case - Cherplan

Enhancement of Cultural Heritage through Environmental
Planning and Management - CHERPLAN
(SEE/0041/4.3/X)
WP3 – Analysis of Cultural Heritage Sites
D3.3 – Site Strategic Assessment Report
Volume I
“Application of a combined SWOT - STRASSE analysis for the
enhancement of cultural heritage through environmental
planning and management”
A case study in the municipality of Nafpaktos - Greece
Author: [CTI]
Completion Date: 27 July 2012
Lead Scientist:
Prof. Joan Iliopoulou – Georgudaki (CTI)
List of Contributors:
Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy
Institute of Environmental Geology and
Geoengineering – CNR, Italy
Institute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution
Control – Univ. of Natural Resources and Life
Sciences, Austria
Municipality of Hallstatt, Austria
Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Scientific Research
Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and
Arts, Slovenia
Municipality of Idrija, Slovenia
Region of Western Greece, Greece
Ministry of Culture, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
Ministry of Culture, Montenegro
Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports,
Albania
Contents
1.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ON SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................ 7
2.
SITE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ...................................................................... 9
3.
4.
2.1.
General .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.
Carrying Capacity (CC) ......................................................................................................... 10
2.3.
Limits of Acceptable Change Planning System (LAC) .......................................................... 14
2.4.
Carrying Capacity versus Limits of Acceptable Changes ..................................................... 18
2.5.
Identification of Measurable Indicators and LAC standards ............................................... 18
2.6.
Leopold matrix..................................................................................................................... 18
2.7.
SWOT Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 20
2.8.
STRASSE Analysis ................................................................................................................. 21
DESCRIPTION OF PILOT SITES ...................................................................................................... 22
3.1.
AQUILEIA ............................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.
HALLSTATT ........................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.
IDRIJA ................................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.
NAFPAKTOS ......................................................................................................................... 25
3.5.
OLD BAZAAR BITOLA ........................................................................................................... 26
3.6.
CETINJE ................................................................................................................................ 27
3.7.
BERAT .................................................................................................................................. 28
THE NAFPAKTOS CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 29
4.1.
The City of Nafpaktos .......................................................................................................... 29
4.2.
Materials and Methods ....................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1.
Methodology applied in the Nafpaktos case study ..................................................... 31
4.2.2.
Study area (StraSSE Step 1 – Selection of activity zones)............................................ 32
4.2.3.
Selection of indices for application of StraSSE model to Nafpaktos (StraSSE Step 2 –
Definition of indices) ................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.4.
Reference conditions – Setting the Carrying Capacity (StraSSE Steps 3 and 4) .......... 36
4.2.5.
Comparing indices (StraSSE Step 5 – Introduction of data into Leopold’s matrix)) .... 37
4.3.
4.3.1.
Analysis of Indices ....................................................................................................... 43
4.3.2.
Leopold’s matrix .......................................................................................................... 46
4.3.3.
Carrying capacity of the Castle city ............................................................................. 47
4.4.
5.
Results ................................................................................................................................. 38
Discussion on combined SWOT – StraSSE analysis ............................................................. 48
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 51
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sustainable development scheme ............................................................ 7
Figure 2: Carrying capacity versus human activity ..................................................10
Figure 3: Carrying Capacity procedure as defined in the EU final report (2000) ..........13
Figure 4: Steps of the LAC methodology according to Glasson et al, 1959..................17
Figure 5: SWOT Analysis .....................................................................................21
Figure 6: One of Nafpaktos beaches ......................................................................30
Figure 7: The historical port of Nafpaktos ..............................................................30
Figure 8: Combined SWOT - StraSSE analysis applied in the case of the Nafpaktia
Municipality .......................................................................................................31
Figure 9: The three zones of the study area; the coastal, urban and rural zones.........32
Figure 10: Some of the beaches in Nafpaktia municipality; Gribovo (upper left corner),
Psani (upper right and bottom left corner) .............................................................33
Figure 11: Aspects of the Nafpaktia municipality ....................................................34
Figure 12: Aspects of the Nafpaktos rural zone ......................................................35
Figure 13: Annual number of tourists per km of coast in Greece, Skiathos island and the
Nafpaktia municipality. Carrying Capacity is shown as a red line ...............................43
Figure 14: Annual number of tourists per local people in Greece, Skiathos island and the
Nafpaktia municipality. Current Capacity is shown as a red line ................................44
Figure 15: Number of visitors per day, per m2 in the Castle of Edinburg, Scotland, and
in the Castle city of Nafpaktos ..............................................................................47
Figure 16: The desired flow of tourists among the three zones .................................50
List of Tables
Table 1: Qualitative SWOT analysis .......................................................................38
Table 2: Quantitative StraSSE analysis ..................................................................42
Table 3: Leopold's matrix ....................................................................................46
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ON SUSTAINABILITY
The terms sustainability and sustainable development have become increasingly
popular over the past years, with every country trying to promote sustainable
development plans. Sustainability simply refers to the ability of a particular system to
withstand pressure caused by the extensive use of system resources. It denotes the
continuing conservation of accountability that has social, environmental and monetary
dimensions, and includes the idea of stewardship as well as sensible administration of
resource application. Therefore sustainability is improving the quality of human life
while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.
Figure 1: Sustainable development scheme
The most widely quoted definition of sustainable development is that of the Brundtland
Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: “Sustainable development is
development that meets the needs of present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. “ This means that sustainable development uses
the natural eco-systems as resources of production and consumption growth, leaving
them unchanged for future generations.
In order to achieve that it requires the reconciliation of social equity, environmental and
economic demands, often referred to as the “three pillars” of sustainability (figure 1).
This might sound as an oxymoron as development, especially in terms of economy,
seems to entail environment degradation. That is why it is nowadays more than ever
before evident that environmental protection should be always taken strongly into
account when creating development plans for an area or region.
While at first glance it may seem that the terms described above refer solely to
environmental or natural resources, they can refer to other systems with similar
problems. Areas with high cultural heritage face sustainable development issues when it
comes to tourism flow or other human activity development that might destroy cultural
heritage of an area.
In the case of managing tourist activities in different types of areas, the basic concern
is “how many tourists, a particular system (an island, coastal area, protected zone or a
city) could afford without provoking irretrievable damage to both, the environment and
the local community”.
There is a necessity for a threshold in the tourist activity, which is present in the
concerns and priorities of local managers and planners, as tourism poses pressures on
the natural and cultural environment, affecting resources, social structures, cultural
patterns, economic activities and land use in local communities. To the extent that such
pressures are creating problems on tourism or alter the functioning of nature and the
local community, taking special measures to mitigate such impacts can be a viable
option. These concerns increase and dominate public policy agendas as modern
societies give increasing consideration to issues such as environmental conservation,
quality of life and sustainable development. The issue of tourism development is
increasingly sought within a local strategy for sustainable development. Determining
the capacity of local systems becomes a central issue.
2. SITE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
2.1.General
Cultural heritage has many aspects including natural landscapes, architectural and
historical sites; therefore it can be regarded as a resource for a particular area. This
assumption allows for the implementation of methodologies that are traditionally
applicable to the natural environment, to a wider spectrum of systems that need
conservation and sustainable development, in order to cope with high rates of economic
and tourism growth. The areas treated by the CHERPLAN project can be viewed as such
systems.
A proposed and widely used methodological approach involves two main steps:
1. Definition of the state of the area under review in terms of distinct or different
economic activity zones as well as interactions between the zones, using tools
such as Geographical Information Systems to map the zones and interactions.
2. Having defined the state of the area we have to decide how we can best protect
the area’s cultural and environmental resources but also how we can promote
economic growth in areas that have different characteristics while protecting the
resources mentioned above.
A predecessor of the proposed methodological approach relevant to the protection of
the natural environment has been successfully implemented in the area of Amalias in
Western Greece, as part of the project INTERREG IIIC EAST INNOREF STRASSE, in
order to provide a decision tool for local policy makers relevant to the development of
tourism and agriculture taking into account sustainability issues and addressing the
non-irreversible degradation of the natural environment in the specific area.
2.2.Carrying Capacity (CC)
In order to meet the requirements for sustainable development, the term “carrying
capacity” is taken into account in almost every effort, which aims at the sustainable
growth of a system. The carrying capacity is the maximum level of human activity,
which organisms, ecosystems or natural resources can afford without provoking
irretrievable damages for a long period. This particular pattern of strategic planning is a
helpful tool for decision makers in order to provoke tourist growth in relation to
environmental sensitization. It could lead to a growth model which takes into account
all aspects of human activity enabling stakeholders to achieve further development in
every sector possible.
