Tourism and the environment

Pergamon www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 468±489, 2000 # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/00/$20.00

PII: S0160-7383(99)00083-3

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT A Social Movements Perspective

Maria Kousis University of Crete, Greece Abstract: This paper provides evidence on local environmental mobilizations against tourism activities in Greece, Spain, and Portugal from the early 70s to the mid 90s. Its ultimate aim is to introduce to the sociology of tourism and environment a social movements approach. The paper focuses on active host community environmental groups and the groups they challenge. It examines these groups' approaches and actions and the impact on tourism, local ecosystems, and sustainable development. The paper further highlights the determining factors of such con¯icts and their deeper implications concerning socio-environmental aspects of Southern European societies. Keywords: environmental impacts, local environmental mobilization, sustainable development, Southern Europe. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Âsume Â: Le tourisme et l'environnement: une perspective de mouvements sociaux. Cet Re article porte teÂmoignage des mobilisations environnementales locales contre les activiteÂs de tourisme en GreÁce, en Espagne et au Portugal du deÂbut des anneÂes 70 au milieu des anneÂes 90. Son propos est de preÂsenter une approche de mouvements sociaux aÁ la sociologie du tourisme et de l'environnement. L'article focalise sur des groupes environnementaux actifs  d'accueil et sur les groupes que ceux-la Á mettent en question. Il dans la communaute examine les approches et les actions des groupes et leur impact sur le tourisme, les ÂecosysteÁmes locaux et le deÂveloppement durable. En plus, l'article souligne les facteurs deÂterminants de tels con¯its et leurs implications profondes pour les aspects socioÂs: impacts environnementaux, environnementaux des socieÂteÂs de l'Europe du Sud. Mots-cle mobilisation environnementale locale, deÂveloppement durable, Europe du Sud. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION It is widely recognized that the physical environment plays a signi®cant role in shaping and being shaped by tourism (Jafari 1997; Parris 1997). Nonetheless, research concerning the stance of competing actors involved in the tourism and environment nexus is long overdue, especially for Southern European mass tourism host areas. The issue is closely related to the sustainable development discourse. Maria Kousis is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, University of Crete (Gallos Campus, Rethimno 74100, Greece. Email < [email protected] >). She received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Michigan, United States. Her current research interests and publications concentrate on environmental movements, tourism, rural sociology, sustainable development, and social change, especially in Southern European areas. She is coeditor of The Politics of Sustainable Development (Routledge 1997) and The Europeanization of Environmental Politics (Kluwer 2000).

468

MARIA KOUSIS

469

Mass tourism is a product-led industry, subordinating environmental issues to the primary need to add new products whilst maintaining the existing ones (Hunter 1997). As a result, in the past few years such regions as the Southern European coast have experienced drastic changes due to tourism development (Boissevain 1979; Gonzalez and Moral 1996; Konsolas and Zacharatos 1992; Loukissas and Skayannis 1998; Lozato-Giotart 1990; MCSD 1998; Williams and Shaw 1988). Associated activities have interfered with ecosystems, creating diverse impacts on host communities, and leading at times to collective local resistance. Mass tourism projects often entail losing control of natural resources to private, state, and/or supra-state interests, as well as the gradual or immediate disorganization of ecosystems via withdrawals (such as landscape conversions) and additions (like disposal of solid wastes). The results of this disorganization include not only the disruption of biological processes, but also the loss of local people's resource base and the generation of socioeconomic and public health risks (Kousis 1998a). In policy and environmentalist discourse, sustainable tourism development appears as the avenue to ameliorating the worst impacts on ecology. Yet critics have had to disentangle the different dimensions of the concept and its applications (O'Riordan 1994). Baker, Kousis, Richardson and Young (1997) emphasize the ambiguity of the concept and propose four alternative frameworks for putting sustainable development into practice. One, the treadmill approach views ecosystems in terms of their utility to entrepreneurs and production related agencies. Two, the weak sustainable approach appeals to the conservative wings of environmental social movement organizations concerned, for example with preservation of speci®c wild life areas or passing laws requiring environmental impact assessment studies. States and supra-national bodies are also likely to adopt this approach, being economically orientated, and needing only minimal amendments to their institutions. For instance, although environmental considerations were stressed in the European Commission's First Plan of Action for tourism, a 1995 review of its 5th Environmental Action Program called tourism the least successful policy area because of its fragmented character and the dif®culty in reaching its very dispersed actors (Ruzza forthcoming). Three, strong sustainable development, characterized by changes in patterns of production and consumption, is more appealing to ecocentric environmental social movement organizations and to grassroots and political ecology groups. This pattern is seen in the more recent nature- and agro-tourism initiatives. Four, the ideal type aims towards more profound changes at the socioeconomic, ideological, and political levels. Only more radical grassroots groups are likely to adopt this approach since it would require drastic restructuring of political, legal, social, and economic institutions. They consider most forms of tourism environmentally damaging, and their ideal society would discourage it, unlike the contemporary world.

470

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The dif®culties in pointing out exactly what determines sustainable tourism cannot be overemphasized, especially in mass-tourism host communities. The most current view correctly points out the complicated and largely unresearched dynamics between ``bottom'' and ``top'' forces as well as the need to comprehend con¯icting views about tourism's role at the community level, and to control the market tendencies imposing on the local ecosystem (Butler, Harrison and Leal Filho 1996). In the long run, some expect that economic interests will drive the need for sustainable development projects at the local level (Fousekis and Lekakis 1997; Pridham and Konstadakopoulos 1997), since their dependence on tourism will eventually make them realize their direct dependence on environmental quality. This is already evident to a degree, since concern over the protection of local natural resources is steadily rising (Barke, Tower and Newton 1996; Ribeiro and Rodrigues 1997; Technical Chamber of Greece-Eastern Crete 1995). Only recently have works started to address how tourism-entrepreneurs view the environmental impacts of their activities. The existing evidence suggests that there is still a lot of reluctance on the part of tourismentrepreneurs to seriously address the issue by proceeding to ameliorating measures (Stylianopoulou 1998). The literature that addresses tourism and the environment falls under three broad categories: environmental impact, environmentrelated attitudes, and collective action and con¯ict studies. Before the 80s, the environmental impacts of tourism in host communities caught the attention of very few sociologists (Cohen 1978). Since then, however, these impacts have been the subject of extensive study for various parts of the globe. Most studies focus on the negative ecosystem and/or related economic impacts (Briassoulis, forthcoming; Briassoulis and van der Straaten 1992; Farrell and McLellan 1987; Farrell and Runyan 1991; Henry 1988; Lindberg 1991; Lukashina, Amirkhanov, Anisimov and Truner 1996; Mieczkowski 1995; Spyra, Aravossis and Nikou 1998; Urry 1992; Zanetto and Soriani 1996). Rare works such as those by Koc° asoy (1989) and Stonich (1998) have successfully unveiled the more critical and largely unresearched public health and/or sociopolitical impacts of ecosystem-disrupting activities. In this context, it is shown that the impacts of environmental degradation attributable to tourism development are imposed on local populations by powerful national and international actors (Stonich 1998). Until the early 80s, social science research dwelt on the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of tourism issues (Cohen 1984). Since then, however, an in¯ux of works has focused either partially or exclusively on the host communities' attitudes and perceptions of tourism's impacts on their surroundings (Korca 1996; Lankford and Howard 1994; Liu, Sheldon and Var 1987; Tsartas 1992). Such ®ndings indicate that host residents are well aware of the intensity and quantity of these impacts on the environment. However, although such a consciousness exists, tourism-related activities appear to continue without signs of contention.

