Scarica Environmental Impacts of Tourism on Mykonos: A Comparative Study of Stakeholders - Prof. C e più Dispense in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
The Environmental^ Impacts of^ Tourism—
Whose Responsibility Is^ It^ Anyway?
The Case Study of Mykonos
IOANNIS KAVALLINIS AND ABRAHAM PIZAM
The purpose of this^ study was to investigate the^ differential perceptions of residents,
entrepreneurs, and^ tourists^ toward^ the^ negative environmental^ impacts of tourism^ on^ the
Greek island of Mykonos. The authors interviewed 115 residents, entrepreneurs, and tourists
in Hora, the capital of Mykonos, during the beginning of the 1993 summer season. It was
hypothesized that^ each^ of the three^ groups would^ consider^ the^ other^ two^ more^ responsible
for the^ creation^ of negative environmental^ impacts caused^ by tourism.^ The^ results^ only par-
tially supported this^ hypothesis. Perceptual gaps were^ found between^ tourists^ and^ the^ other
two groups. Tourists considered both residents and entrepreneurs to be more responsible
than themselves for the negative environmental impacts of tourism. No gaps were found
between residents’ and entrepreneurs’ responses. Both entrepreneurs and residents per-
ceived the environmental impacts to be lower than tourists did. The most interesting finding
was that all three groups — including the residents themselves — considered the residents
to be more responsible than anyone else for the creation of tourism’s negative environ-
mental impacts.
TOURISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The relationship between tourism and the environment
has been universally recognized and the importance of the
conservation of the host area and its special characteristics
has been widely accepted. As Trigano (1984) suggested,
&dquo;tourism and the environment are often inseparable, for the
environment is, after all, the raw material - albeit exhaust-
ible - of tourism&dquo; (p. 20). The &dquo;goose that lays the golden
eggs&dquo; (Child 1985) first^ needs^ to^ be^ protected before^ it^ can
be promoted and marketed to tourists.
Unfortunately, as^ has^ occurred^ in^ many destinations,^ the
development of^ tourism^ can^ have^ not^ only extensive^ positive
economic benefits, but also negative social and environ-
mental effects. The environmental effects are those con-
nected with the physical and the man-made environment of
the tourist destination.
Two types of social and environmental impacts occur: the
actual and the perceived. Ways of identifying and assessing
the actual effects include the environmental impact matrices
and statements. These feature types and density of impacts
likely to^ be^ found^ on^ the^ resources^ of^ a tourism^ resort^ and
are usually prepared by experts (Inskeep 1991). However, as
argued by some^ (Mathieson and^ Wall^ 1989), environmental
impact statements^ are^ extremely difficult^ to^ produce mainly
because of the complexity of tourism impacts and the diffi-
culty in^ selecting impact indicators.
The actual impacts occurring on a destination are not
always visible^ and^ may occur^ without^ any obvious^ warning
symptoms. Sometimes^ tourists^ are^ not^ aware^ of^ the^ impacts
they cause;^ hence^ they can^ do^ little^ about^ it.^ Many researchers
such as Travis (1982), May (1991), Buckley and Pannell
(1990), Farrell^ and^ McLellan^ (1987), Inskeep (1988,
1991), Pearce^ (1980, 1981), Gunn^ (1988), and^ others^ point
out a series of environmental costs that have been assessed
in a variety of studies. These include air, water, and
noise pollution; litter and solid waste; water shortage,
inefficient treatment of sewage; soil and beach erosion;
damage to^ corals;^ crowding and^ congestion; damage to
ecosystems; loss^ of^ flora^ and^ fauna; extensive^ cutting
of timber for firewood; disturbance to wildlife; increased
fire frequency; and vandalism and urbanization. Other
researchers (Hanna and Wells 1992) reported a series of
negative effects^ of^ tourism^ on^ reefs^ in^ various^ locations
around the world such as Australia, the Cayman Islands,
and the Caribbean. These reefs were created by a process
that appears to be threatened by extensive tourism devel-
opment. In^ the^ longer term^ this^ process may be^ forced
into extinction.
