the past (Farrey and Perret 1986: 105-l 15; Greenwood 1972:80-88; Hermans 1981:468-471; Pi-Sunyer 1973:1117; Tacquard 1986: 118-145). The second objective was to compare the research results with other studies in regions sharing similar socioeconomic characteristics. This, it was assumed, would enable one to draw more specific conclusions concerning the social consequences of tourism. In the planning of this research study, particular attention was paid to those research findings and topics that demonstrate the extent of the social and economic impacts of tourism as regards agriculture, and to the relation between the type of tourism and the social acceptance of this phenomenon (Tsartas 1989: 142-143). The classification of the islands of the region into three groups (according to their level of involvement in tourism development) was used as the framework to select the two islands to be compared. One of these islands was to belong to Group B (first stage of tourism development) and the second to Group A (third stage of development).
524
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF TOURISM
It took three and a half months (during the winter of 1982) to select the two islands for field research. Moreover, questionnaires were developed for a random sample to be drawn from the electoral registers of the port and the capital city of each island (18-70 years of age). In all, 70 questionnaires were completed in 10s and 63 in Serifos. The questionnaire had 8 1 mainly “closed type” questions, grouped into live thematic categories: tourism, social values, occupational characteristics, demographic characteristics, and local problems. The aim was to study the opinions and attitudes of the local people on these themes. The need to research other topics (such as political involvement and tourism, tourism economy, and reaction of the local social structure to tourism), which could not be included in a questionnaire, led to an additional approach: free sample interviews with local people. The random sample questionnaires provided the basic material of our research. Two requirements guided the selection of the two islands. First, the islands should basically have similar characteristics. The similarity was defined in terms of area; population per square kilometer; occupation in agriculture, cattle breeding, and fishing (percentage of the active population) when tourism was introduced (1971), with agriculture as the main economic force; infrastructure (roads, drainage, telecommunications, schools, doctors); and socioeconomic and cultural characteristics in the period preceding the massive tourist development (before the 60s). Second, the islands should differ substantially in respect to beds per 1,000 inhabitants; nights spent on the island per inhabitant; nights spent on the island per square kilometer; arrivals per square kilometer; and arrivals per inhabitant. On-site research showed that these two islands had a totally different socioeconomic reality in summer and winter. TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT
ON TWO
GREEK
ISLANDS
Ios The development of tourism in 10s began in 1965, and the type of infrastructure developed aimed, from the beginning, to attract massive foreign, middle-class tourists, especially looking for entertainment and relaxation. This type of tourism was at first induced by returning emigrants or Athenian investors, but the inhabitants also followed and strongly supported this development, believing that it would be their “ticket” to prosperity. After some 10 to 15 years, 10s (along with Mykonos, Paros, and Thera) is one of the most massively developed islands of the region. The local support of tourism was due mainly to the profit it brought, but the problematic social consequences were at first neglected. It is characteristic that in the survey only 15.7 % answered that tourism is good, while 82.9% answered that it has both good and bad aspects. including inappropriate impact on youth The negative aspects, (36.9%), moral problems because of nudism, the behavior of young have undesirfemale tourists (32.9 %), and the use of drugs (13.4%),
PARIS TSARTAS
525
ably influenced the local customs and mores. Also, the majority (80%) believe that the relationships among the inhabitants had worsened compared to 20 years earlier. As for the positive aspects, it was almost unanimous (97.6%) that tourism brings money to the island. How can one explain this ambivalent, two-sided view, which is also reported by research material in other parts of the globe? The reaction of the local population in 10s can be considered rather superficial: they protest, but they do not try to intervene drastically. They are more interested in improving the economic aspects of the sector’s development (land use, tax evasion) than in changing its type. This is quite evident in their response to “What kind of tourists do you prefer?” Almost 58% of respondents answered foreign tourists, and only 9 % said Greeks. Here is a case of passive acceptance of the social consequences that are considered negative. This attitude can be explained by the fact that almost everyone on the island has a considerable income derived from tourism, so that the money involved proves a stronger argument than the social consequences incurred. Serifos One of the reasons for the delayed start of tourism development in Serifos (1975) was the effort of a majority of the inhabitants to control the type of tourism in the earlier decade (1965-1975). This effort passed through two different chronological phases: 1965-1975 and 1975-mid-1980s. In