MARIA KOUSIS

471

Reference to collective acts of resistance also emerges late in the literature. This is visible for cases where residents protest in favor of tourism and against other competing economic activities. Brief mentions exist of a few Spanish cases (Boissevain 1979), while more recent works (Aguilar, Fidelis-Nogueira and Kousis 1995; Kousis 1993, 1997a) provide similar evidence for a few Southern European cases. During the last decade, studies also focus on local cases of resistance against tourism-related projects or activities (Boissevain 1996; Boonzaier 1994; Canan and Hennessy 1989; Dogan 1989; Kousis forthcoming; Modavi 1993; Richez 1996). This later research either provides evidence on case studies from the perspective of local con¯icts, or views collective resistance as another form of host reaction to tourism. Only very recently have studies begun to examine the relationship between tourism policy and environmental nongovernmental organizations, at the supra-national, national, and local level (Pridham 1998; Ruzza forthcoming). The wider political, economic, and environmental issues involved in such con¯icts remain largely unresearched. Therefore, the literature on tourism and environment can be enriched with analyses of collective action that manifests itself in the form of local environmental movements against the industry, in its pursuit of sustainable development. Researchers studying this type of environmental activism focus either on a single or a few cases of local contention regarding the environment (Kousis 1993). They also adopt a regional (Gould 1991), national (Freudenberg and Steinsapir 1991), or cross-national orientation (Kousis, Aguilar and Fidelis 1996). Recent works (Boissevain and Theuma 1998; Kousis forthcoming; Richez 1996) show that local environmental activists consider tourism related pursuits, intimately tied with state and entrepreneurial interests, as ecosystem disruptive. Thus, locals frequently challenge the state and private enterprises holding them responsible for the occurring environmental damages. One common theme that underlies these works is that such initiatives are defensive and usually do not have the assistance of professional organizations. In relevant con¯icts state agencies and actors prefer least-cost solutions which would appease the mobilized citizens but simultaneously leave the producers economically unharmed (Schnaiberg 1994). This paper provides evidence on local environmental mobilizations against tourism activities from the mid 70s to the mid 90s in Greece, Spain, and Portugal. It focuses ®rst on the mobilizing host community residential and local environmental groups, as well as their antagonists, including tourism entrepreneurs and state and local government agencies. Then it examines their approaches and actions towards sustainable development and the impact of tourism on the local ecosystem. Lastly, it highlights the determining factors of such contentions as well as the deeper implications concerning the sustainability of tourism in Southern European societies. The ultimate aim of the paper is to introduce to the sociology of tourism a social environmental movement dimension. In so doing it will

472

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

include the environmental impacts, attitudes, and con¯ict literature areas, as well as the aforementioned sustainable development presentation.

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEST Protest has been the subject of empirical research in ``protestevent analysis'', since the 60s and was further re®ned as an indispensable content analysis method by US and European sociologists and social scientists in the past two decades (Kriesi, Koopmans, Duyvendak and Giugni 1995; Rucht, Koopmans, and Neidhardt 1998; Tilly 1978). Unlike other approaches, which are marked more by speculation than by substantial knowledge, protest-event analysis allows the creation of systematic data, the quantitative analysis of protest variables over time, as well as a deeper investigation of particular aspects of protest (Rucht and Ohlemacher 1992). The study of cases rests on protest-event analysis but differs from it in that it compiles information for each case (not just the action-event) of local con¯ict over ®ve series of data: location, events, groups, time, and issue-claim linkages. This allows the study of claim and action repertoires, which antagonistic groups display in cases of environmental con¯ict at the local level, throughout the duration of the con¯ict, as found in the selected printed media sources. The data used in this paper come from a large set which contains records of local environmental mobilizations against 84 activities/ sources of environmental offenses, one of which is tourism, that affect the environment in Greece, Spain, and Portugal from the end of their dictatorial periods through 1994. This set is comprised of articles located after reading every issue of the national major newspapers Eleftherotypia (GR), El Pais (SP), Jornal de Noticias (PT), and Publico (PT), as well as the ecology magazines, Oikologia & Perivallon (GR), Nea Oikologia (GR), Integral (SP), Quercus (SP), and AAVVForum Ambiente (PT) for the above period. These articles were organized into a population of approximately 4,500 cases of local environmental mobilizations and analyzed statistically (Kousis 1998b). Each represents collective incident(s) in which ®ve or more persons (mobilizers/contenders/challengers) from a speci®c geographic area and outside of the national government, express criticism, protest, or resistance; each makes a visible claim for their health, physical environment, or economic status, which if realized, would affect the interests of some person(s) or group(s) outside their own numbers during a given time period. Under this de®nition, those mobilizing against a speci®c threat belong to a local setting, usually a community (village, town, or urban neighborhood) or a set of them (villages, island, or set of urban neighborhoods), urban or rural; they may participate in one or more protest events over time. Thus, action forms may include formal claim making, petitions, meetings, demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, threats, collective violence, and other forms of action. They are linked via a set of claims which,

MARIA KOUSIS

473

although subject to change over time, is directly related to a speci®c source of contention and its related antagonists (Kousis 1999). Of all local environmental activism cases, 345 (8%) are directly related to tourism sources, which constitute one of 84 categories used to code the source/activity of environmental offenses. Such a frequency is important for Southern Europe, given the lower frequencies found for many of the other categories (such as agriculture). In this paper a total of 148 cases were examined for the three countries: Greece (62), Portugal (17), and Spain (69). While the Greek and Portuguese cases cover the respective national populations, the 69 Spanish cases include all of the most important and a representative sample of the less important cases for the entire period (Kousis 1999). The national ratios mirror to a large extent the general magnitudes of tourism activities in the three countries. It should be noted, nevertheless, that environmental protest in Portugal is much lower compared to Greece and Spain. About 60% of the 148 tourism related cases are comprised of one article, 25% are constituted from 2±12 articles, and the remainder from 13 or more articles. Compared to the larger data set, this is indicative of the relative intensity of these con¯icts being noticed by the national press.