The carrying capacity for any given area is not fixed. It can be altered by improved
technology, but mostly it is changed for the worse by pressures, which accompany a
permanent or seasonal population increase. As the environment is degraded and the
various natural or cultural resources are endangered or depleted, carrying capacity
actually shrinks, leaving the environment no longer able to support even the level of
activity of the people who could formerly have lived in the area on a sustainable basis.
No population can stand living beyond the environment carrying capacity in the long
term.
Figure 2: Carrying capacity versus human activity
Figure 2 depicts the relationship between human activities in an area and the area
carrying capacity. Whenever human activities surpass that carrying capacity the results
are adverse towards the environment and the diverse resources of the area and in
many cases are irreversible.
The term carrying capacity can be applied to a variety of different systems and
conditions. As a result, there is tourism, physical, economic, social, biophysical and
several other types of carrying capacity. Therefore it can be applied to several different
regions or areas and depict the capacity of the region or area for a variety of diverse
resources including natural, tourism, cultural or social.
"Tourism Carrying Capacity" is defined by the World Tourism Organization as “the
maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time,
without causing destruction of the physical, economic, socio-cultural environment and
an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitor satisfaction”. Whereas Middleton and
Hawkins Chamberlain (1997) define it as “the level of human activity an area can
accommodate without the area deteriorating, the resident community being adversely
affected or the quality of visitors experience declining” what both these definitions pick
up on is that carrying capacity is the point at which a destination or attraction starts
experiencing adverse effects as a result of the number of visitors. Since cultural tourism
usually represents a big percentage of the total tourism for an area, tourism carrying
capacity is an important figure for the sustainable development of that area offering an
important cultural heritage as part of its touristic attractions. Addressing the
sustainability problem from the cultural heritage point of view, would thus mean that
the cultural resources of an area do not face irreversible degradation problems, i.e. the
tourism carrying capacity of the area is not surpassed by the tourist activity in the area.
Regarding tourism, the selection of different systems, which require different emphasis
on carrying capacity considerations, is crucial. As a result, six systems – tourist
destinations are basically targeted in order to achieve a thorough study on the tourist
carrying capacity.
1. Coastal areas: Coastal areas are mainly associated with mass tourism,
large scale infrastructure, intensive land development and extensive
urbanization, a prevalent model in most Mediterranean destinations. Carrying
capacity issues revolve around considerations about tourist density, the use
of beaches and tourist infrastructure, congestion of facilities, sea pollution,
etc.
2. Islands: Island tourism is basically more of the selective type with small and
medium scale accommodation, often in existing settlements, rural local
societies, small communities, etc. Carrying capacity considerations focus on
the relationship of tourism with the local society/culture, the effects on local
production systems and the economy of the island, quality of life but also the
demands and impacts on resources such as water and energy and the
management of waste.
3. Protected Areas: Tourism in protected areas is associated with appreciating
and observing nature, scientific endeavour and education. This type of
tourism is associated with minimal development of infrastructure and small
scale interventions in areas of – normally-strong control and restrictive
management. Carrying capacity issues concern the number of tourists, visitor
flows, the protection of nature and the functioning of ecosystems but also the
quality of experience of visitors. Carrying capacity can be derived by the
application of indices depicting the state of an area in different sectors
(environmental, demographic, economic etc.).
4. Rural areas: Tourism in rural areas covers a wide range of purposes
(motivations) and is usually associated with visiting areas of special beauty,
being in nature, low intensity activities but widely dispersed around low
density-often remote- rural communities. In some areas agro-tourism falls
within this category. Carrying capacity issues involve questions about visitor
flows, impacts on local society and culture, effects on rural economies, the
spatial patterns of visitor flows, etc.
5. Mountain resorts: These are likely to resemble to the intensive
development, mass tourism category, often centred around winter sports.
Carrying capacity issues include environmental impacts from large scale
infrastructure or access roads on natural ecosystems, microclimate change
from artificial snow, vegetation cover losses and soil erosion, landscape
deterioration, but also congestion of facilities and waste management.
6. Historical settlements and towns: Tourism is attracted to historic towns
as a result of the built cultural heritage, urban amenities, lifestyle and
cultural traditions, cultural events, etc. There can be several types of tourism
in this category. The dominant mass tourism associated with large numbers
of visitors centering around monuments, museums, etc. often of a short stay
(even daily visits) in which case carrying capacity issues center around
congestion of facilities, traffic, urban land-use change, waste management
etc. At the other end of the spectrum in some other cases tourism in historic
settlements could be more of the selective type associated with small groups
of visitors, low pressures for development, in which case carrying capacity
considerations could be limited to urban fabric change.
The implementation of tourist carrying capacity can be monitored by applying a set of
indicators. During the process of defining the carrying capacity, an initial set of
indicators may be developed, finalized by following the final decision on the carrying
capacity of the total system. The whole process is dynamic and since the CC is not a
fixed concept it should be regarded as a tool for guiding policy formulation and
implementation towards sustainable tourism.
Figure 3: Carrying Capacity procedure as defined in the EU final report (2000)
2.3.Limits of Acceptable Change Planning System (LAC)
Despite its high theoretical value, the carrying capacity theory had practical and
conceptual failures. The most fundamental failure in achieving its objectives was that it
is intrinsically a quantitative term as it focuses on the question “How many is too
many?” Research has shown however that many problems were a function not so much
of numbers of people but of their behavior. Therefore instead of searching for a numeric
threshold it is more important to monitor the activities in the area or region as well as
their impacts and deal with them.
Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), on the other hand, dealt with a significantly
different question: "What resource and social conditions are appropriate (or
acceptable), and how do we attain these conditions?" This question represented a
substantially different approach to thinking about development of an area or region, yet
was actually more closely aligned with the thought of protecting the values for which an
area was established than the carrying capacity paradigm.
Thus, Limits of Acceptable Change as a planning system was viewed as a way to
confront and resolve the complex issues of managing tourists and visitors to the area to
not only provide for the experiences they seek, but to deal with the problems of their
social and biophysical impacts. It assesses the probable impact of an activity, decides in
advance how much change will be tolerated, monitors what is happening systematically
and regularly, and determines what actions are appropriate if agreed-upon quality
standards are surpassed.
The LAC framework was developed by Stankey et al. (1985) as a tool to manage
recreational use in wilderness but its utility extended far beyond that challenge. It is
nowadays used as a powerful tool for making sustainable development plans for areas
that gather large numbers of tourists, either for recreational, cultural, alternative or any
known type of tourism. It is thus highly relevant for the CHERPLAN project providing a
framework that may be used at local or regional level in order to enhance the local or
regional development plans towards cultural heritage sustainability, taking into account
international quality standards relevant to cultural heritage protection or built through a
local participatory process involving the local population in the overall decision making
process.
Since its conception the LAC framework has evolved into a nine step process that may
be utilized in more general issues of development. The nine steps are described below:
1. Identify area concerns & issues
Local policy makers and citizens meet to identify what special features or
qualities within the area require attention, what management problems or
concerns have to be dealt with, what issues the public considers important in the
area's management, and what role the area plays in both a regional and national
context. This step encourages a better understanding of the natural, cultural or
economic resource base, such as the sensitivity of cultural and historic
landmarks to tourism development, and a general concept of how the resource
could be managed.
2. Define & describe opportunity classes (zones)
Most areas or regions contain a diversity of cultural, social, natural and economic
conditions. As a result the amount and type of development may vary
throughout the area. Opportunity classes describe subdivisions or zones of
natural or cultural resources where different social, resource or managerial
conditions will be maintained. These classes represent a way of defining a range
of diverse conditions while remaining consistent with the general objectives for
the area, as identified in step 1.
3. Select indicators of resource & social conditions
Indicators are specific elements of the resource or social setting that represent
the conditions deemed appropriate and acceptable in each opportunity class.
They must be easily measurable quantitatively and they are an essential part of
the LAC methodology as they reflect the overall condition throughout an
opportunity class.
4. Inventory resource & social conditions
Guided by the indicators in step 3 the existing resources and social conditions of
the area or region are inventoried and mapped, in order to develop a better
understanding of area constraints and opportunities. This inventory helps local
policy makers establish realistic standards for development.