the beginning (1965), tourism developed at a slow pace because the catalysts that could create the infrastructure and act as agents of change were less evident. The type of tourism opted for was moderate, mixed in nationality, and integrated in the local social and economic structure. Skepticism of tourism started in the beginning of the 70s and was based on the islanders’ reluctance toward what they described as the negative social consequence of mass tourism. The interesting point here is that their skepticism was derived mostly from what happened elsewhere, and they expressed a fear of the expansion of the same development model. As a reaction to the above situation, two interest groups emerged, with their opinions expressed through different political parties (Tsartas 1988:197-201). The first group, which was supported by the majority of the local people, wanted small scale or family-type tourism. Group B, with fewer supporters, favored large scale tourism development. Despite their differences, both groups wanted a say in the formulation of tourism policy, not necessarily through a formal procedure of intervention in tourist development, but by means of a more or less spontaneous reaction. This took various forms (Tsartas 1988: 198), including the reluctance of local people, to sell land to foreigners and Athenians; lack of desire to collaborate with foreign operators or Greek offices in linking the island with the more developed islands nearby; and strongly criticizing young Serifians who opened bars for tourists. This situation partly explains the opinions of the local people who were, in general, in favor of tourism in 1982. The situation was still under control and a majority of the inhabitants felt that tourism could
526
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF TOURISM
provide them with substantial wealth, without being destructive. Yet, on a second visit to the island in 1986 (Tsartas 1988:197-201), the situation had changed dramatically. The second group now had more supporters because the region had seen a considerable increase of income after 1975, and the younger generation, which is more closely involved with tourism occupations, was pressing for a more massive form of tourism development. This change suggests that the internationalization of tourism development and a region’s image are more crucial factors than the interests of some local social groups who struggle for an integrated type of tourist development. This is more evident in countries like Greece, regarded as a country favoring mass tourism development, especially in one of the more touristic regions like the Cyclades Islands. Results of Field Research A. Social influences. The survey results reveal that the social structure
of 10s changed dramatically in less than 10 years (1965-1975). In such a short period of time, it evolved from an agricultural and fishing island to a highly tourism-oriented destination, favoring mass charter foreign tourism. The inhabitants have abandoned their traditional occupations and opened bars, restaurants, discos, and hotels for their foreign guests. On the other hand, on Serifos, where the development of tourism started later (1975), and tourists are far fewer, the inhabitants are more wary of tourism and favor a moderate development for the future. Many have turned to tourist jobs, but agriculture and cattle breeding is still present. A brief analysis of the inhabitants’ attitudes towards tourism, explains their different reactions to its development. On Ios, the skepticism towards the type of development is obvious. The lure of profit is not enough reason to favor tourism (only 15.7 % supported it). Their skepticism, as noted, is a response to laxity in morals, low quality of tourism, nudism, and the like. The inhabitants of Serifos know the type of problems that have appeared on the nearby islands, as well as the fact that some problems existing on 10s have not yet been experienced by them (e.g., drugs). Still, a considerable percentage of the inhabitants believe that development of tourism on the island will discourage the young from emigrating. The fear of the inhabitants of 10s that they are “losing their children” is evident in their answers to the questionnaire. On 10s only 13 % preferred a more liberal system (a statement that was explained as the result of the youngsters’ attitude towards their elders), while on Serifos the percentage was 35.5 % . The appearance of stereotypes for tourists is common on both islands: the French are arrogant, the Germans are big spenders, etc. In general, foreign tourists are perceived to be more easygoing than their Greek counterparts. On Ios, it is believed that they “spend more” and “complain less.” These stereotypes demonstrate feelings of xenophobia and the kind of relation that exists between hosts and guests. Establish-
PARIS TSARTAS
527