Examples of Protest-Cases The cases presented here are drawn from the data set at hand (Kousis et al 1996) and provide pro®les of speci®c environmental con¯icts focusing on the protesters' actions and claims, as well as the groups they challenge. The cases are used in an illustrative way in order that the reader gets a clearer understanding of what they represent later, when depicting the frequencies for the different dimensions of environmental protest-cases. Greece. Starting in 1981 and continuing for at least a decade, a case of environmental activism in Zakynthos focused on the impacts produced by tourism activities on caretta-caretta, a local sea turtle. Participants from four different urban and rural municipalities in this province have been actively involved, those of Zakynthos, Pandokratoras, Lithakia, and Kalamaki. Different local participating or supporting groups were involved, such as government, labor and other occupational groups, scientists, some hotel owners, the press, and the union of municipalities and communities. Environmental groups from the island, including the Ecological Movement of Zakynthos, the Association for the protection of the sea turtle, and the coordinating committee for Zakynthos' environmental protection, played a decisive role in protest actions. In addition, nonlocal ones included the Anti-Hunting Initiative, the Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature, WWF, and Greenpeace. Other important nonlocal participants and supporters were the Green Party of Alternative Ecologists and PASOK (social-

474

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

ist party) representatives. Church-related groups also supported these actions. These mobilizers claimed that the development of tourism on coastal areas, through the construction and operation of tourism facilities (hotels, clubs, bars, shops, speed boats, marine installations, etc), have threatened the survival of the ancient sea turtle by seriously disrupting its reproduction activities. Initially a heated dispute developed between the ``ecologists'' and the owners representing all types of tourism accommodations, climaxing at times in violent episodes, where the former were physically attacked by the latter, who felt economically threatened by their activities. When members of northern European environmental organizations voiced direct threats about economic boycotts of tourism and international attention highlighted the problem, some owners as well as state agencies began to realize the economic risks involved. The sustainability of tourism activities appeared threatened if the sea turtle and its ecosystem were not protected and certain measures were not taken towards this goal. The protest itself appears, especially initially, as general accusations and procedural complaints to authorities, press conferences, announcements, social events, awareness campaigns, and public letters. As late as the early 90s, however, intense encounters continued to take place between hotel owners and researchers/ecologists. In one instance the latter ®led a legal suit for being physically attacked by the former. The ecologists also went to the Supreme Court when a construction permit was given to hotel owners to build in a protected area where the turtles hatch their eggs. In general, protest actions aimed to pressure local authorities, to apply existing regulations, and state authorities, to create environmental laws to protect the sea turtle. Noise pollution, construction, and tourism activities in the coastal zones have produced serious life threatening impacts on this species, which can be stopped if the natural habitat and hatching areas of the carretta-carretta are systematically protected and preserved. Spain. Between 1977 and 1978 several environmental protest events took place against state plans to build tourism accommodations and a sports harbor in the small island of Dragonera in the autonomous community of the Balearic Islands. Most of these events involved participants from Palma de Mallorca, the capital of the Baleares province. Local participating groups included neighbors, their associated action committees such as Asamblea pro Dragonera, and local activities clubs including the Grupo de excursionismo de Mallorca, the Union excursionista de las Islas, the Sociedad Mallorquiana, and other cultural groups. In addition to these, other mobilizing groups included trade unions (CCOO and USO), environmental groups (Grupo Ecologista Talaiot-Corcat, and Grupo Ecologista Tierra y Libertad), local representatives of mostly leftist political parties (PSOE, PCE, Partido Socialista de Mallorca, MC and OIC), and state af®liated local agencies (Comision de

MARIA KOUSIS

475

Bellas Artes del Fomento de Turismo de Mallorca). The mobilizations aimed to halt state plans concerning these tourism development projects, which, if actualized, would degrade Dragonera's physical environment. In the beginning, the mobilized citizens' actions were mild, expressed by general demands and procedural complaints to state representatives at the national (Comision Provincial de Urbanismo), regional, and local levels. The participants also sought assistance from large environmental organizations, such as the Grupo Ornitologico Balear, scientists meeting at Ibiza, a trade union, and the Unio de Pagesos de Mallorca, a local farmers union. Beyond recognizing the mobilizers, the bodies approached for assistance strongly supported them. The Grupo Ornitologico Balear, provided organizational aid in addition to participating in the protests. Signatures, public letters, awareness raising campaigns, and debates followed environmental mobilization actions. They subsequently escalated to public demonstrations and the occupation of a site on the island. The highest number of participants or supporters ever mentioned in the nine El Pais articles located for this case, is 200. Although violence did not occur during these actions, the locals voiced insults towards the targeted groups. The mobilized locals claimed that plans by the state, in cooperation with a private construction company, would lead to the destruction of the ecosystem of the Dragonera island. This would create not only negative aesthetic impacts, but also serious damages on its coastal zones and its ¯ora and fauna with signi®cant risks for local species. In addition to the annulment of the plans, given the lack of environmental policy at that time, the locals proposed the creation of such regulations in order to protect the island. In spite of protest actions the state approved construction of these structures. Portugal. In the early 90s a con¯ict which lasted for more than one year evolved in the rural community of Aldeia de Meco in the province of Setubal. About 400 residents and the related action committee, Comissao Pro-Meco, supported by citizens groups from the adjacent Zambujal e Azoia areas, claimed that siting plans to develop tourism in the area would lead to its environmental degradation. A lawyer and an expert provided technical assistance. In 1993 and 1994 several protest actions were organized, including general accusations in the press and procedural complaints to authorities, debates, and the collection of signatures. Participants also held a public referendum. Intended injuries did occur when the mobilized locals confronted local government representatives. The aim was to cancel local government plans to construct a large accommodation project. They argued that the improper regional planning as well as the lack of environmental protection laws would lead to the destruction of the local ecosystem, especially in the coastal zone of their community. In an attempt to culminate the citizens' environmental action, government representatives promised them

