Μake us preferred on Google There is a paradox at the heart of Greek tourism: the more successful the industry becomes, the harder it is to strike a balance between tourism development and the capacity of the destinations hosting it.
Greek islands are welcoming more visitors than their infrastructure can comfortably support. Demand for water, roads and public services is growing, while the landscape itself is increasingly treated as an economic asset. But when spatial planning seeks to set limits on tourism development, difficult questions emerge over who will be affected and whether the consequences will be distributed fairly.
New Local and Special Urban Plans, currently being prepared across Greece, are intended to provide answers. However, preliminary findings from a study by Efthymia Sarantakou, an associate professor specializing in tourism spatial planning at the University of West Attica, identify three major gaps in the way tourism activity is being addressed: the data underpinning the plans, their connection to local realities and the involvement of specialized expertise.
The study evaluates the first phase of the plans – the presentation of the preferred development scenario – for seven island destinations in the Cyclades and the Saronic Gulf: Mykonos, Santorini, Tinos, Andros, Kea, Poros and Spetses.
It’s Not Just About Hotels
Any planning process must begin with an understanding of the reality it seeks to regulate. Before the state decides how to limit tourism development, it needs to know precisely what it is trying to manage. This is perhaps where the most significant gap emerges.
On the islands examined in the study, hotel beds account for just 18% to 22% of total tourist accommodation capacity. By comparison, 47% of beds are in short-term rental properties, 28% in rented rooms and apartments, and 7% in tourist villas and residences.
In other words, the tourism economy of the Cyclades and the Saronic Gulf is not primarily built around hotels. Smaller establishments and dispersed forms of accommodation dominate, and they are not necessarily concentrated in designated tourism zones.
The average accommodation establishment has just 19 to 20 beds, compared with 31 nationwide. Even hotels are relatively small, averaging 41 to 52 beds, while the national average stands at 84.
The picture remains largely unchanged even in leading tourist destinations such as Mykonos and Santorini, despite the presence of international investment groups and proposals for larger-scale developments.
“Planning studies often fail to calculate the actual peak population and do not take secondary residences and short-term rentals into account, even though they represent a very significant share of tourism demand,” Sarantakou says.
Meanwhile, construction suspensions imposed on Mykonos and Santorini during the preparation of the new urban plans have not eliminated the risk that developments could become established facts before the new regulations are finalized.
This is because the suspensions do not amount to a blanket halt on construction. Instead, they freeze only a limited segment of tourism activity: hotels.
“The suspension of building permits for hotels in areas outside the urban plans of Mykonos and Santorini began in 2020 and has been extended repeatedly. However, it does not cover buildings constructed under residential building regulations that can subsequently be used for short-term rentals. Strategic Tourism Investments are also exempt, as they are governed by special regulatory frameworks,” the professor explains.
At the same time, proposed restrictions under the Local and Special Urban Plans currently being prepared have already been put out for public consultation, making the stricter direction of the new planning framework known.
As a result, delays in formally adopting the plans create the risk that construction activity could get ahead of the new rules. Sarantakou notes that experience has shown that when restrictions become public knowledge but have not yet been officially enacted, pressure can intensify to exploit existing building rights while they remain in force.
The study, whose preliminary findings were recently presented at a conference organized by the Association of Greek Urban and Regional Planners (SEPOCH), also documents varying levels of conflict from one island to another.
The disconnect from local realities is the second major gap identified by the research. During public consultations on the urban plans, island residents expressed the feeling that the studies were being drawn up far from the communities they would affect, without sufficient understanding of conditions on the ground.
In Mykonos, opposition has been particularly strong, with property owners fearing that the restrictions will devalue their assets, while major investments continue to operate under special regulatory arrangements.
In Tinos, Andros and Kea, large-scale wind farms have become a major source of disagreement. In Poros, objections have focused, among other issues, on the expansion of fish farming. Together with Spetses, Poros is among the destinations where the overall level of opposition appears lower than in major international tourist hotspots.
The study also maps different priorities within local communities. Broadly speaking, municipalities are calling for the protection and improvement of infrastructure; engineers are opposing restrictions on building rights; and hotel industry representatives support efforts to improve the quality of tourism but object to strict caps on new beds.
Local groups, including environmental and cultural organizations, also play an important role. Their main objective is to preserve local identity, with particular emphasis on protecting the landscape.
Ultimately, however, the debate inevitably turns to the issue of spatial justice, Sarantakou points out. She describes the anger provoked by the prospect of imposing building restrictions at the local level, which are often perceived as unequal treatment, particularly when property owners see other categories of large-scale investment being treated differently.
Moreover, there are no provisions for compensation mechanisms for owners who lose their building rights in areas outside designated urban plans that are incorporated into special protection zones.
The University of West Attica study identifies another gap in expertise. The urban plans require assessments of tourism pressures, indicators, data and management measures, but do not make the participation of specialists in tourism planning mandatory.
Protection Zones and Limits
The proposals under consideration are not limited to outright prohibitions. They also include designated protection zones and specific limits on tourism development.
In Poros, Andros and Tinos, the plans propose coastal protection zones extending 100 meters inland from the shoreline. On Spetses, the corresponding width is 50 meters.
On Mykonos and Santorini, areas under strict protection would cover as much as 70% of each island’s land area.
The plans also set maximum hotel capacities: up to 150 beds on Andros, 50 on Kea and 40 on Tinos. On Kea, they go further by identifying areas where tourist accommodation establishments would not be permitted. Restrictions on short-term rentals are also included in the plans for Mykonos, Santorini and Kea.
The proposals also designate zones for low-impact and alternative forms of tourism, areas for organized investment developments, and locations for new infrastructure, including ports and seaplane facilities.
This represents the other side of the planning effort: improving the destinations themselves. The plans include urban regeneration projects, cultural routes, hiking trails and cycling corridors.
Among the proposals are a geopark on Tinos, a cultural park on Mykonos and an eco-museum on Poros. They also seek to protect distinctive landscapes, including Santorini’s vineyards and Poros’s Lemon Forest.