ing relationships with the tourists does not interest the inhabitants. Those who claim indifference concerning the tourists’ nationality explain that they only care that tourists keep coming, whatever their nationality. They see tourists as a commodity rather than as real persons. The inhabitants of 10s complain that in the summertime they work “24 hours a day” and that their village is transformed into a “noisy bazaar.” Women in 10s are more independent economically, but not socially. They complain that during the tourism season, the young men of the island are transformed into “summer lovers.” The rapid economic development has created rivalries among the inhabitants over buildings, land use, and heritage. This is why on Ios, 80% of the inhabitants felt that the relationship among them is worse now than 20 years earlier (on Serifos, only 49 % gave the same answer). On both islands, young people consider the local traditional feasts outdated and suitable only for the older generation. They contrast this to the way tourists enjoy themselves in “modern activities.” People no longer attend traditional feasts, either because these take place in the summer and they do not “want” to leave their jobs, or because there has been a change in their life-style. The change on 10s is crucial-because the local feasts were always an opportunity to bring the inhabitants of all social and economic strata together, and helped the islanders express themselves with the symbols of their common cultural identity (songs, dances, etc.). The older inhabitants complain that the young men only kill time in bars and spend their money on young female tourists. On Ios, the inhabitants prefer to spend their free time in the tavern with friends, while on Serifos the great majority still prefers local feasts. These changes (and the differences between the two islands) are quite visible, especially in the structure and type of shops that offer food and entertainment for the tourists and the islanders. On Ios, in the summer of 1981, there were 35-40 bars and discos and 20-25 taverns. On Serifos, only two taverns were open, and around 10 P.M. they closed. The same was true of the existing coffee shops, where the islanders usually spent their time. In contrast, on Ios, there were three taverns open late and packed full every night. One of these was planning to bring an orchestra (with bouzouki). There were also four typically Greek coffee shops, two cafeterias for young people, and shops with electronic or video games. In addition, there were two more bars, very popular with the young people. On Ios, the young men imitate (demonstration effect) the standard of living of the tourists. They proudly declare that they go to Europe for winter vacations and consider the young Athenians “old-fashioned,” since they do not know how to dress and cannot afford winter vacations in Europe. The role of the family as a social and economic unit has also changed. The role of the father (formerly, eater familias) is now in doubt, since the elder sons-usually successful tourist businessmen now have a say in investment plans involving the family. In many cases, this change has led to conflicts and rivalries regarding family B. Cultural injuences.
528
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF TOURISM
property. Such differences are due to the different level of tourist development, as well as to the difference of social and economic impacts on local society. C. Economic and professional infuences. On Ios, the income increase was impressive after the tourist boom. The generated wealth spread, but quite unevenly, to all the social strata of this society. On Serifos this is not the case, since only a small percentage of the population is involved in tourism business. Both the value of land and the cost of living on 10s have risen (but to a lesser extent on Serifos). The inhabitants of both islands complain that tourism has brought money without “development ,” and blame the State for not establishing a better economic infrastructure (especially hospitals, schools, and transportation) for their islands. Occupational activity has increased on 10s and it is very common for a person to have two or three different touristic occupations. The typical tourist business is usually family run. It is very common for a family to have a combination of tourist businesses, especially on 10s. The greater percentage of these tourist businesses belong to local inhabitants, and a smaller portion belong to other Greeks. But most of the more profitable businesses (bars, discos, big hotels, etc.) belong to nonlocal inhabitants, or to those who were emigrants or seamen and returned to invest in tourism. This economic development due to tourism has stopped emigration. Moreover, islanders who have gone to live in Athens and Piraeus now have the tendency to return to their home islands. On Ios, 72% of returning emigrants are now working in tourism (39.3 % for Serifos). While on Ios, all other sectors of the economy have been abandoned (such as agriculture and fishing); on Serifos, the structure of the economy is still mixed (e.g., tourism, agriculture, and cattle breeding). Moreover, a black-market tourist economy is flourishing on 10s. It is based on nondeclared rented rooms and nondeclared income. D. Political inj’uences. The present study (phases 1 and 2) took place on the two islands during periods of Municipal Elections. Tourism had become the main issue in these elections, though in a different way for each island. On Serifos, during the elections, as in all other ones which took place after 1975, the main issue between the parties was the type of tourism development the island should follow. Both parties used examples of the profit and loss from tourism development on the nearby islands. On Ios, the issue was how the new mayor would be able to collect the 5% tax that all shop owners were obliged to pay to the municipal authorities. This tax could bring adequate funds to help build roads and improve the cleaning of the village and the nearby beaches. Yet, in the past, many shop owners had refused to pay the tax or paid some. Many inhabitants argued that this was the reason the municipal authorities could not undertake the necessary infrastructural improvements in the village.