476

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

jobs and compensations. Given the decisiveness of the movement, however, local government proceeded with a partial restructuring of the plans. The Tri-National Evidence Integrating the evidence over the entire number of cases of local environmental mobilization against tourism in Greece, Portugal, and Spain from the mid 70s to the mid 90s, the following are observed. Impacts, with which the protesters are most concerned, relate mainly to local land traf®c and sometimes short distance naval transport, as well as to the construction and operation of related projects. These projects cover tourism-catering or hosting facilities/buildings, such as hotels, camping, resort projects, and holiday homes; recreational facilities, including night life/entertainment clubs, golf grounds, aquatic parks, yacht clubs, ski areas, rally grounds, other sports areas; and infra-structural projects such as airports, roads, parking areas, and marine-harbors. Other sources of such ecosystem intervention consist of water or sand extraction activities, traf®c and congestion, waste and sewage problems, and lack/non-implementation of environmental protection policies. These tourism-related sources and activities create ecosystem offenses like water shortage, fresh-water, marine, coastal, and soil pollution, noise pollution, damage to ¯ora and fauna, and sometimes a general destruction of local ecosystems. The offenses in turn lead to a wide range of impacts, which include negative aesthetic, recreational, cultural/historical, economic, ecosystem, psychological, and public health impacts. In their great majority (73%), environmental protesters reacting to tourism sources and activities originate from one community (neighborhood, municipality, village, or freguesia), while about one quarter come from two or more. Collaboration with groups from adjacent or similarly troubled areas is not new in the organization of social protest as a strategy to strengthen its pressure potential. It is also indicative of the community-based character of the mobilizing groups. This is especially important when related to the type of ecosystem intervening source they are mobilizing about. In almost half (44%) of the cases the mobilized locals make claims about existing tourism activities/facilities, while in more than a third (37.2%) they react to the siting of planned tourism facilities. They are followed by both planned and operating (8.8%) facilities, inbetween cases (4.7%), and the expansion of previous facilities (2.7%). Therefore it is clear that the locals resist the experienced as well as the expected effects of tourism activities, almost on an equal footing. Reactions to the siting of tourism development projects is still an unresearched area (Hernandez, Cohen and Garcia 1996), yet one which warrants attention, as this ®nding indicates. More than half of these cases (55.4%) took place in urban regions. Athens, Madrid, Huelva, Lisbon, and Seville show higher frequencies than other urban centers in the three countries. As a conse-

MARIA KOUSIS

477

quence, regions with higher numbers of such cases are Eastern Sterea and Cyclades, as well as the ``autonomous communities'' of Madrid, Andalucia, Cataluna, and others. The rest of the cases are located in semi-urban (9.5%), mixed (15.5%), or rural (18.9%) areas. With the exception of Huelva, the rest of these urban areas are all listed as EU cities of more than ten cultural attractions (Richards 1996). Although this ®nding may imply the importance of urban cultural heritage tourism (Avgerinou-Kolonias and Tsartas 1998), it could also re¯ect the bias of each national newspaper to cover more events in the country's capital. The Views of Community-Based Challengers. The variety of local participating or supporting groups which are involved in tourism-related protest activity is illustrated in Table 1. The most outstanding ones are the residential (residents, citizens, neighbors), and to a lesser extent, the environmental groups. Local representatives of political parties, labor and trade unions, cultural activities clubs, and professionals follow them. It is interesting to observe that the political identity of the parties does not appear to play a signi®cant role. Table 1. Local Participating Groupsa Group Residents/citizens/neighbors Labor and trade unions Cooperatives Employers Hunters Local activities clubs Local environmental groups Local physicians Other professionals Parents/teachers associations; students/pupils Religious/church groups and women's groups Local representatives of political parties Party af®liation Right, nationalist/regionalist right, mix (right and center) Socialist, communist Mix (left and green) Mix (all) Other Total Missing Local politicians opposing own party State-af®liated local agencies Local development associations Local artists Other

Frequency

Percent

90 22 3 9 11 22 63 2 16 6 2 25

60.8 14.9 2.0 6.1 7.4 14.9 42.6 1.4 10.8 4.1 1.4 16.9

4 2 6 9 4 25 123 2 8 3 8 15

2.8 1.4 4.1 6.1 2.7 16.9 83.1 1.4 5.4 2.0 5.4 10.1

a Number of cases=148. Each category was coded as a dichotomous, yes/no variable, thus percentages do not add to 100.

478

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

It is expected that left oriented politicians would be more supportive. The data illustrate that even though left (usually socialist or communist oriented) and green (environment-focused) politicians participate in these mobilizations more often than right oriented ones, it is the combination of all political parties (from right to left inclusive) which makes the strongest appearance as movement participants or supporters. In addition to the ®ndings shown in Table 1, nonlocal support exists for a minority of cases. Speci®cally, for 18.2% of the cases such support mainly comes from environmental organizations or groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, and the national or regional organizations in each countryÐsuch as the Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature (Greece), ADENA (Spain), and Associacion para a Defesa Eoloxica da Galiza (Portugal). In about one-tenth (12.2%) of the nonlocal cases support comes from political party representatives. Once again, the combination of nonlocal political party representatives of left and right wing af®liations provides more often (5.4%) support to the mobilizers than leftist (4.1%) or nonleftist (2.1%) representatives. Other less mentioned, nonlocal supporters include professionals (4.1%), labor and trade unions (3.4%), and local governments from adjacent areas (2.0%). Actions taken by these groups are mostly nonviolent (Table 2). Various combinations of actions are normally taken in each case, at one or different points in time. For example, the mobilizers may initially ®le a complaint to the authorities, and, if their demand is not Table 2. Action Formsa Forms Demanding/general claiming Complaints to authority Press conference Signatures Court route Public referendum Demonstration/public protest Occupation of public buildings Strikes and closing of shops Activity/source blockage Road blockade/sit-in Hunger strike Threat to use arms Damage to property Throwing things at responsible agents Unintended and intended injuries Other Violence Police presence

Frequency

Percent

114 107 49 40 29 5 29 13 1 13 11 2 3 8 3 7 8 16 9

77.0 72.3 33.1 27.0 19.6 3.4 19.6 8.8 0.7 8.8 7.4 1.4 2.0 5.4 2.0 4.8 5.4 10.8 6.1

a Number of cases=148. Each category was coded as a dichotomous, yes/no variable, thus percentages do not add to 100.