5. Specify standards for both
In this step we identify the range of conditions for each indicator considered
appropriate and acceptable for each opportunity class in measurable terms.
These are maximum permissible conditions and not necessarily objectives to be
achieved.
6. Identify alternative opportunity class allocations
The most important and attractive natural or cultural resource settings can be
managed and developed in a variety of ways. This creates different types of
alternatives, meaning that different opportunity classes can be addressed to the
same area. Step 6 creates a powerful tool in the hands of local policy makers,
aiding them in the development of the area or region in the most appropriate
and also flexible way possible.
7. Identify management actions for each alternative
Different alternatives and their acceptable conditions require different
managerial schemes in order to be achieved. In this step apart from identifying
the most appropriate management actions a cost analysis is performed for each
alternative, as the most attractive alternative might require such a huge
commitment of funds that make it a non-viable solution.
8. Evaluate and select a preferred alternative
Having all the different alternatives and an estimation of the cost of each
alternative the local authorities can begin the evaluation process of each course
of action. This is done while taking into account several factors, namely the
responsiveness of each alternative to the area concerns and issues as identified
in step 1, and the management requirements from step 7.
9. Implement actions and monitor conditions
Having selected the preferred alternative a development plan is created and put
into effect. A monitoring program is extremely important for the evaluation of
the whole process. This program focuses on the indicators selected in step 3 and
compares their current condition with that of the identified standards. If the
conditions are deteriorating or not improving complementary actions must be
taken.
The LAC methodology, according to Glasson et al (1959), can be described in 6 steps,
with further grouping of the above 9 steps (figure 4):
1. Definition of all special characteristics of the study area
2. Definition of particular activity zones
3. Assessment of particular indices
4. Evaluation of indices for each zone
5. Comparing current conditions with reference ones
6. Measurement taking
Several methods for the estimation of human activity and the pressure exercised at the
ecosystems have been evolved in order to better depict pressures and results. Among
them, SWOT analysis provides a theoretical basis for strategic planning for the
evaluation of the Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations, Opportunities, and Threats
related with a given system, either a city or an ecosystem. “Strengths” stands for the
characteristics of the system that give it an advantage over others. “Weaknesses (or
Limitations)” are characteristics that place the system at a disadvantage relative to
others. “Opportunities” are external chances to improve performance in the different
aspects of the system examined. “Threats” are external elements in the environment
that could cause trouble for the system. Identification of SWOTs is essential because
subsequent steps in the process of planning for achievement of the selected objective
may be derived from the SWOTs.
On the other hand, quantitative integrative methods such as the STRASSE analysis for
the estimation of the pressures using a combination of the LAC methodology and
Carrying Capacity indices, in addition with the SWOT analysis, provide further
information to the theoretical data acquired from the second, in order to achieve better
results, regarding sustainable development of systems examined.
Figure 4: Steps of the LAC methodology according to Glasson et al, 1959
2.4.Carrying Capacity versus Limits of Acceptable Changes
While carrying capacity focuses solely on the determination of the use level in an area
and has a strict quantitative approach the Limits of Acceptable Changes tries to manage
the actions that lead to changes in the desirable environmental and social conditions.
At the point where these conditions are at the minimum acceptable level then the level
of use equals that of carrying capacity of the region. The Limits of Acceptable Changes
calculates that desired conditions, evaluates the current conditions and by comparing
them determines how much pressure the developmental actions impose on the area.
2.5.Identification of Measurable Indicators and LAC standards
The first and basic part of the LAC methodology is the identification and selection of
appropriate and most importantly measurable indicators for the area in question. The
set of indicators must be specific for each sector of economic development and must be
operational, meaning that data at a local level must be collectable.
Following the identification of the appropriate indicators certain standards must be
applied. LAC standards are nothing more than statements of the minimally acceptable
conditions for the area. These standards are calculated taking into account every single
factor (social, environmental, economic, cultural etc.) and since presented they are
absolute limits that may not be violated by any means. These standards come from
either international quality standards or from a local consensus built at local or regional
level addressing the local expectations for the development of the area.
2.6.Leopold matrix
Dealing with indicators and enforcing LAC standards in an area, requires a methodology
to present relevant data and measure impact. In order to present data that has to do
with environmental impacts there are many methods available. The best known matrix
methodology available for predicting the impact of a project on the environment is the
Leopold matrix. Although used for projects dealing with the natural environment, the
Leopold matrix usability can be extended to projects measuring impact not only to
natural resources but other resources as well. In this context, it is applicable on cultural
heritage resource preservation projects, such as CHERPLAN. In this context the term
environment in this chapter may be regarded in a wider sense not purely as the natural
environment but the cultural and social environment of an area as well.
The Leopold matrix is a qualitative environmental impact assessment method pioneered
in 1971 by Leopold et al. It is used to identify the potential impact of an area
development project on the environment. It involves the use of a matrix with 100
specified actions and 88 environmental items. The system consists of a matrix with
columns representing the various activities of the project, and rows representing the
various environmental factors to be considered. The intersections are filled in to indicate
the magnitude (from -10 to +10) and the importance (from 1 to 10) of the impact of
each human activity on each environmental factor.
Measurements of magnitude and importance tend to be related, but do not necessarily
directly correlate. Magnitude can be measured, in terms of how much area is affected
by the development and how badly, but importance is a more subjective measurement.
While a proposed development may have a large impact in terms of magnitude, the
effects it causes may not actually significantly affect the environment as a whole.
The Leopold matrix is a two dimensional matrix cross-referencing:
1. Activities linked to the project that are supposed to have an impact on man and
the environment
2. Existing environmental and social conditions that could possibly be affected by
the project
The Leopold matrix proposes a three-step process to estimate the impact:
First step: for all the interactions considered significant by the authors, the first step is
to mark the corresponding boxes in the matrix with a diagonal line.
Second step: once the boxes with supposed significant interactions are slashed, the
author evaluates each box by applying a number from 1 to 10 (1 is the minimum and
10 the maximum) to register the magnitude of the interaction. This number is
transferred to the upper left hand corner. It represents the scale of the action and its
theoretical extent.
Third step: the final step for this method is to mark (from 1 to 10), in the lower right
hand corner, the real importance of the phenomenon for the given project. It then gives
an evaluation of the extent of the environmental impact according to the assessor's
judgment.
The value, ten represents the largest magnitude and the value, one represents the
lowest magnitude, whereas values near five represent impacts of intermediate
magnitude. Assignment of a numerical value for the magnitude of an interaction is
related to the extent of any change (for example, if noise levels in a village were
expected to increase by 20 dB(A), this is a large increase at night and may score 8 or
even 9). The scale of importance also ranges from one to ten. The higher the value, the
higher the importance; the lower the value, the lower the importance. Assignment of a
numerical value for importance is based on the subjective judgment of the multi disciplinary team working on the EIA. Plus (+) or minus (-) can be used to show
whether an impact is beneficial or adverse.
2.7.SWOT Analysis
SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths,
Weaknesses/Limitations, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project. It involves
specifying the objective of the project and identifying the internal and external factors
that are favorable and unfavorable to achieve that objective. The technique is credited
to Albert Humphrey (2005), who led a convention at the Stanford Research Institute
(now SRI International) in the 1960s and 1970s using data from Fortune 500
companies. Setting the objective should be done after the SWOT analysis has been
performed. This would allow achievable goals or objectives to be set for the
organization.
1. Strengths: characteristics of the project that give it an advantage over others
2. Weaknesses (or Limitations): are characteristics that place the project at a
disadvantage relative to others
3. Opportunities: external chances to improve performance in the environment
4. Threats: external elements in the environment that could cause trouble for
project
Identification of SWOTs is essential because subsequent steps in the process of
planning for achievement of the selected objective may be derived from the SWOTs.
First, the decision makers have to determine whether the objective is attainable, given
the SWOTs. If the objective is NOT attainable a different objective must be selected and
the process repeated. Users of SWOT analysis need to ask and answer questions that
generate meaningful information for each category (strengths, opportunities,
weaknesses, and threats) in order to maximize the benefits of this evaluation and find
their competitive advantage.