PARIS TSARTAS
529
Therefore, while one island is concerned with issues surrounding tourism development, the other is disturbed with tourism influences and consequences. But, the crucial problem for the inhabitants of both islands seems to be the control of their tourism industry. Beyond the social, cultural, economic, and professional, and political influences, it is worth examining briefly how tourism development evolved on these two islands during the 10 years since the original field research. Two short visits (June 1991 to Serifos and August 1991 to Ios), and talks with some key informants, revealed the main differences that have arisen during this period. On Ios, the growth of tourism between 1982 and 1991 has had three basic characteristics. One, in the earlier decade, the island had consolidated its position as one of the main destinations for foreign tourists visiting the Cyclades region. Thus, the total number of tourists to the island has increased dramatically (20,000 per day during the July-August high season in 1990). In particular, two patterns of tourist flows emerged during this period. The first consists of foreign tourists coming to 10s exclusively by charter flights (through Santorini or Athens), and the second of tourists who visit 10s on larger tours of the nearby islands. This latter group is mostly attracted by the image that the island is a place for entertainment, relaxation, and “rich” nightlife. The second characteristic relates to the problems associated with large volume of tourists visiting the island. While it has not changed the islanders’ pro-tourism attitude, it has led, especially in the last five years, to a growing skepticism and criticism of the development model that the island has followed. Two issues are now paramount: the safeguarding of the island’s environment and attracting “rich tourists,” as opposed to the middle class and “cheap” ones who presently represent the bulk of arrivals. Third, the increase in tourism business and the resulting prosperity have continued throughout this decade. Consequently, foreign investors are now all powerful in 10s. The proportion of successful businesses that do not belong to local inhabitants has doubled these last years. Therefore, the locals feel frustrated and believe that they have not benefited enough from the opportunities offered by tourism. They believe that the outsiders (especially Athenians) have succeeded because they were better skilled and educated and had more experience in tourism-related business. Moreover, they feel bitter and betrayed because the State did not provide them with the means (such as education and loans) to compete with the “foreigners.” The changes encountered on the second visit to Serifos in 1986, as described earlier, and especially the increase in power of the local groups who were in favor of tourism, have influenced the general trend. A number of characteristics, as observed in 1991, are typical of the tourism development of the island. One, the new generation of the islanders who became involved in touristic businesses have been more willing to accept and develop large scale tourism. This is evident by their involvement in the very touristic businesses that in 1982 were thought to be the “step” towards “destructive” massive tourism. They seem to have taken a firm attitude in favor of the development of
530
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
OF TOURISM
exactly this type of tourism. Two, as a result, the total number of rooms available in hotels and boardinghouses for tourists is now three to four times as great as in 1980. In addition, there are now a large number of taverns, bars, discos, etc. This gives the picture of a more mass tourism infrastructure. Three, an important development is the fast growing market of real estate. The islanders have started selling land and old houses, thus attracting investors and architects from Athens wanting to make a good profit. In the last six to seven years, the price of land has tripled, and so has the price of villas and apartments sold to Greeks and foreigners. This type of development has expanded rapidly from the two main villages of Hora (the capital) and Livadi (the port), to almost all the sites near a sandy beach.