MARIA KOUSIS

479

satis®ed, proceed to more pressuring actions such as a press conference, and/or a demonstration. General claim making is manifested through newspaper or other media reporting. Consequently, both general claiming and complaints to authority appear in approximately three-quarters of the cases. They are followed, in frequency, Table 3. Eco-Offences and Impacts Identi®eda

Eco-offences Noise pollution Atmospheric pollution Fresh water scarcity/shortage Fresh water pollution Coastal pollution Sea pollution Soil pollution Soil erosion Ecosystem destruction/disorganization Other Impacts Positive Negative aesthetics Negative recreation Negative cultural/historical Negative built-environment Negative political Negative economic Property values Decreasing incomes Threat to economic subsistence Plant animal/crop destruction Negative ecosystem Forests Wetland Land Whole island(s) Fresh waters Coastal zones Marine ecosystems Airshed(s) Local ecosystems in general Threat to ¯ora and fauna Green areas in the city Negative psychological impacts Negative public health impacts Realized few incidents Expected/suspected Realized, many incidents Life threatened/seriously endangered

Frequency

Percent

46 17 11 25 21 10 22 23 96 13

31.1 11.5 7.4 16.9 14.2 6.8 14.9 15.5 64.9 8.8

9 46 30 16 1 1

6.1 31.1 20.3 10.8 0.7 0.7

4 14 7 8

2.7 9.5 4.7 5.4

32 23 27 4 27 42 13 18 23 62 10 26

21.6 15.5 18.2 2.7 18.2 28.4 8.8 12.2 15.6 41.9 6.8 17.6

5 31 2 11

3.4 20.9 1.4 7.4

a Number of cases=148. Each category was coded as a dichotomous, yes/no variable, thus percentages do not add to 100.

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

480

by press announcements/conferences, petitions, court suits/appeals, demonstrations, public building occupation, activity/source blockage, and road blockades/sit-ins. Violence has occurred in about 11% of all cases, this being the norm for all grassroots environmental mobilizations in the three countries. These violent episodes occur more frequently in Spain (such as in the Seville, Almonte, Pals cases) and Greece (the case of Zakynthos) than in Portugal. Local groups engage in environmental protest activity in their attempt to ful®ll the aims of their campaigns. In 92.6% of the cases the mobilized locals claim that tourism related activities are, or Table 4. Resolutions Proposed and Bodies Approached for Assistancea Category Resolutions Proposed No change in/continue the activities Preservation of a wild area Preservation of a cultural heritage area Green zones in developed areas Creation of environmental protection rules Implementation of regulatory rules Proper region/ urban planning Environmental impact assessment studies Removal/relocation of tourism activities Removal of tourism activities and restoration of area Plans not actualizing Decrease in production activities Permanent shut down of source Total restoration of affected areas Equal say in decision making Other Agencies/Bodies Approached for Assistance None State-government, ministries, governing party Central state representative at local level Regional government (Spain) Local and sub-local (Portugal) government External local government Local politicians and non-governing political parties National and regional parliament Regional courts Supreme court(s) European Commission European Court and Parliament Large environmental organizations Scientists Other producer organizations, trade associations/cooperatives Police Other

Frequency Percent 10 49 12 10 46 55 30 10 7 2 70 3 50 10 5 28

6.8 33.1 8.1 6.8 31.1 37.2 20.3 6.8 4.7 1.4 47.3 2.0 33.8 6.8 3.4 18.9

57 21 15 11 21 1 3 5 18 7 11 5 14 4 5 13 15

38.5 14.2 10.1 7.4 14.2 0.7 2.1 3.4 12.2 4.7 7.4 3.4 9.5 2.7 3.4 8.8 10.1

a Number of cases=148. Each category was coded as a dichotomous, yes/no variable, thus percentages do not add to 100.

MARIA KOUSIS

481

would be, fully responsible for ecosystem offenses and their subsequent impacts, and should either cease permanently or not be put into operation. In 7.4% of the cases, the participating groups have a positive view of tourism activities and mobilize efforts in order to defend the continuation of these activities. This normally happens when there is simultaneously another group with a negative view on the same activity. The mobilizers also identify ecosystem offenses related to tourism activities, (Table 3). General ecosystem disorganization is prevalent in most of the cases. Of great signi®cance, however, are noise, soil, fresh water, marine, and air pollution/ problems. These are normally linked to traf®c, congestion, entertainment activities, solid waste disposal, intensive water extraction, and ef¯uent waste disposal. Compared to the larger data set, the locals complain much more about noise than other forms of pollution. Thus, although tourism activities have not generally been considered as noise polluting, this is a signi®cant problem for host communities, with possible health impacts. According to the mobilized locals, these offenses lead to a wide range of impacts (Table 3). The data show that, overall, the locals are most concerned about negative ecosystem, public health, aesthetic, recreational, and psychological impacts. Ecosystem impacts of particular worry are those related to ¯ora and fauna, coastal zones, forests, land and fresh water, and wetlands. A signi®cant ®nding is the mobilizers' view of public health impacts, expected or realized. According to the data, negative economic impacts of all types are secondary to the above-mentioned ones (implying the importance of noneconomic motives among environmental protesters). Supplementing the views on the offenses and the impacts are the mobilizers' proposals for resolving the problems (Table 4). The overwhelming majority of resolutions proposed center around the annulment of planned tourism projects, the creation or implementation of environmental protection rules, the permanent ceasing of tourism activities, or the preservation of wild areas. Furthermore, proper regional and urban planning and environmental impact assessment studies are among the more important resolutions proposed for tourism related activities. In other words, protesters demanded that the related state agencies take the actions required to ameliorate the situation. The locals usually lose faith in these agencies, especially after having tried to get assistance from them through the procedural route. When that fails, however, they normally proceed with public demands and protest in order to create pressure to solve the problem. Only in 7% of the cases, where mobilizers had a positive view of tourism's impact on the environment, the continuation of such activities was proposed. Table 4 shows the range of agencies or groups which the protesters or their supporters approached, directly or indirectly, in order to ask for assistance and intervention, or to be heard, before proceeding with drastic actions. As the data show, this assistance was sought in almost 60% of the cases. Help is usually requested from state or local government bodies, or the regional courts. It is also