Figure 5: SWOT Analysis
2.8.STRASSE Analysis
STRASSE stands for Strategic Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development and is a
rather quantitative analysis, in contrast to the qualitative SWOT. It utilizes the carrying
capacity and the LAC methodology, in an effort to quantify the pressures on an
ecosystem, city or in general a study area. In combination with the SWOT can give a
clear image of the state of an ecosystem or city, identify pressures, thus provoke or
reduce development on an area in the field of tourism, agriculture, industry etc.
3. DESCRIPTION OF PILOT SITES
3.1.AQUILEIA
Partner Name: Autonomous Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, IGAG (Italy)
Aquileia is located in the lagoon area of the north-eastern Adriatic, a few kilometers
away from the sea-side resort of Grado and it is considered to be the most complete
example of an early Roman city. Colonized in 181 B.C. it served as a defensive and
trading post towards the east. It has been declared an UNESCO WHS since 1998.
Pilot Site Main Elements
“The Second Rome”, as it was named, Aquileia was one of the wealthiest cities in the
early Roman Empire. Within 30ha (30% of the archaeological site) lay a Roman Forum,
basilica, burial ground, river port, house foundations, statues and many more.
The Basilica complex, containing a 73 meter bell tower (originally a look-out tower in
1000 A.C.), a pagan’s church and a baptistery is considered the Ecclesia Mater (mother
church) of Friuli Venezia Giulia and the countries of Central Europe and it preserves one
of the most extraordinary mosaic floor complexes in the world.
The archaeological museum hosts materials from as far back as the 5th century B.C.
including engraved gems, glassware, amberware as well as a large number of high
quality floor mosaics.
The surrounding countryside offers high quality products, the highlight of which is a
Protected Designation of Origin wine dating back to the Roman times. One of the most
characteristic wines is the “Refosco dal peduncolo rosso”, a noble indigenous Friulian
red wine, among the favourites of the Roman Emperors.
Furthermore the area has a wonderful natural landscape, which includes a Site of
Community Importance (IT3320037, Marano and Grado Lagoon), as well as 3 Regional
Nature Reserves. A past hunting and fishing area it is now a bird watching paradise
offering optimal conditions for a lot of water fowl species.
3.2.HALLSTATT
Partner name: BOKU-SIG, Hallstatt Municipality (Austria)
Hallstatt is a complex cultural landscape in the Eastern Alps consisting of numerous
lakes, mountain ranges and historic art treasures. Dating back to the 2nd millennium
B.C. its primary function has been salt mining and it has been declared an UNESCO
WHS in 1997.
Pilot Site Main Elements
Adding to its natural beauty and features, Hallstatt’s 2,500 years old archaeological
heritage makes it of global importance. The main places of interest are the cemetery
and the salt mine with gothic miner’s settlements.
The Dachstein mountain range offers a wide variety of geological phenomena with a
combination of sharp mountains, narrow valleys and lakes creating an area of high
pictorial quality. A highlight of the region is the area of high pastures, a unique
combination of natural and anthropogenic features.
The archaeological site is located high above the market town of Hallstatt in the
Salzberg valley. The cemetery with more than a thousand graves excavated so far has
yielded important archaeological discoveries such as magnificent jewellery, richly
decorated weapons, bronze and clay vessels whereas ivory, glass and amber findings
prove extensive trading relations.
The town monument of Hallstatt is directly linked with the history of salt extraction, as
can be seen from the attempted optimum space use in the Gothic miner’s settlement,
modified with late baroque additions after the fire of 1750. The most notable
architectural highlights are the part stone, part timber tall and narrow houses as well as
the 15th century St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Parish church.
Rising 3,000 meters above sea level the Dachstein mountain range, being the highest of
the karst massifs in the Northern limestone Alps, contains impressive caves and
preserves its glaciation until today. This makes it a research site for alpine tectonics and
micro-paleontology.
3.3.IDRIJA
Partner Name: Municipality of Idrija, SAZU (Slovenia)
Idrija has a 500 year old mining tradition and thus a unique combination of cultural –
tangible and intangible heritage as well as natural heritage due to its unique geological
structure. It has been inscribed in the tentative list of UNESCO WHS sites.
Pilot Site Main Elements
Idrija is the oldest Slovenian mining town with a historic town center full of important
cultural heritage units such as a smelting plant, St. Anthony’s main road, a lace school
and water wheels. Other important site elements are mine shafts, churches, a castle,
town hall as well as natural sites including a lake and a landscape park.
Idrija has a large mercury ore deposit and the world’s second mercury ore mine.
Although not operational today it is considered to be one of the richest ore deposits with
approximately 30% of the world’s Hg underground supply. Anthony’s Main Road was
dug in 1500 and it is preserved as the world’s second oldest mine entrance. Today it
serves as tourist entrance to the mine, museum and underground chapel of Holy
Trinity. The mercury smelting plant was built in the 17th century to process the ore into
mercury drops using several types of furnaces as technology evolved over the years. It
stopped operation in 1995.
The historic town center is protected as a cultural heritage site of local importance with
many important buildings and monuments such as Gewerkenegg Castle, Miners House,
Mine Wheat Storehouse – Magazin, Mine Theatre, picturesque houses and streets. A
detailed Spatial Planning has been approved by the Municipality Council.
The high demands of the mine production for wood led to the creation of river barriers
to control the river flow in order to carry wood from the surrounding forests to the Rake
where timber was stopped and used. Four buildings have been selected as candidates
for UNESCO WHL. Pumping mechanisms where used to drive the river water out of the
shafts, one of which (Kamst water wheel) is the largest device of its kind in the world
with a 13.6 meters diameter. Water to power the wheel was carried through the 2.5km
long Rake water channel from a 17th century river dam.
Lace making is traditional handcraft knowledge in Idrija dating back to 1696. The Lace
school was established in 1876 and has been operating ever since while the Idrija Lace
Festival takes place every year in the summer.
3.4.NAFPAKTOS
Partner Name: Region of Western Greece, CTI (Greece)
The city of Nafpaktos is the capital of the Municipality of Nafpaktia and the 2nd largest
city in Aetoloakarnania, with a population of 18,000. It is situated on a bay north of the
straits of Rio Antirrio, site of the famous naval battle of Lepanto, where the naval power
of the Ottoman Empire was destroyed by the united Papal, Spanish, Habsburg and
Venetian forces. The area is an ideal destination for alternative tourism as it combines
sea resorts with mountain areas and rich water deposits. The city hosts a scenic harbor,
a castle, a fortified historic town center as well as museums, towers and temples.
Pilot Site Main Elements
The Port of Nafpaktos together with the Venetian fortifications and castle along the sea
wall provide the most vibrant area of the city with shops, bars and several monuments
in memory of the sea battle of Lepanto, including a statue of Miguel de Cervantes, the
famous writer who fought in the battle.
The castle is located on a hill overseeing the town and was given its current shape by
the Venetians who built fortifications after 1407. It consists of five independent
defensive compartments decreasing in size as we approach the hill top and its
foundations have been dated back to the prehistoric times. Today it is the theatre of
several cultural events.
The Rio Antirrio Bridge, spanning 2.880 meters across the Gulf of Corinth, is the world’s
longest multi-span cable-stayed suspended bridge. The suspended deck has two vehicle
lanes, an emergency lane and a pedestrian walk per direction and the bridge itself is
considered to be an engineering masterpiece due to several difficulties in the
construction site such as seismic activity, deep water, insecure foundation materials and
the expansion of the gulf due to tectonics.
The municipality has rich water resources such as blue flag beaches spanning a 3km
coastline with lots of restaurants and cafes, several small ports, two river deltas (Evinos
and Mornos) with the second one also having an artificial lake and rafting and canoeing
facilities and many more.
The historic town center is a traditional settlement surrounded by castle walls and
structured under strict rules of construction. There are three types of residences inside
the town center from different periods and 185 buildings and monuments are being
monitored and protected.
3.5.OLD BAZAAR BITOLA
Partner Name: Ministry of Culture (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
The old bazaar is a pedestrian area in the center of Bitola and a major tourist attraction.
It dates back to 1383 and the arrival of the Ottoman Empire and ever since the 17th
century it was divided into smaller parts according to crafts associations. Its beauty and
extent make it one of the most beautiful bazaars in the Balkans.
Pilot Site Main Elements
The covered bazaar was built in the 15th century next to the river Dragor. Resembling a
fortress due to its many metal gates it has been altered, rebuilt, burned and robbed
many times to get its present form. It is still used offering all kinds of goods for the
town of Bitola.