CONCLUSIONS The different levels of tourism development have caused different social changes in the socioeconomic structure of the two islands. In a short period of time, 10s has become a service-sector economy, totally oriented towards foreign tourism business. The once traditional and closed society is now struggling between the need of the population to maintain its social values (the same values that kept it together in the difficult years of war and poverty in 1940-1944) and the demands of a fast-growing tourism business, which changes the rhythms of everyday life and the social and economic fiber of society. The social problems that have arisen (especially those in connection with the younger generation) have made the islanders very skeptical about the future. Controlling the development of tourism is a common topic of discussion among the inhabitants of 10s. Many express the opinion that the problem would not have occurred if the inhabitants had prevented the very fast “boom” development of the industry. The question, however, is whether that really would have been possible since, in most cases, the industry works by its own rules. There are classification of touristic regions according to tourist demand; and internationalization of the tourism market, which does not leave many alternatives for integrated or controlled tourism development in countries that have these possibilities. The situation is different on Serifos because tourism development there is small scale. Most interesting is the fact that the problems facing 10s are referred to as the type of situation to be avoided for their own island. Although the majority of the population believes in a moderate the social groups that have beand controlled type of development, come economically and politically stronger year by year (mainly shopowners, the younger generation, and the emigrants who have returned and invested in tourism) prefer large scale tourism development. The different social consequences that have occurred in these two island societies, affected by different levels of tourism development, lead to several conclusions. (a) The type of tourism (mass or uncontrolled vs. moderate and controlled) is vital as regards the form and the extent of the social changes that will ensue in the host society. This is more evident in small island societies, mainly because, due to their
PARIS TSARTAS
531
isolation and economic needs, these changes in the social structure affect the population as a whole. Thus, tourism becomes the unique factor of economic change in such host societies. (b) The length of the period during which the development of tourism occurs, as well as its speed, plays a very important role in the consequences that ensue. 10s has turned to mass chartered tourism in five years, while for Serifos time has been crucial in another way. It has given the islanders the opportunity to see the impacts on the nearby island that developed (touristically) before them. (c) The relationship between the number of tourists and the social and environmental capacity of islands of this size is totally unbalanced. In the high season, 10s has an average of 15,000 visitors per day, while the population of the island is a mere 1,451 inhabitants. When tourism started, nobody foresaw the social and environmental consequences of the presence of such great numbers of tourists in a conservative, traditional, closed agricultural society. (d) Finally, it is possible to identify the key factors in the development of these islands through mass (10s) or integrated (Serifos) tourism. These factors are the following: . Agents of change. They, in both cases, were returning migrants, seamen, and Greek investors from Athens. l Local social groups. They have specific opinions about the type of development desired and express them through “lobby” procedures to their local authorities (municipality, prefecture, etc.). l Foreign tour operators. In the case of Ios, they played a very important role in its development, mainly because they linked the island with Western Europe by charters through Santorini. l National tourism policy. Throughout the postwar period, the policy of the Greek Tourism Department aimed at developing mass tourism without considering the cost. Only during the 1980-1990 period did people become concerned about the social and environmental consequences. l The ‘poor past and the rich present”factor. This is the type of argument that is used by the local social groups pressing for further development of mass tourism, especially in