482

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

sought from large environmental organizations, European Union agencies or, less frequently, the police. Much less often the mobilizers approach local politicians, national courts, scientists, and employment-related organizations. Counterviews of the Challenged Groups. Local environmental protesters against tourism have a strong view as to who is the user, owner, or interest group responsible for the problem. In more than half of the cases the challenged groups are private tourism business owners (Table 5). State as well as semiprivate producers increase the proportion of these entrepreneurs. Many state or local government groups, including central, regional, and local level representatives, are also challenged. Along with state groups, local governments usually approve, monitor, or support in various ways most tourism related projects, and hence take part in the decision making and control of many such activities and their subsequent environmental impacts. Citizens and other groups located in tourism areas might also be questioned for supporting tourism development. The responses of the three major challenged groups appear in Table 6. In contrast to the mobilizers' claims and concerns, the data show a strong reluctance on the part of tourism entrepreneurs to accept such claims. Although information is missing for over half of the cases, their responses appear to be more negative than those of the state and local governments. These ®ndings do not support the thesis that tourism's economic interests (Fousekis and Lekakis 1997; Pridham and Konstadakopoulos 1997) guide the way towards environmental sustainability. With the limited information at hand, Table 5. Groups Challengeda User/Owner/Interest Group Challenged None State-goverment ministries, governing party Central state representative at local level Regional government (Spain) Local government State producer(s) Semiprivate/semipublic producer(s) Private producers/employers/owners Farmers, ®shermen, or shepherds Hunters Workers and other occupational groups Individuals Environmental organizations Political parties of the opposition Other community(ies) Other

Frequency

Percent

2 55 19 43 56 15 2 75 12 7 2 16 11 4 4 18

1.4 37.2 12.8 29.1 37.8 10.1 1.4 50.7 8.1 4.7 1.4 10.8 7.4 2.7 2.7 12.2

a Number of cases=148. Each category was coded as a dichotomous, yes/no variable, thus percentages do not add to 100.

MARIA KOUSIS

483

Table 6. Responses of Major Challenged Groupsa Responses

Tourism entrepreneurs

State

Local government

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent No Speci®ed Information Negative Responses Neutral Responses Positive Responses Missing Total

39 14 11 11 73 148

26.4 9.5 7.4 7.4 49.3 100.0

24 2 6 23 93 148

16.2 1.4 4.1 15.5 62.8 100.0

17 8 17 14 92 148

11.5 5.4 11.5 9.4 62.2 100.0

a

Negative responses: ceased action by force, ceased actions by law, jobs loss threat, refused talks, continued operations. Neutral responses: asked for evidence of problem, ecoprotection exists, promised jobs, eco-problem insigni®cant, indifference/no response, too costly to correct, compensations. Positive responses: temporary ceasing of operations, formal recognition, opened negotiations, measures/alternatives promised, control tech/EIA/some measures, decreased production, most measures taken, permanent stop of ecodisturbance, better alternatives chosen, other.

it is quite apparent that even after being pressured by environmentally sensitive groups, tourism entrepreneurs are, at best, hesitant in taking steps to ameliorate environmental degradation, most likely due to vested economic interests. Such hindrance may include both tourism entrepreneurs and workersÐa research theme which belongs to a separate study. CONCLUSION In contrast to research on noncontentious issues such as values and attitudes, the study of collective action in tourism host areas promises to unveil key issues concerning the dynamics of power over the use of local resources as well as the subsequent environmental impacts across ``top'' and ``bottom'' stakeholders. This paper highlights the importance of local environmental activism in three Southern European societies (Greece, Portugal, and Spain) where the fall of the dictatorships and the political opportunities of the 70s and 80s facilitated contentious actions. According to tourism impact studies (Lankford and Howard 1994; Liu et al 1987; Tsartas 1992) host community residents are well aware of the intensity and quantity of tourism's impacts on the environment. This paper indicates that in some cases they move even further, in a contentious manner, to protect this milieu. Contenders in these Mediterranean destinations do not depend on the dominating party-links when confronted with a local environmental problem. Instead, they utilize structures available from their cultural context, such as neighborhood associations or cultural activities clubs, which evolved during the 70s and 80s as a response to cultural and political changes that characterized Southern European societies. This

484

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

activist subculture has not been visible in the literature concerning this region. As in all grassroots movements (Freudenberg and Steinsapir 1991), most groups involved in con¯icts over tourism activities are independent of the local chapters of the larger, national or supra-national environmental movement organizations. For the cases under study and in terms of their frequency, residential and local groups play a leading role in applying pressure through their protests towards the improvement of environmental quality in host areas. The evidence from this paper implies the presence of contact among groups that did not have common goals in the past, including residential, citizen or neighborhood groups, with other local ones and/or the combination of all political parties supporting environmental activists. For these societies, it was further illustrated that crucial changes have been taking place, which are re¯ected in the mobilized new networks of supporters. This work reveals that local participating or supporting groups for the most part are autonomous mobilizers, the most outstanding being the residential and, to a lesser extent, the environmental ones. Therefore, it may be argued that a systematic cross-national study of environmental protest in other mass tourism areas would also bring to the surface this form of activism. Its frequency would probably be higher for already developed areas, in contrast to newcomers, especially in the poorer regions of the globe. This paper also reveals that intense mobilizing efforts are made in order to demand the implementation of environmental rules and regulations or the practice of proper urban or regional planning. As previously found (Boissevain and Theuma 1998; Kousis forthcoming; Richez 1996) the cross-national evidence at hand also suggests that environmental activists claim that state and entrepreneurial interests are mainly responsible for ecosystem disruption. The ®ndings support those by Stonich (1998), since local claims make direct references to the negative environmental impacts (such as health concerns) imposed on local populations by powerful national and economic actors. They also support Schnaiberg's (1994) thesis that state agencies and economic actors are not willing to proceed with the activists' most ameliorative proposals since they would hurt the producers economically. But the data suggest that only in a minority of cases are they more willing to proceed with least-cost (and least ameliorative) solutions. Furthermore, the treadmill, weak, strong, and ideal sustainable development approaches hold different implications for the protesters and the challenged groups in local environmental con¯icts. First, participating groups do not appear to request an ideal type of sustainable development, except in very rare cases. The demand for a strong or at least a weak sustainable development is obvious, however, and clearly visible in the resolutions proposed. These include ecosystem preservation, the implementation of rules and regulations, environmental impact assessment, proper regional planning, as well as the claims the mobilizers make about the users, or those in control of the local ecosystem. Second, the challenged groups