Research into the perceptions and attitudes of those who
are directly involved in the tourism industry - the local com-
munity, entrepreneurs, and^ tourists^ - has^ mostly focused^ on
the sociocultural impacts of tourism on destinations, not on
the environmental impacts. However, many studies such^ as
Pizam (1978), Belisle and Hoy (1980), Pearce (1981), Liu and
Var (1986), Milman and Pizam (1988), Long, Perdue, and
Allen (1990), Perdue, Long, and Allen (1987), Schluter and
Var (1989), and Caneday and Zeiger (1991) have included an
assortment of environmental aspects such as traffic, air, noise,
water, and^ sea^ pollution; congestion; and^ depletion of
resources. In most of these studies, it was found that local
residents and entrepreneurs perceived tourism to cause some
serious negative impacts on the environment.
The almost uniform conclusion reached by those who
examined the actual and perceived impacts of tourism devel-
opment on^ the^ environment^ was^ that^ tourism^ is^ not^ just an
economic blessing but it can also be an environmental blight.
All authors suggest an urgent need for tourism planning.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to investigate the differen-
tial perceptions of residents, entrepreneurs, and tourists
toward the environmental impacts of^ tourism on^ the^ Greek
island of Mykonos.
It was hypothesized that each of the three groups would
consider the other two more responsible for the creation of
negative dependence on^ tourism.^ Despite^ this,^ and^ because
of the heavy dependence on tourism, it was also hypothesized
that entrepreneurs and residents would have similar percep-
tions about the negative environmental impact of tourism.
These similarities would occur because both groups depend
on tourism for their livelihood and both live in the commu-
nity year-round.
These hypotheses were developed after a series of in-depth
interviews with several residents, tourists, and tourism entre-
preneurs in^ Mykonos. During these^ interviews, it^ became
apparent that^ each^ of^ the^ three^ parties, though accepting some
responsibility for^ the^ creation^ of^ negative^ environmental
impacts, tended^ to^ blame^ the^ other^ two^ for^ creating most^ of
the problems.
METHODOLOGY
The study involved personal interviews with residents,
tourists, and^ entrepreneurs in^ Hora, the^ capital of^ Mykonos,
in order to analyze their perceptions of who should be held
responsible for^ the^ creation^ of^ a^ series^ of^ negative tourism
environmental impacts.
Hora is a relatively small town with a total population
of 5,200, and a year-round population of approximately 4,000.
The majority of the year-round residents are clustered around
the town center and its surrounding streets. To design a
representative sample of^ the^ year-round population, we
selected (^) every tenth household on each street of the town
center and its surrounding area for the sample only if the
occupants were^ identified^ as^ year-round residents^ (residing
in Hora for nine months or more each year). This resulted
in a total sample of 50 year-round heads of households.
Forty entrepreneurs were^ randomly selected^ from^ a^ list^ of
all tourism enterprises in town. The resultant sample included
all types of tourism enterprises, large and small, such as
tourist-souvenir shop owners, travel agency managers/I
owners, rental^ car^ agency and^ bike^ shop owners, restaurant
and bar owners, hotel managers/owners, and room rental
owners. The entrepreneurs were approached at their busi-
nesses during operating hours and were asked to participate
in the study only if they had been working on the island for
the previous two tourist seasons.
Fifty tourists^ were^ randomly selected^ by approaching
every fifth^ adult^ tourist^ during a^ four-day period (weekdays
and weekends) at the place they were visiting and screened
for having been at the destination a minimum of two nights.
Because the tourists were interviewed during a particular
period of^ time^ during the^ year (late spring) it^ is^ impossible
to claim the representativeness of this sample for any other
period of^ the^ year.
The total number of completed interviews was 115, a
response rate^ of^82 %^.^ More^ specifically, the^ response rate
for residents was 96 %, tourists 72 %, and entrepreneurs
The questionnaire for this survey consisted of four parts.