Serifos. People who believe in a moderate type of tourist development cannot ignore the fact that all the nearby islands are turning to mass tourism destinations and profiting from it. Ten years after the original research, the situation on the two islands shows that a gradual or fast evolution toward more mass tourism development seems to be inevitable. On Ios, the increase in numbers of tourists appears to be having an interesting result. A discussion has begun on how to change the image of what the island has to offer from a touristic point of view, and how to safeguard the most precious touristic resource: its environment. Nothing much has resulted from these discussions as yet, but the fact that this issue has come up at all is significant. Most of the key factors that led 10s to mass tourism development have now started making their appearance on Serifos. Thus, this is leading the island along the same path-although not at the same rapid speed as was the case on 10s. While differences between the two islands exist, the general trend seems to be the same: mass tourism development. It would be helpful
532
SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS
OF TOURISM
if further research on this issue in the near future could focus on the internationalization of tourism and its desirable types for a touristic country or region. 0 q
REFERENCES Black, A., and P. S. Gassia 1977 Tourism as an Antidote to Underdevelopment: The Implications. Paper presented at the Seminar on Tourism and Development, Malta. Buet V., and J. Perret 1986 Les relations agriculture-tourisme a Chdtel et Morzine. Les relations agriculture-tourisme. Grenoble: CEMAGREF. Cohen E. 1971 Arab Boys and Tourist Girls in a Mixed Jewish/Arab Community. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 12: 217-233. Farrey L., and J. Perret 1986 Les relations agriculture-tourisme a Chapelle des Bois. Les relations agriculture-tourisme. Grenoble: CEMAGREF. Forster, J. 1964 The Sociological Consequences of Tourism. International Journal of Comparative Sociolow 5:217-227. Greenwood, D. Jr’ 1972 Tourism as an Agent of Change: A Spanish Basque Case. Ethnology 11:8091. Hermans, D. 1981 The Encounter of Agriculture and Tourism: A Catalan Case. Annals of Tourism Research 8:462-479. Hoffman, S. M. 1976 Ethnography of the Island of Thira: Regional Variation in Modern Greece and Cyprus. Annals of New York Academy of Science. Lambiri-Dimaki, I. 1972 Mvkonos-Dilos-Rinia: Develooment Plan (in Greek). Athens: Ministrv of Governmental Policy. Loukissas, P. J. 1982 Tourism’s Regional Development Impacts, A Comparative Analysis of the Greek Islands. Annals of Tourism Research 9:523-543. Ministry of National Economy 1982 Report on the 5 Year Program for the Economic and Social Development: Cyclades Region (in Greek). Athens: Ministry of National Economy. Ministry of Planning 1982 Development Program 1983, Present Situation-Cyclades Region (2 volumes; in Greek). Athens: Ministry of Planning. Moore, K. 1970 Modernization in a Canary Island Village: An Indicator of Social Change in Spain. Journal of the Stewart Anthropological Society 2:19-34. Nikolinakos, M. 1977 An Essay on Comparison as a Method in Social Sciences. The Greek Review of Social Research 29:44-54. Pi-Sunyer, 0. 1973 Tourism and its Discontents: The Impact of a New Industry on a Catalan Community. Studies in European Society 11: 11-20. Rosenberg, H., and R. Reiter 1973 Rural Workers in French Alpine Tourism: Whose Development? Studies in European Society 1:2 i-38. Smith, V., ed. 1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsvlvania Press. Stott, M. ’ 1973 Economic Transition and the Family in Mykonos. The Greek Review of Social Research 17:122-133.
PARIS
TSARTAS
533
Tacquard, F. 1986 Les relations agriculture-tourisme: Les fermes auberges du hat-Rhin. Les relations agriculture-tourisme. Grenoble: CEMAGREF. Tsartas, P. 1988 Seeking Ways to Control the Social Changes brought about by Tourism: A Case Study of the Island of Serifos-Greece. A paper presented at the International Geographical Union Commission of Geography, Tourism and Leisure Meeting. 1989 Economic and Social Consequences of the Tourist Development in the Cyclades Region (and especially on the Islands 10s and Serifos) in the period 1950-1980. Ph.D. dissertation. Athens: National Center of Social Research. Submitted 20 January 1991 Revised copy submitted 30 May 1991 Second revised copy submitted 20 September Accepted 1 October 1991 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Emanuel de Kadt
1991