The Hadji Bay complex was built around the Hadji Bay mosque in the 16th century and
consists of the mosque itself, a library, a senior and elementary Islam school, as well as
modern buildings and businesses. In contrast to the exterior the interior is in bad shape
due to its use as storage space for many years and restoration must be done.
The Deboj old public bath is a stone and brick massive structure which was used as a
public hammam or as part of the vakaf (estate) of Ahmet Pasha. Its unique interior
decoration with stalactic decorations makes it one of the most beautiful preserved
hammams in the entire region. It is today rented to a company for production and
trade.
The Old Bazaar has a net of small squares and streets named after the goods that were
sold there. Most buildings are made of brick and stone and have exits on two streets
and there are 600 registered buildings. The ownership of the buildings is mixed and
there is good infrastructure except for the lighting of the streets.
The open market sector in the central part of the old bazaar is a fresh food market that
operates all year long. It is divided into smaller sections according to the type of food
sold. The main characteristic of the market is the origin of the products which come
from non-polluted areas and are thus organic.
3.6.CETINJE
Partner Name: Ministry of Culture (Montenegro)
Cetinje is located in southeastern Europe, in karst area 12km air line from the Adriatic
Sea. It has a temperate continental climate and its high rainfall make it one of the
rainiest towns in Europe. Despite that there are no surface waters in the surrounding
area due to its geological composition. It has 16.757 inhabitants and its area is about
6,6% of Montenegro.
Traces of human settlements in the area are found in caves dating back almost 12.000
years. However the town emerged in the XV century when invasion of the Turks forced
Ivan Crnojevic, a local ruler to move his seat to the area. After 1482 a palace and a
monastery was built, making Cetinje both a secular and religious center. However for
the next two centuries the town was left to decay due to constant invasions and began
to prosper again under the Petrovic dynasty, who built several public buildings including
a palace leading to the town being declared as capital when Montenegro became
independent in 1878. The town then flourished until the capital was moved to Titograd
(nowadays named Podgorica).
Pilot Site Main Elements
Today Cetinje is the royal capital of Montenegro with its heart being the Historical core
and its many historical buildings and 25 protected historical monuments.
The Biljarda was erected in 1838 as the residence of Petar II Petrovic Njegos, and since
then it has been used as senate and administration building, educational institutions as
well as the royal residence of many rulers. During World War I it was used by the
Austro-Hungarians as their headquarters.
The Monastery was erected by the Bishop Prince Danilo between 1701 and 1704 on the
remains of the court of Ivan Crnojevic. It is a unique complex with adaptations new
constructions being built over many years and it consists of the church of the Nativity of
the Mother of God, guest rooms, Monastery museum and royal graveyard. For the
Montenegrins it is a symbol of freedom fighting.
Nowadays a museum, King Nikola’s Castle was built in 1863 and was used as court and
government quarters. In 1910 the Government House was built in celebration of the
proclamation of Montenegro as a kingdom, and helped intensify the image of the
capital. Zetski Dom was built in 1896 and its purpose was to hold cultural activities and
theatrical groups either domestic or visiting or travelling. The Church of the Nativity of
the Mother of God was first erected in 1886 on the foundations of the Cetinje Monastery
and after collapse it was rebuilt in 1890 to store the remains of King Nikola and Queen
Milena.
3.7.BERAT
Partner Name: Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports (Albania)
The city of Berat has been a World Heritage Site since 2008 as a testimony of
integrated coexistence of the Christian and Islamic community. The historic city hosts
Mosques, Muslim quarters, Orthodox Churches, convents, Byzantine walls and ancient
vestiges. It is divided into three quarters: the Castle quarter, the “Mangalem” quarter
and the “Gorica” quarter.
Pilot Site Main Elements
The Castle of the city of Berat has traces dating back to the 4th century B.C. and
surround 158 monuments. It is surrounded by walls that are reinforced by 24 towers
and is undergoing restoration.
The “Mangalem” quarter consists mainly of residences outside the castle walls and has
134 monuments as well as several Orthodox and Muslim religious monuments. 16 of
the monuments are richly ornamented 1st Category monuments.
The “Gorica” quarter is situated on the other side of the river Osumi and it is connected
to the other two districts by the Gorica bridge. The residences display characteristics of
Ottoman-Albanian architecture and there are 140 monuments, two of which are the St.
Spiridon and St. Thomas churches.
The National Museum “Onufri” named after a famous Albanian painter is organized in
Virgin Mary cathedral built in 1797. It contains a rich iconographic collection and the
museum complex is distinguished for its high altitude.
Lastly the city has an Ethnographic museum which is placed in a typical Berat three
century building. The three floors of the museum host several objects of Albanian folk
culture such as olive processing equipment.
4. THE NAFPAKTOS CASE STUDY
4.1.The City of Nafpaktos
Situated on a bay on the north side of the straights of Lepanto (Rion – Antirrion),
Nafpaktos is the capital of the Municipality of Nafpaktia, and the 2nd largest town in
Aetoloacarnania, in the Region of Western Greece. The origin of the name Nafpaktos
comes from the Greek words ναύς (ship, boat) and the verb πηγνύειν (to fasten
together, build). According to the Greek mythology, Nafpaktos appears as the place
where the Heraclidae built a fleet to cross the sea and invade to Peloponnese, some
3.500 years ago. This legend, together with the etymology of the name, indicates a
long-standing reputation as a major ship-building place. In historical times, Nafpaktos,
originally belonging to the Locrians since after 455 BC has experienced occupation, due
to its strategic location, by the Athenians, Messenians, Achaeans, Macedonians,
Aetolians and Romans. From the late 9th century, it became the capital of the Byzantine
thema of Nicopolis. In the late middle ages it fell into the hands of the Venetians, and
then of the Ottoman Turks. In 1571, the mouth of the Gulf of Lepanto was the scene of
a great sea battle, where the naval power of the Ottoman Empire was nearly completely
destroyed by the united Papal, Spanish, Habsburg and Venetian forces. In the Greek
War of Independence it finally became Greek once again (March 1829).
Today the population is about 18,000 people. Residential homes align with the Gulf of
Corinth over a length of about 3 km and a width of about 1 km. The port divides the
beachfront in two parts. The Western part is called Psani, and the Eastern part Gribovo.
Both beachfronts provide the background for a nice promenade where a wide range of
restaurants and cafes can also be found. The mountain area of Nafpaktia attracts
demanding visitors seeking alternative forms of tourism (hiking, canoeing, rafting). The
harbour, one of the most scenic on the northern coast of the Corinthian Gulf, is
accessible only to the smallest crafts. The historic centre represents an interesting
traditional urban complex, which is surrounded by a fortified wall, dating back to the
prehistoric times and upgraded by the Venetians. Starting from the small circular port
one can see the statue of Don Miguel de Cervantdes, who fought in the sea battle of
Lepanto, and of George Anemogiannis, a hero of the great liberation war. Walking uphill
to along the cobbled rise, towards the old town centre and the castle, one can stroll
along Stenopazaro, the old marketplace, visit the private 1821 Farmaki family museum,
the two historic towers that today are used as a museum and for housing the local
archaeology branch, the ruins of a Muslim temple, the thermae, the excavated 5th
century paleo-Christian Basilica of Virgin Mary, and the ancient temple of Asclepius.
A large number of cultural events are organized mainly during the summer period,
ranging from concerts to, fairs, theatrical plays, and athletic athletic events. After a
Ministry of Culture decree back in 1973, Nafpaktos has been denominated as a place of
historic value and particular natural beauty.