MARIA KOUSIS

485

have a different view concerning the development of tourism activities when confronted with their environmental impacts. This is clearly illustrated in the protest cases and tables of this paper. Tourism entrepreneurs and local government, on the one hand, are more likely to adopt a treadmill approach to natural resource utilization, for example, denying the impacts, or considering them insigni®cant, as implied in the literature (Stylianopoulou 1998). On occasion the reactions on the part of the entrepreneurs are very aggressive, given the economic costs implied. On the other hand, state agencies appear to be more willing to respond in a positive manner, such as to formally recognize the mobilizers or to open negotiations with them. Finally, this paper, which dealt with the tourism±environment dialectic from the perspective of local environmental activism, may lead to questions which will enrich the collective action area of the sociology of tourism. One such question is whether economic dependency on industry hinders the emergence of such mobilizations by all involved stakeholders. This would assist in explaining the relatively limited local environmental protest in these three mass tourism-hosting countries over a 20-year period. The immense challenge, however, remains both at the institutional and grassroots levels, given the pervasiveness of tourism related activities on a global scaleÐfrom infrastructural requirements to demands for nonlocal agricultural and other produce. Therefore, the success of a socially and environmentally sustainable tourism development would involve willingness and actions primarily from the industries, state, and supra-state bodies, and secondarily from local citizens' groups.& Acknowledgments ÐAn earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1st International Scienti®c Congress on ``Tourism and Culture for Sustainable Development'', Department of Geography and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, May, 1998. The paper relies on data from the research project ``Grassroots Environmental Action and Sustainable Development in Southern Europe'' funded by the European Commission, DGXII, for Science, Research and Development (contract number EV5 V-CT94-0393). The enthusiasm, care, and laborious efforts of research partners, Susana Aguilar and Teresa Fidelis, as well as assistants, Ilse Borchard, Maria Aznar, Sandra Bastos, Christina Paiva, Katerina Lenakis, and Dora Matta are highly appreciated. Many thanks to Linda Richter, Andrew Yiannakis, and Robert A. Poirier for their comments.

REFERENCES Aguilar, S., T. Fidelis-Nogueira, and M. Kousis 1995 Encounters between Social Movements and the State: Examples from Waste Facility Siting in Greece, Portugal and Spain. In Alternative Futures and Popular Protest, Conference Papers, vol. II, pp. 1±28. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, The Manchester Metropolitan University. Avgerinou-Kolonias, S., and P. Tsartas 1998 The Contribution of Urban-Cultural Tourism to the Sustainable

486

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Development of the Historic Centre of Athens. In Paper Presented at the 1st International Scienti®c Congress ``Tourism and Culture for Sustainable Development'', Department of Geography and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens, May, Athens, Greece. Baker, S., M. Kousis, D. Richardson, and S. Young, eds. 1997 The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy, and Practice Within the EU. London: Routledge. Barke, M., J. Tower, and M. T. Newton 1996 Tourism in Spain: Critical Issues. Wallingford UK: CAB International. Boissevain, J. 1979 Tourism and the European Periphery: The Mediterranean Case. In Underdeveloped Europe: Studies in Core±Periphery Relations, D. Seers, B. Schaffer and M-L. Kiljunen, eds., pp. 125±138. Sussex: The Harvester Press. Boissevain, J., ed. 1996 Coping with Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Boissevain, J., and N. Theuma 1998 Contested Space: Planners, Tourists, Developers and Environmentalists in Malta. In Anthropological Perspectives on Local Development, S. Abram and J. Waldren, eds. London: Routledge. Boonzaier, E. 1994 Negotiating the Development of Tourism in Richtersveld, South Africa. In People and Tourism in Fragile Environments, M. F. Price, ed. Chichester: Wiley. Briassoulis, H., Forthcoming Sustainable Development, the Formal or Informal Way? The Case of Southern Europe, Eder, K., and M. Kousis, The Europeanization of Environmental Politics: Sustainable Development in Southern Europe, Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers. Briassoulis, H., and J. van der Straaten, eds. 1992 Tourism and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Butler, R., D. Harrison, and W. Leal Filho 1996 Introduction. In Sustainable Tourism in Islands & Small States: Case Studies, L. Briguglio, R. Butler, D. Harrison and W. Leal Filho, eds. London: Pinter. Canan, P., and M. Hennessy 1989 The Growth Machine, Tourism and the Selling of Culture. Sociological Perspectives 32:227±243. Cohen, E. 1978 Impacts of Tourism on the Physical Environment. Annals of Tourism Research 5:215±237. 1984 The Sociology of Tourism: Approaches Issues and Findings. Annual Review of Sociology 10:373±392. Dogan, H. Z. 1989 Forms of Adjustment: Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 16:216±236. Farrell, B. H., and R. W. McLellan, eds. 1987 Tourism and Physical Environment (special issue), Annals of Tourism Research 14 (1). Farrell, B. H., and D. Runyan 1991 Ecology and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18:26±40. Fousekis, P., and J. N. Lekakis 1997 Greece's Institutional Response to Sustainable Development. Environmental Politics 6:131±152. Freudenberg, N., and C. Steinsapir 1991 Not in Our Backyards: The Grassroots Environmental Movement. Society and Natural Resources 4:235±245. Gonzalez, P., and P. Moral 1996 Analysis of Tourism Trends in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 23:739± 754. Gould, K. 1991 The Sweet Smell of Money: Economic Dependency and Local