The first three parts examined the extent to which the respon-
dents believed each of the three groups - tourists, entre-
preneurs, and^ residents^ - should^ be^ held^ responsible for^ the
creation of nine negative environmental impacts. These were
excessive noise, traffic congestion, dumping of sewage in the
sea, littering the^ streets, littering the^ beaches, uncontrolled
increase in construction, water shortage, air pollution, and
depletion of^ fishing resources.^ Responses were^ given on^ a
Likert-type scale^ from^1 =^ not^ at^ all^ responsible to^5 =very
responsible. The^ fourth^ part consisted^ of a^ series^ of^ socio-
demographic profile questions, and^ two^ statements^ that
examined opinions on^ the extent and quality of^ the^ environ-
mental protection in^ Mykonos and the relation between
economic benefits and environmental degradation. The pur-
pose of^ the^ sociodemographic profile questions was^ to^ exam-
ine whether perceptions varied among different sociodemo-
graphic categories.
RESULTS
Respondents’ Profile
The resident’s sample consisted of 58 % males and 42 %
females aged 18 to 64, with 58 % of the subjects aged between
25 and 44. Thirty-one percent were single and 67% mar-
ried, of^ whom^ 60 %^ had one^ child^ or^ more^ under^16 years
living in^ the^ same^ household.^ Residents^ claimed^ to^ have^ been
to school for an average of 11.7 years. According to their
responses, 65 %^ of^ the^ residents^ had^ some^ business^ connec-
tion with tourism. Of those, a minimum of 37 % were
employed in^ this^ industry and^ another^13 %^ owned^ a^ tourist
shop. Only 20 %^ professed not^ to^ have^ any business^ connec-
tion with the tourism industry.
The entrepreneurs’ sample also consisted of 58 % males
and 42 % females, of whom 77 % were married. Of those who
were married, 30% had children under 16 living in the same
household. This group consisted of people who belonged to
all age groups with no particular concentration in any one
cluster. The entrepreneurs’ level of education was almost
identical with that of the residents (mean =^ 11.4 years),
though its^ dispersion around^ the^ mean^ was^ smaller.
Entrepreneurs’ occupations greatly varied.^ Twenty percent
owned a restaurant, bar, or hotel; 22 % owned a tourist shop;
16 % owned a travel agency; 16 % were managers in hotels
or travel agencies; and the remaining 24 % had other tourism-
related businesses.
Like the other two samples, the tourists’ sample was also
composed of^58 %^ males^ and^42 %^ females^ aged under^ 64.
The 58 % to 42 % male to female distribution in all three
samples was^ coincidental^ and^ resulted^ from^ the^ random
sampling employed in^ all^ three^ samples. The^ majority of^ inter-
viewed tourists (77.7 % ) were under 35 years old, confirm-
ing the^ island’s^ reputation as^ a^ youth destination.^ Thirty-one
percent of^ the^ respondents were^ married,^ of^ whom^ only 18 %
had children under 16 years old. The length of stay greatly
remaining attributes^ were^ 3.4^ for^ litter^ on^ the^ beaches^ and
water shortage, 3.3 for air pollution, and 3.0 for depletion
of fishing resources.
Residents’ perceptions were very similar to those of
entrepreneurs. All^ of^ their^ responses (Table 2) were^ within
the range from 1.8 for the depletion of fishing resources to
3.3 for^ the dumping of sewage into the sea. One could specu-
late that residents did not hold entrepreneurs responsible for
causing negative environmental^ impacts, possibly because^ of
their dependence on tourism entrepreneurs for their liveli-
hood and jobs.
Furthermore, entrepreneurs did^ not^ hold^ themselves
responsible for^ any of^ the^ environmental^ impacts, with^ the
exception of^ urbanization^ (3.7).^ All^ other^ attributes^ had^ lower
scores and were mainly within the neutral zone.