Figure 6: One of Nafpaktos beaches
Figure 7: The historical port of Nafpaktos
4.2.Materials and Methods
4.2.1. Methodology applied in the Nafpaktos case study
As mentioned above and depicted in the figure below, for the case of Nafpaktos
municipality, a combined SWOT – STRASSE analysis will be applied, the steps of which
are adapted according to a further combination of the Carrying Capacity and the Limits
of Acceptable Changes methodology:
Figure 8: Combined SWOT - StraSSE analysis applied in the case of the Nafpaktia
Municipality
A. SWOT Analysis in order to gain a qualitative image of the Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the study area
B. STRASSE Analysis consisting of:
1. Definition of activity zones inside the study area
2. Definition of indices (either for each zone or for the whole study area)
3. Application of either the Carrying Capacity or the LAC methodology according
to available data and expert’s opinion
4. Setting the Carrying Capacity Limit or Acceptable Change from the initial
state of each index according to data availability and expert’s opinion
5. Introduction of all data into the Leopold’s matrix for integration purposes
C. Decision making, on which index or activity should be further improved or
reduced in order to achieve sustainability
4.2.2. Study area (StraSSE Step 1 – Selection of activity zones)
Three activity zones in the Nafpaktia municipality (figure 9) were selected for the
application of the combined SWOT – StraSSE analysis:
Figure 9: The three zones of the study area; the coastal, urban and rural zones
1. The coastal zone (figure 10), which consists of a coastline of almost 42,5 km,
with many beaches, most of them weakly organized, such as Kryoneri, Kato
Vasiliki, Antirrio and the beaches Psani and Gribovo, which are closely connected
to the urban zone, the most of them being weakly organised. In a rough
estimation, the accessible coastline could be set at almost 22 km, while the
remaining 20,5 km consist of rocky shores and steep shorelines.
Figure 10: Some of the beaches in Nafpaktia municipality; Gribovo (upper left corner),
Psani (upper right and bottom left corner)
2. The urban zone (figure 11) including the city of Nafpaktos with 18.000 people,
along with its historical monuments such as the castle city.
Figure 11: Aspects of the Nafpaktia municipality
3. The rural zone (figure 12) consisting of settlements around the city centre,
natural places such as the Evinos river and the relevant artificial lake, the
Mornos river and lake and mount Varasova, which has been listed among the
UNESCO protected areas, while located in a distance of almost 40 km are the
most developed agrotourist areas, mainly the villages Elatou and Ano Chora.
Figure 12: Aspects of the Nafpaktos rural zone
4.2.3. Selection of indices for application of StraSSE model to Nafpaktos
(StraSSE Step 2 – Definition of indices)
15 indices regarding tourism – economy and environment were selected according to
the StraSSE methodology (table 1) in order to estimate the carrying capacity of each
zone. Data were received mainly from the action plan of Nafpaktos municipality, or field
survey wherever this was possible. The selected indices are:
1. Number of tourists per annum
2. Number of tourists / local people
3. Plenitude of hotel rooms
4. Attractiveness of natural heritage
5. Attractiveness of cultural heritage
6. Existence of a sustainable development plan
7. Sites of natural beauty
8. Native shops / foreign shops
9. Contribution of tourism to the local economy
10. Local workers / foreign workers
11. Wastewater treatment
12. Natural land / occupied land
13. Road network – access to tourist sites
14. Protection of cultural heritage
15. Protection of natural heritage
The abovementioned indices were integrated into the Leopolds matrix (Leopold et al.,
1971) in order to display the size and the interest of each indicator for each area. So
the number in the upper left corner depicts the size of the indicator, while the number
in the down right corner depicts the significance of the size of the factor. So looking in
the Leopold’s matrix everyone can have a comprehensive view of the current condition
of each area. For example, looking to the “protection of natural heritage” we can see
that the size is estimated for the coastal area 7, while for the urban zone is 2 and the
rural zone 9. On the other hand, the significance is larger for the rural zone as it is less
in the coastal zone where the natural area is limited and more less in the urban zone, in
which natural heritage is limited. The description of each indicator for the current study
in detail is given further down.
4.2.4. Reference conditions – Setting the Carrying Capacity (StraSSE Steps 3
and 4)
Setting the carrying capacity is a crucial step according to the current methodology, but
not an easy one as many factors should be taken into account. Furthermore, for an
accurate estimation of the CC, all indices were compared in numbers with the relative
measurements of Greece, as a country, and of the island of Skiathos, as one of the
most visited island by tourists every year, which has similar conditions of coastal area
to the one under study of Nafpaktia municipality. In a rough estimation and regarding
the tourism – economy indices, the carrying capacity could be set at 2000 tourists per
km of coast per annum, which is less than the tourist traffic in the island of Skiathos
(2409 tourists per km). Regarding the number of tourists per local people, in a similar
way could be set at 1 tourist per person for optimum carrying capacity.
Regarding the carrying capacity in the castle city of the urban zone, reference
conditions were determined in a comparison with the world’s most visited castle, the
castle of Edinburgh, Scotland, for which there exist data regarding the Carrying
Capacity. According to the literature, this castle scored a monthly number of 203.940
visitors, which has been defined as the Carrying Capacity limit (explaining how many
visitors could afford a castle per month). In order to derive useful data for the case of
Nafpaktos castle, the number of visitors per day per m2 was calculated and thereafter
the number of visitors, which could visit the castle of Nafpaktos per day, was derived, in
order to estimate if the current conditions are below or above the carrying capacity.
According to the above, it is obvious that the application of carrying capacity demands a
fully experienced researcher in the field of environmental management or in the special
field, which refers to the carrying capacity. Given that, at first he/she has to make a
selection among numerous factors, which could be the most informative indicators at
every case, and secondly to find out the reference site for comparing to reference
conditions.
4.2.5. Comparing indices (StraSSE Step 5 – Introduction of data into Leopold’s
matrix))
All data were gathered into the Leopold’s matrix as described above, in order to better
depict and evaluate the state of each index used for the analysis. Application of sizes
and magnitudes was derived from both available data and expert’s opinion.
4.3.Results
Table 1: Qualitative SWOT analysis
B – SWOT TABLE
SECTORS
1.1 ENVIRONMENT
STRENGTHS
1. Beautiful landscape, coastline
with two beaches, farmfields,
mountainous areas, water
resources, oak, pine and fir tree
forests, canyons.
2. Very rich fauna (birds, wild
boars, deers, wildcats, squirrels,
foxes and other mammals,
amphibious, serpents) and flora.
3. Protected areas (Varasova
mountain – GR2310005).
4. Mild Mediterranean climate.
5. Geographic location, 15 min
from Patras and 2½ hr from
Athens, in the middle of the
historical square Delphi – Dodoni
– Olympia – Epidavros.
6. Solid waste disposal site and
recycling programme.
WEAKNESSES
1. Seismic activity in the area.
2. Risk of forest fires.
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
1. The Mornos river dam, as
well as the Evinos river dam
are expected to create
problems for the underground
water resources, withholding
huge quantities of water that
would enrich the underground
reserves, i.e. expecting soon
salination of underground
waters.
2. The climatic change and the
exacerbated risk of forest fires.
3. Seismic activity in the area.
4. Intense soil exploitation,
pollution of marine ecosystems
and habitats (from stock
farming and industrial plants),
downgrading of ecosystems
(from excessive lumberjack
activities), illegal fishing, and
non-rational management of
water resources.
2.1 TANGIBLE
HERITAGE
1. Traces of Neolithic
settlements and Mycenaean
towns.
2. Medieval constructions (port
and castle).
1. No sufficient promotion of
the castle city.
2. Weak protection of
archaeological sites and
traditional buildings.
1. Recognition of
Nafpaktos (Lepanto) in
relation to the famous sea
battle.
1. Progressive damage to
archaeological sites and
traditional buildings as a
consequence of inadequate
protection, due to dispersion to
a large number of small
communities.
1. Construction of new
road corridors (Nafpaktos
peripheral, Ionian
corridor).
1. Less competitive destination
due to lack of proper road
infrastructure.
3. Churches, monasteries,
traditional town centre (large
number of traditional buildings),
statues.
4. Two museums.
2.2 BUILDINGS &
INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Very short distance to the
bridge connecting Achaia and
Aetoloacarnania, and to other
major road corridors.
2. Vicinity to two major ports
(Patras, Astakos).
3. Technological Institute.
4. See 3.1.2
1. Lack of sufficient and safe
road infrastructure to/from the
internal areas.
2. See 3.2.1
3. See 3.2.2
2. Vicinity to the bridge
and the bridge
construction site (and
museum).
3. Vicinity to a high
number of research and
educational institutes.
2. Delays in implementation of
major infrastructure works due
to financial crisis.
3.1 SOCIETY,
LEGISLATION &
CULTURE
1. Various social programmes
addressing the elderly and
disabled people, and infants.
1. Ageing of local population.
2. Low educational level of
population.
2. The city has been built
3. High unemployment rate.
according to urban planning, and
4. Too strict regulatory
is currently elaborating its new
framework that prevents any
Master Plan.
new constructions.
3. See 2.2.3
5. Lack of structures/initiatives
for promotion of
entrepreneurship.