MARIA KOUSIS

487

Environmental Political Mobilization. Society and Natural Resources 4:133± 150. Henry, B. 1988 The Environmental Impact of Tourism in Jamaica. Revue de Tourisme 2:16±19. Hunter, C. 1997 Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24:850±867. Jafari, J. 1997 Tourism and Culture: An Inquiry into Paradoxes. In Culture, Tourism, Development: Crucial Issues for the XXIst Century. Proceedings of a Round Table, Paris, June 1996. Paris, UNESCO. Kocasoy, G. 1989 The Relationship Between Coastal Tourism, Sea Pollution and Public Health: A Case Study from Turkey. The Environmentalist 9(4):245±251. Konsolas, N., and G. Zacharatos 1992 Regionalization of Tourism Activity in Greece: Problems and Policies. In Tourism and the Environment, H. Briassoulis and J. van der Straaten, eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Korca, P. 1996 Resident Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 23:695±697. Kousis, M. 1993 Collective Resistance and Sustainable Development in Rural Greece: The Case of Geothermal Energy on the Island of Milos. Sociologia Ruralis 33:3± 24. 1997a Grassroots Environmental Movements in Rural Greece: Effectiveness, Success and the Quest for Sustainable Development. In The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy, and Practice within the EU, S. Baker, M. Kousis, D. Richardson and S. Young, eds., pp. 237±258. London: Routledge. 1998a Ecological Marginalization in Rural Areas: Actors, Impacts, Responses. Sociologia Ruralis 38(1):86±108. 1998b Protest Case Analysis: A Methodological Approach to the Study of Local Environmental Mobilizations. Center for Research on Social Organization, Working Paper No. 570, Department of Sociology, The University of Michigan. 1999 Sustaining Environmental Mobilizations: Groups, Actions and Claims in Southern Europe. Environmental Politics 8:172±198. 1999 Tourism: Development or Environment Friendly? Comparing Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and Crete. In Mediterranean Islands and Sustainable Tourism Development, Y. Apostolopoulos, D. Ioannides and S. F. Sommez, eds. London: Cassell Academic Publishers Forthcoming. Kousis, M., S. Aguilar, and T. Fidelis 1996 Grassroots Environmental Action and Sustainable Development in the Southern European Union. Final Report, European Commission, DGXII, Contract No. EV5V-CT94-0393. Kriesi, H., R. Koopmans, J. W. Duyvendak, and M. Giugni 1995 New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lankford, S. V., and D. R. Howard 1994 Developing A Tourism Impact Attitude Scale. Annals of Tourism Research 21:121±139. Lindberg, K. 1991 Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism's Ecological and Economic Bene®ts. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Liu, J., P. J. Sheldon, and T. Var 1987 Resident Perception of the Environmental Impacts of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 14:17±37. Loukissas, P., and P. Skayannis 1998 Tourism and Environment: Sustainable Development in Mediterranean

488

TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Countries. In Paper Presented at the 1st International Scienti®c Congress ``Tourism and Culture for Sustainable Development,'' Department of Geography and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens, May, Athens, Greece. Lozato-Giotart, J-P. 1990 Mediterranee et Tourisme. Paris: Masson. Lukashina, N. S., M. M. Amirkhanov, V. I. Anisimov, and A. Trunev 1996 Tourism and Environmental Degradation in Sochi, Russia. Annals of Tourism Research 23:654±665. Mediterranean Commission for Sustainable Development 1998 Synthesis Report of the Working Group: Tourism and Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean Region. Mediterranean Action Plan, Monaco, October. Mieczkowski, Z. 1995 Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation. London: University Press of America. Modavi, N. 1993 The Political Economy of State Intervention in Land Use Con¯icts: A Case Study of Community Opposition to Golf Course Development in Hawaii. Case Analysis (Spring-Summer). O'Riordan, T. 1994 Democracy and the Sustainability Transition. Paper prepared for the Oxford Environment and Democracy Project. Mans®eld College, Oxford, September. Parris, R. G. 1997 Tourism and Cultural Interaction: Issues and Prospects for Sustainable Development. In Culture, Tourism, Development: Crucial Issues for the XXIst Century. Proceedings of a Round Table, June 1996. Paris, UNESCO. Pridham, G. 1998 Sustainability and Tourism in Italy, Spain and Greece: A Comparative Politics Perspective. In Paper presented at the International Conference on ``Environmental Movements, Discourses and Policies in Southern Europe'', Department of Sociology, University of Crete, Rethimno, May. Pridham, G., and D. Konstadakopoulos 1997 Sustainable Development in Mediterranean Europe? Interactions between European, National and Sub-National Levels. In The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy, and Practice Within the EU, S. Baker, M. Kousis, D. Richardson and S. Young, eds., pp. 127±151. London: Routledge. Ribeiro, T. G., and V. Rodrigues 1997 The Evolution of Sustainable Development Strategies in Portugal. Environmental Politics 6:108±130. Richards, G. 1996 Production and Consumption of European Cultural Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23:261±283. Richez, G. 1996 Sustaining Local Cultural Identity: Social Unrest and Tourism in Corsica. In Sustainable Tourism: European Experiences, G. K. Priestley, J. A. Edwards and H. Coccosis, eds., pp. 176±188. Wallingford UK: CAB International. Rucht, D., and T. Ohlemacher 1992 Protest Event Data: Collection, Uses and Perspectives. In Studying Collective Action, M. Diani and R. Eyerman, eds., pp. 76±106. London: Sage. Rucht, D., R. Koopmans, and F. Neidhardt 1998 Acts of Dissent: New Developments in the Study of Protest. Berlin: Sigma. Ruzza, C. 1999 Environmental Sustainability and Tourism in European Policy Making. In The Europeanization of Environmental Politics: Sustainable Development in Southern Europe, K. Eder and M. Kousis, eds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Schnaiberg, A. 1994 The Political Economy of Environmental Problems and Policies:

MARIA KOUSIS

489

Consciousness, Con¯ict, and Control Capacity. Advances in Human Ecology 3:23±64. Spyra, W. P., K. Aravossis, and N. Nikou 1998 Stress Situations and Environmental Factors of Tourism Developed Areas. In Paper Presented at the 1st International Scienti®c Congress ``Tourism and Culture for Sustainable Development,'' Department of Geography and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens, May, Athens, Greece. Stonich, S. 1998 The Political Economy of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 25:25±54. Stylianopoulou, E. 1998 The Formulation of an Environmental Strategy in the Hotel Sector: The Introduction of Environmental Management Systems to Hotels in Cyprus. In Paper Presented at the 1st International Scienti®c Congress ``Tourism and Culture for Sustainable Development'', Department of Geography and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens, May, Athens, Greece. Technical Chamber of Greece-Eastern Crete Western Crete Dodekanisou Kerkyras 1995 Cyprus, Tourism and the Environment in Island Regions. In Conference Proceedings, Iraklion, Crete, March. Tilly, C. 1978 From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Tsartas, P. 1992 Socioeconomic Impacts of Tourism on Two Greek Isles. Annals of Tourism Research 19:516±533. Urry, J. 1992 The Tourist Gaze and the Environment. Theory, Culture and Society 9:1± 26. Williams, A. M., and G. Shaw, eds. 1988 Tourism and Economic Development: Western European Perspectives. London: Pinter. Zanetto, G., and S. Soriani 1996 Tourism and Environmental Degradation: The Northern Adriatic Sea. In Sustainable Tourism: European Experiences, G. K. Priestley, J. A. Edwards and H. Coccossis, eds., pp. 137±152. Wallingford UK: CAB International. Submitted 10 July 1998. Resubmitted 19 April 1999. Accepted 2 June 1999. Final version 18 June 1999. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Jeremy F. Boissevain.