This analysis revealed significant differences between
tourists and the other two interviewed (^) groups. The test of
significance between^ residents,^ entrepreneurs, and^ tourists
(Table 4) showed^ a^ series^ of^ attitudinal^ differences^ in^ eight
of the nine variables. Of these, six (excessive noise, dump-
ing of^ sewage, littering the^ streets,^ water^ shortage, air^ pollu-
tion, and^ depletion of^ fishing resources) were^ differences^ in
scores between tourists and the other two (^) groups. This (^) sug-
gests that^ tourists^ held^ entrepreneurs responsible for^ environ-
mental degradation more than residents held entrepreneurs,
or than the entrepreneurs held themselves. For example, one
might assume^ that^ tourists^ expected entrepreneurs to^ control
the level of noise in town at night by turning the music vol-
ume down in bars and clubs. On the other hand, neither
entrepreneurs nor^ residents^ believed^ noise^ levels^ were^ their
responsibility, and^ hence^ they remained^ high. The^ same^ may
be assumed for litter in the streets where another attitudinal
difference existed. Tourists perceived that entrepreneurs
played a^ significant role^ in^ the^ creation^ of^ litter^ in^ the^ streets
because they did nothing to prevent it.
As can be seen in Table 4, another area where a gap was
found was between residents’ and tourists’ perceptions on
whether entrepreneurs should be considered responsible for
the excessive urbanization of the town. Accelerated urbani-
zation was caused mostly by continuous construction of
new establishments destined primarily for tourist use. One
could assume that tourists expected entrepreneurs to control
construction in order to preserve the unique aesthetic aspect
of the town. On the other hand, residents believed such a
need did not exist and thus allowed further construction to
take place.
Responses of^ residents^ and^ entrepreneurs, in^ many cases,
were almost identical, providing further support to the
hypothesis that^ residents^ and^ entrepreneurs, both^ of^ whom
benefit financially from tourism, share the same opinions.
Residents’ Responsibility for Environmental Impacts
Possibly the^ most^ important conclusions^ of^ this^ study
arise from an in-depth examination of the responses relat-
ing to^ residents’^ responsibility for^ causing environmental
impacts. All^ three^ survey groups considered^ residents^ as^ being
more responsible than the other two groups for negative
environmental impacts.
Combined groups’ means, in this part of the questionnaire,
were among the highest found in this study. As can be seen
in Table 3, with the exception of urbanization and noise, resi-
dents were perceived to be more responsible than the other
two groups for negative environmental impacts arising from
tourism. Beyond any doubt, dumping inefficiently treated
sewage into^ the sea^ was^ perceived to^ be^ an^ outcome^ of^ resi-
dents’ actions. The &dquo;fairly responsible&dquo; (4.1) score is the
highest overall^ average recorded^ in^ this^ study. The^ scores^ for
congestion and^ street^ and^ beach^ litter^ (3.8,^ 3.8,^ and^ 3.7,^ respec-
tively) were^ within^ the^ same^ range. All^ three^ groups, irre-
spective of^ their^ role^ in^ the^ industry, appeared to^ agree that
the residents of the island should be held responsible for the
environmental degradation caused by tourism.
Tourists perceived the residents to be more responsible
than anyone else for congestion (4.3), sewage (4.3), and street
litter (4.1). Dumping of sewage and street litter were indicated
by tourists^ as^ two^ major responsibilities of^ the^ locals.^ Dump-
ing of^ sewage was^ seen^ as^ the^ result^ of a^ poor infrastructure,
while the street litter was perceived as an outcome of the lack
of (^) proper controls.
Entrepreneurs considered^ residents^ to^ be^ more^ respon-
sible than themselves and tourists for noise (3.8), congestion
(3.8), sewage (4.1), street^ litter^ (3.6), and^ beach^ litter^ (3.7).
A notable exception to this was the impact of urbanization,
in which they considered themselves to be more responsible
than the other two groups. The remaining variables were
within the neutral (^) range.
TABLE 2 ENTREPRENEURS’ RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
aPlease indicate on the following scale from 1 &dquo;not at all&dquo; to 5 &dquo;very&dquo; to what extent entrepreneurs themselves should be held responsible
for causing the following effects.