6. Insufficient protection of
natural and Cultural Heritage,
due to dispersion of population
among many small
communities.
7. Need for vocational training
of municipal staff.
1. Tendency for people to 1. Reduction of social
migrate to smaller
programmes and personnel
settlements.
due to financial difficulties in
the public sector.
2. Inter-municipal
relations in major issues
(artificial lakes, ecotourism).
3. See 2.2.3
3.2 TOURISM &
ECONOMY
1. Recognized tourist destination 1. Heavy traffic, lack of parking 1. Increasing demand for
attracting high-quality tourism.
space and insufficient mass
eco-tourism, agrotransportation.
tourism, special and
2. The landscape supports the
alternative forms of
development of agricultural,
2. No sufficient infrastructure
stock farming and fishing
for alternative forms of tourism, tourism.
activities.
particularly sports tourism.
3. Lack of sufficient enterprises,
particularly in the sector of
agricultural products processing
and trade.
4. Lack of certification for
denomination of origin for local
agricultural products.
5. Pressure from the
neighbouring areas with the
large city of Patras.
6. No sufficient promotion of
the castle city.
7. Protection of the lake Evinos
waters and surrounding area
from pollution and infections,
due to its transfer to the Athens
area to enhance the drinking
water supplies, constitutes an
obstacle to entrepreneurial
development in the area.
1. The financial crisis hinders
economic development.
2. Growing competition and
pressure from the nearby city
of Patras.
2. Increasing demand for 3. Heavy traffic, lack of
organic farming products. parking space and insufficient
3. The recognizability of
mass transportation prevent
the PROAGRITOUR quality further tourist development.
label for traditional local
products.
Table 2: Quantitative StraSSE analysis
SECTOR ENFORCING
PRESSURE TO
CULTURAL
HERITAGE
1.1 AGRICULTURE
2.1 BUILDINGS &
INFRASTRUCTURE
3.1 SOCIETY,
LEGISLATION &
CULTURE
3.2 TOURISM
ECONOMY AND
ENVIRONMENT
SECTORAL
HIERARCHICAL
GOALS
- to increase
tourism by x%
- to maintain
tourism all year
long
StraSSE MODEL PRESENTATION TABLE
INDICATORS
STANDARDS
RELEVANT TO
CARRYING
CAPACITY
- Number of tourists per annum
- Number of tourists / local people
- Plenitude of hotel rooms
- Attractiveness of natural heritage
- Attractiveness of cultural heritage
- Existence of a sustainable development
plan
- Sites of natural beauty
- Native shops / foreign shops
- Contribution of tourism to the local
economy
- Local workers / foreign workers
- Wastewater treatment
- Natural land / occupied land
- Road network – access to tourist sites
- Protection of cultural heritage
- Protection of natural heritage
Regarding the
tourism activity,
the carrying
capacity was set
at 2000 tourists
per km of coast
or
1 tourist per local
person
SECTORAL
CONFLICTING
GOALS
INTERSECTORAL
CONFLICTING
GOALS
VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT –
COMPROMISE
OF GOALS
Current tourism
activity 681
tourists per km of
coast with little or
no transfer to the
city centre. This
implies that
further elevation
of tourist activity
is needed.
4.3.1. Analysis of Indices
•
Number of tourists per annum (figure 13): The average tourists per year in
Greece is 15.000.000, while in the island of Skiathos is 6.000 tourists. For
calculating the current state of tourist presence in km of coast, the number of
tourists is divided to the extend of the accessible coastal area and the result is
1.000 tourists per km for Greece, while in Skiathos 2409 tourists per km and in
Nafpaktos 681 tourists per km, given that in the last the tourist average is
15.000 annually. The carrying capacity could be set according to available data
at 2000 tourists per km of coast, as Skiathos has surpassed the CC (2500),
while for Greece it is 1000 – 1200.
Figure 13: Annual number of tourists per km of coast in Greece, Skiathos island and
the Nafpaktia municipality. Carrying Capacity is shown as a red line
•
Number of tourists / local people (fig. 14): For Greece the average is 1.38
per person while for Skiathos it is 0,98 per person. Given that the local
population of Nafpaktost is about 18.000, the urban and coastal area of
Nafpaktos have an average of 0,83 per person, while the rural zone has lower
average at almost 0,6 per person. The Carrying Capacity could be set at 1 or
even 2 tourists per local people.
Figure 14: Annual number of tourists per local people in Greece, Skiathos island and
the Nafpaktia municipality. Current Capacity is shown as a red line
•
Plenitude of hotel rooms: In the coastal zone fluctuates around 80%, while in
the urban zone among 40% and in the rural zone it seems to be lower at 24,7%,
presenting a significant increase during the winter season. The Carrying Capacity
for this index is the 100% plenitude, which remains in all three zones.
•
Attractiveness of natural heritage: Natural resources such as the Evinos river
and the relevant artificial lake, the Mornos river and lake and the mount
Varasova, the villages Elatou and Ano Chora are located in the rural zone and
their protection mainly is due to the low accessibility because of the narrow road
network. This index is trying to depict how many tousist are visiting the natural
heritage of the study area. Due to the lack of available data, the limits of
acceptable changes according to the expert’s opinion could be applied at raising
the visits almost 50% of the current state.
•
Attractiveness of cultural heritage: Cultural monuments such as the historic
castle and the museums are located in the urban zone but according to the
current data, a low number of tourists from the coastal zone are visiting them,
because of the lack of any organization and promotion to this. As explained
below, provoking tourists from the coast for a visit to the castle city is crucial for
the economic growth of the urban zone and the limits of acceptable changes for
the current index indicate an increase of visitors in the castle city, higher than
500% (see the Carrying capacity of the Castle city below).
•
Sustainable development plan: There exists the action plan of the
municipality of Nafpaktos, a thorough study of the strengths and weaknesses of
Nafpaktos area.
•
Sites of natural beauty: Located mainly in the rural area. Visitors flow is
present mainly during the winter season.
•
Native shops / foreign shops: The ratio is higher in the coastal and rural zone
due to the presence of foreign super markets and coffee shops in the urban
zone. Nevertheless, almost 60% of the local people are employed to tourist
business and other relative services. Further growth could be observed if the
number of tourists was raised around the carrying capacity.
•
Contribution of tourism to the local economy: The numbers are revealing
the importance of tourism for the local economy, given that from the local
people, 9,7% are farmers, 20% are employed to processing activities, while
more than 60% are involved to tourist activities.
•
Wastewater treatment: The municipality of Nafpaktos has a biological
treatment plant, while most settlements in a distance area from the city have
their own drainage tank.
•
Natural land / occupied land: According to field data, the coastal zone
maintains its natural environment in most cases except several organized
beaches. The main city covers the natural land in the urban zone, whereas the
rural zone remains natural in a high ratio. Nevertheless, agricultural activities in
the rural zone have pressed the natural land in a low ratio.
•
Road network: Recently, the road network is developed with the construction
of the bridge at Rio – Antirrio, as well as the under construction Ionian road and
the constructed peripheral ring road of Nafpaktos, it can give access to a large
number of tourists mainly at the coastal and urban zone. The rural zone remains
more isolated due to the narrow road network.
4.3.2. Leopold’s matrix
Leopold’s matrix depicting the estimated size of the indices, which have been used. The
numbers at the top left corner depict the observed size in a scale from 1 to 10 and the
numbers at the bottom left corner depict the interest of each index.
Table 3: Leopold's matrix
Coastal zone
Nr of tourists per
annum
6
Nr of tourists / local
people
7
Plenitude of hotel
rooms
9
Attractiveness of
natural heritage
1
Attractiveness of
cultural heritage
1
Sustainable
development plan
10
Urban zone
5
10
6
10
8
Local workers / foreign
workers
8
Wastewater treatment
10
10
10
10
8
7
7
Local awareness for
protection of CH
2
5
6
10
10
8
10
7
10
10
2
7
10
7
8
2
5
10
4
10
2
4
6
9
2
7
5
10
10
10
Local awareness for
protection of natural
heritage
10
10
10
10
6
10
8
5
10
Road network – access
to tourist sites
7
10
6
10
3
10
2
10
6
Natural land / occupied
land
10
8
7
10
Contribution of tourism
to the local economy
9
9
4
5
8
3
8
5
Native shops / foreign
shops
10
9
10
2
6
10
9
Sites of natural beauty
Rural zone
10
4
10
10
4.3.3. Carrying capacity of the Castle city
For the castle of Edinburgh, the number of visitors per month is almost 200.000.
Considering that the castle has a size of 35.737 m2, the daily number of visitors per m2
is 0,18, which is set as the Carrying Capacity limit. The size of the castle of Nafpaktos is
18.342 m2 so in a reference state it could give access to 3.301 visitors per day. In the
current situation, due to lack of available data and taking into account that the annual
number of tourists in the coastal zone is 15.000 (41 visitors per day), it is concluded
that tourist growth in the castle of Nafpaktos is potentially effective (fig. 15). Due to the
special conditions for approaching the castle of Nafpaktos, the number of visitors should
be restricted from 3.301 to 1.000 visitors per day (LAC methodology).
Figure 15: Number of visitors per day, per m2 in the Castle of Edinburg, Scotland, and
in the Castle city of Nafpaktos
It could be very useful to discriminate the differences between the Carrying Capacity
and the Limits of Acceptable Changes methodology. The carrying capacity refers to
numerical results in order to set limits in the human activity. Given that in many cases
there is lack of availability for critical data, the Limits of Acceptable Changes
methodology, is a complementary method, which responds to what resources or social
conditions are acceptable for a given area, and how these conditions can be achieved.
The last method, beyond setting activities limits, requires a permanent monitoring of
the impact. Moreover, it must be noted that the limits of acceptable changes are less
than the limits set by the Carrying Capacity, as it is a more sensitive method.
4.4.Discussion on combined SWOT – StraSSE analysis
According to the SWOT analysis, the Nafpaktia Municipality seems to have all the
necessary comparative advantages (landscape, mountainous areas, lakes, rivers,
architectural rhythm, paths etc.) for development of agro-tourism, and particularly of
ecotourism. This is the current strategic path, selected and followed by the municipality
administration.
The most important obstacle for exploitation of these advantages in the development of
agro and ecotourism is the lack of sufficient safe road network for the visitors’ attraction
and transportation. Further to this, tourist development of the city of Nafpaktos is
prevented by heavy traffic and lack of parking areas. According to current strategic
planning, the critical issues that have been identified and need to be dealt with in the
next few years are the promotion of the castle city as a significant reference point for
the wider area of Aetoloakarnania, the support of the road network of the mountainous
areas and the creation of connections to the coastal front, the enhancement of existing
and creation of new infrastructures for alternative forms of tourism in all the
municipality area, the re-structuring of the traffic management, with the aim of
protecting the castle city and the beachfront, the establishment of new parking areas,
and the connection of the Nafpaktos peripheral to the castle city.
Opportunities for further development of the area are the increasing tendency of urban
populations to migrate to rural areas, the developing market for alternative and special
forms of tourism, the increasing demand for ecological products, the (slow
unfortunately) progress in major public works (national road network), the bridge that
connects the area with Peloponnese, and the holistic view on the development of the
tourist product that has been followed in the area, during the last decade.
Possible threats are the economic crisis, the downgrading of natural resources and
tangible CH monuments, the disturbances to valuable ecosystems, the uncontrolled
residential development in tourist areas, the climate change and the risks from forest
fires and seismic activity, and the inability to withstand the competition from other
areas due to the road network inefficiency.
On the other hand, the StraSSE analysis revealed that the zones of Nafpaktia
municipality need to be interconnected (fig. 3). At present, there is a lack of tourist flow
from one zone to the other, with the main volume of tourists being gathered into the
coastal area. Even there, further improvement could be applied as the average number
of tourists per annum is much below the carrying capacity of 2000 visitors per km. By
promoting the castle city, a large number of tourists could flow from the coastal to the
urban zone, leading to further development of the second, thus vitalizing the local
economy.
In a further investigation, the rural area (mainly the villages Elatou and Ano Chora) of
the municipality has a satisfactory seasonal tourist flow, mainly during the winter and
spring seasons, which is a good aspect, considering that the human pressure at the
local ecosystems is restricted only for the half period of the year. This fact gives the
local people the ability to manipulate tourist flow and agricultural activities, provoking
satisfaction and wellness. The coastal zone could afford larger number of tourists but
only if this is accompanied by new tourist infrastructures and better organized beaches.
The urban zone could also be further developed by emphasizing at its cultural heritage
and mainly the castle city. Tourists from the coastal zone could move to the castle, and
to the city centre for a coffee and a walk around. With a good promotional activity such
as leaflets, informational signs etc. the number of tourist at this zone could be further
increased. A good example is the city of Volos, which has applied a very effective
promotional plan for visiting the mount Pelion: So, a promotional activity with
remarkable signs in the peripheral road is needed to provoke the interception of transit
tourism and on the other hand to emphasize in the coastal line and other interest places
of the urban zone. The parking area around the castle can only afford 200 cars, or 400
people. If a mini bus was delivering tourists from the coastal zone for a walk around
and inside the castle every 30 minutes between 9.00am and 7.00pm, this could lead to
a daily number of 800 visitors per day, which require a parking area at least two times
larger.
According to the above, it is concluded that both, the coastal area and the castle city in
the urban zone, as well as the rural area, could afford much more tourist development
regarding that the current state of the coastal zone is at the 34% of the carrying
capacity limit and the one in the castle city is only at 1,2% of the limit (assuming that a
significant number of tourists will move that from the coastal zone to visit the castle
city).Finally, enriching the alternative activities in the frame of ecotourism and the
reconstruction of the access to the rural area will drive to the improvement of the
offering ecotourism quality in this area.
Figure 16: The desired flow of tourists among the three zones
The target is to provoke tourists visiting not only the coastal zone but also the castle
city in the urban zone and the Evinos and Mornos lakes in the rural zone.
5. REFERENCES
Gausset Q., Whyte M. and Birch-Thomsen T., 2005. Beyond territory and scarcity:
Exploring conflicts over natural resource management. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute
Hill T. & Westbrook R., 1997. SWOT Analysis: It’s Time for a Product Recall. Long Range
Planning 30 (1): 46–52.
Humphrey A., 2005. SWOT Analysis for Management Consulting. SRI Alumni Newsletter
(SRI International).
Humphrey A., 2008. Object Oriented and Multi-Scale Image Analysis: Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats - A Review. Journal of Computer Science 4 (9):
706-712.
Iliopoulou – Georgudaki Joan, 2007. Multimetric indices models for the definition of
optimal sustainable development scenarios: Strategic Spatial Planning and Sustainable
Environment, Innoref / StraSSE Manual, 2007.
Karl S., 1994. Human geography and the “new ecology”: the prospect and promise of
integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84.
Leopold Luna B., Clarke Frank E., Hanshaw Bruce B., Balsley James R., 1971. A
Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. Geological Survey Circular 645.
Washington: U.S. Geological Survey.
McCool, S.F. 1994. Planning for sustainable nature dependent tourism development:
The limits of acceptable change system. Tourism Recreation Research 19(2): 51-55.
McCool S.F. and Ashor J.L., 1984. Politics and rivers: Creating effective citizen
involvement in management decisionsinProceedings, National River Recreation
Symposium. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. pp 136-151.
McCoy K.L., Krumpe E.E. and Allen S., 1995. Limits of Acceptable Change Planning—
Evaluating implementation by the U.S. Forest Service. International Journal of
Wilderness 1(2): 18-22.
Menon A., 1999. Antecedents and Consequences of Marketing Strategy Making. Journal
of Marketing (American Marketing Association) 63 (2): 18–40.
Sayre, N.F., 2008. The Genesis, History, and Limits of Carrying Capacity. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 98(1), pp. 120–134.
Shelby B. and Thomas A., 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University Press.
Stankey G.H. and McCool S.F., 1992. Managing recreation use of marine resources
through the limits of acceptable change planning system. Unpublished paper presented
at First World Congress on Tourism and the Environment, April 27-May 2, Belize City,
BELIZE.
Stankey, G.H., D.N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen, and S.S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits
of Acceptable Change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Report INT176, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden,
UT.
Stankey G.H., McCool S.F. and Stokes G.L., 1984. Limits of acceptable change: A new
framework for managing the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Western Wildlands 10(3): 33-37.
Tiffen M., Mortimore M., Gichuki F., 1994. More people, less erosion: Environmental
recovery in Kenya. London: Longman.