Residents considered themselves responsible for^ contri-
bution to^ the^ degradation of^ the^ environment.^ A^ comparison
of Tables 1, 2, and^3 shows that^ residents^ assigned themselves
higher responsibility scores^ for^ congestion,^ sewage,^ street
litter, and^ beach^ litter^ (3.5, 3.9,^ 3.7,^ and^ 3.7,^ respectively) than
the ones they assigned to both tourists’ (3.2, 2.3, 3.5, and 3.6,
respectively) and^ entrepreneurs’ (3.1, 3.3,^ 2.8,^ and^ 3.0,
respectively).
Other important conclusions may be extracted from the
perceptual gaps^ between^ tourists^ and^ the^ other^ two^ groups
(Table 4). Tourists^ perceived water^ shortage, air^ pollution,
and depletion of fishing resources to be more the responsi-
bility of^ residents^ than^ did^ either^ the residents^ themselves^ or
the entrepreneurs. Recently, the community has agreed to a
series of proposed projects (ETVA 1992) for the improve-
ment of the infrastructure, which includes new conduits
able to guarantee a supply of water all year round and new,
more adequate sewage facilities. Hence, residents may have
believed action was being taken and therefore their responsi-
bility was^ discharged.
The variable of air pollution needs more in-depth and cau-
tious investigation. The objective evidence in this island
TABLE 3 RESIDENTS’ RESPONSIBILITY^ FOR^ ENVIRONMENTAL^ IMPACTS
aPlease indicate on the following scale from 1 &dquo;not at all&dquo; to 5 &dquo;very&dquo; to what extent residents themselves should be held responsible for
causing the^ following effects
TABLE 4 TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN (^) RESIDENTS, ENTREPRENEURS, AND TOURISTS
(ONE-WAY ANALYSIS^ OF^ VARIANCE^ WITH^ SNK^ RANGE^ TEST)
aT=tourists; E=entrepreneurs; R=residents; >=statistically significantly greater than.
bScale of 1 to 5 where 1=totally disagree and 5=totally agree.
would exist between residents’ and entrepreneurs’ perceptions
because of the^ two groups’ dependence on tourism incomes
(an absolute^ majority of^ residents^ on^ the^ island^ are^ employed
by or^ do^ business^ with^ the^ tourism^ industry)^ was^ supported.
Entrepreneurs and^ residents^ perceived^ the^ environmental
impacts to^ be^ the^ same^ and^ both^ were^ lower^ than^ the^ tourists’.
One of the most important conclusions that may be drawn
from this study lies in the residents’ responses. Contrary to
this study’s expectations, residents accepted a significant
degree of^ responsibility for^ the^ creation^ of^ negative impacts
and considered themselves to be more responsible than the
other two groups. It^ seems^ that^ the^ residents^ recognize that
the fate of^ their^ community is^ in^ their^ hands^ and^ that^ it^ would
be futile to blame others.
Finally, the^ results^ of^ this^ study stress^ the^ need^ for
(1) systematic tourism^ planning at^ the^ local^ and^ regional level
to avoid serious negative environmental problems, and
(2) more^ research^ not^ only into^ the^ perceptual gaps between
the users of the environment, but also into the problems
that will (^) arise if (^) environmental controls are not established
and enforced. Questions that are important to tourism
managers, such^ as^ what^ is^ the^ tolerance^ of^ tourists^ to^ environ-
mental degradation in a tourist destination and at^ what^ level
will the tourists stop coming, need to be urgently examined
and answered.
REFERENCES
Belisle, F.^ J.,^ and^ D.^ R.^ Hoy (1980). "The^ Perceived^ Impact of^ Tourism by Residents:^ A^ Case^ Study in^ Santa^ Marta,^ Colombia."^ Annals^ of Tour- ism (^) Research, (^7) (1): 83-101. Buckley, R.,^ and^ J.^ Pannell^ (1990). "Environmental^ Impacts of^ Tounsm^ and Recreation in^ National Parks and Conservation Reserves." The Journal of Tourism^ Studies,^1 (1): 24- Caneday, L., and^ J.^ Zeiger (1991) "The^ Social, Economic, and^ Environ- mental Costs of^ Tourism^ to^ a^ Gaming Community as Perceived (^) By Its Residents." Journal (^) of Travel (^) Research, 30 (Fall): 45-49.
Child, G.^ (1985). "Tourism^ and^ the Parks and Wildlife Estate of Zimbabwe." Tourism Recreation (^) Research, (^10) (2): 7-11. ETVA (^) (1992). (^) Development Opportunities for the Island (^) of Mykonos (in Greek). Athens, Greece:^ Hellenic^ Bank^ of^ Industrial^ Development. Farrell, B.^ H., and^ R.^ W.^ McLellan^ (1987). "Tourism^ and^ Physical Environ- ment Research." Annals (^) of Tourism (^) Research, (^14) (1): 1-16. Gunn, C.^ (1988). Tourism^ Planning. New^ York:^ Taylor and^ Francis. Hanna, N., and S. Wells^ (1992). "Tourism Time Bomb." New Internation- alist, (^) August: 8-11. Inskeep. E.,^ and^ J.^ Summer^ (1988). "Tourism^ Planning: An^ Emerging Specialization." American^ Planners^ Association^ Journal:^ 360-72. Inskeep, E.^ (1991). Tourism^ Planning. New^ York:^ Van^ Nostrand^ Reinhold. Liu, J. C., and^ T.^ Var^ (1986). "Resident^ Attitudes^ Toward^ Tourism^ Impacts in Hawaii." Annals of Tourism Research, (^13) (2): 193-214. Long, P.^ T., R. R.^ Perdue, and^ L.^ Allen^ (1990). "Rural^ Resident^ Tourism Perceptions and^ Attitudes^ By Community Level^ of^ Tourism."^ Journal of Travel^ Research, 28 (Winter): 3-9. Loukissas, P.^ (1978). "Tourism^ and^ Environment^ in^ Conflict:^ The^ Case^ of the Greek Island of (^) Mykonos." Tourism and Economic (^) Change: Studies in Third World (^) Societies, (6): 105-32. Mathieson, A., and^ G.^ Wall^ (1989). Tourism:^ Economic, (^) Physical, and^ Social
Impacts. Singapore: Longman.
May, V.^ (1991).^ "Tourism,^ Environment,^ and^ Development." International Journal of Tourism (^) Management, 12 (2): 112-18. Milman, A., and^ A.^ Pizam^ (1988). "Social^ Impacts of^ Tourism^ on^ Central Florida." Annals of Tourism (^) Research, 15 (2): 191-204. Murphy, P.^ E.^ (1981).^ "Community Attitudes^ to^ Tourism:^ A^ Comparative
Analysis." International^ Journal^ of Tourism^ Management,^3 (2):^ 189-95.
Murphy, P.^ (1991).^ Tourism:^ A^ Community Approach. London:^ Routledge. Pearce, D.^ (1981). Tourist^ Development. Essex:^ Longman. Perdue, R.^ P., P.^ T.^ Long, and^ L.^ Allen^ (1987). "Rural^ Resident^ Tourism
Perceptions and^ Attitudes."^ Annals^ of Tourism^ Research,^14 (3):^ 420-39.
Pizam, A.^ (1978). "Tourism’s^ Impacts: The^ Social^ Costs^ to^ the^ Destination Community as^ Perceived^ by^ Its^ Residents."^ Journal^ of^ Travel^ Research, (^16) (Spring): 8-12. Schluter, R., and^ T.^ Var^ (1988). "Resident^ Attitudes^ Toward^ Tourism^ in Argentina." Annals of^ Tourism^ Research,^15 (3):^ 442-45. Travis, A.^ S.^ (1982). "Managing the^ Environmental^ and^ Cultural^ Impacts of Tounsm and Leisure (^) Development." International Journal (^) of Tour- ism (^) Management, 3 (3): 256-62. Trigano, G.^ (1984).^ "Tourism^ and^ the^ Environment:^ The^ Club^ Mediterra-
nean Experience." United Nations Environmental Program: Industry
and (^) Environment, 7 (1): 20-21.
